140220 MEL Scoping Report FINAL - Planning …...1.11 The Overarching National Policy Statement for...

Scoping Report

Meaford Energy Centre

February 2014

Meaford Energy Centre EIA Scoping Report

February 2014 1

Contents

1. Introduction 9

The promoter 9

The proposed development 9

The need for the development 10

EIA and EIA scoping 12

The structure of this report 13

Consultation 13

Consenting approach 14

2. Planning and legislative context 15

Introduction 15

National policy statements 15

National Planning Policy Framework 16

Local planning policy 18

Other material considerations 21

3. The proposed development 23

Introduction 23

Site location and surroundings 23

Proposed plant – Components of the CCGT Power Station 26

Design 28

Electricity connection 29

Gas connection 29

Access 31

Combined heat and power 32

Construction 33

4. Alternatives and scheme evolution 39

Introduction 39

Approach 39

Electricity generating options 40

The selection of CCGT technology 40

Site selection 42

Power station design options 43

Gas connection element of the MEC 45


2 February 2014

Electricity grid connection element of the MEC 45

5. Summary and proposed structure of the ES 47

Summary 47

Proposed structure of the ES 48

6. Scope of the environmental impact assessment 51

Socio-economic effects 51

Traffic and transportation 59

Air quality 71

Noise and vibration 89

Landscape and visual effects 95

Ecology 105

Cultural heritage 129

Ground conditions 137

The water environment 157

Waste 167

Appendices Appendix 1: Site location plan Appendix 2: LVIA provisional viewpoints and study area Appendix 3: Phase 1 habitat plan Appendix 4: Environmental constraints plan Appendix 5: Flood Risk Assessment


February 2014 3

Tables Table 1: Overview of Key Feedback from Scheme Consultation Table 2: Level of Qualification by area (2011) Table 3: Two Way Link Flows (Weekday) – 2013 Base Year Table 4: Potential Construction Traffic Effects Table 5: Significance of Effects Categories Table 6: National and European Air Quality Criteria Table 7: DEFRA Mapped Annual Mean Background Concentrations for 2014, µg/m3 Table 8: Nearest Noise Sensitive Receivers Table 9: BS5228 Recommended Construction Noise Limits ('ABC Method) Table 10: Visual Receptors Table 11: Criteria for landscape sensitivity Table 12: Criteria for landscape magnitude of change Table 13: Criteria for the potential landscape effects Table 14: Criteria for visual sensitivity Table 15: Visual magnitude of change Table 16: Potential visual effects Table 17: Statutory Nature Conservation Sites Identified within 5 km and 15 km of the Site Boundary Table 18: Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites Identified within 1 km of the Site Boundary Table 19: BAP Priority Habitats Identified within 500 m of the Site Boundary Table 20: Waterbodies Identified within the Site Table 21: Waterbodies Identified within 500 m of the Site Boundary Table 22: Protected Species Records within 1km of the Site Boundary Table 23: BAP Species Records within 500m of the Site Boundary Table 24: Assessment of Potential to Support Roosting Bats Table 25: Value of Cultural Heritage Resources Table 26: Cultural Heritage Significance Matrix Table 27: Preliminary Conceptual Site Model Table 28: Risk estimation - classification of probability Table 29 - Risk estimation - classification of consequence Table 30: Estimation of the level of risk by comparison of consequence and probability Table 31: Significance criteria – Land Contamination risk and Part 2A status Table 32: Summary of the Groundwater Monitoring Table 33: C&I and CD&EW produced in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Table 34: Total landfill capacity in the West Midlands and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Table 35: Capacity of Facilities in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Table 36: Waste Significance Criteria


4 February 2014

Glossary

Full text Acronym Notes

Air Quality Management Area AQMA

Air Quality Strategy AQS

Ancient Woodland Inventory AWI

Annual Average Daily Traffic AADT

Automatic Urban and Rural Network AURN Air quality monitoring site

Best Available Technique BAT

Birds of Conservation Concern BoCC

BS4142 BS4142

Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas 1997

BS5228 BS5228

Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites 2009

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise CRTN

Carbon Capture Ready CCR

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine CCGT

Combined Heat and Power CHP

Commercial and Industrial waste C&I

Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste CDEW

Construction Environmental Management Plan CEMP

Construction Industry Research and Information Association

CIRIA

dB dB Decibel

dB(A) dB (A)

A-weighted decibel – a correction applied to each frequency between 20 Hz and 20 kHz that effectively represents the way the human ear works

Department for Transport DfT

Department of Energy and Climate Change DECC


February 2014 5


Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DMRB

Development Consent Order DCO

Electromagnetic Fields EMF

Environment Agency EA

Environmental Protection Act 1990 EPA

Environmental Assessment Levels EAL

Environmental Impact Assessment EIA

Environmental Permitting EP

Environmental Statement ES

Environmental Statement – non-technical summary

ES-NTS

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition

GLVIA

Health and Safety Executive HSE

Health Protection Agency HPA

Heat Recovery Steam Generator HRSG

Heavy Duty Vehicle HDV

Habitat Suitability Index HSI

Infrastructure Planning Commission IPC

Abolished through the Localism Act 2011. However, several documents and regulations still refer to the IPC. In such circumstances the term “IPC” should be read as “PINS” and/or the Secretary of State

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IEMA

LAeq LAeq A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level

LAeqT LAeqT A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level for a given time period

LA,r,T LA,r,T BS4142 rating level


6 February 2014


LA90 LA90 A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LVIA

Landscape Institute LI

Laydown area

Temporary works area used for stockpiling materials and marshalling deliveries etc

Local Development Plan LDP

Local Nature Reserve LNR

Local Wildlife Site LWS

Manual for Streets MfS

Meaford Business Park MBP

Meaford Energy Centre MEC

This includes the three integral parts of the NSIP: the power station complex, the gas connection and the electricity connection.

Meaford Energy Limited MEL

Megawatts of electrical power MWe

Micrometre / micron µm Millionth of a metre

Multi Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside

MAGIC

National Nature Reserve NNR

National Planning Policy Framework NPPF

National Transmission System NTS The strategic natural gas pipeline network serving the UK

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act 2008

NSIP

Nm3 -

Normal gas volume i.e. the gas volume is calculated at a standardised temperature and pressure

Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP


February 2014 7


NTM AF09 - DfT-approved dataset used for traffic forecasting with TEMPro

Open Cycle Gas Turbine OCGT

Planning Inspectorate PINS

Planning Policy Statements PPS

Pollution Prevention Control PPC

Preliminary Environmental Information PEI

Site of Special Scientific Interest SSSI

Soil Handling and Management Strategy SHMS

Source Protection Zone SPZ

Special Area of Conservation SAC

Staffordshire County Council SCC

Special Protection Area SPA

Statement of Community Consultation SOCC

Sustainable Urban Drainage System SUDS

Technical Advice Note TAN

Theoretical Zone of Visual Influence TZVI

Tonnes per annum tpa

Trip End Model Presentation Program TEMPro Traffic analysis software

Transport Analysis Guidance TAG

Unitary Development Plan UDP

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNECE

Visual Envelope VE

Waste Management Licensing WML

World Health Organisation WHO


8 February 2014


February 2014 9

1. Introduction

The promoter

1.1 On behalf Meaford Energy Limited (MEL) Savills and Atkins have been instructed to carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and produce an environmental statement (ES) to identify the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station, integral gas connection, integral electrical connection and associated infrastructure works at Meaford Business Park, which may include potential highway access improvement works (together the "Meaford Energy Centre" or "MEC").

1.2 MEL is a joint venture between St. Modwen and Glenfinnan Properties, established with the intention of promoting the Meaford Energy Centre. Both companies have extensive experience in the development and economic regeneration of sites throughout the UK, including experience in the energy sector.

1.3 MEL has employed a project team comprising:

• Atkins - engineering design and environmental consultants;

• Savills - town planning and property consultants;

• Local Dialogue - community and stakeholder relations;

• Pinsent Masons - legal advisers.

1.4 The team is tasked with developing the power station proposals in dialogue with Stafford Borough Council (SBC), Staffordshire County Council (SCC), landowners, the local community and other interested parties in order to secure a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the MEC.

The proposed development

1.5 Meaford Energy Limited is promoting the development of the Meaford Energy Centre (“MEC”) which is a new combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station at Meaford Business Park, Staffordshire. The CCGT power station will have an electrical capacity of up to 299 megawatts (MWe). The development will comprise the power station, the integral gas pipe between the MEC and the existing gas network and an integral connection to the electricity grid. The proposal constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the terms of the Planning Act 2008 and therefore an application for a DCO is to be made to


10 February 2014

the Planning Inspectorate (PINS), who will examine the DCO application on behalf of the Secretary of State.

1.6 The configuration of the new CCGT power station is not yet finalised and is the focus of on-going studies. However, the minimum configuration would include:

• 1 gas turbine;

• 1 steam turbine with it’s own electrical generator; and

• 1 stack.

1.7 The maximum configuration would include

• 3 gas turbines;

• 1 steam turbine with it’s own electrical generator; and

• 2 stacks.

1.8 It is intended that this configuration will be confirmed prior to submission of the application for a DCO. The power station would require a cooling system to condense the exhaust steam from the steam turbine – this may either be an air-cooled or hybrid cooling system that may require connection to the River Trent for abstraction and discharge of water used in the cooling process. Also integral to the MEC would be an on-site electricity sub-station for the export of electricity to the distribution network and a gas pipeline approximately 900m in length for the import of fuel.

1.9 In addition to the MEC, the proposed development may include associated development items. Accordingly, the term 'proposed development' in this document means the MEC together with any associated development. At this stage in the project the applicant has not finalised the infrastructure that may be required for the project, and some elements might arise from the non-statutory and statutory consultation. Accordingly, the DCO application may include associated development, such as temporary and / or permanent highways access improvements from Meaford Road.

The need for the development

1.10 National policy in relation to NSIPs, such as that proposed, is set out in National Policy Statements (NPSs). Under the Planning Act 2008, the NPSs form the basis for decisions on NSIP applications. Other matters, set out in the Planning Act 2008, including any matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to his decision, must also be taken into account.


February 2014 11

1.11 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)1, designated in 2011, sets out the need for new electricity generating stations. It should be noted that the NPSs refer to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) as the examining body for NSIPs. However, the IPC was abolished through the Localism Act 2011 with (broadly) its decision-making responsibilities transferred to the Secretary of State and its examining responsibilities transferred to PINS. References in this scoping report to the IPC are therefore to be read as referring to PINS / the Secretary of State as appropriate.

1.12 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) sets out the need for new electricity generating stations. EN-1 states, at paragraph 3.3.1 ‘Electricity meets a significant proportion of our overall energy needs and our reliance on it is likely to increase as we move towards our 2050 goals’, and at paragraph 3.3.2 states that ‘The Government needs to ensure sufficient electricity generating capacity is available to meet maximum peak demand, with a safety margin or spare capacity to accommodate unexpectedly high demand and to mitigate risks such as unexpected plant closures and extreme weather events’.

1.13 EN-1 also indicates, at paragraph 3.3.7 that ‘at least 22 GW of existing electricity generating capacity will need to be replaced in the coming years, particularly to 2020. This is as a result of tightening environmental regulation and ageing power stations.’ In addition, at paragraph 3.3.9 that ‘any reduction in generation capacity from current levels will need to be replaced in order to ensure security of supply is maintained’.

1.14 EN-1 also states at paragraph 3.3.15 the urgency of the need for new electricity capacity: ‘In order to secure energy supplies that enable us to meet our obligations for 2050, there is an urgent need for new (and particularly low carbon) energy NSIPs to be brought forward as soon as possible, and certainly in the next 10 to 15 years, given the crucial role of electricity as the UK decarbonises its energy sector.’

1.15 It is within this context that paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 state:

‘3.1.1 The UK needs all the types of energy infrastructure covered by this NPS in order to achieve energy security at the same time as dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

3.1.2 It is for industry to propose new energy infrastructure projects within the strategic framework set by Government. The Government does not consider it appropriate for planning policy to set targets for or limits on different technologies.

3.1.3 The Planning Inspectorate should therefore assess all applications for development consent for the types of infrastructure covered by the energy NPSs on the basis that the Government has demonstrated that there is a

1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), Department of Energy and Climate Change, July 2011


12 February 2014

need for those types of Infrastructure and that the scale and urgency of that need is as described for each of them in this Part.’

1.16 The need for the proposed MEC is therefore confirmed in national policy.

EIA and EIA scoping

1.17 The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (IP (EIA) Regulations 2009) impose requirements in relation to the carrying out of EIA on certain NSIP proposals, including the proposed MEC.

1.18 Scoping is an optional early stage in the EIA process and is designed to ensure that the environmental studies consider the relevant and necessary factors and provide relevant and necessary information required to assess the likely significant environmental effects of a project.

1.19 In accordance with Regulation 8 (1) of the IP (EIA) Regulations 2009 this scoping report is being submitted alongside a formal scoping opinion request, with the intention that it should inform the scoping opinion from the Secretary of State (although this function is in practice delegated to and carried out by PINS). The IP (EIA) Regulations 2009 require that a request made under Regulation 8 (1) must include:

• a plan sufficient to identify the land

• a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment

• such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make

1.20 Before adopting a scoping opinion PINS must take account of the following, which are detailed in this Scoping Report:

• the specific characteristics of the particular development

• the specific characteristics of development of the type concerned

• the environmental features likely to be affected by the development

1.21 PINS is required under the IP (EIA) Regulations 2009 to consult with the person who made the request and the 'consultation bodies' (as defined in the IP (EIA) Regulations 2009). There is a statutory requirement for a scoping opinion to be adopted within 42 days following the date of receipt of the request. If a consultation body does not respond within 28 days of being consulted, PINS is entitled to assume that the consultation body in question does not have any comments on the information to be provided in the ES (Regulation 8(11) of the IP (EIA) Regulations 2009).


February 2014 13

The structure of this report

1.22 Chapter two of this report summarises the planning and legislative context for the proposed development.

1.23 Chapter three gives a broad and provisional description of the proposed development– this is at an early stage in the design process, but the information is considered to be sufficient to enable a scoping opinion to be issued.

1.24 Chapter four outlines the proposed approach to and methodology in appraising alternatives and options as the design of the project evolves.

1.25 The proposed structure of the ES is set out in chapter five of this report. Chapter six describes the principal environmental topics that will need to be assessed in the ES. An overview of each environmental issue is then provided.

Consultation

1.26 The Planning Act 2008 and the associated secondary legislation set out comprehensive provisions for consultation with relevant parties prior to submission of an application for a DCO. One element of this is a requirement for a Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC). SBC and SCC will be statutorily consulted on a draft prior to publication. The SOCC will set out how MEL intends to consult with the local community, including people living in the vicinity of the land it wants to develop. It will also set out how the local community can access the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) which will be prepared by MEL in due course.

1.27 In addition, as required under the Planning Act 2008, MEL will consult with others including relevant local authorities, other 'statutory consultees' and persons with an interest in land.

1.28 The 'statutory consultees' are set out in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended). MEL may also consult with other 'non-prescribed' bodies as appropriate.

1.29 Throughout the pre-application stage, consultees and members of the public will have the opportunity to submit representations on the proposed development. MEL will have regard to all relevant responses received as the proposals evolve and are refined.

1.30 MEL has begun early, non-statutory consultation including public consultation events, presentations and meetings with the local community, local authority, business community and certain prescribed consultees. The feedback received during this non-statutory consultation is summarised in the Stage One Consultation Report, a copy of which can be found in the library section of the project website, www.meaford-energy.com.

http://www.meaford-energy.com


14 February 2014

Consenting approach

1.31 The Planning Act 2008 classifies onshore electricity generating stations in England with a capacity of over 50 MWe as NSIPs. The Act requires that the promoter of a NSIP applies for a DCO for the NSIP.

1.32 As noted above, the proposed DCO application will be examined by PINS, which will subsequently report its recommendations to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who will make the final decision on the application.

1.33 The consenting approach for the proposed development follows the requirements of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, and policy / guidance documents published by central government and PINS.

1.34 The provisions of the Planning Act 2008 allow 'associated development' to the NSIP to be included as part of a DCO application.

1.35 Under the Planning Act 2008, the DCO application process comprises five main stages:

• Pre-application

• Submission and acceptance of application

• Pre-examination

• Examination

• Decision

1.36 MEL intends to submit a DCO application in the second half of 2014. This permits adequate time for the completion of the EIA studies and PEI for consultation with interested parties and for preparation of an ES. The application must be examined within a 6 month period, after which PINS has three months to issue its report to the Secretary of State, who then has a further three months to issue a decision.


February 2014 15

2. Planning and legislative context

Introduction

2.1 The ES will consider relevant planning and legislative policy with respect to environmental requirements of the MEC, including the European EIA Directive, the Public Participation Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and the Ambient Air Quality Directive.'

National policy statements

2.2 National Policy Statements have been designated to guide the examination and determination of DCO applications. The NPSs relevant in the context of the proposed MEC are:

• EN1 - Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy

• EN2 - National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure

• EN4 - National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines

• EN5 - National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure

2.3 The NPSs are briefly outlined below and will be considered through the EIA process, and compliance with them reported in the ES and the wider suite of DCO application documents.

EN-1 - Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy

2.4 NPS EN-1 sets out overall national policy for energy infrastructure, which is then considered in more detail in the technology-specific NPSs.

2.5 Much of EN-1 is concerned with the assessment principles and generic effects of new electricity generation capacity. These are reflected in the matters covered in this report and are not considered here further.


16 February 2014

EN-2 - National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation Infrastructure

2.6 EN-2 supplements the generic guidance of EN-1. Paragraph 2.3 sets out the government’s policy criteria for fossil fuel generating stations, including the need to demonstrate that opportunities for CHP have been fully explored, that new generation capacity of over 300 MWe can demonstrate carbon capture readiness, and that projects embrace good design, particularly in respect of landscape and visual amenity and the mitigation of effects such as noise and vibration, transport effects and air emissions.

EN-4 - National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines

2.7 Much of EN-4 is concerned with the new gas import and storage infrastructure that is required now that the UK has become a net gas importer, and which is not directly relevant to the proposed MEC. However, paragraph 2.19 addresses gas and oil pipelines and identifies factors that should influence site selection by project promoters. These include noise and vibration, biodiversity, landscape and visual effects, soil and geology, and the effects on water quality and resources. These considerations may be considered relevant and important by PINS and the Secretary of State in relation to the integral gas connection element of the MEC.

EN-5 - National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure

2.8 EN-5 serves a similar function to EN-4 with respect to new grid and transformer infrastructure. Once again, it sets out the factors that should influence site selection and the need to consider good design. In addition to the environmental considerations identified in EN-4, EN-5 also draws attention for the need to take into account electric and magnetic fields. These considerations may be considered relevant and important by PINS and the Secretary of State in relation to the integral electrical connection element of the MEC.

National Planning Policy Framework

2.9 In March 2012 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) replaced most existing Planning Policy Statements and Minerals Planning Guidance (which apply in England) with a single integrated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF is the principal expression of planning policy for England and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Whilst the NPPF does not contain specific policies for NSIPs, the NPPF may be a "matter" which the Secretary of State considers is both important and relevant to his decision (see


February 2014 17

paragraph 3 of the NPPF).

2.10 The NPPF includes a range of provisions of relevance to the proposed development, including those concerning energy production, economic development, and the environmental effects of development. The NPPF opens with the following statement:

‘The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development. Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations. Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate.’ (page (i), Ministerial foreword)

2.11 NPPF paragraph 7 identifies three dimensions to sustainable development, from which arises a need for the planning system to perform the following roles.

• ‘an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

• a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

• an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.’

2.12 Paragraphs 11-16 of the NPPF explain that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and paragraph 17 sets out the ‘core planning principles’ that underpin this. These include proactively driving and supporting sustainable economic development, seeking to secure high quality design, protecting greenbelts and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and encouraging ‘the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value’.

2.13 Under the heading Delivering sustainable development, paragraphs. 18-22 of the NPPF then proceeds to explain how planning can help to build a strong, competitive economy, through measures including the identification of ‘priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental


18 February 2014

enhancement’.

2.14 According to paragraph 19:

‘‘The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.’

2.15 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that the Green Belt ‘serves five purposes:

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

• to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’

2.16 Whilst the decision-maker in this case is not the Local Planning Authority, paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF are nonetheless of indirect relevance:

‘186. Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area’.

Local planning policy

2.17 In light of the abolition of Regional Strategies, including all remaining county-level Structure Plan policies, the Development Plan now consists only of policies ‘saved’ from the Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001. Key provisions from this plan are outlined below, followed by an overview of the emerging Plan for Stafford Borough, which was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 20 August 2013.


February 2014 19

Staffordshire Borough Local Plan 2001

2.18 The Stafford Borough Local Plan was adopted in October 1998, with the review conducted in 2001. A number of its policies have been ‘saved’ and will therefore remain in force until replaced by the emerging Stafford Borough New Local Plan.

2.19 Policies E&D1 and E&D2 set out general requirements for all development in Stafford Borough in terms of design and landscaping. These policies require development to be of a high quality, and provide for an ‘interesting and attractive environment’, and for development to integrate with the character and quality of the environment they are located in. Given the open rural character of the surrounding area and its Green Belt designation careful consideration is required both in design and landscape terms to ensure that development integrates with the surroundings.

2.20 The Local Plan defines two major development sites within the north Staffordshire Green Belt that are considered suitable for re-development. The application site at Meaford is designated under Policy E&D13 Redevelopment of Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt, as a major developed site, as illustrated in Figure 1. This policy states that complete or partial re-development of the identified major development sites in the Green Belt ‘will be acceptable provided that the new development:

‘(a) has no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less;

(b) contributes to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts;

(c) does not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and

(d) does not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).’

2.21 Since the majority of the buildings on the application site have been demolished criterion (c) is not relevant, although planning permission exists for 1.2 million sq ft of new employment use, a major commercial development on the site. One of the primary purposes of policy E&D13 with regard to large brownfield sites is to either ensure that they are remediated to a pre-development condition, or to ensure their comprehensive redevelopment with associated landscape improvements to minimise their impact on the Green Belt.

2.22 The Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area is located immediately to the east and south of the application site, and thus Policy E&D18 - Development likely to affect Conservation Areas is relevant. This policy aims to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas within the Borough.

2.23 In addition to the aforementioned policies, there are several relating to nature conservation (E&D36 through to E&D40 in particular).


20 February 2014

Figure 1: Reproduction of designations and allocations from the Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001

The Plan for Stafford Borough (pre-submission publication draft, 2013)

2.24 The proposed Plan for Stafford Borough will replace the existing Borough Local Plan and deal with a range of issues including how the presumption in favour of sustainable development will be approached locally, and the scale and distribution of housing and employment development.

2.25 The Plan was submitted for examination in August 2013, with the inspector providing key recommendations in December 2013. The Council then published a main modifications document for consultation to run up to March 2014. The most recent policy direction will be considered in the ES.


February 2014 21

2.26 With regards to the proposed development at Meaford Business Park the overall policy framework in the emerging plan is similar to those in the existing Local Plan. Draft policy E5 for example identifies the former Meaford Power Station site as a Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt where ‘limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment will be supported for employment purposes consistent with Spatial Principle SP7, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development’. Spatial Principle 7 itself states that where sites are located in the Green Belt, development will only be supported where it is ‘consistent with national policies for the control of development’.

2.27 Other policies in the emerging Plan to which MEL’s proposals will have particularly close regard include:

• Policy N4 – The Natural Environment and Green Infrastructure which seeks to protect, enhance and improve the environment of the Stafford Borough through careful management of the development process;

• Policy N8 – Landscape character, which requires proposals to be ‘informed by’ and ‘sympathetic to’ landscape character;

• Policy N9 – Historic Environment, which requires development proposals (inter alia) to ‘conserve and protect the significance of heritage assets’.

Other material considerations

Planning history

2.28 Meaford Business Park was the site of two former coal-fired power stations – Meaford A and B. Meaford A was demolished by 1982 and Meaford B was demolished by 1996.

2.29 St Modwen acquired the site in 2004, and in 2007 secured outline planning permission for 1.2 million square feet (110,000 m2) of warehousing, industrial, offices and other business support facilities and new roundabout (reference 98/35897/OUT). This was extended in July 2010 (reference 10/13609/EXT).


22 February 2014

Figure 2: Indicative Layout for Meaford Business Park

2.30 Subsequent to the outline planning permission which was granted for the site an application to vary conditions to allow for the phased development of the site (reference 08/09601/FUL) was submitted and approved. Additionally, a reserved matters application relating to the new site entrance to the south was submitted to and approved by SBC in April 2008 (reference 08/10097/REM). This application included a new roundabout at the south of the Meaford Business Park and associated improvements required to connect with Meaford Road.


February 2014 23

3. The proposed development

Introduction

3.1 As explained in the opening chapter, MEL is promoting the development of a new CCGT power station and its integral gas and electricity connections at Meaford Business Park north of Stone, to be known as Meaford Energy Centre (MEC). The proposed power station will have an electrical generation capacity of up to 299 MWe. The MEC will include an integral connection from the national gas distribution network and an integral connection to the electricity network. The MEC and any associated development (which may include road access improvement works) comprise "the proposed development".

Site location and surroundings

3.2 As illustrated in Figure 3 the project redline boundary extends beyond the boundary of Meaford Business Park to include woodland, farmland and parts of Meaford Road (adopted highway) that may form part of the development. Meaford Business Park is at the centre of this area and is the former location of the coal-fired Meaford A and B Power Stations demolished in 1982 and 1996 respectively. The MEC will be located within the current overall redline boundary. It is intended that this redline boundary will change in advance of submission of the DCO application, as various aspects of the MEC (for example the cooling and gas connection options) will by then be further developed.


24 February 2014

Figure 3: Site Location Plan

3.3 At this scoping stage a preferred location on Meaford Business Park for the power station element of the MEC has not been decided. The final proposed location, which will be consulted on, will be informed by:

• the results of the non-statutory consultation, which was held between September and November 2013;

• the preferred technical and economic solutions to connect to the electricity and gas networks; and

• the outcome of the environmental impact assessment studies described within this scoping report.

3.4 This scoping report considers three locations on Meaford Business Park for the power station element of the MEC: North Site, Central Site and South Site as illustrated on Figure 4. Unless specifically highlighted, references in this scoping report to the “site” are references to the “current redline boundary” as a whole.


February 2014 25

Figure 4: Potential MEC locations within Meaford Business Park

3.5 Meaford Business Park comprises approximately 34ha (85 acres) of largely brownfield land with outline planning permission for warehousing, industrial, offices and business support activities. With the exception of two substations – one at the northern end of the business park and one on the western side - the former coal power station buildings and associated infrastructure have been demolished from the business park. Currently the central northern area of the site is occupied by a tenant operating a vehicle storage business within a large fenced compound.

3.6 The business park is located in a low-lying position between the River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal (see Figure 3), and although the whole business park is generally on a level gradient the surface is undulating due to excavations and stockpiles of soil and rubble associated with the demolition of the former power stations. Parts of the southern and north eastern areas of the site are well vegetated with mature trees, and the eastern and western site boundaries benefit from mature tree growth, with the remainder of the site sparsely vegetated with scrub and grass.

3.7 Much of the eastern boundary of the site is formed by the Trent and Mersey Canal, immediately to the east of which runs the West Coast Main Railway Line. The Meaford Road forms the western boundary. To the west of Meaford Road the River Trent flows through its associated flood plain in a southerly direction. Two existing substations lie within the red line boundary.

3.8 The surrounding landscape is predominantly a rising landform of agricultural land with localised woodland blocks, with Barlaston Golf Course situated immediately to the northwest of the site. The closest residential properties are properties at


26 February 2014

Joules Drive, Barton Drive, Vincent Mews, Admirals View and Meaford Hall which are within 30-50m of the redline boundary. Distances are shown in Table 8.

Proposed plant – Components of the CCGT Power Station

3.9 The MEC will have three integral components:

• The CCGT power station

• The electrical connection

• The gas connection

3.10 A CCGT power station utilises an efficient combination of gas and steam turbines to generate electricity. In the gas turbine, air is compressed and passed into a combustion chamber where it is burnt with natural gas fuel to produce hot combustion gases at high pressure. This thermal and pressure energy is converted to mechanical energy by expanding the combustion gas through the gas turbine which drives a power turbine and air compressor. The power turbine is connected to a generator which produces electrical power. The hot exhaust gases from the gas turbine are passed to an unfired boiler (usually referred to as a heat recovery steam generator or HRSG) to produce steam. This steam is in turn passed through a steam turbine to drive another generator to produce more electrical power. Figure 5 shows a typical schematic of a CCGT station.

Figure 5: A typical schematic diagram of the generating plant proposed


February 2014 27

3.11 The thermal efficiency of new CCGT plant, i.e. the proportion of the energy which is converted to electricity, is about 52-60%, based on the net calorific value of the gas fuel; this is higher than the efficiencies achieved by both existing and new coal-fired power stations. Natural gas has a higher hydrogen/carbon ratio than coal and the efficiency of the process means that carbon emissions in grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour will be approximately 385 for the new plant, compared with approximately 900 for a conventional coal plant. Natural gas contains negligible levels of sulphur resulting in negligible emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) when burning gas. NOx and CO emissions for gas-fired CCGTs are also the lowest for any thermal generating plant.

3.12 A CCGT of nominally up to 299 MWe capacity would have a typical configuration of 2 separate gas turbines and a single steam turbine each with their own electrical generator. However, it is possible that the power station could employ a single large gas turbine or up to 3 smaller gas turbines in conjunction with the single steam turbine. It is intended that the exact configuration of the generating station element of the MEC will be confirmed prior to submission of the DCO application. However, if this is not possible, the environmental statement will assess the realistic 'worst case' for the MEC.

3.13 The key building elements for the power station complex would be:

• turbine building –45 m wide, 60 m long, 20 to 25 m high (maximum dimensions)

• HRSG buildings –15 m wide, 30 m long, 30 to 40 m high (maximum dimensions)

• cooling system –50 m square, 25 to 30 m high (maximum dimensions)

• chimney stacks –6 m in diameter and up to 40 to 50 m high (assuming a 1, 2 or 3 turbine/ 1 or 2 stack design)

3.14 In addition to the above, the power station would include station control room, offices, stores, water treatment plant, gas receiving station and a switchyard. The approximate area of the power station could be up to 3-4 hectares.

3.15 The power station will require a cooling system to condense the exhaust steam from the steam turbine and the choice of technology will have to meet the ‘BAT’ (Best Available Technique) criteria required by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended) , under which the MEC will require a permit to operate. This regime is administered by the Environment Agency (EA) with whom MEL will enter into early discussions regarding the choice of technology for the site.

3.16 A number of cooling options are being considered including:

• once-through cooling – cooling water is abstracted continuously from a water source such as a river, passed through the steam condenser and discharged back to the water source at a higher temperature via an outfall pipe


28 February 2014

• hybrid evaporative cooling – cooling water is abstracted continuously from a water source as for once-through cooling, but is cooled and re-circulated rather than being continuously discharged

• air-cooling – air cooled condensers are widely used for new-build CCGT plant. They avoid the need for large water abstraction and discharge

3.17 The method of cooling has not yet been determined for the MEC, but the chosen method will be subject to technical and environmental assessment.

Design

3.18 The requirement to consider design is enshrined in the relevant legislation, with section 10(3)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of ‘achieving good design’ in carrying out the functions of designating or reviewing NPS.

3.19 NPS EN-1 sets out criteria for good design for energy infrastructure, including at paragraphs 4.5.1 – 4.4.6 where it recognises that functional design is equally important to aesthetic design. Paragraph 4.5.1 states:

Applying “good design” to energy projects should produce sustainable infrastructure sensitive to place, efficient in the use of natural resources and energy used in their construction and operation, matched by an appearance that demonstrates good aesthetic as far as possible. It is acknowledged, however that the nature of much energy infrastructure development will often limit the extent to which it can contribute to the enhancement of the quality of the area.

3.20 In this context, and taking account of regulatory and other constraints, PINS will have to be satisfied that the proposed development is sufficiently sustainable with regard to:

• durability and adaptability (particularly with regard to flooding and climate change)

• functionality

• aesthetics

• siting relative to existing landscape character, landform and vegetation

• sensitive use of materials

3.21 Applicants are required to demonstrate in their submission how the design process was conducted and how the proposed design has evolved.

3.22 Whilst the design of the proposed CCGT power station will evolve through the pre-application process, NPS EN-2 recognises at paragraph 2.6.5 that ‘It is not possible to eliminate the visual effects associated with a fossil fuel generating station. Mitigation is therefore to reduce the visual intrusion of the buildings in the landscape


February 2014 29

and minimise impact on visual amenity as far as reasonably practicable’.

3.23 NPS EN-2 continues to note that ‘the precise architectural treatment will need to be site specific’ (paragraph 2.6.6.) indicating that reduction of visual impact could involve:

• enclosing buildings at low level

• earth bunds and mounds

• tree planting

3.24 The design of the MEC will continue to evolve through the pre-application process to take account of all consultees' responses to the proposal.

Electricity connection

3.25 The proposed CCGT power station element of the MEC will need to connect to the electricity network. The consideration of an electrical connection has taken account of the power output from the proposed CCGT power station element of the MEC and the maximum capacity that can be exported from the site considering the capacity of the current or planned future infrastructure.

3.26 Preliminary discussions have been held with the distribution network operator, Western Power Distribution (WPD), to gather information on the current network capability and their current and planned investments into the electricity infrastructure in this region.

3.27 At this stage it has been identified that the existing WPD infrastructure within Meaford Business Park could accommodate the connection of the MEC without the need for new 132kV lines or significant network reinforcement. If however following more detailed investigations the existing 132kV network cannot accept the CCGT power station, replacement/new 132kV lines could be required. Whether these lines are overhead lines or underground cables depends on a number of technical, financial and environmental factors. The length of the line or cable will depend on the location of the generation station element of the MEC.

Gas connection

3.28 The proposed CCGT power station element of the MEC will need to obtain gas from National Grid’s gas network, the National Transmission System (NTS). The connection point will be on the lower pressure Local Transmission System (LTS) which is supplied from the NTS (see Figure 6). The consideration of gas connection has taken account of the demand of the new power station and maximum capacity and pressure available in the network in the area. Preliminary discussions have been held with National Grid to gather information and discussions will be ongoing as design of the project evolves.


30 February 2014

3.29 The nearest LTS connection point is approximately 50 m from the business park. National Grid will provide a connection point from the existing main for interconnection of the power station to the gas network. A gas receiving station for the supply and metering of gas to the gas turbines will be located within the site.

3.30 The exact routing of the gas connection has not been determined as this would need to be informed by more detailed technical and environmental studies and the statutory consultation that will be carried out. The connection will be within the natural gas connection route corridor illustrated in Figure 6, and will be dependant upon the location of the CCGT power station within the Meaford Business Park selected, and informed by surveys carried out as part of the EIA process. It is possible that the connection will cross the canal at Malkins Bridge or Turnover Bridge.

Figure 6: Indicative gas connection corridor

3.31 The topography of the Natural gas connection route corridor is generally rising from the business park to the east and the land use is typically farmland with hedgerows and woodland. It is likely that the connection will need to cross the canal and railway to the east of the business park over existing structures.

3.32 There will be no storage of natural gas on the site other than the relatively small volume of gas in the incoming pipeline and the pipe-work feeding gas to the gas turbines.

3.33 At present there are no plans for the provision of a backup fuel (normally light fuel oil) and therefore no large quantities of fuel oil will be stored in tanks at the site.


February 2014 31

This removes the risk of site ground contamination from fuel oil leaks during fuel transfer from transport vehicles or from fuel pipe-line or tank leaks.

3.34 The MEC will be designed to enable 24-hour a day operation.

Access

3.35 The site is strategically located within the M6 corridor. It is accessed off Meaford Road which joins the A34 dual carriage way approximately 0.5 km to the south of the site.

3.36 The site is well located for distribution to local and national road networks with easy access to the M6.

3.37 Locations of access roads for the MEC within the site are still being finalised and will be subject to technical and environmental assessment. A number of options will be considered, including establishing whether the existing access on Meaford Road at the north west of the site will be suitable for access during construction and operation or whether a new access from the A34 south of the site via a new roundabout would be more appropriate for the MEC. Should MEL decide that highway access improvement works are necessary, MEL will either include them in the application for a DCO as associated development or seek consent separately for such works. For the purposes of this scoping request, MEL has drawn the redline to include the necessary land for any such highway improvement works and requests that the Secretary of State provides an Opinion that includes potential access improvements to the site along the Meaford Road and/or the A34. No highways works outside the red line boundary are proposed as part of this scheme.

3.38 It is noted that the site already benefits from an existing planning permission that includes highway improvements. Should highway improvements be included in the application for a DCO, such improvements will not be incompatible with the improvements that already have consent. Furthermore, MEL will assess the consented highway improvements as part of the cumulative assessment in the ES.

3.39 Under an unrelated project, Staffordshire County Council is planning to improve the A34 access to Meaford2and the site. MEL will monitor the progress of this project and design any highway improvements so that they are compatible with those promoted by SCC. Should SCC submit its proposals for approval and the proposals are approved, MEL will include the proposals in the cumulative assessment.

2 http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/roadworks/schemeinfo/stafford/Meaford-Improvements/Meaford-Improvements.aspx

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/roadworks/schemeinfo/stafford/Meaford


32 February 2014

Combined heat and power

3.40 The Government's policy is that from a fuel efficiency and climate change perspective – waste heat from power stations should be utilised, where possible, for community heating and industrial uses. Guidance has been issued for developers to enable an assessment of such combined heat and power (CHP) opportunities. In addition, it is noted that by June 2014, EU Member States must implement the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012 (2012/27/EU) (the “Directive”) into their national legislation. The Directive establishes a framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the European Union in order to achieve the “2020 20 %” headline target on energy efficiency, and continuing improvements thereafter. Aspects of the Energy Services Directive (2006/32/EC) and the Cogeneration Directive (2004/8/EC) are repealed or replaced when the Directive comes into force on 5 June 2014.

3.41 Article 14 of the Directive concerns CHP. The overall objective of Article 14 is to encourage the identification of cost-effective potential for delivering energy efficiency through the use of cogeneration, efficient district heating and cooling and the recovery of industrial waste heat. The Directive requires Member States to review the potential for heat-efficiency cogeneration in their State on a national and regional level, and to adopt policies to encourage the taking into account of heat markets identified.

3.42 The Scottish Government published a consultation in January 2014 on the implementation of the Directive into UK law (which must be done by 5 June 2014). At the time of writing this report, Westminster had not issued any consultation proposals on the implementation of the cogeneration/CHP requirements of the EED. MEL will continue to monitor any developments in this regard.

3.43 As the Meaford Business Park is not yet redeveloped, the construction of the MEC, as one of the first phases of the redevelopment, will have the ability to provide heat to future businesses who locate at the business park.through a local heat distribution network.

3.44 For the purposes of the EIA, it is assumed that the CCGT power station element of the MEC will be CHP ready. The required infrastructure to allow for the future off-take of waste heat will be incorporated into the power station design, but it is unlikely that district wide infrastructure outside the power station complex itself would be developed at the same time as the MEC.

3.45 The ES will therefore assess a CCGT power station that is CHP ready up to the boundary of the power station complex.


February 2014 33

Construction

Meaford Energy Centre construction programme

3.46 The proposed development would have a programme of approximately 3 to 4 years, including site establishment stage of about 6 to 12 months. The site programme would typically comprise preliminary works, civil works, and erection, commissioning and handover phases.

3.47 The area of land required by the contractor for construction of the generation station element of the MEC would, where practicable, be made available entirely from within the site. The land required within the site for construction has not been identified at this stage. This will be determined prior to submission of the DCO application and will take account of relevant environmental issues such as noise nuisance, sensitive ecological aspects, visual effects, traffic etc.

3.48 The preliminary works stage would include the clearance and preparation of contractors' areas and the installation of services including internal access roads within the site, utilities supplies and drainage. The duration of this phase would be approximately 6 months and would include the early ecological mitigation measures where necessary, followed by removal of redundant below ground structures/services associated with the former power stations and the implementation of any necessary contaminated land remediation strategy required before the main construction work commences.

3.49 The piling and main foundation construction would take approximately 12 months to complete. Erection of above ground structures and installation of the power plant would then commence. The earliest date that the first unit of the MEC could be in commercial operation would be approximately 30 to 36 months following the award of the main construction contract, although this date would depend on the specific CCGT technology chosen. It is anticipated that this will be confirmed prior to the submission of the DCO application, but if this is not the case, the realistic ‘latest date’ scenario will be assessed in the ES.

Meaford Energy Centre construction materials and design

3.50 The quantities of construction materials will be estimated because the plant will not be fully specified and designed until after DCO submission. However, the various materials will be robustly assessed so that they can be included in the transport assessment and in an assessment of resource consumption. The main construction components are -

• concrete

• structural steel

• mechanical and electrical plant

• other construction materials


34 February 2014

• bulk fill

3.51 The technical design of the power station layout and the architectural design of the buildings will take account of environmental aspects such as the layout of the site so as to minimise potential effects on ecological receptors on site, the need for noise insulation within the main plant buildings and the layout, form and colour of buildings to address potential landscape and visual effects.

Meaford Energy Centre construction plant and laydown

3.52 The area of land required by the contractor for construction of the MEC would, where practicable, be made available entirely from within the site (i.e. the business park), although the gas pipeline element's construction could potentially require a small laydown area outside of the business park but within the red line boundary. For the gas route, suitable laydown areas will be identified following detailed route assessment with these areas included in the assessment of environmental effects.

• Some earthmoving is anticipated, and therefore earth shifting plant would be required.

• There would also be excavation works and therefore excavators and dump trucks would be required.

• There would be some new road construction within the site requiring bulldozers, scrapers, pavers, etc.

• Structural steel erection would call for a number of cranes, as would a wide variety of other activities.

• There would be a need for a large amount of miscellaneous attendant plant.

• Piled foundations may be required.

• At this stage it is not known whether cast-in place piles or driven piles would be used. Larger excavations would need to be supported by sheet piles, which would need to be driven.

Gas connection construction and maintenance

3.53 The gas connection that will connect the generation station element of the MEC to the LTS to the north and east of the Meaford Business Park will likely comprise both underground and overground sections of pipeline. The pipeline will be designed and installed in accordance with the Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996, the HSE’s guidance 'A guide to the Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996' and the HSC’s Approved Code of Practice and Guidance 'Design, construction and installation of gas service pipes'.

3.54 The route of the connection will be determined by topography, physical constraints such as roads, railways, water courses and property as well as key environmental constraints. The Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers (IGEM)


February 2014 35

have published a series of guidance documents (the IGE/TD series) which includes guidance on the depth of gas pipelines for safeguarding against the risk of third party damage. It is likely that the gas connection will need to cross both canal and railway infrastructure using existing overground structures.

3.55 Where the gas connection requires undergrounding, the working width for construction is typically 30 to 40 m, though this may increase where there are physical constraints. Preparation for construction will entail soil stripping, land drainage works and securing of the working areas, including any environmental mitigation and management works associated with these activities. Construction of the gas connection will then entail the following activities and equipment:

• excavation and backfill plant

• pipeline installation plant

• welding and non-destructive testing

• supply and installation of a cathodic protection system

• potential horizontal directional drilling under roads, rail and waterways

• reinstatement of land drainage

• reinstatement of land at open cuts

• import of sand or other backfill materials

• construction of offtake and pressure reduction station

• hydrostatic testing

• commissioning

• telemetry and control system installation and commissioning

3.56 Operation and maintenance of the gas connection will be in accordance with the legal requirements of the Pipeline Safety Regulations and the guidance published by the HSE and IGEM. This will entail a combination of visual inspection, internal inspection of the pipeline by pigging and cathodic protection monitoring.

Electrical connection construction and maintenance

3.57 At this stage it is proposed that the connection of the generation station element of the MEC into WPD’s network will be made within the site. WPD has completed an electrical study that has confirmed that no new offsite overhead structures will be required. All electrical power connections will be contained within the site.

3.58 An existing on-site substation may need to be extended, and a further small substation is likely to be required on the MEC construction site.. Materials and equipment is similar to equipment listed within 3.52.

3.59 During normal operation, vehicle movements will be limited to periods where maintenance or inspection is required. This would normally be limited to 1 or 2


36 February 2014

visits to site per week. If a major component failed, the component would require replacement. At this point larger plant would be required to deliver and handle the replacement of the components on site.

Transport

3.60 The detailed scope of the transportation assessment will be agreed with Staffordshire County Council highways departments and is likely to include:

• a description of the local highway network and its current capacity

• a review of the existing transport assessment for the planning permission for the Meaford Business Park, including access arrangements, and its applicability to the project

• a baseline assessment of the construction access route, its capacity and existing traffic flows (including site specific traffic counts)

• an abnormal load route report and management plan. It is proposed that all abnormal loads and HGVs will be routed to avoid villages, if it is possible

• an investigation of and allowance (as appropriate) for other consented developments

• an evaluation of the transportation effects proposals for traffic management plans for both construction HGV traffic and construction workers traffic

• consideration of cumulative effects associated with other proposed developments, including local transport schemes

• consideration of traffic related air quality issues

• consideration of traffic related noise and vibration issues

Utilities

3.61 During the construction of the MEC there is the potential for disruption to existing local utilities, such as water and electricity supply. Locations of the utilities will be identified and an assessment of the potential effects undertaken.

Decommissioning and demolition

3.62 A CCGT power station typically has a design life of 35 years. Elements of the plant and its gas and electricity grid connection infrastructure may need to be replaced as a part of ongoing maintenance to ensure it works at its optimum capacity, and this can also serve to extend the lifetime of the plant. At the end of its life, the MEC will be decommissioned with all structures on the site demolished and the slab foundations removed to a depth of 2m.


February 2014 37

3.63 It will be a requirement of the Environmental Permit that the land quality condition at the end of the power station element of the MEC's life is no worse than at commencement of operation, and the site would therefore be made suitable for a future commercial / industrial land-use from a land quality perspective.

3.64 Decommissioning and demolition will require many of the same aspects as seen during construction, such as the establishment of works compounds on site and the use of demolition plant and equipment. The activity will entail the recovery of scrap metal, the breaking-out excavation and crushing of concrete for re-use, the safe treatment and/or disposal of liquid effluents and the transportation of materials from site.


38 February 2014


February 2014 39

4. Alternatives and scheme evolution

Introduction

4.1 This section provides an overview of the strategic options that have been considered, and those that will be considered further, in the development of the proposals for the MEC at the Meaford Business Park. It includes an outline of the process undertaken to develop options for the configuration of the power station aspect of the MEC, the site location and layout, the route corridor for the gas and on-site electricity connections. These initial options were developed to inform the non-statutory consultation carried out in 2013 on the proposals and will be developed further through the EIA process.

Approach

4.2 A project promoter is required to include information in its ES about the alternatives to the development that it has considered. Options appraisal is used to compare project options and to assess the positive and negative effects they may have across a range of criteria including environmental, technical, socio-economic and cost factors.

4.3 A review of development options is of value as it assists a developer to identify appropriate technical options and to select a site or sites appropriate for its needs. From an EIA perspective, consideration of alternatives helps the decision-maker to determine whether a proposed site is acceptable, or whether less harmful alternatives are available. In planning terms there can be specific requirements to consider the availability of alternatives where, for example, protected landscapes are affected by a development proposal.

4.4 At both a strategic and local level MEL has considered a number of criteria and options, including:

• the role of gas as part of the national electricity generation mix, the technology options for gas fired power stations and the selection of CCGT as the preferred technology

• the basic elements of a CCGT power station, the gas and electricity grid connection requirements and the extent of land needed for the development

• the national and local search for sites


40 February 2014

• the location of the power station aspect of the MEC within the business park, the planning and environmental considerations and the options for the technical and spatial configuration of the CCGT

• the route corridor options for the gas connection element of the MEC

• the options for the electricity connection element of the MEC

Electricity generating options

4.5 Electricity can be generated from a range of sources – gas, coal, oil, nuclear and various renewable energy sources including wind, solar and hydro power. The policy position with regard to the important contribution made by gas fired generation is explained in paras. 3.6.1 to 3.6.2 of NPS EN-1, as follows.

3.6.1 Fossil fuel power stations play a vital role in providing reliable electricity supplies: they can be operated flexibly in response to changes in supply and demand, and provide diversity in our energy mix. They will continue to play an important role in our energy mix as the UK makes the transition to a low carbon economy, and Government policy is that they must be constructed, and operate, in line with increasingly demanding climate change goals.

3.6.2 Fossil fuel generating stations contribute to security of energy supply by using fuel from a variety of suppliers and operating flexibly. Gas will continue to play an important role in the electricity sector – providing vital flexibility to support an increasing amount of low-carbon generation and to maintain security of supply.

The selection of CCGT technology

4.6 Modern gas-fired power stations can be based on a number of gas turbine technologies. Technology selection takes account of a range of factors:

• technical/engineering issues

• materials in and out

• environmental impact

• best available technology (BAT) for emissions clean-up

• overall performance characteristics

• planning issues

• layout area

• build programme


February 2014 41

• economics

4.7 Open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) technology has a single gas turbine and offers moderate electrical efficiency. CCGT technology incorporates both a gas and a steam turbine, creating additional electrical power for the same amount of fuel consumed and, with the advances in CCGT technology in recent years, their electrical efficiency is increased.

4.8 A CCGT power station utilises an efficient combination of gas and steam turbines to generate electricity and heat.

Operational considerations

4.9 In selecting a suitable site for a new CCGT power station, the following factors must be considered:

• sufficient space is needed to install, access, operate and maintain the facility in a safe and economic manner

• a suitable source of gas is required that can be delivered to the site economically

• either a local consumer for the electricity generated, and / or the ability to economically export the electricity to either a Distribution Network Operator or the National Grid

• a suitable medium (air and / or water) to provide cooling to the steam turbine exhaust steam condenser and for all other auxiliary cooling requirements

• a suitable source of water for the boilers and for all other auxiliary requirements

• surface water run-off can be discharged to a local watercourse or to sewer

• all other liquid effluents can be discharged to a suitable sewer or treated on-site

• the ground conditions are suitable for the installation of the civil structures and major plant items

• the effects of the construction and operation of the facility on humans and the environment from emissions to air, land and water including nuisance can be adequately mitigated

• all necessary permits and licences are in place or can be obtained


42 February 2014

Site selection

Strategic site location

4.10 MEL has undertaken a strategic search for potential CCGT power station sites in the UK, using a phased methodology. The search criteria includes the availability of connections with sufficient capacity for gas supply and for the export of electricity.

4.11 The site selection process involves finding a suitable site with the potential to achieve the physical links to the identified connection points on the gas and electricity networks which is commercially available. To do this, it is necessary to define a basic site requirement. This may be summarised as:

• broadly level site of c. 3 to 10 hectares, with:

• undeveloped corridors of land leading to the gas and electricity connection points, and

• road access suitable for construction and operational traffic;

• avoiding areas of designated landscape, natural or heritage interest and land in flood risk areas, and with the potential to supply surplus heat to land uses neighbouring the site;

• in locations separated from housing and other sensitive land uses such as schools;

• previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land, and/or land allocated for industrial use, which the landowner is prepared to lease or sell to MEL on commercial terms.

4.12 The operational factors detailed above are key in identifying a suitable location, and there are relatively few places in the UK where these requirements coincide. One of those places is the Meaford area.

4.13 Having identified Meaford as an area of interest, specific opportunities to connect to the gas and electrical networks are being investigated in consultation with the operators of these networks. Provisionally, a gas connection point has been identified at a pipeline immediately east of the Meaford Business Park. The most appropriate place to export power from a CCGT power station in the Meaford area is the existing substation at the Meaford Business Park site.

4.14 This search identified that the majority of the area is designated as Green Belt, but that the Meaford Business Park site, a former power station site itself, is designated as a major developed site and has extant planning permission for redevelopment for 1.2m sq ft of industrial and storage and distribution uses.


February 2014 43

Meaford Energy Centre site selection

4.15 Meaford Business Park is a brownfield site, which was previously used as a coal-fired power station. The site continues to have two existing substations. This site is therefore considered the most appropriate in this area in line with National Policy which aims to focus development towards brownfield sites.

4.16 Detailed site selection within the overall Meaford Business Park site has therefore commenced, for which this EIA scoping exercise forms a part.

Power station design options

CCGT power station element of the MEC - location within the site

4.17 The Meaford Business Park site is relatively large, totalling approximately 34 hectares and would allow for a variety of CCGT power station layout and orientation options. A number of technical, planning and environmental factors have been considered in identifying options for the location of the power station element of the MEC within the business park.

4.18 Key constraints, as illustrated on Figure 5, include:

• The presence of existing overhead power lines and requirement to provide safety clearance along their routes.

• Areas of existing water and proposed balancing ponds associated with the consented development of the Meaford Business Park

• Existing areas of mature woodland

• Consented access arrangements for the Meaford Business Park


44 February 2014

Figure 7: High level constraints within Meaford Business Park

4.19 Three options were put forward during the non-statutory consultation as

presented below in Figure 4. This scoping report considers the whole of the Meaford Business Park, and therefore all of these potential options.

Technical options for the configuration of the CCGT

4.20 The principal technical considerations for the development of options for the CCGT power station element of the MEC are:

• the performance of different configurations versus the relative costs;

• water supply and technology options for the cooling system including hybrid cooling or air cooled condensers;

• general technical criteria for layout of the CCGT plant;

• minimising conflict with the future development of the wider Meaford Business Park.

4.21 The performance of a number of different configurations is being considered in terms of electrical output, thermal efficiency and heat rate (i.e. fuel input per unit electrical output) based on configurations for a number of UK technology suppliers (companies such as Siemens, GE and Alstom). This data is being compared to the relative capital and unit costs to provide an understanding of economic performance of the options.


February 2014 45

4.22 The general technical criteria that determine the layout options for a CCGT power station element include the following:

• the air intakes to the gas turbine should be sheltered from the prevailing wind to minimise the risk of rain, snow or foreign objects being entrained in the intake causing damage;

• the air cooled condenser or hybrid cooling system should be located downwind of the gas turbine air intake to prevent warm air being drawn into the air compressor and affecting its performance.

Gas connection element of the MEC

4.23 At this stage, the exact location of the gas connection has not been determined as this would need to be informed by more detailed technical and environmental studies and associated consultation. A route corridor has been identified within which the connection will fall as detailed in Figure 6, the entirety of which will be assessed within the Environmental Statement on a 'worst case' scenario basis if the final connection has not been established prior to the submission of the DCO application.

Electricity grid connection element of the MEC

4.24 The proposed power station element of the MEC will need to connect to the existing electricity network. The consideration of an electrical connection has taken account of the power output from the new power station and the maximum capacity that can be exported from the site considering the capacity of the current or planned future electrical infrastructure.

4.25 Preliminary discussions have been held with the Distribution Network Operator, Western Power Distribution (WPD), to gather information on their current and planned investments into the electricity infrastructure in this region.

4.26 During initial discussions with WPD various options were discussed. These options included:

• Connecting directing into WPD’s 132kV lines, cables or substations located within the Meaford Business Park

• Connection directly to a remotely located WPD substation via new 132kV lines

• Connection to WPD network requiring the upgrade of existing 132kV lines

4.27 At this stage WPD has confirmed that the existing infrastructure within Meaford Business Park could accommodate the connection of the proposed power station subject to known constraints and therefore the Environmental Statement will assess the electricity connection on this basis. It is possible, although yet to be confirmed, that the existing substation will need to be extended. A separate


46 February 2014

substation is likely to be required on the power station site to enable the connection into the WPD network.


February 2014 47

5. Summary and proposed structure of the ES

Summary

5.1 This section sets out the scope of the proposed EIA, with the proposed structure of the ES. The EIA topics are considered to address all areas where significant environmental effects could occur.

5.2 The topics proposed for the ES are:

• socio-economics

• transport and traffic

• air quality

• noise and vibration

• cultural heritage

• landscape and visual

• ecology

• ground conditions

• the water environment (including flood risk)

• waste

5.3 It is not proposed to assess agricultural land uses, as it is not considered the scheme will significantly impact on farmland. Only the proposed gas connection has potential to directly, but temporarily impact upon third party land and these impacts will be limited. Once operational, inspection visits would be non-intrusive and the likelihood of intrusive repair works being required is low. Where possible the connection will be made on land owned by St. Modwen.

5.4 The EIA will consider the in-combination effects of the topics listed above, for example traffic impacts, noise impacts and air quality impacts may combine to increase the impact on a particular receptor. In addition, cumulative effects will be considered, which will take into account other consented schemes in the area of the proposed MEC. The cumulative effects assessment will, where appropriate, consider the proposed consented development of Meaford Business Park as well as nearby proposed highways schemes.


48 February 2014

Proposed structure of the ES

5.5 The findings of the EIA will be presented in an environmental statement that will comprise a series of volumes. These will be:

• Volume 1: Environmental statement – non-technical summary (ES-NTS)

• a short overview of the ES written in non-technical terms intended for a wide readership

• Volume 2: Main written statement

• setting out the findings of the EIA process, potential significant environmental effects, mitigation measures, and residual likely significant effects resulting from the proposed development

• Volume 3: Figures

• figures to accompany relevant chapters where necessary

• Volume 4: Appendices

• additional information to accompany chapters where necessary

5.6 It is proposed that the integral features of the MEC (i.e. the power station, gas connection and electricity connection) are each considered together within the ES chapters. Reference to each element of the scheme will be clearly separated where necessary in the ES for clarity and consistency. Reference to any associated development required will be made as appropriate.

5.7 The ES will be separated into chapters as outlined below:

• Chapter 1: Introduction

• Chapter 2: The proposed development

• Chapter 3: Planning and legislative context

• Chapter 4: Alternatives and scheme evolution

• Chapter 5: The scope of the EIA and overall methodology

• Chapter 6: Socio-economic effects

• Chapter 7: Transport and traffic

• Chapter 8: Air Quality

• Chapter 9: Noise and vibration

• Chapter 10: Landscape and visual effects

• Chapter 11: Ecology

• Chapter 12: Cultural Heritage

• Chapter 13: Ground conditions

• Chapter 14: The water environment


February 2014 49

• Chapter 15: Waste

• Chapter 16: Cumulative effects

• Chapter 17: Mitigation summary

• Chapter 18: Conclusions

5.8 Chapters six to eighteen of the ES will follow a standard format under the following main headings:

• Summary

• Introduction

• Assessment methodology

• Baseline information

• Potential likely significant effects

• Mitigation measures

• Residual likely significant effects

• Cumulative Effects

• Conclusion

5.9 MEL will evaluate alternative layouts and infrastructure routes in more detail, informed by the EIA process, and will summarise these in the ES.


50 February 2014


February 2014 51

6. Scope of the environmental impact assessment

Socio-economic effects

Introduction

6.1 The section presents a brief overview of the socio-economic conditions in the area of the proposed development. It provides an outline of potential areas of impact along with a method statement for undertaking the full socio-economic assessment at ES stage.

Study area

6.2 MEL has undertaken initial non-statutory consultation on the proposed development. The published Stage 1 Consultation Feedback includes a Core Consultation Zone. For the purposes of the socio-economic scoping exercise the electoral Wards that broadly geographically cover this zone – Barlaston & Oulton, Stonefield & Christchurch, Walton & Swynnerton - will form the study area.

6.3 In order to place the project in the wider context, the assessment will consider and compare the socio-economic conditions across a number of geographies including a defined study area - Stafford Borough, Staffordshire and England.

Existing information

6.4 Based on existing information gathered by MEL, the proposed development represents investment in the region of circa £300m and is anticipated to provide the following key benefits:

• 30 permanent jobs (higher skilled occupations);

• Up to 800 construction jobs (over three to four year construction period);

• Provide a catalyst for the redevelopment of Meaford Business Park (indirect jobs) and;

• Increased energy security.


52 February 2014

6.5 MEL has undertaken early, non-statutory consultation (ahead of the statutory consultation process) in order to introduce the proposals to the local community and stakeholders and to gather feedback on the proposal together helping MEL decide on the location and design of the MEC. Table 1 provides a brief summary of the key socio-economic aspects raised during the initial consultation process.

Table 1: Overview of Key Feedback from Scheme Consultation

Feedback Topic Description

Preferred power station element site option

South option preferred – deemed less visible, closer to sub-station and greater distance from Barlaston village.

Gas Connection element

Proximity to existing connection seen as positive/ advantage – lower costs and easier to mitigate environmental impacts.

Project benefits Majority agreed with the outlined benefits of the scheme to the Business Park and wider community.

General Overall support for the scheme from the local community; Concern over traffic generated & management during construction (need to avoid Barlaston village); Noise and visual impacts raised; Desire for a community education centre as part of the scheme

Source: MEL Non-Statutory Consultation Feedback Report (Nov 2013)

Baseline description

6.6 This section provides a brief description of the socio-economic conditions in the area of the scheme and compares it to the wider geographic context. This will inform the further socio-economic analysis that will be undertaken in the full assessment, as detailed in the Assessment Methodology section.

6.7 In the 2011 Census the population of the study area was 20,018, an increase of 12% from the 2001 Census. The positive change in population in the study area was above the average for Stafford Borough (at 8%), the West Midlands (6%) and England as a whole at 8%. The study area population accounted for around 15% of the total population of Stafford Borough.

6.8 Figure 8 below shows the economic activity levels of all usual residents aged 16 to 74 years in 2011.


February 2014 53

Figure 8: Economic Activity Rates, 2011

Source: NOMIS, Census 2011

6.9 Analysis of the economic activity rate demonstrates that the overall participation rate in the labour market was relatively high in the study area and Stafford Borough (at 70.2%) and just above the national average for England at 69.9%.

6.10 Latest Claimant Count Data (Figure 9) highlights that the rate of those claiming unemployment benefits in the study area was consistently lower than the average for all other benchmark areas during the whole period from 2004 to 2013. The study area did follow the same trend as the benchmark areas, from a low of just 0.9% in 2007 (1.1% in Stafford and 2% across England), rising to a peak of 2.4% during 2009 (2.9% in England) and then falling again (to 1.2%) in 2013 which was again lower than the rates experienced by Stafford at 1.5% and England at 2.9%.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Study Area Stafford Staffordshire West Midlands England

Perc

enta

ge

Area

Economically active Economically Inactive


54 February 2014

Figure 9: Claimant Count Rate (Annual as of January) 2004- 2013

Source: NOMIS, 2013

6.11 Analysis of the levels of qualification (Census 2011) of residents aged over 16 years highlights a higher proportion of residents within the study area (at 32%) with a Level 4+ qualification, compared to 30% across Stafford Borough and 27% in England.

Table 2: Level of Qualification by area (2011)

Qualification Level Benchmark Area

Study Area (%) Stafford (%) England (%)

No qualification 21 20 22

Level 1 12 12 13

Level 2 16 16 15

Apprentice 4 4 4

Level 3 11 13 12

Level 4 + 32 30 27

Source: NOMIS, Census 2013

6.12 The initial analysis of the socio-economic baseline demonstrates the strong economic character of the study area have experienced above average population growth, average levels of economic activity, lower than average claimant levels and above average levels of residents with the highest level of qualifications.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Perc

enta

ge

Date

Study Area Stafford Staffordshire England


February 2014 55

Potential effects

6.13 This section provides an initial consideration of the potential socio-economic effects of the proposed development. Given the scale and type of the project, there will be direct impacts in socio-economic terms (e.g. direct jobs) from the scheme at both the construction and operational stages. Similarly indirect impacts are also possible (e.g. indirect jobs as a result of the Meaford Business Park being developed). The significance of the impacts of the scheme however cannot be started until further analysis and assessment has been undertaken.

6.14 All the potential socio-economic effects outlined below will be examined and assessed fully in terms of likelihood and significance at the EIA stage. The socio-economic impacts of the scheme are likely to include the following:

Construction phase

• Creation of temporary construction jobs;

• Temporary disruption to local residents and businesses.

Operational phase

• Creation of additional direct jobs from operation of the plant;

• Indirect employment and income due to additional businesses taking up space on Meaford Business Park;

• Wider social benefits – education etc;

• Contribution to the area’s energy security.

Assessment methodology

6.15 The socio-economic impact assessment will examine the baseline conditions and potential impacts of the proposed development. The baseline assessment will include both qualitative and quantitative information including a detailed study of the socio-economic conditions in the area, a review of relevant regeneration and economic development documents/ initiatives and consultation with relevant stakeholders. The assessment will also consider other consented schemes in the area. There is no standard industry guidance on determining significance of socio-economic effects; determinations are based on experience and professional judgement.


56 February 2014

Table 3: Criteria for Impact Significance

Feedback Topic Description

Beneficial Positive effect on economic or social activity at the study area level

Minor beneficial Slightly positive effect on economic or social activity at the study area level

Negligible/ Neutral

Little or no effect on economic or social activity at the study area level

Minor adverse Slightly negative effect on economic or social activity at the study area level

Adverse Negative effect on economic or social activity at the study area level

Socio-economic Baseline

6.16 At the ES stage a detailed socio-economic baseline will be produced for the study area, benchmarking against the areas of Stafford Borough, Staffordshire and England. The analysis will follow the indicators below, which are deemed to be the most relevant to this assessment:

• Working Age Population & qualifications– current and past population change. Projected levels to understand the potential availability of labour at present and in the future. Review of qualifications to assist skills match to new direct and indirect jobs as a result of the scheme;

• Economic Activity – levels of economic activity indicate how active the population is within a labour market;

• Unemployment – analysis of unemployment data will help identify the current supply of and demand for labour in area and potential to fill any employment gap as a result of the development;

• Employment and Business structure – the number of people employed in the area, number of business units and identification of the most dominant industries in the local area;

• Travel to work patterns (if Census 2011 data is available) – this will be examined in terms of the types of journeys currently made from study area and provide greater understanding of the spatial movement of labour, by number and mode around the area;

• Deprivation – levels of overall deprivation in the study area will be analysed;

• Housing market & employment land / business development– demand for employment and housing in relation to potential energy demand locally.

6.17 This evidence base will inform the assumptions that can be made about the socio-economic impacts in the locality.


February 2014 57

Consultation and Contextual Analysis

6.18 A brief review will be undertaken of the socio-economic policy context at the local and national level.

6.19 At the ES stage we will consult with relevant stakeholders including regeneration and economic development officers at Stafford Borough Council, Staffordshire County Council, Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire LEP and local business organisation in order to gain a more detailed understanding of the area and potential for business and employment activity.

Economic Impact Assessment

6.20 The socio-economic baseline, review of relevant policy context and discussion with key stakeholders, as described above, will form the basis for assessing the economic impact of the scheme. The economic impact analysis will set out the contribution of the proposed development to the local economy and will consider the following impacts, dependent upon the evidence from the earlier analysis:

• Employment Effects. This will include temporary construction jobs, direct employment from the scheme and indirect employment as a result of the development of the Business Park. If suitable data is available assessment of the additional jobs released from the Business Park will be made;

• Income Effects. This will assess the income projections into the local economy, calculated for the construction and operational phases, including potential supply chain and consumption effects (subject to available data);

• Wider Economic Impacts. This will assess any other impact including impact on potential labour market skills match locally, new employment and training opportunities during construction and operation. Also consideration of potential contribution to the area’s energy security.

• Any disruption to local residents and businesses, especially during the construction phase. If any adverse impacts are identified then appropriate mitigation measures will be considered.

Potential mitigation

6.21 Mitigation measures will aim to avoid, minimise or compensate adverse impacts and maximise positive impacts.

6.22 Unfavourable impacts in construction may be related to inconvenience to residents in terms of noise, dust and congestion, or delays in journeys for a variety of travellers. Available methods to mitigate these impacts could include the use of site management plans for the specific issues. Early and ongoing engagement with residents to communicate programme and construction phases will help to minimise issues arising.


58 February 2014

6.23 Favourable impacts in construction may come through increased opportunities for construction employment or the provision of services to the construction relation workforce. Mitigation measures might include the sourcing of employees, services and goods as close to the development site as practicable and local training initiatives could be put in place to ensure that construction jobs are filled as far as possible by local residents to provide opportunities for skill development and employment.


February 2014 59

Traffic and transportation

Introduction

6.24 This chapter presents the EIA traffic and transportation scoping assessment of the proposed development. It includes an overview of the baseline conditions, identification of the potential impacts, and the proposed impact assessment methodology for consideration of the construction and operational phase of the proposed development, and potential requirements for mitigation.

6.25 A full Transport Assessment (TA) will be conducted for the proposed development, the scope of which will be discussed and agreed separately with officers of Staffordshire County Council (SCC) highways development control team.

6.26 This section of the scoping report considers both the direct traffic impacts and the indirect impacts of construction and operational traffic. In relation to indirect impacts, consideration is given as to how increases in traffic can have implications in terms of severance, driver and pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation and accidents and safety.

6.27 The scope of traffic impacts on air quality, and noise and vibration are dealt with in their respective sections here. They will be considered in other areas of the ES as appropriate and will be informed by traffic data.

Study area

6.28 The study area has been defined on the basis of the IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (Guidance Note No. 1)3. The IEMA Guidelines recommend two rules to be considered when assessing the impact of development traffic on a highway link:

• Rule 1: Include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the number of heavy goods vehicles will increase by more than 30%); and

• Rule 2: Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 10% or more.

6.29 The above guidance is based upon knowledge and experience of environmental effects of traffic, and also acknowledges that traffic forecasting is not an exact science. The 30% threshold is based upon research and experience of the environmental effects of traffic, with less than a 30% increase generally resulting in imperceptible changes in the environmental effects of traffic.

3 Institute of Environmental Assessment (March 1993) Guidance Note No. 1. Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. Institute of Environmental Assessment (now the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment)


60 February 2014

6.30 At a simple level, the guidance considers that projected changes in traffic flow of less than 10% create no discernible environmental effect, hence the second threshold as set out in Rule 2.

6.31 Notwithstanding the above rules it is considered pertinent at this stage to identify a preliminary study area which will include the following areas, links and junctions in relation to identification of potential adverse effects.

• Meaford Road;

• Wash Dale Lane

• Meaford Service Road (parallel to A34 for northbound A34 traffic);

• Tittensor Road;

• Old Road/Barlaston Old Road;

• A34/Meaford Road Junction; and

• A34/ Tittensor Road Junction.


6.32 Information regarding the construction of the proposed development is as given in section 3 of this report.

6.33 The volume and composition of operational traffic associated with the proposed development has not yet been confirmed. However, the traffic volumes will be significantly lower than during the construction stage, and the composition is likely to be predominantly light vehicles (staff), with very occasional HGV deliveries. Operation of the MEC is likely to entail approximately 30 fulltime jobs, with most traffic comprising staff travelling to and from work, suggesting trips on the order of 50 to 100 per day which will be confirmed in the ES.

6.34 Recent traffic data has been obtained for the area from SCC to provide a baseline.


Meaford Road

6.35 Meaford Road has residential frontage in Barlaston approximately 580m north of the Meaford Business Park boundary and residential properties immediately to the south of the business park boundary (Admirals and Vincent Mews) but is predominantly rural in nature linking through to the A34. Through Barlaston, properties are generally set back from the edge of the carriageway as are the footways which are present on both sides of the carriageway and set back from the edge of the carriageway with grass verges. Footways are approximately 1.5 – 2 m in width whilst carriageway widths are approximately 6 m.


February 2014 61

6.36 Once out of Barlaston the speed limit increases to the national limit (60 mph) and footways continue on the west side of the carriageway only. Frontage is largely agricultural, with isolated dwellings and a small cluster of residential properties at Meaford Hall (including Vincent Mews). Meaford Road is subject to a 7.5 T environmental weight restriction (except for access) through Barlaston only. This restriction comes into force immediately to the north of Meaford Business Park (located on the east side of the carriageway) and continues north right through to the A5035. South of Barlaston no such restriction is in place. These restrictions are typically put in place to prevent excessive use by HGVs and discourage HGV through traffic. These restrictions are not concerned with structural limits (e.g. weak bridges). Vehicles over 7.5 T accessing/egressing sites within the Environmental Weight Restriction (specifically vehicles requiring access to premises or land adjacent to the road) are exempt from the restriction.

6.37 Signage is in place to direct all traffic from the business park to turn left out of the Meaford Business Park i.e. no access through Barlaston.

6.38 Meaford Road continues south to the A34 where at this point the speed limit on the A34 is 50 mph. Meaford Road joins the A34 via a priority give way junction. The A34 is dualled at this location with a gap in the central reservation. No right turn is permitted from Meaford Road although right turn into Meaford Road from the A34 is permitted. There is a 20 m (approx) deceleration lane for the right turn into Meaford Road and a 60 m (approx) deceleration lane for the left turn into Meaford Road. The acceleration lane from Meaford Road onto the A34 southbound is approximately 50 m in length.

6.39 30 m prior to the junction of the A34/Meaford Road is a short (200 m) road (referred to as the Meaford Service Road) that runs parallel to the A34 which, at its northern end provides an all movements junction on to the A34. Given the ‘no right turn’ restriction at the A34/Meaford Road junction, traffic from Meaford Road requiring northbound access onto the A34 would be required to use this road or alternatively turn left out of Meaford Road on to the A34 and u-turn at the roundabout 600m to the south.

6.40 The Meaford Service Road has residential frontage and a footway of approximately 2 m wide on the northern side of the carriageway only. There is a day nursery (Meaford Day Nursery) fronting the carriageway and associated on street parking.

6.41 Meaford Road is part of National Cycle Network (NCN) Route Number 5, which is a Sustrans recognised walking and cycling route. To the east of Barlaston Old Road and Old Road, the route follows the course of a local canal (Trent and Mersey Canal towpath). At the junction of Old Road, Tittensor Road and Meaford Road, the route diverts along Meaford Road terminating shortly before the road meets the A34.


62 February 2014

6.42 Staffordshire County Council and Stafford Borough Council have recently funded improvements of the canal towpath between Aston by Stone and Barlaston which, now complete, result in the diversion of NCN Route Number 5 onto the towpath and off Meaford Road.

Tittensor Road

6.43 Tittensor Road is a residential road linking to the A34 to the north of Meaford Business Park. Carriageway widths are approximately 5 m which is below the recommended width for two HGVs to pass unopposed. Manual for Streets (MfS) provides broad guidance on carriageway width and states that a minimum carriageway width of 4.1 m is required for two cars to pass unopposed, rising to 4.8 m for a car and HGV and 5.5 m for two HGVs. The road is subject to a 7.5 T environmental weight restriction (except for access). The speed limit is 30 mph and frontage is largely residential in nature, again largely set back from the edge of the carriageway with screening by mature hedges/trees in most cases. There is no footway present (on either side of the carriageway) for just over 700 m, including outside some residential dwellings and there are warning signs indicating such to drivers. Once out of Barlaston the speed limit increases to 40 mph and frontage becomes largely agricultural, with more isolated small clusters of residential properties.

6.44 There are approximately 10 properties including Riverview residential home, which directly front the carriageway on approach to the A34. Unlike the larger properties to the east these are not set back from the carriageway meaning they are more susceptible to the effects of changes in traffic flow or composition of traffic.

6.45 Tittensor Road joins the A34 via a priority give way junction. The A34 is a dualled two lane carriageway that is subject to a 40 mph speed limit in the vicinity of Tittensor Road. The speed limit is enforced by speed cameras. To allow all movements at the Tittensor Road junction there is a gap in the central reservation on the A34. There are short deceleration lanes of approximately 60 m in length for left turning traffic from the A34 and right turning traffic entering the gap in the central reservation. There is a short acceleration lane of approximately 40 m in length for left turning traffic from Tittensor Road although this also provides access to the bus stop on the A34 at this location.

Barlaston Old Road/Old Road

6.46 Barlaston Old Road is subject to a 7.5 T environmental weight restriction (except for access). Carriageway widths on Barlaston Old Road are approximately 5.5 m. In parts however, the centre line carriageway road markings are ‘off centre’ and as such lane widths are disproportionately spaced resulting in one lane wider than the other. Footways are present on the eastern side of the carriageway only and are generally between 2 – 2.5 m in width. There is no footway south of Burrington Drive.


February 2014 63

6.47 To the south of the Strongford Sewage Treatment Works Barlaston Old Road becomes Old Road. The speed limit is 30 mph (reduced between Jonathan Road and Barlaston in 2010 from 60 mph). To the south of the sewage works southern access the road becomes more winding and carriageway widths are approximately 5 m which is below the recommended width for two HGVs to pass unopposed. Signs are present warning drivers of the possibility of horses in the carriageway in the vicinity of Flaxcroft Court. Further south, on entering Barlaston the frontage becomes largely residential with elderly people crossing warning signs, likely to be associated with the Barlaston Heath Centre located on the western side of the carriageway.

Baseline Traffic Data

6.48 Baseline Traffic data has been obtained and summarised in Table 3 for the AM Peak (08:00 – 09:00), PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00), 12 hours (07:00 – 19:00) and 24 hours (00:00 – 24:00) on key links in the area.

6.49 Data on the Meaford Road and Meaford Road Service road was collected in 2013 whilst data for Barlaston Old Road and Old Road is from 2012. Tittensor Road data is from 2007 and data for the A34 is from 2009.

6.50 To provide a common base year all traffic data has been extrapolated to 2013 for an average weekday using TEMPro 6.2 (traffic analysis software) for 41UG4 Stone (Staffordshire) adjusted using NTM AF09.

6.51 Growth factors used are as follows:

• 2007 - 2013: 1.0463

• 2009 - 2013: 1.0237

• 2012 - 2013: 1.0009

6.52 For the Meaford Road and Meaford Service Road only peak hour data was available, 12 hour and 24 hour traffic data was not available. As such the daily profile of traffic on the A34 was used to obtain factors to convert the AM and PM flows to 12 hr and 24 hour data.

6.53 Additional traffic data collection may be required to inform the assessment of the effects of construction traffic. The need for additional data will be identified and discussed with SCC.


64 February 2014

Table 3: Two Way Link Flows (Weekday) – 2013 Base Year

Link

Total Vehicles HGV Numbers

AM Peak

PM Peak

12hr 24hr AM Peak

PM Peak

12hr 24hr

A34 1983 2141 18645 22432 Not Available

Meaford Road 432 367 3583 4298 12 5 Not Available

Meaford Service Road 137 111 1112 1334 1 1 Not Available

Barlaston Old Road 743 788 7061 8689 9 3 100 106

Old Road 356 391 3467 4170 2 1 16 18

Tittensor Road 284 257 2431 2880 Not Available

Potential effects

Construction

6.54 The potential construction traffic effects are summarised in Table 4. Effects are likely to derive from HGV traffic and construction staff vehicles. Effects associated with HGVs are likely to be more significant but are easier to control and monitor with routing agreements. The position of the power station element of the MEC within Meaford Business Park (northern, central and southern options) does not have a bearing on the construction traffic impacts of the development outwith the Meaford Business Park.

Table 4: Potential Construction Traffic Effects

Issue Effects to be investigated further in EIA

Proposal for EIA

Construction traffic and HGV interaction with pedestrians and cyclists

Accidents and safety and pedestrian delay and amenity

Assessment of the likely traffic movements generated by the proposals. Assessment of the significance of effects with reference to current footway width and condition and proposed management. Identification of suitable mitigation if required.

Physical access constraints

Accidents and safety and driver delay and amenity

Assessment of the likely traffic movements generated by the


February 2014 65

Issue Effects to be investigated further in EIA

Proposal for EIA

proposals. Identification of a preferred access route and suitable mitigation in consultation with SCC.

Impact of construction traffic and HGV traffic on residential properties

Residential amenity Assessment of the likely traffic movements generated by the proposals. Identification of a preferred access route and the number of properties affected. Identification of suitable mitigation (if required) in consultation with the SCC.

Impacts of construction traffic and HGV traffic on sensitive land uses

Accidents and safety, amenity (general), noise and vibration

Assessment of the likely traffic movements generated by the proposals. Identification of a preferred access route and suitable mitigation (if required).

Means of access/egress Accidents and safety Location and form of access junction(s) in accordance with DMRB in consultation with SCC.

Restricted junction movements

Residential amenity, accidents and safety, driver delay, sensitive land uses

Identification of a preferred access route with consideration of traffic assignment and movements at local junctions. Identification of suitable mitigation (if required) in consultation with SCC.

Operational

6.55 Potential operational traffic effects are likely to derive from operational staff vehicles. Effects associated with HGVs are likely to be more significant, although there will be significantly fewer movements during the operational period than the construction period, and these are easier to control and monitor with routing agreements.

6.56 Based on the predicted volumes of operational traffic (50-100 light vehicle movements per day) we believe that the effects of the scheme on it’s own would not be significant. However, in the case of traffic and transport it is considered pertinent to consider the cumulative effects of traffic associated with the development of the wider Meaford Business Park and its associated infrastructure. Whilst the MEC is a wholly separate project to the business park and the MEC development is not reliant on the transport infrastructure associated with the


66 February 2014

business park, information relating to the cumulative effects of the business park will be provided within the ES.

6.57 The methodology will focus on the identification of any significant effects which may occur as a result of the proposed development both separately and in combination with the adjacent business park.


6.58 The assessment of the traffic and transport impacts will be informed by the Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments’ (2007) which supersedes ‘Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments’ produced by the Institution of Highways and Transportation (2004). The scope of the assessment will be informed by the following guidance documents:

• Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993)’; and

• Department for Transport, 2008. ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, HA 205/08 ‘Assessment and Magnitude of Environmental Effects’.

6.59 In broad terms the methodology will comprise five stages:

• Stage 1 – to identify the volume and composition of construction and operation traffic.

• Stage 2 - to identify potential adverse effects and subsequently outline those measures identified and incorporated during the evolution of the design to avoid, reduce or remedy those potential adverse effects in relation to transport and access. This will include but not be limited to the identification of an appropriate construction and operational traffic access route.

• Stage 3 - an assessment will be undertaken of the significance of likely effects left after incorporation of inherent mitigation measures in terms of design and construction specification responses as identified in Stage 2.

• Stage 4 – Identify any additional mitigation measures.

• Stage 5 – undertake an assessment of likely residual effects following the incorporation of additional mitigation identified in Stage 4.

Significance of Effects (Stage 3)

6.60 The IEMA guidelines suggest a range of topics to be considered when determining the magnitude and significance of the environmental effects of development proposals. These topics include: noise, vibration, severance, driver and pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety, hazardous loads, dust and dirt and ecological effects.


February 2014 67

6.61 Although not specifically identified within the IEMA Guidance it is considered necessary that residential properties and employment areas should be considered in the assessment.

6.62 For the purpose of the assessment residential amenity will be defined as a general, all encompassing term relating to the attractiveness of the residential environment, most notably the benefit enjoyed from physical external space which is part of the private home. The assessment will include elements of noise disturbance, visual intrusion and air quality but in more general terms. The determination of the magnitude of effect has taken account of local circumstances and the nature of the locality but relies solely on professional judgement.

6.63 It is considered that it is outside the scope of the EIA to assess the impact of additional traffic directly upon levels of ‘fear’ when considering pedestrian fear and intimidation effects. However, the impact of the predicted increases in heavy goods vehicle traffic will be assessed and this will be used as a proxy for ‘fear and intimidation’ effects. The assessment will also consider other related factors, such as vehicle speed, pedestrian proximity to vehicles and footway width.

6.64 For each topic the significance of the environmental effects will be determined by the ‘magnitude of impact’ and the value/importance of the affected asset or resource. The degree of significance will be determined in accordance with the guidelines in the DMRB Highways Agency (HA) 205/08 ‘Assessment and Magnitude of Environmental Effects’. This provides typical descriptors and criteria for magnitude of impact (degree of change) and receptor sensitivity but does not provide specific descriptors for the assessment of road traffic.

6.65 The typical significance of effects categories as detailed in Table 5 have been taken from the DMRB guidelines and will be used in the assessment at ES stage.

Table 5: Significance of Effects Categories

Magnitude of Change/Impact

Envi

ronm

enta

l Val

ue (S

ensi

tivi

ty)

Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Very High Slight Moderate or

Large Large or Very

Large Very Large

High Slight Slight or

Moderate Moderate or

Large Large or Very

Large

Medium Neutral or

Slight Slight Moderate

Moderate or Large

Low Neutral or

Slight Neutral or

Slight Slight

Slight or Moderate

Negligible Neutral Neutral or

Slight Neutral or

Slight Slight

SOURCE: DMRB Vol 11 guidelines HA 205/08 ‘Assessment and Magnitude of Environmental Effects’


68 February 2014

6.66 The DMRB guidance states “that change can be either beneficial or adverse, and effects can also, therefore, be either beneficial or adverse. In some cases the significance is shown as being one of two alternatives. In these cases a single description should be decided upon with reasoned judgement for that level of significance chosen.” This methodology will be adopted in the EIA.

Identification of Vulnerable Receptors

6.67 The main vulnerable receptors have been identified using IEMA guidelines and site investigations and are as follows:

• People at home and work places;

• Tourists/Visitors;

• Sensitive groups and locations including school children, schools and nurseries, historic building and structures;

• Pedestrians and cyclists; and

• Existing road users.

Importance of Receptors/Resources

6.68 In broad terms, for the purpose of this assessment, the relative sensitivity, importance or value of a resource or receptor will be derived from an assessment of:

• The number of individual receptors, such as residents;

• An empirical assessment on the basis of characteristics such as condition/location; and

• A receptor’s ability to absorb change.

Cumulative Effects

6.69 SCC will be consulted to determine if there are any consented developments which should be considered within an assessment of cumulative impacts between this development and other proposed projects nearby. Local, consented highways schemes, as well as the proposed redevelopment of Meaford Business Park will be considered.


6.70 An outline of potential mitigation measures is given below and will be considered further during the assessment process. Following the assessment and in consultation with SCC it may be deemed that some but not all of these measures are required. It should be noted that the measures listed below include those which may be identified and incorporated during the evolution of the design to avoid, reduce or remedy potential adverse effects in relation to transport and access:


February 2014 69

• On site spoil retention;

• On site concrete batching;

• Identification and enforcement of an appropriate operational traffic (HGVs) and/or construction traffic (HGVs) access route;

• Management and timing of HGV arrivals and departures (operation and construction);

• Management of HGV movements within the site (operation and construction);

• Signing and remedial highway work (to ensure the highway is kept fit for use);

• Production and agreement of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). A CTMP would likely cover the following:

• General construction principles (construction workforce, protection of existing features, communications and emergency procedures )

• Site layout (working hours, welfare facilities, site storage , site boundaries , wheel and vehicle wash facilities and temporary signage)

• Traffic management and public access (general requirements, traffic management plans, site access, parking, rights of way, temporary closures and diversions, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, facilities for people with ambulant disabilities and construction aspects)


70 February 2014


February 2014 71

Air quality

Introduction

6.71 This section presents the proposed approach to the air quality assessment for the proposed development The scoping assessment for air quality has included:

• Examination of baseline conditions; this includes collation of information on measured ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the development, a comparison with relevant air quality criteria, identification of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and sensitive receptors including residential properties and designated ecological sites;

• Consideration of potential air quality effects during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development; and

• Proposed methodology for the environmental impact assessment.

6.72 Cumulative impacts and potential combinations of various effects due to other planned developments are not discussed herein; however these will be identified and considered as appropriate in the EIA, particularly in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Meaford Business Park.

6.73 No consultation has been undertaken with the local authority at this stage; baseline air quality has been addressed with reference to information in the public domain.

Study area

6.74 The study area will be determined from initial dispersion modelling of MEC emissions to atmosphere. The modelled domain will be of an extent adequate to include all locations where there may be a material effect on air quality due to the proposed development emissions. The Cartesian grid of receptors modelled to derive a graphical representation of the modelled concentrations may typically encompass an area of approximately 20 to 35 square kilometres, subject to consideration of local topographic features and other factors. In addition, in line with EA guidance, discrete receptors may be specified at locations of specific interest such as designated ecological sites, as discussed below.

6.75 Confirmation that the study area is appropriate will be sought from relevant environmental health officers following the completion of initial dispersal modelling.

6.76 For dust emissions, the area relevant to the assessment is generally confined to within 100 m of the construction or operational source of this scale, and from the traffic routes that will be assessed in the traffic assessment.


72 February 2014


Air Pollutants

6.77 The air pollutant of primary relevance in the context of this assessment is nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is formed from the oxides of nitrogen discharged from the gas turbines. The gas turbines will also emit minor amounts of carbon monoxide, which are invariably of insignificant environmental effect.

6.78 Road traffic associated with the MEC will emit oxides of nitrogen and fine particles known as PM10 and PM2.5.

6.79 These pollutants are the most likely to be present at concentrations close to or above their statutory limit values in areas of the UK, and are hence the focus of the assessment for the proposed development.

6.80 In addition, dust may be a perceived issue during construction of the proposed development.

Nitrogen Dioxide

6.81 Nitrogen dioxide is generally produced by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) in ambient air (i.e. is not formed directly and as such is known as a ‘secondary’ pollutant). Nitric oxide and NO2 are collectively termed oxides of nitrogen. Just over a third of the UK oxides of nitrogen emissions are from road transport. The majority of oxides of nitrogen emitted from combustion plant and vehicles are in the form of NO, which oxidises rapidly in the presence of ozone to form NO2. In high concentrations, NO2 can affect the respiratory system.

6.82 High levels of oxides of nitrogen can have an adverse effect on vegetation, including leaf or needle damage and reduced growth. Deposition of pollutants derived from oxides of nitrogen emissions contribute to acidification and/or eutrophication of sensitive habitats

Particulate Matter

6.83 Particulate matter in vehicle exhaust gases consists of carbon nuclei onto which a wide range of compounds are adsorbed. These particles are generally very small (1 to10 µm), and include those in the size range referred to as PM10, denoting particles that are smaller than 10 µm in diameter, and PM2.5 denoting particles that are smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter.

6.84 Particulate matter appears to be associated with a range of symptoms of ill health including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, on asthma and on mortality. Reviews by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) have suggested exposure to a finer fraction of particles, PM2.5; give a stronger association with the observed ill health effects. About a quarter of primary PM10 emissions in the UK are derived from road transport. The fine particulate PM2.5 typically makes up around two thirds of PM10 emissions and airborne concentrations.


February 2014 73

Carbon monoxide

6.85 Carbon monoxide (CO) is a partial combustion product found in vehicle exhaust and combustion gases. The ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is set at a level well below that at which there may be any adverse physiological effects. Since the widespread introduction of catalytic converters on vehicles, there are no areas within the UK that are at risk of breaching the air quality objective for CO. Carbon monoxide is a minor contributor to atmospheric pollution in urban areas; even at busy roadside locations CO concentrations are well below the standard and there are no effects on human health due to the concentrations found in ambient air.

Dust

6.86 Dust is the generic term for solid particles that can be suspended in the atmosphere. Demolition and construction activities have potential to create airborne dust. Dust emissions from a site may be mechanically generated (e.g. due to earth movements or block cutting) or blown by the wind from exposed surfaces, and have the potential to cause higher than normal levels of dust deposition in the surrounding area. Over a period of time, in the absence of effective control measures, cumulative dust deposition may become noticeable and cause concern.

6.87 Deposited dust generally comprises particles between 10 and 75 µm in diameter. Noticeable accumulations comprising smaller particles, including the PM10 fractions known as PM10 and PM2.5 are much less likely as these fine particles tend to remain airborne. These smaller size fractions are important in human health terms and, in terms of human activities, combustion sources are the main emitters. Particles generated by construction processes tend to be larger than 2.5 µm and are mostly larger than 10 µm.

Air Quality Criteria

6.88 Mandatory legislative air quality criteria are set in EU Directives that are implemented nationally by The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No. 1001). The Government’s Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland provides details of national air quality standards and objectives for a number of local air pollutants including nitrogen dioxide, particulates and carbon monoxide. The air quality objectives applicable to LAQM in England are set out in The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 928) and The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 3043).

6.89 The air quality criteria apply in locations where there may be a ‘relevant exposure’. The human health objectives are applicable where members of the public may be exposed to pollutant levels for periods equal to or exceeding the averaging periods set for these criteria. Locations of relevant exposure include building façades of residential premises, schools, public buildings and medical facilities; places of work (other than certain community facilities) are excluded.


74 February 2014

6.90 Further details of the EU Directive limit values and national air quality strategy objectives are given below and the local air quality criteria that are relevant to the assessment are summarised in Table 6.

Table 6: National and European Air Quality Criteria

Pollutant Criteria

Compliance Date

AQS Objectives

EU Limit Values

NO2 Hourly average concentration should not exceed 200 µg/m3 more than 18 times a year

31 Dec 2005 1 Jan 2010

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 40 µg/m3

31 Dec 2005 1 Jan 2010

PM10 24-hour mean concentration should not exceed 50 µg/m3 more than 35 times a year

31 Dec 2004 1 Jan 2005

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 40 µg/m3

31 Dec 2004

1 Jan 2005

PM2.5

UK (except Scotland): annual mean concentration should not exceed 25 µg/m3

2020 -

EU Stage 1 Limit Value: annual mean concentration should not exceed 25 µg/m3

- 1 Jan 2015

EU Stage 2 Limit Value: annual mean concentration* should not exceed 20 µg/m3

- 1 Jan 2020

Exposure Reduction: UK urban areas: target of 15% reduction in concentrations at urban background

Between 2010 and 2020

-

Exposure Reduction: Target of 20% reduction

- Between 2010 and 2020

CO Maximum daily 8-hour average concentration should not exceed 10,000 µg/m3

31 Dec 2003

1 Jan 2005

Ecological Limit Values

6.91 The EU has set limit values for the protection of vegetation for oxides of nitrogen based on the work of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and World Health Organisation (WHO) and these limit values have been incorporated into The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No. 1001).


February 2014 75

6.92 The limit value for oxides of nitrogen for the protection of vegetation is an annual mean of 30 μg/m3. This is the same as the AQS objective. The limit values for the protection of vegetation apply to locations more than 20 km from towns with more than 250,000 inhabitants or more than five km from other built-up areas, industrial installations or motorways. The statutory nature conservation agencies’ policy is to apply the 30 μg/m3 criterion as a benchmark, on a precautionary basis, in internationally designated conservation sites and SSSIs. Natural England adopts this approach.

6.93 In addition, critical loads for nitrogen deposition have been set by the UNECE that represent (according to current knowledge) the exposure below which there should be no significant harmful effects on sensitive elements of the ecosystem. The critical loads vary by type of ecosystem and habitat.

Dust

6.94 There are no statutory quantitative controls or limits on general dust emissions from construction sites. Dust levels that are substantially elevated above the norm can cause annoyance. This commonly relates to increased rates of dust deposition on exposed surfaces and / or soiling (discolouration / contamination), although less commonly the term may relate to levels that are “prejudicial to health”, including airborne dust.

The Role of Planning in Air Quality Management

6.95 The planning guidance of general relevance for air quality is found within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This states that “Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”

Local Air Quality Review and Assessment

6.96 All local authorities are required by Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to review air quality in their area and to assess present and likely future air quality against objectives set out in the UK Government and devolved administrations’ Air Quality Strategy (AQS)4.

6.97 Where a local authority anticipates that an AQS objective may be breached they must designate an AQMA and develop an action plan to improve pollution levels in order to meet the objectives.

6.98 The proposed development is located within SBC’s administrative area.

4 Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Cmd paper No 7169); Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, July 2007.


76 February 2014

6.99 No AQMAs have been designated by SBC, however the whole of the neighbouring local authority of Stoke on Trent was declared an AQMA in 2011. The boundary of the Stoke on Trent local authority is less than four kilometres to the north of Meaford Business Park.


6.100 The proposed locations of the power station element of the MEC (Northern, Central and Southern options) are within Meaford Business Park, which is currently brownfield land with outline planning permission for warehousing, industrial, offices and business support activities. It is in a semi-rural setting and is anticipated to have good air quality. A drawing in Appendix 2 show local air quality receptors.

Air Quality

6.101 The 2012 Air Quality Progress Report for Stafford Borough Council of April 2012 provides the latest publicly available information on local air quality monitoring in SBC, and the 2013 Air Quality Progress Report for Stoke-on-Trent City Council provides the latest publically available information on local air quality monitoring in the nearby area of Stoke-on-Trent.

6.102 Measurements of pollutant concentrations can be made by deploying analytical instruments that measure continuously and record average concentrations over specified time intervals. Simpler sampling devices, such as diffusion tubes, react with pollutants over a longer time period and are subsequently analysed at a laboratory to given an average concentration for the sampling period.

Continuous Monitoring

6.103 SBC does not operate any automatic monitoring stations. However the neighbouring borough of Stoke on Trent City Council (SoTCC) operates five automatic monitoring stations.

6.104 The nearest continuous monitoring station to Meaford Business Park is located approximately 10 km to the north in Stoke-on-Trent. This is the Clarice Cliff School monitoring site located at an industrial location and has been operating since August 2002 and it is located at grid reference 390353,344314. As the Clarice Cliff monitoring site is classified as an industrial site it only measures PM10.

6.105 There is also a Defra-run AURN automatic monitoring station with the borough of Stoke on Trent, this station is over 10 km to the north of Meaford Business Park and is an Urban Background monitor located at 388358, 347891. The SoTCC report that the annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations measured at the AURN were 35, 31 and 32 µg/m3 for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. These results are below the air quality objective of 40 µg/m3. There were no hourly average nitrogen dioxide concentrations above 200 µg/m3 during that three year period.


February 2014 77

6.106 The AURN site is also equipped with a PM10 monitor. The adjusted annual average PM10 concentrations measured at this site were 22, 22 and 19 µg/m3 for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. These results are well below the air quality objective of 40 µg/m3. There were no measured 24 hour average concentrations exceeding 50 µg/m3 in any of the three years. The adjusted annual average PM10 concentrations measured at Clarice Cliff were 24, 24, and 21 µg/m3 for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. These results are also well below the air quality objective of 40 µg/m3. There were 8, 18 and 16 exceedences of the measured 24 hour average concentrations exceeding 50 µg/m3 in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively, well within the 35 exceedences permitted by the AQS objective for 24 hour PM10.

Nitrogen Dioxide Diffusion Tube Sampling

6.107 SBC operates a network of passive monitoring sites equipped with diffusion tubes to sample nitrogen dioxide. There are two sites that are just north of Stone, in close proximity to Meaford Business Park. In the Stafford Borough Council Updating and Screening Assessment 2012 report the local authority names them Site 5 and Site 16; they are both at kerbside monitoring locations. The local authority reports that the annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations measured at Site 5 were 32, 36 and 32 µg/m3 for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively and at Site 16 were 28, 22 and25 µg/m3. These results are below the air quality objective of 40 µg/m3. Existing concentrations at the Meaford Business Park are likely to be lower as it is in a more rural location, distant from concentrations of traffic, over a kilometre north of Stone town centre.

Background Concentrations

6.108 Estimates of background pollutant concentrations for oxides of nitrogen, nitrogen dioxide, particulates as PM10 and PM2.5 and carbon monoxide are published on the DEFRA website5 for every 1 km grid square in the UK. These data are based on the extrapolation and interpolation of empirical measurements and modelled dispersion of road and industrial sources. In each grid square the background concentrations are made up of contributions from the different source sectors such as roads, and industry within and surrounding that particular cell.

6.109 Average annual mean background concentration estimates for 2014 for the six grid squares that MEC is located within, these are centred at 388500,335500; 389500,335500; 388500,336500; 389500,336500; 388500,337500; and 389500,337500. The average concentrations are shown in Table 7. These values are considered a more appropriate representation of air quality at the site than the SBC kerbside diffusion tube measurements which are affected by vehicular emissions.

5 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html


78 February 2014

Table 7: DEFRA Mapped Annual Mean Background Concentrations for 2014, µg/m3

Year NOx NO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO

2014 15.6 13.0 13.4 9.3 0.135

Carbon monoxide converted from DEFRA 2001 value of 0.313 µg/m3 using factor of 0.432.

6.110 The individual background pollutant concentration estimates for the above six kilometre grid squares are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: DEFRA Mapped Annual Mean Background Concentrations for 2014

Sensitive receptors

Human health

6.111 The closest residential properties to the red line boundary are just off Meaford Road, to the south - Home Farm and Home Farm Cottage as well as Vincent Mews and properties on Admirals View. These properties are within approximately 60 m from the red line boundary, 550 metres from the potential South Site MEC power station location, approximately 1 km from the Central Site and over 1 km from the North Site locations.

6.112 To the north of the red line boundary there are several properties off of Meaford Road and Silver Ridge within 160m. There are also a number of human health receptors (buildings with residents, for example houses, farms or pubs) on Joules Drive and Barton Drive which are approximately 30 m from the south red line boundary, but about 800 m from the South MEC power station location and over 1


February 2014 79

km from the Central and North MEC power station location.

Meteorology

6.113 The joint frequency distribution of wind speeds and directions is a consideration affecting the dispersion of dust during construction operations. Additional meteorological parameters are required for atmospheric dispersion modelling studies. The Meteorological Office station most representative of conditions at the Meaford Business Park, with adequate hourly sequential data for dispersion modelling, is located at Shawbury, situated approximately 37 kilometres to the south west of the MEC power station sites The Shawbury station has been selected in preference to Leek Thorncliffe Meteorological Office station (26 kilometres from the site), which is at an elevation of 299 m, and hence is considered not to be representative, according to our specialist providers of meteorological data.

6.114 Five years of hourly sequential data will be used in the atmospheric dispersion modelling study in the EIA, and the Shawbury meteorological site has good data capture. These data are summarised in the wind rose diagram below in Figure 11.

6.115 There is a primary prevailing wind from the west-south-west and west. There is a secondary prevailing wind from the south. Winds occur more often than the average sector frequency of 6.1% for each of the five sectors from south through to west. These sectors account for almost 50% of all winds.

6.116 Only winds from the east, south-south-east and the north-north-west are of average frequency. The north-west and west-north-west sector winds are relatively infrequent, occurring for approximately two thirds of the average frequency, as is the case for winds from the south-east and east-south-east sectors.

6.117 Winds from the north-east and north-north-east sectors are particularly uncommon, occurring for approximately a third of the average frequency. East-north-easterly winds are also relatively infrequent. The four sectors from north through to east only generate 13% of all winds.


80 February 2014

Figure 11: Windrose Diagram for Shawbury 2008 to 2012

Potential effects

6.118 The potential effects of the proposed development on local air quality can be broadly grouped into categories relating to construction and operation:

• emissions associated with construction of the proposed development (including dust and transport emissions);

• stack discharges from the CCGT power station element of the MEC when operational, and associated traffic emissions.

Construction

6.119 At this stage a detailed schedule of works and construction programme is not available. The proposed development is, however, likely to have a construction programme of approximately three to four years, including a site establishment stage of about six to twelve months. The main foundation construction would take approximately twelve months to complete.


February 2014 81

6.120 Effects on air quality relating to potential dust emissions during construction of the MEC and any associated development are likely to be adequately mitigated through the use of best practicable means and should not present a constraint to the development proposals. The rationale for this is set out below.

Dust

6.121 In general, there is the potential for sensitive receptor properties to be temporarily affected by dust-raising activities during the construction phase. In the event of inadequate control measures, dust deposition is most likely to be apparent at properties within 100 m of working areas than those further from the activities.

6.122 In addition, properties near roads which would be used by construction vehicles theoretically could be affected due to track out of dust on wheels. However, with effective site management procedures, which would be set out in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), this is likely to be limited to the area of road immediately adjacent to the site access gates, and hence in practice the residential properties identified above would remain unaffected. This will be confirmed at EIA stage once construction routes are defined.

Transport

6.123 Exhaust emissions from construction vehicles have the potential to affect local air quality at properties close to haul routes. From an air quality perspective, sensitive receptors include residential properties and locations where there are likely to be vulnerable occupants such as hospitals, nursing homes and schools.

6.124 Details of construction routes, traffic numbers and types, and the construction workforce, are not available at this stage. It is currently proposed that all abnormal loads and HGVs will be routed to the south of the Meaford Business Park from the A34. A traffic management plan for the proposed power station will be implemented during the construction period..

6.125 Given the level nature of the site, it is not expected that significant amounts of material will need to be exported off-site.

6.126 Receptors could potentially be affected by any local traffic diversions during the construction phase, if required. This will be confirmed once construction routes and vehicle flows are known.

Operation

Stack emissions

6.127 A CCGT power station of nominally up to 299 MWe capacity is expected to have a configuration of two separate gas turbines and a single steam turbine each with an associated electrical generator. The precise configuration of the MEC is yet to be confirmed, but a realistic 'worst case' scenario in terms of the power station element of the MEC will be assessed in the Environmental Statement.


82 February 2014

6.128 Stack emissions from the proposed power station element of the MEC have the potential to affect receptors considered sensitive in terms of human health, as well as designated ecological sites, certain of which may contain vegetation with the potential to be adversely affected by air pollution.

6.129 The air pollutant of primary relevance in the context of this assessment is NO2, formed from the oxides of nitrogen discharged from the gas turbines. The gas turbines will also emit minor amounts of CO, which are invariably of insignificant environmental effect. These stack emissions will be the subject of a detailed dispersion modelling study presented in the ES.

6.130 As natural gas contains only trace amounts of sulphur, SO2 emissions will be negligible (approximately 1 ppm in the flue gas) and need not be assessed further.

6.131 The facility will be designed to operate constantly. Emissions to the atmosphere are expected to be from two main stacks, each associated with one gas turbine, subject to technical and environmental studies. The stack discharge height is proposed to be up to 50 m above ground level, but this will be confirmed following detailed dispersion modelling. As previously mentioned, it may be that this configuration changes prior to submission of the DCO, but the potential options will be fully assessed in the Environmental Statement.

Transport

6.132 Vehicular traffic movements associated with the development during operation will arise from staff journeys to work, routine deliveries and maintenance requirements. Post commissioning, the number of road vehicle movements is expected to be much lower than that during construction, and the operational site may generate 50 to 100 return trips daily. These movements are likely to be of negligible effect on air quality and are likely to be below the criteria for affected roads as warranting an air quality assessment (see section 6.138 below).


Baseline

6.133 At ES stage, the baseline conditions described above will be reviewed and updated if necessary, where further information such as more recent pollutant concentration data is made available.


February 2014 83

Construction

Dust

6.134 A qualitative assessment of the potential effects of construction dust will be undertaken, with reference to the Institute of Air Quality Management’s Guidance6 on the assessment of the effects of construction on air quality. This document provides an assessment methodology and a means of interpreting significance. The Institute of Air Quality Management also have mitigation measure guidance that provides details of how to mitigate dust and air emissions7. Reference may also be made to the Greater London Authority and the London Councils Best Practice Guidance report8, which describes appropriate mitigation methods, which are also applicable outside of London.

6.135 The assessment will identify residential and other sensitive receptor locations that could be at risk of being affected by dust. It will consider the types of activities to be carried out and their duration, with specific reference to distance to receptors and direction from the source, in the context of prevailing meteorological conditions and baseline concentrations.

6.136 Properties within 100m of the red line boundary may be affected by dust during construction. Storage, layout areas and access roads within the redline site boundary will need to be assessed when specific information is available at EIA stage, as depending upon where such facilities are located, there may be potential effects due to dust beyond the redline site boundary.

6.137 The detailed routes of the proposed gas and grid connections elements and the associated construction activities will be reviewed at EIA stage, to identify any sensitive properties that may be subject to transient effects due to their proximity to these works. Additional mitigation measures specific to these works will be recommended where appropriate.

Traffic

6.138 Additional construction traffic movements as well as any notable alterations to existing traffic flows that may cause an effect on air quality will be evaluated at ES stage. EPUK guidance9 provides criteria for identifying whether an assessment of the effect of a road scheme on air quality is required. The criteria relevant to construction works are:

6 Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance, Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM), January 2012 7 http://iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/iaqm_mitigation_measures_2012.pdf 8 The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition: Best Practice Guidance, Greater London Authority and the London Councils, 2006 9 Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update), April 2010

http://iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/iaqm_mitigation_measures_2012.pdf


84 February 2014

• a change in annual average daily traffic (AADT) or peak traffic flows of greater than ±5% or ±10%;

• a change in vehicle speed (typically of more than ±10 kph), or both, usually on a road with more than 10,000 AADT (5,000 if ‘narrow and congested’);

• a change in heavy duty vehicle (HDV) flows of 200 per day or more.

6.139 If one or more of these criteria are exceeded a simple quantitative assessment of the effect on local air quality of construction traffic will be undertaken using the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) air quality screening tool. The assessment, if required, will comprise a review of background local air pollutant concentrations, identification of affected roads and sensitive receptors (residential properties, schools, nursing homes, ecological receptors) within 200 metres of affected roads, assessment of changes in traffic flow and speed as a result of the construction traffic, and estimates of the resulting change in pollutant concentrations at receptor locations due to vehicle emissions.

Operation

Stack emissions

6.140 A detailed dispersion modelling study of the gas turbine emissions will be undertaken using the US EPA regulatory model AERMOD. The ES will consider the main combustion products, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide, for the main stack discharges to atmosphere. Hourly sequential meteorological data from the nearest suitable meteorological station for a five year period will be used in the model. The modelling grid will be designed such that the maximum area of ground level concentrations and concentrations at sensitive receptors, including ecological sites, will be adequately covered for both short-term and long-term averaging periods.

6.141 A stack height determination has previously been carried out based on available information for candidate technology, using the HMIP D1 guidance10. A conservative discharge height of 40 to 50 m was recommended.

6.142 At ES stage, the stack height for the chosen technology will be confirmed by means of a detailed modelling study. The study will consider a single scenario for the normal operational load conditions, assuming continuous operation throughout the year.

6.143 The modelling will take account of the main plant structures, such as the turbine hall and heat recovery steam generator, and any local terrain features.

6.144 The dispersion model results will be tabulated and results will be presented as contour plots for the entire modelled domain, overlain on a suitable base map. The maximum modelled concentrations at residential properties and other

10 HMIP Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1: Guidelines on Discharge Stack Heights for Polluting Emissions; 1993; Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution; ISBN 0-11-752794-7


February 2014 85

potentially sensitive receptors will evaluated in terms of existing concentrations and the relevant air quality criteria.

6.145 The effects of the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and CO emissions from the MEC on human health will be assessed.

6.146 The Environment Agency guidance for environmental permit applications11 requires an air quality assessment to address designated ecological sites. The EA recommends that conservation sites need only be considered where they fall within set distances of the activity:

• Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Ramsar sites within ten kilometres of the installation;

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and ancient woodland, as well as non-statutory local wildlife sites (LWS) within two kilometres of the location of the installation.

6.147 This approach will be adopted in the EIA to allow an evaluation against critical levels specified for oxides of nitrogen and with regard to nitrogen deposition critical loads. Following the identification of a specific MEC power station site within the Meaford Business Park, conservation sites within the abovementioned distances from the site will be identified and potential affects assessed. Due to their non-statutory status, LWS will, however, only be addressed in the permit application.

6.148 Consideration of cumulative impacts will be undertaken with reference to existing industrial emissions, which will be accounted for in the background concentrations used. Other proposed and committed developments (including the potential redevelopment of the Meaford Business Park) will be considered through the interpretation of the relevant air dispersion modelling studies and/or transport assessments where these are available. If suitable studies are not available, a qualitative evaluation will be undertaken.

Traffic

6.149 Additional vehicle movements arising from staff journeys and routine deliveries are likely to be below the DMRB criteria for affected roads as warranting a quantitative air quality assessment. This will be confirmed at EIA stage.

Demolition

6.150 There is a potential for dust emissions from sites where demolition is taking place. Following the operational life of the MEC, anticipated to be approximately 35 years, site decommissioning will involve demolition of site structures and removal of the slab foundations to depth of 2 m. There will also be works compounds on the site, likely to incorporate stockpiles of recovered materials and the use of

11 H1 Environmental Risk Assessment Annex (f), Environment Agency, December 2011


86 February 2014

mobile plant including concrete crushers. Materials handling and transportation for disposal off-site may generate dust, particularly from un-surfaced haul routes within the site.

6.151 The approach to dust assessment as described for the construction stage is also applicable to demolition operations.

Significance Criteria

6.152 For dust emissions, the IAQM dust guidance will be referenced. Significance is assessed taking account of the factors that define the sensitivity of the surrounding area and the overall pattern of potential risks set out within the risk effects summary table (Table 5 of the guidance). The guidance acknowledges that, as appropriate site-specific mitigation measures will have been defined, the residual impact will, for most sites, be negligible.

Figure 12: Extract from IAQM Dust Guidance

6.153 For traffic emissions, the affected road network will be defined in accordance with the EPUK criteria. The local air quality assessment (if required) will compare results with the relevant AQS objectives and EU Limit Values.

6.154 The results of the air dispersion modelling study for stack emissions will also be evaluated in line with AQS objectives and EU Limit Values for human health, as well as - where appropriate - Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) contained within Environment Agency H1 horizontal guidance for permitting. The modelled annual average oxides of nitrogen concentrations will be evaluated in the context of critical levels and nitrogen and acid deposition rates will be compared with critical loads for the relevant habitat types.

6.155 For both traffic and stack emissions, significance will be interpreted with reference to EPUK’s 2010 guidance for development control. This interpretation is made on the basis of existing pollution levels, the magnitude of change and extent of any exceedance of air quality criteria.


February 2014 87


Construction

Dust

6.156 Construction dust will be controlled in accordance with good practice and the Best Available Techniques, and mitigation measures will be incorporated into a CEMP. Such measures might include but not necessarily be limited to:

• regular water-spraying and sweeping of unpaved and paved roads to minimise dust and remove mud and debris;

• using wheel washes, shaker bars or rotating bristles for vehicles leaving the site where appropriate to minimise the amount of mud and debris deposited on the roads;

• sheeting vehicles carrying dusty materials to prevent materials being blown from the vehicles whilst travelling;

• enforcing speed limits for vehicles on unmade surfaces to minimise dust entrainment and dispersion;

• Non-Road Mobile Machinery to be compliant with the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants) Regulations 1999;

• ensuring any temporary site roads are no wider than necessary to minimise surface area;

• dampening down of surfaces prior to their being worked;

• storing dusty materials away from site boundaries and in appropriate containment (e.g. sheeting, sacks, barrels etc);

• limiting stock pile heights and dampen down in dry weather; and

• limiting material drop heights during bulk transfers.

6.157 If appropriate, following the full assessment, additional mitigation measures will be proposed.

6.158 Where mitigation measures rely on water, it is expected that only sufficient water will be applied to damp down material. There should not be any excess to potentially contaminate local water courses; rainwater harvesting will be considered.

Traffic

6.159 The Transport Assessment for the proposed development will consider site accessibility by public transport and other sustainable modes of transport. Proposals for traffic management plans for both construction HGV traffic and construction workers traffic will be discussed with SCC. It is proposed that all abnormal loads and HGVs will be routed to avoid villages, where possible.


88 February 2014

Operation

Stack emissions

6.160 Mitigation will be inherent in the design of the power station element of the MEC with regard to controlling direct emissions to atmosphere. For instance, a maximum stack height determination has already been undertaken, and final height will be confirmed by detailed modelling, to ensure adequate dispersion of pollutants.

6.161 Emissions of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide from gas fired CCGT power stations are the lowest for any thermal generating plant. The facility emissions will meet the emission concentration limits set out in the European Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) of 50 mg/Nm3 for oxides of nitrogen and 100 mg/Nm3 for carbon monoxide.

6.162 The MEC will require an Environmental Permit to operate and as a consequence will be required to demonstrate BAT as described in the Environment Agency’s Environmental Permit Regulations guidance12. This guidance advises that the use of dry low NOx burners in new natural gas-fired gas turbines represents Best Available Technique (BAT). The Environment Agency quotes an emission benchmark for oxides of nitrogen of 20 to 50 mg/Nm3 at reference conditions of 101.3 kPa, 273 K and 15% oxygen (dry basis).


February 2014 89

Noise and vibration

Introduction

6.163 The proposed development has the potential to give rise to noise and vibration impacts during the construction and operation of the facility and also due to traffic, especially heavy vehicles, accessing the site via the local road network. This scoping report provides an initial review of potential construction and operational noise and vibration impacts to identify likely significant effects that will need to be assessed in detail.

Study area

6.164 For operation of the MEC, this scoping report considers three locations on Meaford Business Park for the MEC generation station, North Site, Central Site and South Site as illustrated on Figure 4. For construction the red line boundary area as a whole is used but may be changed to take into account options for various elements of the MEC being confirmed.

6.165 A number of noise-sensitive receivers have been identified within a study area of 1km of the site, which could potentially be affected by noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the development. The study area and the estimated number of properties are summarised in Table 8 and shown on a drawing in Appendix 2. The table also shows the distance between the nearest receptors and each of the proposed sites as well as the distance of properties from the red line boundary.

Table 8: Nearest Noise Sensitive Receivers

Receiver Number of properties

Direction Distance From Red Line Boundary

Silver Ridge 20 North 240 m

Meaford Road 4 North 160 m

Ford Farm, Wash Dale Lane 1 East 750 m

Meaford Farm, Wash Dale Lane 1 East 415m

Ivy Cottage , Wash Dale Lane 1 East 520 m

Keepers Cottage, Wash Dale Lane 1 East 350 m

Pool Cottage, Wash Dale Lane 1 East 110 m

Meaford Old Hall Farm 1 South 190 m

Joules Drive 16 South 30 m


90 February 2014

Receiver Number of properties

Direction Distance From Red Line Boundary

Barton Drive 20 South 35 m

Cressy Close 13 South 50 m

Meaford Road (south) 10 South 60 m

Home Farm, Meaford Road 1 South 70 m

Meaford Hall, Meaford Road 1 South 40 m

A34 (south) 11 West 300 m

Vincent Mews, Meaford Road 8 South 40m

Admirals View, Meaford Road 16 South 50m

A34 (north) 10 West 410 m

Warren House Farm 1 West 410 m


6.166 A desk based analysis of the likely noise sources in the area has been carried out using Ordinance Survey maps. The main sources of environmental noise identified are road traffic noise (RTN) from the A34, approximately 350 m to the west of the site, and the West Coast Main Line approximately 10 m to the east of the redline site boundary. To the west and north of the site also lie electrical substations that may add to the ambient noise in the area.

6.167 Meaford Road to the west, and Washdale Road feed into the A34 south of the site, these roads appear to be minor through roads.

6.168 Based on previous experience on similar types of setting, it would be expected that the ambient noise in the study area would be consistent with that found in relatively quiet areas.

Potential effects

6.169 There is a potential for significant noise impacts in the short term due to construction works, in particular from piling activities, and site traffic.

6.170 In the long term there may be significant noise impacts due to the general operation of the MEC, which will be in potential continuous operation.


February 2014 91

6.171 All properties are at least 500 m from proposed MEC generation station locations within the site. The resulting noise levels from the operation of the facility at these distances are expected to be relatively low. However the impacts would depend on the ambient and background noise levels in the area, which themselves are expected to be relatively low.

6.172 Adverse vibration impacts would not be expected at distances beyond around 50 m even from the highest vibration inducing construction activities. As the nearest residential building is 30 m from the boundary of the site, and likely to be even further from any piling works carried out within the site boundary at the MEC site, it is not expected that vibration will be an issue at any of the identified sensitive receptors.


6.173 A number of baseline noise measurement surveys will be undertaken in the study area to determine the existing conditions. The results of these will be used to identify impacts during both the construction and operational phases of the development. The proposed baseline survey methodology will be discussed with SBC.

6.174 The assessment methodology will be agreed in consultations with SBC. The following gives an outline of the likely approach to the identification of noise and vibration impacts.

Construction

6.175 BS5228 Part 1 provides guidance on the prediction and assessment of construction noise as it affects those exposed to it. Calculation procedures are set out in Annex F for predicting the likely noise levels from specific construction activities at a point of interest; taking into account distance, ground absorption, screening, reflections and the percentage on-time for an activity. Annexes C and D provide generic noise data for various items of plant which can be used for undertaking predictions where no specific information is available.

6.176 In Annex E, BS 5228 sets out the need for a pragmatic approach to be taken when assessing the noise effects of a construction project. It goes on to describe methods for identifying the likely significance of noise levels from construction activity based on a combination of fixed noise thresholds and noise change criteria.

6.177 Example Method 1 provides useful guidance on the significance of noise effects and examples of noise limits for construction noise based on the pre-existing noise climate (i.e. the pre-construction baseline). Day, evening and night-time periods are defined, with limits provided as shown in Table 9.


92 February 2014

Table 9: BS5228 Recommended Construction Noise Limits ('ABC Method)

Assessment Category and threshold value period

Threshold Value, in decibels (LAeqT) (dB)

Category A (A) Category B (B) Category C (C)

Night-time (23.00−07.00)

45 50 55

Evenings and weekends (D)

55 60 65

Daytime (07.00−19.00) and Saturdays (07.00−13.00)

65 70 75

NOTE 1: A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level, including construction, exceeds the threshold level for the Category appropriate to the ambient noise level.

NOTE 2: If the ambient noise level exceeds the threshold values given in the table (i.e. the ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a significant effect is deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to construction activity.

NOTE 3: Applied to residential receptors only.

(A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than these values.

(B) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as category A values.

(C) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than category A values.

(D) 19.00–23.00 weekdays, 13.00–23.00 Saturdays and 07.00–23.00 Sundays.

Operation

6.178 The potential for noise complaints would be assessed in accordance with BS 4142, which requires a comparison between the predicted noise level resulting from the operation of the proposed development and the existing baseline background noise LA90 at the noise sensitive receptors. The predicted ‘specific’ noise level, an equivalent continuous noise level measured in LAeq(dB), will be used to calculate a rating level, LAr,T, that takes into account the character of the noise sources and a reference time period for daytime and at night. Complaints about noise are unlikely if the noise from the equipment is more than 10 dB below the background


February 2014 93

levels, and it is of marginal significance if the noise levels are 5 dB above background.

6.179 The proposed MEC may operate for 24 hours each day, so a night-time and weekend BS 4142 assessment will be required as this will be the most noise sensitive time period at residential locations. The rating level will be determined by taking measurements at a similar facility to obtain indicative noise levels or undertaking calculations based on the site layout and sound power levels for the equipment and processes that will be used.

6.180 An acceptable operating noise limit and difference between the rating level in BS 4142 and the LA90 will be agreed in consultation with SBC.

6.181 An initial screening study to assess the impact on the local road network will be conducted using the methodology and guidance in the DMRB. Traffic data, including flows, speeds and percentage of heavy vehicles using each road, will be required to model this. A sensitive receptor study will be completed if changes in road traffic noise greater than 1 dB(A) are predicted. The causes of significant changes in noise level will be identified and noise mitigation suggested where appropriate. Given the anticipated staffing levels of 30 full time staff and a resulting estimate of 50 to 100 light vehicle trips a day, noise effects from operational traffic are not considered to result in significant environmental effects, and will not therefore be assessed further.

Demolition

6.182 Demolition and decommissioning would include activities which typically generate high noise levels, particularly the breaking-out, excavation and crushing of concrete. Therefore, at the time the works are expected a noise assessment would be required to establish the potential impact on receptors which would be near the site at the time.


6.183 Where the assessment indicates there may be significant noise impacts at particular locations during the construction or operational phase, design changes and mitigation measures would be examined. This could include general site layout, traffic routes to and from site, and the choice of plant and equipment to be installed at the MEC, and to be used to construct the proposed development.

6.184 For minimising construction impacts, it may be necessary to employ a combination of quieter plant and equipment in conjunction with good working practices such as careful selection of working hours and activity durations. In addition, temporary noise barriers, and enclosures may need to be considered around some of the fixed plant/activities.

6.185 The design and positioning of the operational plant processes should take into account the need to minimise noise emissions. This is likely to include the use of silencers on fan and vent inlets and outlets, localised enclosures and reduction of


94 February 2014

noise breakout from buildings housing noisy processes by selection of appropriate building materials for the facades and roof together with noise attenuated ventilation inlets/outlets. Furthermore, noisy activities, particularly if they are partially enclosed or not enclosed permanently, should be sited away from noise sensitive receptors.

6.186 The connections and mechanical couplings between different items of machinery or processes (e.g. between the generator and the gas or steam turbine) should be treated to avoid noise generated by vibrating equipment.


February 2014 95

Landscape and visual effects

Introduction

6.187 This section outlines the key matters relating to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and the potential effects to the existing landscape and visual amenity. Landscape and visual impact are related studies, but are assessed separately.

• Landscape assessment is the potential for effects to the landscape as a resource, including elements such as existing vegetation and landform. The landscape assessment also refers to published landscape character assessments and landscape designations as means to set the study area and the proposed proposed development within a national and regional landscape context; and

• Visual assessment addresses the potential effects to existing views from receptors within the study area, through the establishment of a Theoretical Zone of Visual Influence (TZVI). This is the extent to which existing views of the proposed development might experience change. It is possible that views of the proposed development will extend beyond the TZVI, but not in an influential way. The term visual receptors includes for residences, recreational and transport users.

6.188 Initial consultation has begun with SCC Principal Landscape Officer, Julia Banbury, (22nd January 2014) regarding the proposed scheme and the intended LVIA assessment methodology. At this stage SCC has commented that:

• the LVIA should refer fully to the Natural England National Character Area descriptions relevant to the area and local Landscape Character Assessment work undertaken by SCC;

• as the site is within an area with landscape policy objectives of landscape restoration , the emphasis should therefore be on provision of new features that might re-create similar character and enclosure to the identified landscape character types;

• no detailed comments on the broad visual receptors mentioned at this stage; and

• for a development of this scale it would be appropriate to produce a number of photomontages to illustrate the proposals.

6.189 A record of the on-going consultation with SCC will be documented within the LVIA. This section should be read in conjunction with the LVIA plans within Appendix 2.


96 February 2014

Study area

6.190 A study area of 2.5km surrounding the site has been identified for the LVIA. This has been established following a broad desk study of existing information relating to the landform, vegetation, settlement patterns and initial site visits to undertake inter-visibility studies and gain an understanding of the landscape elements.

6.191 The study area extends to Tittensor Hill in the north, including Barlaston Park; Oulton and the A520 Longton Road to the east; Stone to the south and Sandyford and the M6, including Tittensor Chase to the west.

6.192 The study area and TZVI are illustrated in Appendix 2.


6.193 A review of the following existing information has been undertaken to inform the establishment of the study area, TZVI and the assessment methodology:

• OS Explorer Map no.258 Stoke-on-Trent & Newcastle-under-Lyme;

• aerial photography;

• Public Rights of Way (PRoW) information, Staffordshire County Council. (http://localview.staffordshire.gov.uk/lvenvironment/, accessed January 2014);

• NCA 61: Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain and NCA Profile: 64 Potteries and Churnet Valley (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/default.aspx, accessed January 2014);

• 'Planning for Landscape Change' (PLC), Supplementary Planning Guidance, (Staffordshire County Council, http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Resources/Documents/s/st/StaffordshireSPGVolume3.pdf, accessed January 2014). This classifies the site as within the ‘coalfield farmlands’ and ‘sandstone hills and heaths’ landscape character type.

• The Historic Landscape Characterisation Assessment (HLCA), Staffordshire County Council, (http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/live/welcome.asp?id=6270, accessed January 2014). This classifies the site as within an ‘industrial and extractive’, ‘18th and 19th century planned field systems’ and ‘other early woodlands’ landscape character types.

• Field work, January 2014, to undertake inter-visibility studies between the site and the surrounding area, as well as to gain an understanding of the existing landscape character.

6.194 In addition to the above, a broad review has been undertaken of the landscape, development and environmental assessment policies within the Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001 (http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/stafford-borough-local-plan-2001, accessed January 2014).

http://localview.staffordshire.gov.uk/lvenvironment/

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/default.aspx

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Resources/Documents/s/st/StaffordshireSPGV

http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/live/welcome.asp?id=6270

http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/stafford-borough-local-plan-2001


February 2014 97

6.195 The site is designated within Green Belt, which is not a landscape conservation designation, and there are several Conservation Areas in the vicinity, including the Trent & Mersey Canal Conservation Area which crosses the site


6.196 The following section outlines the existing landscape and visual resource within the study area.

Landscape

6.197 The proposed development will be located within the Meaford Business Park, approximately 1km north of Stone, Staffordshire. The current redline site boundary extends beyond the MBP boundaries to include the Meaford Road and a portion of open fields to the south and north. The northern section of the site is crossed by the Trent and Mersey Canal and the Stafford to Manchester branch of the West Coast Main Railway Line. The power station element of the MEC will be located within the business park which is within the current redline site boundary, which will be refined as part of the EIA process following confirmation of the location of various elements of the MEC.

6.198 The landform across the business park is generally flat, at around 90 m AOD, although past excavations and stockpiling has resulted in localised undulating terrain. Within the northern section of the site, beyond the railway, the landform rises to 125m AOD and is characterised by open fields. Overall the area is in a low lying position within the wider landscape bordered by rising landform to the west at Tittensor Chase, at around 160 m AOD and to a similar height at Downs Bank to the east.

6.199 Due to the past usage of the business park as coal fired power stations, this section of the site is characterised by areas of hard standing, a number of single storey buildings which are in a poor condition, pylons, overhead power lines and an electrical sub-station. The pylons within the business park are approximately 30 m in height. Overall the business park has a derelict character, exhibited by areas of debris and rubble which contrast with the open fields to the north and south.

6.200 The main vegetation patterns within the site are hedgerows along the Meaford Road and lanes, the woodland blocks within the business park, which are predominantly birch and conifer species and small areas of vegetation adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal. The River Trent meanders narrowly to the west of the site and is fed by many small streams within the study area.

6.201 The land use within the study area is predominantly agricultural, characterised by open fields with livestock or paddocks, interspersed by woodland blocks and individual farms. The main settlement area is Stone, comprising residential and industrial areas and at a smaller scale Barlaston, Meaford and Tittensor. These settlement areas are linked by the A34 which along with the M6 forms the main road corridors. There are many country lanes which link to the A34.


98 February 2014

Visual

6.202 The inter-visibility studies undertaken in January 2014 have initially established that while the site is in a low-lying position, the boundary vegetation within the business park and the rising landform to the east and west of the site reduce the extents of the TZVI. The key visual receptors at this stage, with reference to Appendix 2, are identified in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Visual Receptors

Group No

Receptors General direction of view towards the site

Approximate distance from the site (km)

1 Residences in Meaford (east of the A34) North-east 0.3

2 Recreational users of PRoWs (bridleways) Stone Rural 38 and Stone Rural 39

North-east crosses through the site

3 Residences in Stone North 0.2

4 Residences at Meaford Hall East 0.1

5 Vehicle users and residences on the Meaford Road

East crosses through the site

6 Meaford Old Hall Farm North 0.2

7 Residences along Washdale Lane North-west 0.3 to 0.5

8 Meaford Farm West 0.5

9 Recreational users of PRoWs (bridleways Stone Rural 46 and 47 and Barlaston 3)

West 0.8

10 Residences in Barlaston South 0.3 to 1

11 Residences in Tittensor South-east 1.5

12 Residences along the A34 East 0.3

13 Residences in Meaford adjacent the A34 East 0.5

14 Recreational users of PRoW (Bridleway) Barlaston 1

South 0.5

15 Recreational users of PRoW (Bridleway) Barlaston 32 and Barlaston Golf Course

South 0.2

16 Recreational users of PRoW (bridleway) Stone Rural 36)

East 1

17 Vehicular users of along the A34 East 0.4

18 Users of the Western mainline railway West crosses through the site


February 2014 99

Group No

Receptors General direction of view towards the site

Approximate distance from the site (km)

19 Recreational users of the Trent and Mersey Canal

West crosses through the site

20 Employment users within MBP South within the site

Potential effects

6.203 While the redline site boundary has been used to inform the baseline descriptions, there are currently three locations within the business park being considered for the power station element of the MEC, as follows:

• North Site – in an area of existing buildings in the north of the business park;

• Central Site – in an area of hardstanding and earth stockpiling in the central section of the business park; and

• South Site – in an area of hardstanding in proximity to the existing electrical sub-station at the south of the business park.

6.204 During the construction phase the potential for significant effects for any of the three site options are likely to arise from:

• excavation, site clearance of vegetation and localised re-profiling within the site;

• temporary site compounds, construction machinery including cranes and material storage; and

• general construction activity.

6.205 During the operational phase the potential for significant effects for any of the three site options are likely to arise from:

• the introduction of new built form within the site, with buildings up to 40 m in height;

• a chimney stack or stacks between 40 m to 50 m in height;

• localised above ground gas connections and possible overhead power lines; and

• new associated infrastructure, including possible highway improvements.

6.206 With regards to landscape character, the north and south site locations have the potential to affect a greater extent of the existing vegetation than the central site. However this could be mitigated by off-setting the development boundaries to sufficiently retain the vegetation or implementing new planting. The north site location is characterised by existing built form, compared to the central and south sites. Locating the power station element of the MEC at the south site, adjacent to the existing electrical sub-station would concentrate the massing and location of


100 February 2014

these associated facilities.

6.207 With regards to the visual amenity, the existing boundary vegetation and landform is also likely to screen the majority of the lower sections of the proposed built form from central and south locations, more so than the north site due to its proximity to the current red line site boundary.

6.208 The visual baseline has identified a greater concentration of visual receptors to the south of the project red line boundary at close range. The central and north sites would slightly distance the proposals from these receptors. However, the presence of existing pylons to the south of the site and A34 infrastructure would locate the power station within the character of these existing views, albeit at a greater scale. The north site location also has the potential to enable views of the proposals to extend for a greater distance across the study area due to the changes in landform to the north of the current red line boundary. Overall, the upper sections of the built form are likely to be visible at whichever location is chosen, due to the scale of the proposals.


6.209 The assessment methodology for this LVIA will be based on the following industry accepted guidance:

• The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, (GLVIA), 3rd Edition, The Landscape and Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013; and

• Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, the Countryside Agency (now Natural England) and Scottish Natural Heritage, Land Use Consultants, 2002.

6.210 Both the landscape and visual assessment will be undertaken for the following periods:

• construction in winter;

• year 1 of operation for winter and summer; and

• year 15 following completion in summer.

6.211 Assessment will give consideration to other consented schemes in the local area, including the Meaford Business Park.

Landscape Assessment

6.212 The assessment will include a review of the relevant existing published landscape information and field work to establish the existing landscape character types relevant to the study area. This will include the information outlined within this scoping report section.

6.213 The landscape assessment will decide upon the ‘sensitivity’ to the established landscape character types or areas, based on their condition and value. A


February 2014 101

‘magnitude of change’ will also be considered in relation to the size, scale and extent of proposed scheme within the site and the study area. The decisions on sensitivity and magnitude of change will be combined to establish the potential effects and whether these are considered significant; this will be done on a basis of professional judgement, informed by the criteria set out at Table 11.

Table 11: Criteria for landscape sensitivity

Landscape sensitivity

Criteria

High Susceptibility to change is limited due to the landscape being characterised by components which are rare or not easy to replace and maintained in a good condition. Value as a designated conservation area, registered park and garden or valued at a national, regional or borough scale. High level of tranquillity.

Medium Fairly susceptible to change as the landscape is characterised by components which are replaceable and maintained in a fair condition. Value as a designated conservation area, registered park and garden or valued at a national, regional or borough scale. Medium level of tranquillity.

Low The landscape is susceptible to change as components are easily replaceable, of limited value or in poor condition. Low level of tranquillity.

Table 12: Criteria for landscape magnitude of change

Landscape magnitude

Criteria

High The size and scale of the proposals would result in a total loss or alteration to the landscape elements and a marked change to the tranquillity. The scheme would be alter the landscape character of an area.

Medium The size and scale of the proposals would result in a partial loss or alteration to the landscape elements and a noticeable change to the tranquillity. The scheme would be largely characteristic of the character area, although prominent.

Low The size and scale of the proposals would result in a minor loss or alteration to the landscape elements and a discernible change to the tranquillity. The scheme would be largely characteristic of the character area and inconspicuous.

Negligible The size and scale of the proposals would result in a very minor loss or alteration to the landscape elements and no perceptible change to the


102 February 2014

Landscape magnitude

Criteria

tranquillity. The scheme would be characteristic of the character area and not influential.

Table 13: Criteria for the potential landscape effects

Landscape effects Criteria

Major adverse (significant)

The scheme would considerably alter the existing landscape character and be judged adverse at the national, regional and borough scale.

Moderate adverse(significant)

The scheme would be at variance to existing landscape character and be judged adverse at the local scale.

Minor adverse (non significant)

The scheme would be at slight variance to existing landscape character.

Negligible (non significant)

The scheme would be compatible with the existing landscape character.

Minor beneficial The scheme would slightly improve the existing landscape character.

Moderate beneficial (significant)

The scheme would markedly improve the existing landscape character and partially restore valued characteristics.

Major beneficial (significant)

The scheme would considerably improve the existing landscape character and restore valued characteristics.

Visual Assessment

6.214 Additional site work will further define the TZVI and the number of visual receptors, either as individual or grouped categories. As per the landscape assessment, each receptor shall have a ‘sensitivity’ and ‘magnitude of change’ established to enable the judgement of the potential effects.

Table 14: Criteria for visual sensitivity

Visual sensitivity

Criteria

High Residences, recreational users and protected or designated views.

Medium Road and rail users.

Low Employment or sport users.


February 2014 103

Table 15: Visual magnitude of change

Visual magnitude

Criteria

High Total loss or alteration to the character of the view as a result of the scheme being highly visible and uncharacteristic of the existing view. The scheme may be directly within the field of view and at close range, being a dominant component of the view.

Medium Partial loss or alteration to the character of the view as a result of the scheme being highly visible but characteristic of the existing view, or partially filtered by existing elements. The scheme would represent a component of the wider view.

Low Minor loss or alteration to the character of the view, whereby the scheme is largely characteristic of the existing view or largely filtered by existing elements or viewed obliquely. The scheme would represent a minor component of the wider view.

Negligible Very minor loss to the existing view, with the scheme being a very minor component of the wider view or almost entirely screened by intervening elements.

Table 16: Potential visual effects

Visual effects Criteria

Major adverse (significant)

The scheme would be a marked deterioration to the existing view.

Moderate adverse(significant)

The scheme would be a noticeable deterioration to the existing views.

Minor adverse (non significant)

The scheme would be a discernible deterioration to the existing views.

Negligible (non significant)

The scheme would neither improve nor deteriorate the existing view.

Minor beneficial The scheme would represent a discernible improvement to the existing view.

Moderate beneficial (significant)

The scheme would represent a noticeable improvement in the existing view.

Major beneficial (significant)

The scheme would represent a marked improvement in the existing view.


104 February 2014

6.215 In response to SCC comments a number of photomontages will be undertaken. The location of these are still being discussed with SCC, but at this stage and with reference to Appendix 2, are:

• a photomontage from Meaford, (receptor group 12 or 13) to the south of the application site, looking north;

• a photomontage from PRoW no (receptor group 9), to the east of the application site, looking west;

• a photomontage from Barlaston, (receptor group 10) to the north of the application site, looking south; and

• A photomontage from the junction of Vincent Mews with Meaford Road to the south of the application site, looking north.


6.216 As part of the iterative design process, the LVIA will aim to inform decisions relating to design, layout, siting, massing, scale, colour tones and finishes of the proposed scheme to reduce and minimise the potential for effects.

6.217 Aspects of particular importance will be aiming to retain the existing boundary vegetation to the Meaford Business Park and within the fields. Localising the mass of the built form within the site and in response to the wider settlement patterns will also be important to aid in integrating the proposed scheme within the landform.

6.218 It is likely that operation requirements of the MEC will dictate certain aspects relating to layout and the scale of the built form. This will result in mitigation focusing on reducing the potential effects as is deemed reasonably practicable.


February 2014 105

Ecology

6.219 The following section and accompanying Phase 1 Habitat plan (Appendix 3) outline the findings of a desk study and an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey the site.

6.220 The scope of this assessment includes:

• data gathering of existing ecological information within the vicinity of the site from appropriate sources;

• extended Phase 1 habitat survey of land within and where possible adjacent to the site;

• identification of potential impacts on ecological features, disturbance and off-site impacts from the development; and,

• potential mitigation measures to minimise negative impacts.

6.221 The extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken by Atkins ecologists on 17th & 19th December 2013.

Study area

Desk study

6.222 A search was made using the Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)13 for statutory designated sites within three zones of 2 km, 5 km and 15 km from the site. This includes European designated sites such as Special Protection Areas (SPA, including potential SPA sites), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC, including candidate SAC sites) and Ramsar sites; Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); and, Local Nature Reserves (LNR). MAGIC was also searched for notable habitats within 500 m of the site boundary e.g. ancient woodland. Online maps and aerial photographs were searched for waterbodies within 500 m of the site in respect of great crested newts.

6.223 A records request was made to Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) for records of protected and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and non-statutory designated site of nature conservation importance within 1 km of the site boundary.

Field Survey

6.224 The extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (refer to Assessment Methodology section for survey methodology) encompassed the existing Meaford Business Park and adjoining land within the proposed gas connection corridor, specifically the bridge across the canal near the northern end of the site and the field identified between the canal and the railway line.

13 http://magic.defra.gov.uk

http://magic.defra.gov.uk


106 February 2014

6.225 The length of the canal adjacent to the site was also walked (refer to site boundary shown on the phase 1 habitat plan for extent of site survey). Land and habitat immediately adjacent to the northern most tip of the site and outside the business park, but within the redline boundary at the southern-most tip were also surveyed.


Statutory Designated Sites for Nature Conservation

6.226 Within 5 km of the site there is one Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and three Local Nature Reserves (LNR). A 15 km search area also identified a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site). The sites are listed below in Table 17 and shown on the constraints plan provided in Appendix 4.

Table 17: Statutory Nature Conservation Sites Identified within 5 km and 15 km of the Site Boundary

Statutory Designated Site

Distance Direction Summary of Reason for Designation

Within 5 km

King’s and Hargreaves Wood SSSI

2.60 km north-west

No interest features listed on citation. Habitat comprises ancient and semi-natural lowland broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland.

Stone Meadows LNR 1.20 km south Stone Meadows is made up of three separate meadows next to the River Trent as it flows past Stone.

Crown Meadow LNR 1.90 km south Crown Meadow is one of the three separate meadows next to the River Trent as it flows past Stone. The grassland is semi-improved neutral grassland with a few wet flushes.

Barlaston & Rough Close Common LNR

3.90 km north-east

The site comprises two areas of lowland heathland, which are divided by a minor road that runs approximately north-south through the site.

Within 15 km

Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site

14.90 km south-west

The site comprises a diverse range of habitats from open water to raised bog. It supports a number of rare species of plants associated with wetlands, including the nationally scarce cowbane and elongated sedge.


February 2014 107

Statutory Designated Site

Distance Direction Summary of Reason for Designation

Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC

14.30 km south-east

Pasturefields Salt Marsh in the West Midlands is the only known remaining example in the UK of a natural salt spring with inland saltmarsh vegetation.

Non-statutory Designated Sites for Nature Conservation

6.227 There are ten non-statutory sites of nature conservation importance within 1 km of the site boundary, including six Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), three Grade 1 Sites of Biological Interest (SBI) and one Biodiversity Alert Site (BAS). The sites are listed below in Table 18.

Table 18: Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites Identified within 1 km of the Site Boundary

Non-statutory designated site

OS Grid Reference

Distance Direction Description Summary

Tittensor Chase LWS

SJ875368 930 m west An area of wood pasture surrounded by conifer plantations.

The Drumble, Stone LWS

SJ880353 520 m east A semi-natural valley woodland of mainly sycamore, ash, wych elm and alder with a vigorous understorey of elder, hazel, hawthorn and holly.

Darlaston Wood LWS

SJ882350 460 m south-west

Ancient replanted woodland comprising an even aged mature mixed plantation on ground with a wide range of soil conditions.

Lakeside Golf Course LWS

SJ883372 365 m west Pool with emergent vegetation and diverse invertebrate fauna.

Common Plot LWS

SJ899350 520 m south-east

An extensive area of common traditionally used for recreation and low intensity grazing.

Meaford Sludge Beds LWS

SJ893363 Within the site

Within the sit

This is the now vegetated site of the sludge beds where they used to settle the fly ash from the nearby power station.


108 February 2014

Non-statutory designated site

OS Grid Reference

Distance Direction Description Summary

A34 Woodlands, Tittensor Common Retained Grade 1 SBI

SJ881368 300 m West Narrow deciduous woodland strip between coniferous plantation and the A34 that has an acidic/heath-like ground flora.

Trent Wood Retained Grade 1 SBI

SJ891346 20 m west Ancient replanted damp woodland in Trent valley.

Downs Banks Retained Grade 1 SBI

SJ901370 645 m East A steep-sided valley with a wide range of habitat types including dry acidic grassland, wet acidic grassland, bracken-covered slopes, dry heath, scrub and woodland.

Trent and Mersey Canal (Meaford) BAS

SJ888375 Immediately adjacent to the southern end of the eastern boundary

of the site

A length of canal that supports an intermittent strip of diverse emergent vegetation which widens close to lock overflows and boat turnarounds.

Notable Habitats

6.228 SER provided the following records of two Ancient Replanted Woodland sites within 1 km of the site.

• Trent Wood (SJ889347) – located 20 m west of the site; and,

• Darlaston Wood (SJ880349) – located 495 m west of the site.

6.229 Table 19 below provides a summary of those BAP priority habitats within 500 m of the site as identified during the search of MAGIC. As there are multiple sites for some BAP habitats within 500 m of the site Table 19 provides only the closest record.


February 2014 109

Table 19: BAP Priority Habitats Identified within 500 m of the Site Boundary

BAP Priority Habitat

Closest Record To The

Site

Direction Notes

Deciduous woodland

Within the site The woodland blocks to the north, west and south of the site all fall within this designation

Wood pasture and parkland

15 m west

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh

15 m west Associated with the River Trent

Fens 250 -west Within Barlaston Golf Course

Waterbodies

6.230 The River Trent lies to the west of the site, and the Trent and Mersey Canal lies to the east. During a survey of the site in April 2012, a further eight waterbodies were identified within the business park and are shown in Table 20 below. This did not include the two balancing ponds either side of the existing sub-station as these were found to be dry and remain so. However, a number of these waterbodies (six confirmed) are still present and a number of additional areas of standing water were recorded. These were too numerous to map and many are likely to be of a temporary nature; some but not all waterbodies are shown on the Phase 1 plan, Appendix 3. Some of the standing water in the large depressions/excavations on site remain unvegetated and offer poor potential breeding habitat for great crested newt and other amphibians.

Table 20: Waterbodies Identified within the Site

Waterbody OS Grid Reference

Description HSI score (from 2012

survey)

Pond 1 (present)

SJ887370

Permanent pond located within broadleaf woodland at the northern end of the site

Good

Pond 2 (present)

SJ887364

Concrete tank filled with water located on the western boundary, immediately north of the

existing sub-station

Below average

Pond 3 (present)

SJ890369

Ephemeral pool near the eastern boundary Poor

Pond 4 SJ890368 Ephemeral pool near the eastern boundary Poor


110 February 2014


Description HSI score (from 2012

survey)

(present)

Pond 5 (not confirmed)

- Ephemeral pool near the eastern boundary Poor

Pond 6 (not confirmed)

- Ephemeral pool near the eastern boundary Poor

Pond 7 (present)

SJ888368

L-shaped waterbody located towards the northern end of the site

Poor

Pond 8 (present)

SJ890365

Irregular shaped water-filled excavation located centrally within the site

Poor

6.231 The desk study identified 17 potential waterbodies within 500 m of the site, excluding waterbodies on site. Several of the waterbodies are drains and may not hold water or may have running water, making them unsuitable breeding habitat for great crested newts. Furthermore, it is likely that the canal and railway to the east of the site would present a barrier to the dispersal of great crested newts on to the site if present in the waterbodies. Those waterbodies that have connectivity to the site are given in Table 21 below.

6.232 The remaining off-site waterbodies are separated from the site by Meaford Road or Rockery Lane. Meaford Road is single carriageway with two-way traffic and a 60 mph limit. A kerb is present along much of its length, but although the road is likely to present a hindrance to the dispersal of great crested newts on to the site, it is not a physical barrier. The River Trent, to the west of the site beyond Meaford Road, would present a significant barrier to any great crested newts in waterbodies to the west of the river.

Table 21: Waterbodies Identified within 500 m of the Site Boundary


Distance Direction Partial Barriers To Connectivity

Pond on Barlaston Golf Course SJ881372 430 m west Meaford Road

Drain on Barlaston Golf Course SJ883371 320 m west Meaford Road

Lake on Barlaston Golf Course SJ881373 410 m west Meaford Road

Three springs (closest given) SJ891354 adjacent m

south Rockery Lane

Lake near Meaford Hall SJ887355 50m west Meaford Road

Lake near Meaford Hall SJ888354 190 m west Meaford Road


February 2014 111

Drain adjacent to River Trent SJ886359 180 m west Meaford Road

Biological Records

6.233 The following records of protected and BAP species, given in Table 22 and Table 23 below, respectively, were received from SER for a 1 km search area from the site boundary. Records over ten years old have been discounted and where multiple records exist for a species only the closest record is listed. It must be noted that the lack of recent records does not indicate that these species are not present. The records will be further discussed in the relevant species sections below. Records of BAP species that are also afforded legal protection have been excluded from Table 23.

Table 22: Protected Species Records within 1km of the Site Boundary

Species OS Grid Reference

Location Approximate Distance and

Direction of Closest Record

Great crested newt SJ880376 Heyfield Farm 760 m west

Common pipistrelle bat SJ882380 - 690m north-west

Soprano pipistrelle bat SJ8736 Tittensor Chase At least 650 m west

Bat species SJ8736 Tittensor Chase At least 650 m west

Hobby SJ8938 Barlaston At least 380 m northeast

Brambling SJ9037 Downs Banks At least 745 m east

Green sandpiper SJ8934 Stone At least 300 m south

Redwing SJ9036 Downs Banks At least 745 m east

Fieldfare SJ9036 Downs Banks At least 745 m east

Barn owl SJ8737 Tittensor Chase At least 610 m west

Little ringed plover

SJ886368 Old Power Station Site

30 m west. Grid reference outside the site, but given

the species and the location given, this is

likely to have been recorded on site

Badger

SJ8836 No location given, although fatalities have been recorded

on Meaford

Within same grid square as site


112 February 2014


Location Approximate Distance and

Direction of Closest Record

Road

Table 23: BAP Species Records within 500m of the Site Boundary


Location Approximate Distance and Direction of Closest

Record

Birds

Skylark SJ8937 Barlaston south Within same grid square as site

Common linnet SJ8937 Barlaston south Within same grid square as site

Common cuckoo SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east

Yellowhammer SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east

Yellow wagtail SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east

Spotted flycatcher SJ8937 Barlaston Within same grid square as site

House sparrow SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east of the site

Tree sparrow SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east Starling

SJ8937 Barlaston Within same grid square

as site

Song thrush SJ8937 Barlaston Within same grid square as site

Bullfinch SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east

Dunnock SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east

Lapwing SJ8936 Meaford Farm At least 350 m east

Mammals

Polecat SJ8836 Darlaston Within same grid square as site

Hedgehog SJ889354 Meaford, Barlaston Road Within site boundary

Invertebrates

White-letter SJ891355 Stone Within site boundary


February 2014 113


Location Approximate Distance and Direction of Closest

Record

hairstreak

Flowering plants

Native black poplar SJ8937 Barlaston Within same grid square as site

6.234 Generally the records, including those discounted for being over ten years old or further than 1 km, indicate that the surrounding area supports a wide variety of wildlife including a number of protected and notable species. Previously recorded in the wider area has been water vole associated with the Trent and Mersey Canal, up to eight species of bat, great crested newts, a range of birds protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and common reptile species. Furthermore, the records for badger indicate they are highly active in the wider habitat.


Survey Methodology

6.235 The extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken following Joint Nature Conservation Committee guidance (JNCC, 2010)14, which was extended to include a search for evidence of presence, and an assessment of each habitats potential to support, notable and protected species as recommended by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2012)15.

6.236 The waterbodies assessed for their potential to support great crested newts were done so using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) incorporated into the Natural England great crested newt licence method statement template WML-A14-2.

6.237 The assessment of potential for roosting bats in buildings and trees was undertaken in accordance with the following criteria outlined in Table 24 below.

Table 24: Assessment of Potential to Support Roosting Bats

Categories for Trees

Category (Potential to support roosting bats)

Description

14 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. 15 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2012) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Assessment.


114 February 2014


Negligible potential Tree contains no suitable features for roosting bats. These can include young trees without ivy and without loose bark and obvious cracks / fissures. Usually saplings, semi-mature specimens with a small girth or mature trees which do not tend to form fissures as readily such as sycamore.

Low potential Tree contains limited features suitable for roosting bats. Usually young (sapling or semi-mature) trees with some ivy or some loose bark16 but no obvious cracks or fissures. No evidence of bats found (e.g. droppings / staining).

Moderate potential Tree contains some features suitable for roosting bats. Trees with some cracks or fissures17 and/or large amounts of ivy / loose bark. Usually semi-mature or mature specimens. Trees tend not to have large splits, hollow trunks or woodpecker holes. No evidence of bats found.

High potential Tree contains features that are highly desirable for roosting bats. Trees with woodpecker holes / large cracks and/or crevices. Often with a hollow trunk. May support very dense ivy. No evidence of bats found.

Confirmed roost Bats discovered roosting within the tree, or recorded emerging / entering a tree at dusk / dawn. Trees found to contain conclusive evidence of occupation by bats, such as bat droppings. A confirmed roost record (as supplied by an established source such as the local bat group) would also fall into this category.

Categories for Buildings

Negligible potential Buildings with no features capable of supporting roosting bats. Often these buildings are of a ‘sound’ well-sealed nature, or have a single skin and no roof void. They tend to have high interior light-levels, and little or no insulation. Buildings without any roofs may also fall into this category.

Low potential Buildings with limited features for roosting bats (e.g. shallow crevices where mortar is missing between building blocks/bricks). They may have open locations which may be subject to large temperature fluctuations and bat-access points may be constrained. No evidence of bats found (e.g. droppings / staining). Buildings may

16 In some areas loose bark can be important for species such as Barbastelle bat and, in the right geographic location, could be a feature providing high potential for this species. 17 Crack or fissures should be sheltered from rain and wind to be of potential for roosting bats, for example a tree with a large crevice which is open at the top and becomes wet during rain would not be suitable for roosting bats.


February 2014 115


be surrounded by poor or sub-optimal bat foraging habitat. No evidence of bats found.

Moderate potential Buildings with some features suitable for roosting bats. Buildings usually of brick or stone construction with a small number of features of potential value to roosting bats e.g. loose roof / ridge tiles, gaps in brickwork, gaps under fascia boards, and/or warm sealed roof-spaces with under-felt. These buildings may be used as occasional or transient roosts in the summer, but are unsuitable for large colonies. No evidence of bats found.

High potential Buildings with a large number of features or extensive areas of obvious potential for roosting bats. Generally they have sheltered locations, with a stable temperature regime and suitable bat-access points. Could be suitable for a maternity roost. No evidence of bats found.

Confirmed roost Bats discovered roosting within the building, or recorded emerging/entering the building at dusk/dawn. Building found to contain conclusive evidence of occupation by bats, such as bat droppings. A confirmed record (as supplied by an established source such as the local bat group) would also apply to this category.

Survey Limitations

6.238 Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and animals such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. Therefore the survey of this site has not produced a complete list of plants and animals and the absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it will not be present in the future.

6.239 The list of invasive plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is extensive and these plants are found in a range of different habitats, including aquatic habitats. The extended Phase 1 survey checked, in particular, for the presence of Japanese knotweed, giant knotweed, hybrid knotweed, giant hogweed, rhododendron and Himalayan balsam. There may be other invasive plant species present within the site which were not recorded, but it is considered that this survey is sufficient to identify significant constraints posed by invasive plants.

6.240 As the survey was not geo-referenced, the Phase 1 habitat survey and the extensive small areas of individual habitats the Phase 1 Habitat Plan is indicative only and therefore although the habitats are shown on the plan the exact locations may not be wholly accurate.

6.241 Access to the field at the south-eastern corner of the site was not possible, and so


116 February 2014

there was no thorough survey of the bank adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal.

6.242 Not all land within 50 m of the site boundary was surveyed, but given that the site is bound by Meaford Road to the west and in one small section immediately beyond the Trent and Mersey canal to the east, it is unlikely that any significant ecological constraints will have been missed.

6.243 Due to the extensive number and small size only the main waterbodies were mapped.

6.244 The results of this ecological survey have allowed an evaluation of the likely use of the site by protected and controlled species, the need for any additional surveys, further assessment and potential mitigation. However, since the completion of the field survey the site boundary has been extended. The new boundary is shown on the Phase 1 plan, but not all of the land within it has been surveyed (the area surveyed and the red line boundary is shown on the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Plan provided in Appendix 3).As a consequence of this and potential future boundary changes there may be a need for further site surveys.

Main Habitats within the Site

6.245 The main habitats present on and around the site are indicated on the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Plan with specific features highlighted by target notes (TN) which accompany the drawing.

Bare ground and Hard Standing

6.246 The majority of the site comprises cleared ground with extensive piles of demolition rubble. The site is bisected by numerous concrete roads and informal tracks, and power lines and pylons cross the northern and southern parts of the site. At the northern end of the site there is car parking and fenced storage areas on hard standing that are in business use.

Buildings

6.247 At the northern entrance to the site there is a gatehouse (TN 6), which is no longer in use and two other former commercial buildings.

6.248 Two caravans/pre-fab buildings are also present on site. One is used as a bowling green clubhouse (TN 7) and the other is located adjacent to the central road/track into the central part of the site and is in a highly dilapidated condition. A small wooden shed is also located just off the main access road, close to the bowling green.

Ephemeral/Short-Perennial

6.249 In the central-northern area the site rises toward the eastern boundary, with the habitat comprising short perennial vegetation with scattered scrub and sapling silver birch closer to the centre of the site. Much of this habitat appears to be regenerating on previously disturbed ground that includes coal debris or waste from the former power station.


February 2014 117

Marshy Habitat

6.250 Towards the eastern boundary, the vegetation becomes dominated by established silver birch with occasional willow. An open swathe between the trees is dominated by rushes, indicating wetter soil conditions and a small number of seasonal waterbodies were noted in this area.

6.251 At the northern tip of the site and extending outside the redline boundary is an area of wet woodland associated with the stream that flows into the permanent pond from the north comprising alder dominated woodland with standing and fallen deadwood, tall ruderals and species of moss, fern and fungi. Himalayan balsam was noted in this area.

Plantation Woodland

6.252 Plantation woodland is located at three locations within the site (refer to Phase 1 Habitat Plan provided in Appendix 3 for locations).

Semi-natural Woodland

6.253 Semi-natural woodland is located in four locations within the site (refer to Phase 1 Habitat Plan for locations.

Tree Belts and Other Trees

6.254 A number of self-set trees, predominantly silver birch, have become established across the site. The majority of the eastern boundary comprises a tree line and includes trees along a bank between the improved field and the canal at the southern end of the site. A tree belt is also present on the bank between the higher eastern section and the central area of hard standing. There is also a line of small white poplar along an access road in the centre of the site.

Waterbodies

6.255 Standing water was frequent across the site during the survey, particularly in the central areas where earth works have created depressions and channels. It is likely that many of these are pooling of winter rainfall on relatively impermeable surfaces and will have dried up by the spring.

6.256 The eight waterbodies recorded during the April 2012 survey were still present. Detailed mapping and assessment of waterbodies was not undertaken during the 2013 survey. The two balancing ponds, shown on plans of the site to the north and south of the existing substation, were found to be dry during the survey and appear to have been dry for some time.

Amenity Grassland

6.257 Remnants of amenity grassland and ornamental planting are present at the northern end of the site around the remaining buildings. To the west of the site entrance at the northern end of the site is a maintained bowling green. A disused


118 February 2014

tennis court and fringing areas of grassland with scrub and scattered trees are also present in this area.

Improved and Semi-improved Grassland

6.258 A field of semi-improved grassland is located adjacent to the plantation and semi-natural woodland and was fenced on all sides.

6.259 A field of poor semi-improved grassland also lies on the opposite side of the canal, but within the redline boundary.

6.260 A field of improved grassland is present in the south-eastern corner of the site.

Scrub

6.261 The south-western corner of the site was given over to scattered broom and gorse with silver birch saplings, occasional bramble scrub, tufted hair grass and rushes. Some of this area had been cleared with scrub uprooted but left roughly piled or in-situ.

Spoil

6.262 Spoil mounds are a feature of the site and are located in the central-west area, central area and along the central section of the eastern boundary. Japanese knotweed was noted growing on spoils in the central-west part of the site. The spoil in the central part of the site mostly comprised larger rubble with virtually no colonising vegetation.

6.263 Garden waste has been tipped in a pile within the yew dominated woodland at the very southern point of the site (TN 26). Inadvertent ‘compost heaps’ such as this can provide refuge for small mammals such as hedgehogs, amphibians and invertebrates.

Potential Gas Connection Route

6.264 A bridge, known as Malkin’s Bridge or canal bridge 101, is located towards the northern corner of the site (TN 16) and may provide the gas connection route into the site. The bridges cross the canal and the railway line and have existing pipe support structures, which are assumed to be associated with the former power station site. The canal and railway bridges are linked by a tree-lined earth embankment. The habitat to the north of the bridges comprised improved parkland pasture with occasional rushes and scattered trees including mature oak. To the south is a mature poplar plantation with a ground flora of bramble and willowherb with occasional ferns and nettle. The canal bridge is brick built and the bridge deck has become vegetated with self-set willow, ash, brambles and grasses

6.265 Gaps were noted in the mortar of the bridge and it was assessed as having low potential for bats. No evidence of bats was recorded during the inspection of the bridge, however, it must be noted that it was only possible to fully access one half of the bridge for inspection. The embankment that joins the canal bridge to the railway bridge is lined with mature lime and horse chestnut trees, three of which


February 2014 119

had potential for bats. The railway bridge is also brick built and was not inspected for bats. Access across the bridge is prevented as it is blocked off at the mid-point and much debris has accumulated on it.

6.266 The next bridge south along the canal is Bridge 100 or Turnover Bridge (TN 19), which takes the towpath over to the other side of the canal. The bridge is brick built and was noted to have a few gaps in the mortar and was assessed as having moderate bat potential.

Notable Species

6.267 The survey identified the presence of suitable habitat within the site for great crested newts, bats, badger, reptiles, nesting birds and invertebrates. Adjacent to the site there is potential for otter and water vole. No evidence of or suitable habitat for any other legally protected or notable species was found during the survey.

6.268 Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, rhododendron and cotoneaster were identified on site (all are subject to legal controls as invasive species).

Aquatic Ecology – River Trent

6.269 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment of the relevant section of the River Trent18 (GB104028053272) classes the river as being in poor ecological status, due to the poor status of the fish and diatom communities and moderate status of the aquatic macroinvertebrates. The current chemical status is assessed as good, with the quantity/dynamics of flow and river morphology being able to support good status. The overall object for the River Trent in this location is to achieve good ecological status by 2027.

Aquatic Ecology – Trent and Mersey Canal

6.270 The WFD assessment of the relevant section of the Trent and Mersey Canal (GB70410142) classes this artificial water body as being in good ecological potential, due to the good overall physico chemical status of canal.

Potential effects

6.271 The proposed power station element of the MEC would be located in one of three positions within the site described as north, central and south. Regardless of the positioning of this there will need to be haul roads, lay-down areas, a site

18 Environment Agency, 2009. River Basin Management Plan Humber River Basin District. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124803.aspx (accessed January 2014)

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124803.aspx


120 February 2014

compound etc within the footprint of the site. At present the location of these areas is not known. There may also be highway access improvement works. Therefore, the potential effects are discussed in general terms for the site as a whole, but where there is any possible distinction between the three proposed locations for the power station with respect to potential impacts, this has been highlighted.

Statutory Designated Sites

6.272 The desk study identified two European designated sites for nature conservation (i.e. Pasturefield Salt Marsh SAC and Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site) within 15 km of the site. The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010, Regulation 61, states that a competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for a project in view of the designated site’s conservation objectives alone and in-combination with other projects and plans.

6.273 No national statutory designated sites were identified within 2 km of the site. The closest statutory site was Stone Meadows LNR, which is located approximately 2.3 km away. Given the distance, it is highly unlikely that the proposed development would directly impact upon this or any of the other statutory designated sites identified. Indirect impacts through emissions to air will be assessed as part of the air quality assessment and cross-referenced where appropriate.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

6.274 The Trent and Mersey Canal BAS and Meaford sludge Beds LWS both fall within the footprint of the red line boundary. Further assessment of the impacts of these sites should be considered at EIA stage once scheme design is further advanced and the potential impacts are better understood.

Notable Habitats

6.275 Although development of the site is unlikely to affect any of the notable habitats identified outside the site, removal of any trees from a woodland block will result in habitat loss of BAP priority habitat. This may only be required if the southern site is selected Protected Species

Waterbodies and Great Crested Newts

6.276 If great crested newts are present the works in any area may impact this species as there are waterbodies scattered across the site. Furthermore, newts may be found in grassland, scrub, woodland or any habitat where there is sufficient vegetation cover and potential foraging. Features have also been identified that provide suitable hibernation habitat for newts.

Bats

6.277 The majority of the site is open and would not provide good foraging habitat for


February 2014 121

bats. However, the woodland habitat, eastern boundary and tree lines within the site would provide foraging and commuting habitat. It is possible that the construction and operation of a power station on site may affect use of the site by bats, either directly through removal of trees or indirectly by disturbance (noise, vibration and lighting).

Badger

6.278 Under the current proposals only the southern option has the potential to have a direct adverse effect on badgers as this would result in the badger sett being impacted.

Reptiles

6.279 The habitats within the three proposed MEC generation station locations are unlikely to support reptiles, however, should any suitable habitats be lost or disturbed as a result of the grid connection, highway works and other construction areas, impacts may occur and this will be dealt with in more detail in the ES.

Breeding Birds

6.280 As there are records of little ringed plover on the site and this is a Schedule 1 species that favours open bare ground for nesting, the development may result in the disturbance of this schedule 1 species. The development of the site could lead to the loss of suitable breeding bird habitat.

Invertebrates

6.281 The key interest areas for invertebrates include the wet woodland at the northern end of the site and marshy habitat along the eastern boundary. None of the proposed locations fall within these areas, but grid connections, potential highway works and other construction areas may affect them.

Otter

6.282 The current proposal for the development of the MEC may affect otter as the development could include works close to the River Trent, to the west of the site, if abstraction for water cooling is required from the river. Should development works be required towards the eastern boundary of the site, towards the canal, then there is an increased risk of disturbing otters..

Water Vole

6.283 The current proposal for the development of the power station may affect water voles if development is required close to the River Trent for purposes of water abstraction, to the west of the site. Should works be required, in respect of the gas connection to the LTS for the proposed development towards the eastern boundary of the site where the Trent and Mersey Canal has naturalised banks


122 February 2014

there is also an increased risk of disturbance to water voles should they be present.

Invasive Plant Species

6.284 Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, rhododendron and cotoneaster were identified on site (all are subject to legal controls as invasive species). Any works in areas where these species were recorded may result in their spread which is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended).

Aquatic Ecology

6.285 Should abstraction from and discharge to the River Trent or canal be required for cooling, the following impacts may be realised:

Abstraction from the River Trent

• Changes in water quality through reduced dilution potential, with associated implications such as eutrophication, increased algal growth, and impacts on dissolved oxygen (and sensitive species e.g. fish, macrophyte and macroinvertebrates).

• Reduced flow and level exaggerating the impacts of downstream barriers such as weirs, which can hinder the passage of fish.

• Increased sedimentation rates associated with lower water velocities, affecting species sensitive to sediment loadings, such as fish and invertebrates, and affect spawning success.

• Changes in erosion and deposition patterns, loss of geomorphological diversity and impacts on macrophyte, invertebrate and fish habitat availability.

• Reduced connectivity with natural floodplains, with loss of fish nursery areas and wetland communities.

• Potential for fish entrainment and impingement at the site of the off-take which could have deleterious effects on existing populations.

Discharge to the River Trent

• Changes in thermal gradients that can result in thermal barriers to salmonid migration, increased physiological stress, and greater susceptibility to disease.

• Exacerbation of any existing water quality issues through temperature driven effect on chemical and biological oxygen demand. Thus affecting sensitive fish species and macrophyte and macroinvertebrate communities.

• Concentrated nature of discharged form of the abstracted river water increase pollutant loads and effecting river ecology. It is assumed that any required dosing into the abstracted water (typically chlorine), will be neutralised before discharge.

• Changes to morphology downstream of the outfall structure – unlikely to be significant due to volumes discharged.


February 2014 123

Abstraction and Discharge to the Trent and Mersey Canal

6.286 Abstraction and discharges to the Trent and Mersey canal are not likely to significantly affect the morphological condition of this artificial water body or affect fish migration due to changes in level. However, due to the static nature of the system it is highly probable that the magnitude of changes in chemical quality (associated with the potential abstraction and discharge requirements) will exceed that anticipated for the River Trent .


6.287 In summary, the following further surveys will be undertaken:

• Consultation with Natural England as to the need for Habitat Regulations Assessment Stage 1 Screening for potential impacts upon European Designated Sites;

• Great crested newt pond identification and HSI assessment;

• Great crested newt presence/absence survey;

• Bat activity surveys;

• Bat presence/absence surveys - as required by identification of preferred option;

• Badger surveys – as required by identification of preferred option;

• Reptiles – as required by identification of preferred option;

• Common Bird Census (breeding bird survey);

• Invertebrates – as required by identification of preferred option.

• Aquatic ecology – as required if water abstraction and discharge is required to the River Trent or Trent and Mersey Canal.

Statutory Designated Sites

6.288 Natural England will be consulted as to whether a Stage 1 HRA Screening will be necessary. The screening will determine whether there will be any likely significant effect on the European sites as a result of the proposed development, both alone and in-combination with other projects and plans. This is undertaken by the competent authority in consultation with Natural England. An ‘Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment’ report will also be prepared and submitted with the DCO application.


124 February 2014

Protected Species

Waterbodies and Great Crested Newts

6.289 Further survey for great crested newts will be undertaken to confirm the presence or absence of this species on the site.

6.290 A presence/absence survey is recommended for all suitable waterbodies. This is undertaken between mid-March and mid-June and involves four visits. If great crested newts are found, an additional two visits is required to determine the population size class. All waterbodies should be reassessed at the time of survey as a number are unlikely to support great crested newts. The off-site waterbodies with no connectivity will not need to be surveyed, but the remainder would be visited and assessed in advance of the newt survey, as they may need to be included.

Bats

6.291 Bat activity surveys will be undertaken to allow an understanding of how bats use the site and where mitigation will be required. For a large infrastructure development such as this with mostly low quality habitat, one visit per transect and four nights static recording per season (spring, summer & autumn) would be required. There is scope for two or three transects across the site.

6.292 Emergence/re-entry surveys for bats will be undertaken if any of the trees and structures with potential for bats are to be affected by the proposed works, including potential disturbance of roosts. Should any woodland need to be cleared, then a further survey for trees with potential for bats should be undertaken as the site has not been subject to a detailed tree survey.

Badger

6.293 If the sett on site is likely to be disturbed or needs to be closed, a detailed badger survey will be required to determine the significance of the sett to the local clan and provide sufficient information for a licence application to Natural England.

Reptiles

6.294 Should any areas of suitable habitat (grassland, scrub mosaic, woodland margins) need to be lost or disturbed for the purposes of creating haul roads, lay-down areas and a site compound, then further advice will need to be sought as it may be necessary to survey for reptiles. Alternatively, if a relatively small proportion of suitable habitat will be affected, it may be possible to undertake the work using a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW). This is a document outlining the approach to site clearance operations in order to eliminate the risk of killing or injuring reptiles.

Breeding Birds

6.295 A breeding bird survey (Common Bird Census) will be undertaken, requiring four to


February 2014 125

six visits between mid-March and July. The habitat present and records received suggest that the site may support a range of notable bird species, some of which may breed on site.

Invertebrates

6.296 A survey of suitable habitats by an entomologist is recommended to determine the presence of notable invertebrate species, if these habitats are going to be significantly disturbed or lost by the proposed works.

Otter & Water Vole

6.297 There should be further assessment if the eastern boundary of the site is to be developed as there is increased risk of potential impacts on otter and water vole, and also on the western side if abstraction is required from the River Trent. Also all necessary precautions should be taken to prevent the deterioration of water quality within the canal during the works.

Invasive Plant Species

6.298 The invasive plant species identified, particularly Japanese knotweed, will be removed from site or appropriately managed by a specialist contractor as this species is subject to legal controls. This is particularly the case if they are to be disturbed by works and could potentially be caused to spread to on-site and off-site locations.

Impact Assessment

6.299 Once further surveys have been carried out, all baseline data should be available with which to create a comprehensive ecology baseline. When this has been collated it will be possible to establish the significance of potential impacts by taking account of the status and level of importance of ‘receptors’ and the predicted magnitude of any impacts. As defined in the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom19, nature conservation value or potential value of an ecological feature is determined within a defined hierarchical/geographic context:

• International importance (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites);

• National importance (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest);

• Regional importance (e.g. EA regional biodiversity indicators, important features in NE Natural Areas);

19 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom


126 February 2014

• County importance (e.g. Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation);

• Local (parish) importance (e.g. significant ecological features such as old hedges, woodlands, ponds);

• Important within the site and immediate environs e.g. habitat mosaic of grassland and scrub (i.e. within the zone of influence only); and

• Negligible importance would usually be applied to areas such as built development or areas of intensive agricultural land.

6.300 The assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development will take into account both on-site effects and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts can be permanent or temporary and can include:

• Direct loss of wildlife habitats;

• Fragmentation and isolation of habitats;

• Disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli;

• Changes to key habitat features; and

• Changes to the local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality.

6.301 The significance of a negative impact (or a beneficial effect) is the product of the magnitude of the impact and the value or sensitivity of the nature conservation features affected. In order to characterise the impacts on each feature, the following parameters are taken account of:

• The magnitude of the impact;

• The extent of the area over which the impact would occur;

• The duration of the impact;

• Whether the impact is reversible and over what timeframe;

• The timing and frequency of the impact.

6.302 Effects are unlikely to be significant where features of low value or sensitivity are subject to small or short-term impacts. However, where there is a number of small scale effects that are not significant alone, the assessor may determine that, cumulatively, these may result in an overall significant effect. Impacts will be assessed as being either negative or beneficial and significant or not significant. Following current guidance, the assessment will identify whether the impacts described are significant, based on the integrity and the conservation status of the ecological feature.

6.303 The integrity of sites is described as follows and will be used in the assessment to determine whether the effects of the proposals on a designated site are likely to be significant:


February 2014 127

The integrity of a site is the coherence of the ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified.

6.304 The conservation status of undesignated habitats and species within a defined geographical area is described as follows and will be used in the assessment to determine whether the effects of the proposals are likely to be significant:

For habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the habitat and its typical species, that may affect its long term distribution, structure and functions as well as the long term survival of its typical species within a given geographical area;

For species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its population within a given geographical area.


6.305 The potential mitigation required will depend upon the chosen location of the power station within Meaford Business Park, whether the potential highway improvement works are carried out and the location of these and any other potential associated works and the results of the further assessment.

6.306 The following outline mitigation measures may be required subject to the outcome of the site selection process and the result of further surveys/assessment:

• Great crested newts – if present and breeding ponds and/or terrestrial habitat will be damaged or destroyed, it will be necessary to create or enhance habitat, trap and relocate newts under a Natural England licence.

• Bats – if surveys indicate that bat activity will be adversely affected then mitigation will be required. This may include creating new commuting routes to maintain connectivity around the site and control of light spill on natural habitats, which can deter some species of bat. A Natural England licence and specific mitigation will be required for any identified roost due to be lost or disturbed by the development. Mitigation is likely to include the provision of suitable alternative roost sites.

• Badger – should a sett need to be disturbed or closed, then this would be done under licence from Natural England following additional badger surveys. Measures to protect badgers during construction works e.g. covering excavations, use of fencing, provision of mammal ladders and site checks, should also be considered.

• Reptiles – if habitat suitable for reptiles is to be lost or disturbed and surveys have found them to be present, it will be necessary to either exclude or trap and relocate reptiles to an alternative site. This can be undertaken with advice from


128 February 2014

Natural England, but it is not a licensable activity. Alternatively, if a relatively small proportion of suitable habitat will be affected, it may be possible to undertake the work using a Precautionary Method of Working (PMW). This is a document outlining the approach to site clearance operations in order to eliminate the risk of killing or injuring reptiles.

• Breeding birds – as a minimum site clearance operations (including vegetation) will be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (February to August inclusive, although subject to some regional and seasonal variation). No ground nesting birds were noted on site during the survey, but there is a possibility that the site could be used by species favouring open bare ground. If clearance in this period is not possible, it may be necessary to check the site for ground nesting birds at the start of the breeding season and if necessary find a means of deterring ground nesting birds from the site. Any vegetation that needs to be removed within the bird breeding season must be checked for nests immediately before-hand (up to 24 hours before the clearance takes place). If an active nest is identified, it will need to remain in-situ with its surrounding vegetation until the young have fledged.

• Invertebrates – if following surveys, loss of habitat supporting important invertebrate assemblages could not be reasonably avoided, it would be necessary to preserve/enhance/create an area for the notable species in question to maintain the populations on site.

• Otter – if development along the eastern boundary was necessary and following the further detailed surveys otter was found to the present, then a Natural England licence would be required to disturb otter and/or damage/destroy a resting place. The loss of a holt may require an artificial holt to be provided.

• Invasive plant species removal and/or management, particularly where disturbed by the works.

• Implementation of construction best practise procedures to prevent pollution incidents and to maintain the water quality of the adjacent canal.

• Sensitive lighting schemes to minimise light spill, which may disturb nocturnal wildlife using the canal, woodland or other areas of the site, specifically bats and otters.

• Fencing or other identification of retained habitat areas that should not be disturbed during construction works.

• Installation of bat and bird boxes to provide additional roosting and nesting opportunities.


February 2014 129

Cultural heritage

6.307 This section sets out the anticipated scope of work to be undertaken for cultural heritage, specifically with regard to the sub-topics of archaeology, built heritage and the historic landscape. The cultural heritage resource encompasses designated and undesignated assets including Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings (statutorily listed and locally listed), Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Historic Battlefields, historic buildings (unlisted), known archaeological sites and areas of archaeological potential.

6.308 The objectives of this scoping section are to:

• Identify the known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may be affected by the scheme;

• Identify what the potential significant impacts of the scheme will be on those resources;

• Identify the possibilities for mitigation of impacts.

Study area

6.309 Baseline data collection will be undertaken in respective study areas for the three sub-topics as follows:

• 500 m around the red line boundary, for the assessment of archaeological remains;

• 1.5km with regard to historic buildings and Conservation Areas; and

• Within the theoretical zone of visual influence (TZVI) as determined by the LVIA in respect of the historic landscape and long-view settings of designated heritage assets (up to approximately 2 km from the red line boundary).


6.310 Previous impact from modern development has removed all archaeological potential within the limits of the Meaford Business Park, for which an outline planning permission exists (10/13609/EXT). In a letter dated 13th May 2005 Stephen Dean, the Historic Environment Officer (Archaeology) for Staffordshire County Council confirms that for this reason no archaeological concerns exist with regard to the parts of the proposed development within its footprint.

6.311 No detailed assessment of the archaeological potential for the gas connection corridor outside of the Meaford Business Park or the sub-topics of built heritage and the historic landscape has been undertaken to-date.


130 February 2014


6.312 Meaford Business Park contains no designated heritage assets, however, a number of such assets exist in the wider area. An initial search of designated data within a 2km study area around the red line boundary has been undertaken for this scoping exercise and the results are illustrated on the environmental constraints plan (Appendix 4). They include two Scheduled Monuments (Bury Bank Iron Age hillfort and Saxon’s Lowe at Tittensor Common), one Grade I Listed Building (Barlaston Hall), four Grade II* Listed Buildings (including Meaford Hall, close to the southern boundary of the business park) and sixty-five Grade II Listed Buildings, primarily located in the five Conservation Areas. The Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the business park and features a number of Grade II listed bridges. One Grade II* Registered Park and Garden, Trentham Gardens, also very slightly extends into the search area from the north-west.

6.313 Two coal-fired power stations, Meaford A and Meaford B, were previously developed on the site which therefore retains a negligible potential for buried archaeology. However, the proposed gas connection corridor retains an as-yet unassessed archaeological potential. The known archaeology of the wider area is dominated by extant landscape features of medieval and post-medieval date (including farms, water meadows and early industrial structures, such as the canal and bridges), however, the absence of evidence from earlier periods can in part be attributed to an absence of any structured investigations associated with modern development. The presence of some prehistoric occupation is attested by the Scheduled hillfort.

6.314 A Historic Landscape Character (HLC) assessment has been prepared by Staffordshire County Council in collaboration with English Heritage20 (including the proposed development site). Map 3 of the Historic Environment Summary for the area around Stone identifies the site and the adjacent area to the east as of a low sensitivity to change, the areas to the north and west of the site as medium sensitivity to change, and those adjacent to the south of the site as being of high sensitivity to change.

Potential effects

6.315 There are a number of potential effects from the proposed development:

• No currently known sites are affected by the proposed locations of the generation station and electrical connection elements of the MEC therefore potential adverse effects on archaeological remains are limited to unknown buried remains which may be present in previously undeveloped areas. The gas connection would require a corridor of ground disturbance during construction,

20 2007, http://staffordbc.gov.uk/historic-landscape-characterisation-assessment

http://staffordbc.gov.uk/historic-landscape-characterisation-assessment


February 2014 131

in which previously unknown buried archaeological remains might lie. Further disturbance may also be caused by the construction of associated infrastructure, as well as for temporary compounds, storage areas and haul roads.

• A number of designated sites lie adjacent or close to the red line boundary and their setting might be affected.

• A number of designated sites lie at a distance from the proposal site and long-views constituting part of their setting might be affected. However, in respect of the local landform, the potential for such impact is considered to be limited.

• There is a potential for the proposals to adversely affect the historic landscape character of the area, although this has already been somewhat denigrated by existing modern development.


6.316 The presence of known Cultural Heritage assets will help to inform the selection of the proposed power station site within the Meaford Business Park (with regard to how site selection will affect the setting of identified receptors) and gas connection route options (with regard to possible impacts on buried archaeology). Once a preferred site and routes for the gas connection have been selected, a detailed assessment of all three sub-topics will be undertaken for the study areas indicated as part of the EIA process. This will consider three principal issues:

• Unknown buried archaeological remains - the potential effects on archaeological remains. This is considered to be limited to the gas grid connection route corridor and areas of associated infrastructure (such as highway works) and ancillary works;

• Designated built heritage assets - the potential changes to the setting of designated heritage assets in the landscape (including long views) around the proposed power station and gas route corridor; and

• Potential visual alterations of the integrity of the historic landscape character within which the proposal site is situated.

6.317 Initially, baseline information will be collected from a number of sources, including (but not limited to):

• Staffordshire Historic Environment Record (HER);

• National Heritage List for England maintained by English Heritage;

• Cartographic (including superseded Ordnance Survey maps and other relevant historic mapping);

• Aerial photographic data held by Staffordshire County Council (where available);

• Historic Landscape Characterisation data;


132 February 2014

• Available geotechnical information; and

• Relevant secondary sources to inform the archaeological and historic background of the assessment.

6.318 Following the initial data collection, a walkover survey will be carried out in relation to relevant scheme elements as part of the EIA process, with the aim to identify known constraints and their condition, to assess the potential for survival of constraints as yet unidentified (i.e. buried archaeological remains), and to assess the setting and sensitivity of any visual receptors identified.

6.319 Staffordshire County Council’s Historic Environment Service and Conservation Officer will be consulted further on any Cultural Heritage issues identified and the need for further field-based assessment and/or mitigation in relation to them.

6.320 The significance of environmental effect will be determined through assessing the magnitude of predicted change and the importance of the affected resource. The scale of impact of the proposed scheme on the heritage resource will be described qualitatively in the assessment, in terms of impairment or loss of significance. Incremental, secondary or cumulative impacts will be considered. This methodology is based on that set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Cultural Heritage, paragraphs 5.13.1 (Archaeological Remains); 6.13.1 (Historic Buildings); 7.13.1 (Historic Landscapes).

6.321 The value (or significance) of each element of the cultural heritage resource will be determined using methodologies broadly reflecting the Secretary of State’s criteria for Scheduling Monuments. The value of the built heritage will also take into consideration whether features or sites are statutorily designated or not. Table 25 lists the criteria used.

Table 25: Value of Cultural Heritage Resources

Category Description

Very High

Structures inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites. Other buildings or assets of recognised international importance.

High

Scheduled Monuments with standing remains. Grade I and Grade II* (Scotland: Category A) Listed Buildings. Other Listed Buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical associations not adequately reflected in the listing grade. Conservation Areas containing very important buildings. Undesignated structures of clear national importance. Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance. Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives.

Medium Grade II (Scotland: Category B) Listed Buildings. Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in


February 2014 133

Category Description their fabric or historical associations. Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute significantly to its historic character. Historic Townscape or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives.

Low

‘Locally Listed’ buildings (Scotland Category C(S) Listed Buildings). Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association. Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures). Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives

Negligible Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of an intrusive character. Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest.

Unknown Assets with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance.

6.322 By combining the magnitude of the impact (or change) as a result of the scheme and the significance of each resource, and based on professional judgement, an assessment will be made of the significance of effect, taking into account the possibility and nature of mitigation. . The significance of effect is expressed in the manner set out in the matrix below (Table 26). The use of the matrix is not intended to lead to a purely formulaic assessment; the assessment is essentially qualitative and professional judgement is used at all stages in the process.


134 February 2014

Table 26: Cultural Heritage Significance Matrix V

alue

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate / Large

Large or Very Large

Very Large

High Neutral Slight Moderate / Slight

Moderate / Large

Large / Very Large

Medium Neutral Neutral / Slight

Slight Moderate Moderate / Large

Low Neutral Neutral / Slight

Neutral / Slight

Slight Slight / Moderate

Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral / Slight

Neutral / Slight Slight

No change

Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Magnitude of Impact


6.323 A mitigation strategy for Cultural Heritage will be applied that seeks to avoid, wherever possible, adverse effects on heritage assets and the historic landscape. To this end, the following principles will be applied.

• The design of the proposed development will seek to minimise any significant adverse effects on all aspects of Cultural Heritage. These measures may include a re-siting of structures or altering the architectural form or design of structures, and will favour a preservation in situ of archaeological remains.

• The mitigation strategy for the project will address the location of built heritage assets and the effects the scheme could have on their physical integrity and their setting, as well as on the overall historic landscape character.

• Where significant adverse effects cannot be designed out, appropriate mitigation measures, including programmes of archaeological investigation, will be identified and incorporated into the design proposals.

• These measures will be drawn up in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders and statutory bodies.

6.324 Options for mitigation will be determined, and might include all or any of the following:

• Preservation in situ of archaeological remains;

• Archaeological excavation;

• Historic building investigation; and


February 2014 135

• Enhancement of heritage resources through beneficial screening, re-planting, improved access or interpretation.


136 February 2014


February 2014 137

Ground conditions

Introduction

6.325 This section reviews the ground and land contamination issues associated with the current redline site boundary and identifies the potential changes and effects that construction and operation of the proposed development could bring about to the existing ground conditions. The government’s good practice guide for EIA21 states that the following potential environmental effects should be considered:

• physical effects of the development – for example changes in topography, soil compaction, soil erosion, ground stability etc;

• effects on geology as a valuable resource – for example mineral resource sterilisation, loss or damage to regionally important geological sites, geological Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSIs), etc;

• effects on soils as a valuable resource – e.g. loss or damage to soils with good agricultural quality;

• effects associated with ground contamination that may already exist on site – for example introducing/changing pathways and receptors;

• effects associated with the potential for polluting substances used (during construction/operation) to cause new ground contamination issues on site – for example introducing/changing the source of contamination; and

• effects associated with re-use of soils and waste soils – re-use of site-sourced materials on or off site, disposal of site-sourced materials off-site, importation of materials to the site etc.

Study area

6.326 There are two stages in defining the study area for land contamination. The first is the identification of sources of existing contamination and the second is identification of receptors that could be affected.

6.327 The study area for potential sources of land contamination includes land within the footprint of and in close proximity to land that will be subject to ground disturbance during construction and operation of the proposed development. The study area for land contamination sources will extend to 500 m from the red line boundary.

21 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment. A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures. A consultation paper. London: DCLG.


138 February 2014

6.328 The presence of receptors that could be affected by land contamination will then be determined through consideration of a 2 km study area from the centre of a potential source of contamination where identified.


6.329 A series of historical reports have been reviewed, summarises of which are provided below:

National Power Plc – Extracts of the de-commissioning of Meaford Power Station Closure Report, dated September 1991.

6.330 The extracts from the closure report detail the actions to close the power station, the facilities and services remaining following closure and the items needing continuing attention after closure. A number of the buildings were retained for rental following the closure. These buildings were understood to contain asbestos containing materials which would require removal. Only extracts of the closure report were available for review hence reference should be made to this in addition to the summary above.

Tony Cox (Dismantlers) Ltd – Preliminary Contamination Survey, dated October 1996, Ref. KB/TCMS/R339.

6.331 This report has been prepared following on from a ground investigation undertaken by Tony Cox (Dismantlers) Ltd in July 1996 on behalf of Halcrow (then known as Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd). The report identified the presence of contaminants and asbestos containing materials in the Made Ground. The contamination testing results are not available as a part of the report.

WSP Environmental Ltd – Geo-environmental Assessment

6.332 Ground investigation works were undertaken across the site by WSP Environmental Ltd in February 2003 the findings of which were reported in May 2003. The report is not available for review, but the findings of the report have been summarised within the 2008 Halcrow Geo-environmental Assessment Report22 The soil contamination testing results from the WSP ground investigation have been used as a part of the assessment within the Halcrow report. This is discussed below.

22 Meaford Business Park Geo-Environmental Assessment, Halcrow Group Limited, March 2008, Ref. PIEMBP.


February 2014 139

The Coal Authority – Coal Mining Report, dated May 2005, Ref. 00011138-05

6.333 A Coal Authority mining report was obtained for the site by Halcrow in May 2005. The findings of the report indicate the following:

• The site is within the likely zone of influence on the surface from workings in five coal seams at 410 m to 810 m depth which were last worked in 1992. Ground movement from past coal workings should by now have ceased.

• The site is not within the zone of likely physical influence on the surface from any present underground coal workings.

• The site is not within a geographical area for which a license to extract coal by underground methods is awaiting determination, or has been granted by the Coal Authority. There is no evidence of any mine entries on, or within 20 m of the boundary of the site.

• The site is not located within an area where coal has been extracted by opencast methods and does not lie within 200 m of an opencast site.

• There is a notice / claim for subsidence recorded on the site in October 1988. This was discharged by repair.

6.334 Reference should be made to the full report for all of the full coal mining information for the site.

Ian Farmer Associates – Ground Investigation Factual Report, dated September 2007, Ref. 20260.

6.335 The Ian Farmer Associates (IFA) ground investigation was undertaken in July 2007 (Reported September 2007) for the Meaford site on behalf of Halcrow. The ground investigation works were designed by Halcrow to fill in the gaps from the existing WSP data23.

6.336 An assessment of the ground investigation data obtained by IFA has been undertaken by Halcrow the findings of which are summarised below.

Halcrow Yolles – Infrastructure Summary, dated February 2008, Ref. PIEMBP/16.0/tn001V1

6.337 A briefing note summarising the key infrastructure issues associated with the site was prepared in February 2008 by Halcrow. This note outlines the general site history and ground conditions as well as a summary of conclusions for the Geo-environmental Risk Assessment undertaken by Halcrow for the site as outlined below.

23 Meaford Power Station Geo-Environmental Assessment, WSP Environmental Ltd, 2003 (Report not available for review.)


140 February 2014

Halcrow Group Ltd – Geo-environmental Assessment, dated March 2008, Ref. PIEMBP

6.338 A Geo-environmental Assessment report was prepared by Halcrow for the IFA ground investigation works undertaken in July 2007. The Halcrow report summarises the findings of the IFA works as well as using historical data to undertake a contamination and engineering assessment for the site.

Baseline information

6.339 The baseline conditions within 500 m of the proposed development area are summarised below. The land contamination baseline has been evaluated using the sources listed above and also a Landmark Information Group – Envirocheck Report24; and British Geological Survey (BGS) maps (Sheet 123, Stoke-on-Trent and Sheet 139, Stafford.

Site walkover

6.340 A site walkover was undertaken on 8th January 2014 to ascertain the current site layout, features and visible constraints present across the site, focusing on the proposed area for the development of the power station.

6.341 Former Meaford power station generator buildings and cooling towers were previously demolished along with the majority of ancillary buildings. The majority of the site is now occupied by open land, hard surfaced roads and unmade tracks, wooded areas and the floor slabs and foundations of previously demolished buildings. It is unknown if any of the former foundations have been removed but there is evidence that floor slabs have been locally broken out. The central northern area of the site is occupied by a tenant operating a vehicle storage business within a large fenced compound.

6.342 The south of the site is occupied predominantly by open land, grassed fields grazed by livestock and horses and wooded areas. Washdale Lane and a tributary to the River Trent also pass east-west through the south of the site. A narrow strip of cleared land runs north-south through the site into the southern area and was previously occupied by a railway siding which is partly in a cutting and partly on an embankment.

6.343 The central area of the site is dominated by the remaining surface structures of the former power station, a number of overhead electricity cables and pylons, concrete pads and numerous stockpiles of demolition waste arising from the demolition of the above ground structures. An existing fenced and gated live sub-station is also included in the west of the site. The thick reinforced floor slab and foundations of the former power station generator buildings remain partially intact to the east of the existing sub-station, with further piles of demolition rubble

24 Envirocheck Report, Landmark Information Group, dated 13 Jan 14, Ref. 52289682_1_1.


February 2014 141

located across the surface. At the north east end of the site is a second operational electrical substation.

6.344 Evidence of excavation works is present to the north of the generator building floor slab, exposing reddish brown clay/sand strata with grey mudstone gravel and horizons of rock (grey-green, fine-grained sandstone). The exposed ground appeared locally ashy and surface gravels of coal, clinker and slag were noted in various locations across the site during the site walkover.

6.345 Concrete floor slab of five demolished cooling towers remain in-situ to the north of the existing sub-station in the west of the site. The land to the west of the former cooling towers and existing slab falls away towards a reservoir and Meaford Road beyond.

6.346 Two disused outdoor tennis courts and a bowling green are located in the north-west and there is a small woodland and pool to the east of the access road in the north of the site. An existing fenced and gated live electricity sub-station is situated further to the east of the woodland and pool.

6.347 The proposed gas corridor part of the site in the north-east incorporates the Trent and Mersey Canal and railway line. The gas corridor area of the site was not fully accessed during the site walkover but predominantly comprises open grassland, woodland and agricultural land. A gas installation is present at the north-eastern tip of the site, accessed via a private track off Meaford Road.

Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology

6.348 BGS maps25 indicate that the site is generally underlain by Glacial Till which rests on the Halesowen Formation (mudstone, siltstone and sandstone). The southern tip of the site is underlain by the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation. The Glacial Till is overlain by River Terrace Deposits in the west (following the route of the River Trent) and in the southern part of the site (following the route of a tributary). There are also Alluvial Deposits mapped along the route of the tributary in the southern part of the site. There are two geological faults present, one in the northern and one in the southern tip of the site, orientated east-west both downthrowing to the north. The geological map records the presence of Made Ground deposits across most of the central part of the site.

6.349 The site has undergone three phases of ground investigation. A summary of the findings is as follows:

• Made Ground was encountered across the majority of the site, with a thickness between 0.15m and 4.00 m. Typically, it comprised clayey, gravelly sand / sandy gravelly clay. The gravel was formed of ash, clinker, pottery, mudstone, sandstone, coal, burnt shale, slag, tarmac and brick. An area of deposition of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) has been identified to the west of the

25 The British Geological Survey (BGS) – Sheet 123, Stoke-on-Trent and Sheet 139, Stafford – Solid & Drift.


142 February 2014

former cooling towers. The soils noted as containing ACMs were proven to 4.00 m below ground level (bgl) within this area.

• The Made Ground was underlain by Superficial Deposits of Glacial Till, Alluvium, or First River Terrace Deposits. The Glacial Till comprised firm, brown, slightly gravelly, sandy clay, between 0.05m and 6.50 m thick and encountered across the majority of the site, but locally absent to the west.

• Alluvium was mainly encountered in the western area of the site closest to the River Trent and generally comprised very soft to soft, very sandy clay with occasional gravel between 0.10 m and 3.40 m thick, where encountered. Geology maps indicate that Alluvium may also be present in the southern part of the site but this was not identified within historical ground investigation works.

• River Terrace Deposits were described as brown to red, clayey, slightly gravelly, fine- to medium-grained sand, between 0.2m and 11.00 m thick and were encountered mainly in the west, toward the River Trent.

• Solid geology encountered was typically stiff to very stiff clay, which represented weathered mudstone of the Keele Formation (now called the Halesowen Formation). The southern tip of the site was not investigated as part of the former ground investigations and there are no details of the depth and nature of the Bromsgrove Sandstone within this part of the site.

6.350 The Trent & Mersey Canal generally forms the eastern boundary and encroaches onto the site in the north-east within the proposed gas corridor. The Environment Agency’s (EA) Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management Plans26 has classified this stretch of the Trent and Mersey Canal as having a good ecological quality.

6.351 Two tributaries of the River Trent flow through the site from east to west and the River Trent flows in a southerly direction immediately to the west of Meaford Road. The EA has classified this stretch of the River Trent as having a poor ecological quality and a good chemical quality.

6.352 Several small water bodies are present within the site boundary including drains and ponds. Further drains are present to the east of the Trent and Mersey Canal within the gas corridor.

6.353 The Halesowen Formation underlying the site and the River Terrace Deposits immediately to the west of the site are designated as Secondary A Aquifers, capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers.

26 The Environment Agency, 2009. Humber River Basin Management Plan, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124803.aspx (Accessed 13/01/2014)

http://www.environment


February 2014 143

6.354 A Principal Aquifer underlies the southern tip of the site, associated with the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation. Principal Aquifers are layers of rock that have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability usually providing high levels of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale.

6.355 EA information provided within the Envirocheck Report indicates that the southern part of the site lies within a Zone III (Total Catchment) Source Protection Zone. The area to the west of the River Trent is also classified as a Zone III Total Catchment area

6.356 EA information indicates that there is a risk of flooding from the tributary in the southern part of site. There is also a risk of flooding from the River Trent to the west of the site, but this only just encroaches onto the western boundary of the site.

Potential for existing contamination

6.357 A history of the site has been compiled by using historical Ordnance Survey maps27 and historical reports28 to identify potential historical sources of contamination which may be present at and adjacent to the Meaford Business Park and the gas connection corridor.

The Site

6.358 The site is shown as agricultural land with an old canal present in the south, an old quarry in the south-east, several roads, tracks, areas of woodland and pond features from the late 1870s to the 1940s. A railway line and the Trent & Mersey Canal run adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and encroach onto the site area in the north-east. There are two secondary watercourses in the north and south shown as being present on the site flowing in an east-west direction towards the River Trent. The watercourse to the north is no longer shown in the early 1900’s.

6.359 Construction of the first part of the power station (Meaford A) in the northern part of the site began in the mid 1940s and was completed by 1948. The old canal in the south and the old quarry in the south-east were infilled in the late 1940s to the late 1950s during the development. Development of the second part of the power station (Meaford B) to the south of Meaford A commenced in 1951 and was completed in 1957.

6.360 Construction of the Meaford Power Station included the formation of a plateau within the site using site-won materials29. The construction of Meaford A and B included several buildings, pipelines, overhead services, five cooling towers,

27 Envirocheck Report, Landmark Information Group, dated 13 Jan 14, Ref. 52289682_1_1. 28 Extracts of the De-commissioning of Meaford Power Station Closure Report, National Power Plc, dated September 1991. 29 Meaford Business Park Geo-Environmental Assessment, Halcrow Group Limited, March 2008, Ref. PIEMBP.


144 February 2014

railway sidings, a crane, chimneys, boilers and alternators. Some sludge beds also encroach onto the gas corridor in the eastern part of the site. Meaford A ceased operation in 1974 and was demolished by 1982. Meaford B ceased operations in 1990 and most of the buildings and cooling towers had been demolished by 1996. The railway sidings on the site had been dismantled and only a few buildings remained along with an electricity substation, some pipelines and overhead services.

The Surrounding Area

6.361 The area surrounding the site is shown as generally agricultural land from the late 1870s to the late 1930s with farms, Meaford directly to the south-west and Barlaston approximately 750 m to the north-east of the site. The River Trent is present within 250 m to the east of the site. The Trent & Mersey Canal and railway line run adjacent to the south-east and eastern boundary of the site and then encroach onto the site in the north-east and north. A prehistoric structure called Bury Bank is present approximately 500 m to the west of the site. Several quarries / pits are shown within 500 m of the site boundary from the late 1880s.

6.362 Some earthworks and a large pit are shown within 250 m to the east / north-east of the site during the development of the power station from the late 1940s. These are shown as sludge beds until the late 1970s to early 1980s when they are shown as disused sludge pits and a disused tip. This area is understood to be the pulverised fuel ash (PFA) lagoons installed during the construction of the power station to which ash generated from the operation of the power station was taken and deposited. Evidence from the Halcrow report indicates that the PFA and also asbestos from the cooling towers was tipped into a discrete area adjacent to the cooling towers in the western area of the site.

6.363 There is residential development within 500 m of the site from the early 1960s but the majority of the surrounding area remains as agricultural land at the present day.

Other Information

6.364 The extreme eastern part of the site (to the east of the railway line) has been listed as a BGS Recorded Mineral site where there was a sandstone quarry (exploiting the Halesowen Formation).

6.365 In addition, the eastern extremity of the site (to the east of the railway) is recorded as a historical landfill, registered to the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) for the deposition of industrial / commercial waste which is likely to comprise the ash / PFA deposits from the former power station processes. Off-site, the closest registered landfill is 221 m to the north-east of the site also registered to the CEGB for the deposition of wastes including ceramic, controlled, empty used containers, garden, lagging, paper / cardboard, PFA, timber and other organic material.


February 2014 145

6.366 There are no recorded statutory designated geological sites within 2 km of the proposed scheme.

Potential effects

6.367 Meaford Business Park is a brownfield site, having been the location of the former Meaford A and B Power Stations. Construction and operation of the power station and gas connection elements of the MEC may have the potential to impact receptors through the disturbance of land contamination, for example through the following:

• mobilising existing contaminants during the construction process so that increased leaching to groundwater or run-off to surface watercourses occurs or through the release of dust and/or vapours; and

• introducing new pathways such that existing land contamination has a pathway to a receptor where there was no pathway before, as can happen when drilling or piling through land contamination or laying new utilities through land contamination..

6.368 On site human receptors which could be affected by existing land contamination that could be present at the site include construction workers and workers or visitors at adjacent units. The closest off site human receptors include the users of the Balaston Golf Club adjacent to the north-west of the site and users of the canal towing path which would pass through the northern part of the site and then adjacent to the eastern boundary.

6.369 Controlled waters receptors include, groundwater in Principal and Secondary A aquifers, surface water courses, ditches and ponds.

6.370 Property receptors may include structures, services or other infrastructure constructed in areas affected by contamination.

6.371 Based on the available desk study information, a Preliminary Conceptual Site Model (PCSM) has been prepared with respect to the construction and operation of the proposed development (Table 27).


146 February 2014

Table 27: Preliminary Conceptual Site Model

Sources of Contamination Receptor Exposure Pathway

Historical On Site Sources: Materials used to construct platform for power station Coal and ash/PFA deposits resulting from the operation of the Meaford A and B Power Stations Buried ACMs to the west of the cooling towers Made Ground generated by the construction and demolition activities on the site Made Ground associated with the infilling of the old quarry and the old canal on the site. Spillages of fuel and chemicals resulting from the maintenance, operation and demolition of the former power stations on the site Historical Off Site Sources: London, Midland and Scottish Railway Farms to the north east and east of the site (potential fuel and oil storage) Quarries and pits to the east and north-east of the site Landfills to the east of the site

Human Health: Current and future site users and maintenance staff Users of golf course Adjacent residents Construction workers during development Members of the public in the wider area including users of the canal towing path.

Dermal contact with contaminants in soils, water and soil-derived dusts Ingestion of contaminants in soil, soil-derived dust and water Inhalation of contaminants in soil and soil derived dusts Inhalation of gases and vapours

Property: Existing services New buildings including foundations, services (e.g. water pipes)

Migration of gas into buildings Direct contact of foundations and services with contaminants in soil and shallow groundwater

Controlled Waters: River Trent Trent and Mersey Canal On site ponds and drainage ditches Groundwater in the Principal and Secondary A aquifers

Migration of contaminants to nearby watercourses via land drains and surface water run-off Leaching/migration of contaminants through the unsaturated zone to the underlying groundwater and vertical migration to deeper groundwater and lateral migration to surface water courses


February 2014 147


6.372 The environmental aspects not relevant to the proposed development and therefore scoped out include:

• the physical effects of the development – the proposed site is largely a brownfield site and there will be no change to any natural topography, and ground stability associated with the ground abnormals related to the former use of the site will be addressed through design;

• effects on geology as a valuable resource – there are no recorded statutory geological sites or regionally important geological sites within 2km of the site; and

• the effects on soils as a natural resource – as the site is largely a brownfield site this is not considered.

6.373 The environmental aspects of relevance to the general MEC proposals are related to:

• the implications of soil/material quality for re-use – this is discussed within this scoping report under the section on Waste;

• effects associated with the potential for polluting substances used – this is discussed within the scoping report under the section on Water environment which characterises the surface water and groundwater situation and identifies potential effects to the water environment through the introduction of new pollutants through construction and operation of the proposed development; and

• existing ground contamination – this is discussed in this section of the scoping report

Basis of the assessment

6.374 The assessment for proposed development will be based on information already obtained and the following information sources:

• research of local information sources on the activities associated with the Meaford A and B Power Stations formerly located on the site and on historical activities within the wider area including the landfills to the east of the site;

• consultation with the local authority Contaminated Land, Planning and Building Control departments and with the EA for information held on ‘contaminated land’ within the study area.

• a site walkover reconnaissance of the route corridor focusing on areas for access and construction;

6.375 Information on the proposed development will form the basis of a contaminated land risk assessment and subsequent impact assessment.


148 February 2014

Contaminated land risk assessment

6.376 The process of land contamination risk assessment is defined in CLR11 (Model procedures for the management of land contamination) as follows:

• hazard identification – establishing contaminant sources;

• hazard assessment – establishing pathways and receptors, identifying contaminant linkages;

• risk estimation – predicting the likelihood of harm/pollution occurring (probability assessment) and the degree of harm/pollution (consequence assessment); and

• risk evaluation – deciding whether the risk is significant and/or unacceptable

6.377 Hazard identification and assessment stages conclude in the development of the CSM. This is the description of the contaminant linkages formed (or potentially formed) when a source of contamination is linked to a receptor via a pathway of exposure/migration.

6.378 If there are no relevant data on the levels of land contamination at a site, a qualitative land contamination risk assessment is undertaken using a ‘matrix approach’ to account for the probability and consequence associated with the contaminant linkages. Where there are site data, a quantitative land contamination risk assessment is undertaken by comparing the data to relevant assessment criteria. These assessment criteria typically include factors related to probability (e.g. 95th percentile values for human health exposure rates etc.) and consequence (unacceptable intake doses for human health). The relevance of existing data from the site to this particular scheme will be assessed at ES stage

6.379 Risk evaluation is the process of deciding whether a risk is acceptable or not and entails the application of evaluation criteria. These evaluation criteria are set in relation to a level of harm or pollution to the specific receptor. They may be absolute standards or recommended limit values e.g., a health criteria value for the intake of a substance.

6.380 Where there are no site data and a purely qualitative risk assessment is undertaken, the evaluation criteria are based on value judgements as to whether the land contamination risks are acceptable or not. There are various threshold levels for quantitative risk assessments based on some site specific data that determine the level of significance of the land contamination land risks, e.g. generic assessment criteria below which the risk is considered to be acceptable and site specific assessment criteria above which the risk is unacceptable.

6.381 Definitions of probability and consequence are given in the following guidance.


February 2014 149

• NHBC and EA R&D6630 - providing general guidance on the development and application of the consequence and probability “matrix approach” to the risk assessment of land contamination and broad definitions of consequence.

• CLR11 – recognising the tiered approach to risk assessment and the use of and SSAC site specific assessment criteria through the application of preliminary and quantitative risk assessment.

• Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, Defra, 2012, providing the statutory definitions of significant harm and significant possibility of significant harm for human health, ecosystem and property receptors.

• EA technical advice on pollution of controlled waters31 - providing the Agency’s policy and definitions on significant pollution of controlled waters.

• The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) regulations32 and the HSE’s workplace exposure limits33 - defining legal standards and requirements in relation to significant risks for construction workers.

6.382 These sources of guidance have been used to develop definitions of probability that will be used for the impact assessment as given in Table 28 and consequence in Table 29.

Table 28: Risk estimation - classification of probability

Classification Definition of the Probability of Harm/Pollution Occurring

High Likelihood

The contaminant linkage exists and it is very likely to result in harm/pollution in the short term, and/or will almost inevitably result in harm/pollution in the long term, and/or there is current evidence of harm/pollution. Likelihood is defined as more likely than not and meets the definition of ‘significant possibility’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

Likely The source, pathway and receptor exist for the contaminant linkage and it is probable that harm/pollution will occur. Circumstances are such that harm/pollution is not inevitable, but possible in the short term and likely over the long term. Likelihood is defined as reasonably possible and meets the definition of ‘significant possibility’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

30 National House-Building Council & Environment Agency, 2008. Guidance on the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination. London: NHBC and Environment Agency (R&D66). 31 Environment Agency, 2002. Technical Advice to Third Parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part IIA of the EPA1990. Version 2. Bristol: Environment Agency. 32 The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013. SI 2013/14741, London: HMSO. 33 Health & Safety Executive, 2007. Table 1: List of Approved Workplace Exposure Limits (as consolidated with amendments October 2007) [online]. Health & Safety Executive.


150 February 2014

Classification Definition of the Probability of Harm/Pollution Occurring

Low Likelihood

The source, pathway and receptor exist and it is possible that harm/pollution could occur. Circumstances are such that harm/pollution is by no means certain in the long term and less likely in the short term.

Unlikely The source, pathway and receptor exist for the contaminant linkage but it is improbable that harm/pollution will occur even in the long term.

Table 29 - Risk estimation - classification of consequence

Classification Definition of Consequence

Human Health Receptors – Site end use or other more sensitive receptor

Severe Acute damage to human health based on the effects on the critical human receptor. Concentrations of contaminants above appropriate site specific assessment criteria. Harm meets definition of ‘significant harm’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

Medium Chronic damage to human health based on the effects on the critical human receptor. Concentrations of contaminants above appropriate site specific assessment criteria. Harm meets definition of ‘significant harm’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

Mild No appreciable impact on human health based on the potential effects on the critical human receptor. Concentrations of contaminants above generic assessment criteria but below appropriate site specific assessment criteria.

Minor No appreciable impact on human health based on the effects on the critical human receptor. Concentrations of contaminants below appropriate generic assessment criteria.

Human Health Receptors – Site construction workers

Severe Exposure to hazardous substances resulting in a reportable death, major injury, 3-day injury or illness/disease under RIDDOR.

Medium Exposure to hazardous substances resulting in a dangerous occurrence reportable under RIDDOR. Exposure to hazardous substances resulting in exceedance of a workplace exposure limit.

Mild Exposure to hazardous substances resulting in limited effects such as headache, dizziness, nausea. Exposures below the workplace exposure limits. Not reportable under RIDDOR.

Minor Minor exposure to hazardous substance resulting in no appreciable ill health effects.

Controlled Water Receptors


February 2014 151


Severe Pollution of a Principal Aquifer within a source protection zone or potable supply characterised by a breach of drinking water standards. Pollution of a surface water course characterised by a breach of an Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) at a statutory monitoring location or resulting in a change in General Quality Assessment (GQA) grade of river reach. Discharge of a List I or List II substance to groundwater. Pollution meets Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance definition.

Medium Pollution of a Principal Aquifer outside a source protection zone or a Secondary A Aquifer characterised by a breach of drinking water standards. Pollution of an industrial groundwater abstraction or irrigation supply that impairs its function. Substantial pollution but insufficient to result in a change in the GQA grade of river reach Pollution meets Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance definition.

Mild Low levels of pollution of a Principal Aquifer outside a source protection zone or an industrial abstraction, or pollution of a Secondary Aquifer. Low levels of pollution insufficient to result in a change in the GQA grade of river reach, pollution of a surface water course without a quality classification.

Minor No appreciable pollution, or pollution of a low sensitivity receptor such as a non-aquifer or a surface water course without a quality classification

Property Receptors – Buildings, Foundations and Services

Severe Catastrophic damage to buildings, such as explosion. Catastrophic failure of foundations and services. Substantial damage to a Scheduled Monument significantly impairing the by reason of which the monument is scheduled. Harm meets definition of ‘significant harm’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

Medium Substantial damage to buildings and foundations rendering the structures unsafe. Substantial damage to services impairing their function. Significant damage to a Scheduled Monument significantly impairing the reason of which the monument is scheduled. Harm meets definition of ‘significant harm’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

Mild Significant damage to buildings and foundations but not resulting in them being unsafe for occupation. Damage to services but not sufficient to impair their function. Damage to a Scheduled Monument but no significant impairment to the reason of which the monument is scheduled.

Minor Easily repairable damage to buildings, foundations and services.

Property Receptors – Crops and Livestock


152 February 2014


Severe Substantial loss in the value of crops or domestically-grown produce. Death to livestock, domesticated animals or wild animals subject to shooting or fishing rights. Harm meets definition of ‘significant harm’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance..

Medium Substantial diminution in yield (over 20% reduction) of crops or domestically-grown produce. Serious disease or other serious physical damage to livestock, domesticated animals or wild animals subject to shooting or fishing rights. Harm meets definition of ‘significant harm’ within Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance.

Mild Harm to crops but not resulting in a substantial loss in value or diminution in yield (less than 20% reduction). Limited harm in terms of disease or other physical damage to livestock, domesticated animals or wild animals subject to shooting or fishing rights.

Minor No appreciable harm, or harm to a low sensitivity receptor.

6.383 Land contamination risk, a function of the probability and the consequence, is then defined using the risk matrix given in Table 30 which is taken from the NHBC and EA’s guide R&D66.

Table 30: Estimation of the level of risk by comparison of consequence and probability Consequence

Severe Medium Mild Minor

Pro

babi

lity

High Likelihood

Very High Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Moderate/Low Risk

Likely High Risk Moderate Risk Moderate/Low Risk

Low Risk

Low Likelihood

Moderate Risk Moderate/Low Risk

Low Risk Very Low Risk

Unlikely Moderate/Low Risk

Low Risk Very Low Risk Very Low Risk

6.384 The descriptions of the classified risks as given in R&D66, are as follows:

• Very high risk:

• There is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard at the site without remediation action OR there is evidence that severe harm to a designated receptor is already occurring. Realisation of that risk is likely to present a substantial liability to


February 2014 153

the site owner/or occupier. Investigation is required as a matter of urgency and remediation works likely to follow in the short-term.

• High risk:

• Harm is likely to arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard at the site without remediation action. Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability to the site owner/or occupier. Investigation is required as a matter of urgency to clarify the risk. Remediation works may be necessary in the short-term and are likely over the longer term.

• Moderate risk:

• It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from an identified hazard. However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would be severe, and if any harm were to occur it is more likely, that the harm would be relatively mild. Further investigative work is normally required to clarify the risk and to determine the potential liability to site owner/occupier. Some remediation works may be required in the longer term.

• Low risk:

• It is possible that harm could arise to a designated receptor from identified hazard, but it is likely at worst, that this harm if realised would normally be mild. It is unlikely that the site owner/or occupier would face substantial liabilities from such a risk. Further investigative work (which is likely to be limited) to clarify the risk may be required. Any subsequent remediation works are likely to be relatively limited.

• Very low risk:

• It is a low possibility that harm could arise to a designated receptor, but it is likely at worst, that this harm if realised would normally be mild or minor.

• No potential risk:

• There is no potential risk if no pollution linkage has been established.

Land Contamination impact assessment

6.385 The approach to the impact assessment will entail undertaking land contamination risk assessments for each of the following.

• Baseline Land Contamination Risk Assessment

• the development of the CSM for the site based on its current sources, pathways and receptors and an assessment of the current land contamination risks

• Construction Phase Land Contamination Risk Assessment

• the development of the CSM and risk assessment for the construction phase, addressing the potential for new sources of contamination to be introduced to the site and the change in pathways and receptors


154 February 2014

• Operational Phase Land Contamination Risk Assessment

• the CSM for the developed site, reflecting the final site conditions including the status of contamination sources and the changes in the receptors

6.386 The impact assessment is then undertaken by comparing the Baseline with each of the Construction Phase Risk Assessment, the Operational Phase Risk Assessments, and the Decommissioning/Demolition Phase Risk Assessments. The impact assessment includes the mitigation measures that will be included to address the potential environmental effects. This CSM comparison approach allows the changes in land contamination status during construction and during operation of the site to be identified as either positive, neutral or negative effects and consideration of whether they are major, moderate or minor. Table 31 presents an explanation of these significant criteria.

Table 31: Significance criteria – Land Contamination risk and Part 2A status


Definition

Major adverse effect

For example, land that has a very low contamination risk in the baseline becomes a high or very high risk. Land that does not meet the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing baseline becomes capable of being determined under Part 2A.

Moderate adverse effect

For example, land that has a low contamination risk in the baseline becomes a moderate or high risk. Land that does not meet the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing baseline becomes capable of being determined under Part 2A.

Minor adverse effect

For example, land that has a low contamination risk in the baseline becomes a moderate/low risk.

Neutral effect No change in the risks presented by contamination.

Minor beneficial effect

For example, land that has a moderate/low contamination risk in the baseline becomes a low risk.

Moderate beneficial effect

For example, land that has a high contamination risk in the baseline becomes a moderate/low or low risk. Land that meets the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing baseline is no longer capable of being determined under Part 2A.

Major beneficial effect

For example, land that has a very high contamination risk in the baseline becomes a low or very low risk. Land that meets the statutory definition of Contaminated Land in the existing baseline is no longer capable of being determined under Part


February 2014 155


Definition

2A.


6.387 CLR11 sets out the approach to remediation of land contamination. Remediation will need to address the relevant contaminant linkages, i.e. those that are presenting an unacceptable risk. The basic principles of remediation look to address the three elements of the contaminant linkage – the source, the pathway or the receptor: addressing one will break the contaminant linkage and address the unacceptable risk:

• Removal or treatment of the source of contamination either through physical excavation of soil or through treatment of the soil to render the contaminants safe

• Breaking the pathway by leaving the contamination in situ but preventing exposure to or migration of the contaminants by the use of an engineered system to act as a barrier between the source and the receptors.

• Changing or modifying the receptor such as changing from residential to a less sensitive land use such as commercial development

6.388 If the conclusion of the land contamination risk assessment and impact assessment is that mitigation is required, then this will be specified through an appraisal of remedial options and the preparation of a remediation strategy. The approach to remedial options appraisal is to initially identify feasible remediation options by considering the applicability of a range of options and their potential to achieve the required standard of remediation. Once the best practicable technique has been confirmed, a remediation strategy can be prepared which will detail how the remedial works are to be carried out. It is likely that land contamination risks for developments such as the MEC would be addressed through a combination of source removal and/or engineered barrier solutions.

6.389 A construction environmental management plan (CEMP) will be prepared for mitigation of land contamination risks and effects associated with construction methods that will include requirements for pollution control, such as ensuring that fuels and oils are stored and used in accordance with best practice techniques.

6.390 Mitigation of land contamination risks and effects associated with the operation of the power station, in terms of the introduction of potential new sources of contamination, will be afforded through the environmental permitting (EP) process and the requirement to demonstrate such issues are mitigated using the best available technology (BAT).


156 February 2014


February 2014 157

The water environment

6.391 The proposed development has the potential to impact groundwater and surface water in terms of both flow and quality during the construction and operational phases. This section provides details relevant to the water environment.

6.392 The primary focus of this scoping section for the water environment is to:

• Characterise the current groundwater, surface water, and environmental baseline conditions within the site boundary and in the vicinity of the site;

• Identify the potential water receptors for the areas of concern;

• Summarise the potential effects of the scheme on the receptors; and

• Specify the assessment methodologies for the impact assessment process;

Study area

6.393 The study area used for the assessment of the impact to the water environment as a result of this scheme comprises the site itself and a 1km buffer zone surrounding the site boundary.


6.394 A variety of information has been used to inform this section of the scoping report. The baseline information feeds into the water environment Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the site. This information is from publicly available sources, technical reports on the site and technical planning notes which include:

• The results of previous Ground Investigation (GI) into the site. These GI were undertaken in 2003 by WSP and in 2007 by Halcrow Group Ltd (Halcrow), and are both summarised in the Geo-Environmental Assessment Report by Halcrow34;

• Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Statement, produced by Halcrow35;

• Publicly available information from the Environment Agency36;

• Publicly available information from British Geological Survey37;

• Technical guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework38; and 34 Halcrow Group Limited, March 2008. Meaford Business Park, Stone, Staffordshire: Geo-Environmental Assessment, Internal Report 35 Halcrow Group Limited, 2007. Meaford Business Park: Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Statement. Internal Report. 36 Environment Agency, 2014. Interactive Maps, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx (Accessed 08/01/2014) 37 British Geological Survey, 2014. GeoIndex www.mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html (Accessed 08/01/2014)


http://www.mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html


158 February 2014

• Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment, included in Appendix 5.


Geology

6.395 The geological conditions at the site are discussed in more detail in the Ground Conditions section of this report; the following section provides a brief summary of the reviewed information.

6.396 BGS mapping39 identifies the majority of the underlying bedrock as the Halesowen Formation (mudstones, sandstones, and siltstones)40. This formation extends from the northern boundary of the site toward the minor road (Washdale Lane) crossing through the south of the site. The southernmost extent of the site is identified by BGS maps as being underlain by the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation, which is pebbly sandstone of Triassic age.

6.397 The contact between the Halesowen Formation and the Bromsgrove Formation is inferred to be faulted by the BGS.

6.398 BGS maps show the Halesowen Formation is overlain by Glacial Till on the eastern section of the business park, and River Terrace Deposits to the west. Made Ground of variable composition is recorded over much of the site.

6.399 The Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation to the south is overlain by River Terrace Deposits.

Hydrogeology 6.400 The Environment Agency41 designate this underlying aquifer as a Secondary A

Aquifer, capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers.

6.401 The southernmost extent of the site is shown by the Environment Agency to be a Principal Aquifer of the Bromsgrove Sandstone Group. Principal Aquifers are capable of providing a high level of water, supporting water supply and/or base flow to rivers.

6.402 Associated with this Principal Aquifer is a Zone 3 Groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ). SPZs are present to help monitor the risk of contamination from activities that may cause pollution in that area.

38 Department for Communities and Local Government, 03/2012. Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 39 British Geological Survey, 2014. GeoIndex www.mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html (Accessed 08/01/2014) 40 British Geological Survey, 2014. Lexicon of Named Rock Units www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon (Accessed 08/01/2014) 41 Environment Agency, 03/01/2014. Interactive Maps http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx (Accessed 08/01/2014)

http://www.mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon



February 2014 159

6.403 A Zone 3 is defined as the area around a source within which all groundwater recharge is presumed to be discharged at the source.

6.404 Groundwater contours were produced for the Halcrow report, indicating a groundwater flow direction from east to west, toward the River Trent.

6.405 The Halesowen Formation underlying the site and the River Terrace Deposits immediately to the west of the site are designated as Secondary A aquifers, capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers.

6.406 Perched water tables were encountered locally during the GI within the Made Ground. The water table was present within the Halesowen Formation (recorded in the GI report as the Keele Formation). Generally speaking, the groundwater was not thought to be in hydraulic continuity with the perched water, and the Halesowen Formation was not observed to be saturated

6.407 The site is designated by the Environment Agency as being in a Groundwater Drinking Water Protected Area, with an ‘at risk area’ designation. This indicates that groundwater extracted from this area may require additional treatment.

6.408 In the surrounding area, to the east and west of the site, the underlying strata are designated as a Principal Aquifer. The Principal Aquifer is formed of the Kidderminster Group.

6.409 Another nearby SPZs is associated with the surrounding Principal Aquifer to the west of the site. To the west, at the same distance listed above, the Principal Aquifer delineation is designated as a SPZ Zone 3.

6.410 The Zone 2 boundary of the SPZ, defined by a 400 day travel time from a point below the water table, is located approximately 1.3km to the west of the site.

6.411 There are three Zone 1 boundaries of the SPZ, defined by a 50 day travel time with minimum radius of 50 metres. The closest Zone 1 is located approximately 1.75km to the west of the site, with the other two being between 2.1km and 2.4km to the west.

Groundwater chemistry

6.412 The 2008 Halcrow Report summarises the results of the two phases of GI. The first was carried out by WSP in 2003, whilst the second was undertaken by Halcrow in 2007.

6.413 The WSP Investigation in 2003 comprised of 39 groundwater samples collected and analysed for:

• Heavy metals;

• Inorganic species;

• Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) speciated as C6-C10, C10-C20, and C20-C40 hydrocarbon fractions;

• Volatile and semi-volatile organic suites;


160 February 2014

• pH; and

• Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB).

6.414 Further analysis of waters was undertaken by Halcrow in October 2007 and 22 samples were collected and analysed for;

• TPH speciated as aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons; and

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) suite.

6.415 Table 32, summarises the results for determinands as presented by Halcrow, which recorded concentrations in excess of the Environment Agency Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for cyprinid fish or Water Supply Regulations (WSR) 200042 where the EQS was not available.

Table 32: Summary of the Groundwater Monitoring Determinand WSR (2000)

(µg/l) EA EQS (µg/l) No. of

exceedances Concentration Range (µg/l)

WSP Investigation, 2003 (39 Samples Total)

Ammonium 0.5 (mg/l) - 8 0.81 – 5.42 (mg/l)

Ammonia - 0.015 3 0.1 – 0.8

Boron - 2000 1 2047

Selenium 10 - 12 12 – 131

TPH C6-C40 - 30* 12 31 – 9034

pH - 6-9 1 9.76

Halcrow Investigation, 2007 (22 Samples Total)

Benzo (a) pyrene - 0.05 2 0.2 - 0.4

Benzo (b) fluoranthene

- 0.015 6 0.04 - 0.68

Benzo (ghi) perylene

- 0.001 6 0.03 - 0.21

Benzo (k) fluoranthene

- 0.015 4 0.03 - 0.38

Indeno (123 cd) pyrene

- 0.001 2 0.09 - 0.11

* - There is no EA EQS for TPH, and so the Environment Agency EQS for benzene was used.

6.416 Of particular note in Table 32 is the TPH fraction recorded by WSP. The recorded data shows a large range, from 31µg/l to 9034µg/l. The exploratory hole where this value was recorded was in close proximity to former above ground fuel storage tanks.

42 Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000, 2000 No. 3184


February 2014 161

Hydrology

6.417 There are three water courses running adjacent to or through the site:

• The River Trent which is the main surface water course in close proximity to the site;

• The Trent and Mersey Canal located adjacent to the sites eastern boundary; and

• A tributary of the River Trent is located in the southernmost extent of the site. This flows east to west, toward the River Trent.

6.418 The water courses have been assessed by the Environment Agency within their Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management Plans43.

6.419 The section of the River Trent (River Trent between Tittensor to River Sow) adjacent to the site to the west has been assessed under the WFD as being of ‘poor’ status ecologically and as being of ‘good’ status chemically. The river is located in a surface water nitrate vulnerable zone.

6.420 The Trent and Mersey Canal has been assessed under the WFD as being of ‘good’ status ecologically, and is not assessed in terms of chemical quality. It is designated as being within a surface water nitrate vulnerable zone.

6.421 Several small water bodies have been identified within the site boundary and these are identified in the Phase 1 habitat plan (Appendix 3).

6.422 A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out as a part of this report (Appendix 5). The FRA found that the majority of the site is located within a fluvial flood plain Zone 1 and is therefore at low risk from fluvial flooding. However, there is a small area to the south of Washdale Lane and where the tributary crosses the site that is identified as being within fluvial Flood Zone 3. The FRA also identified that there are other potential flood mechanisms in the area of the site which include the potential for groundwater flooding and pluvial flooding (flooding from run-off).

Surface water chemistry

6.423 Three separate surface water samples were collected from the River Trent in the vicinity of the site by WSP in 2003. These samples were analysed for:

• Heavy metals;

• Inorganic species;

• TPH speciated as aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon fractions;

• Volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds; and

• pH.

43 The Environment Agency, 2009. Humber River Basin Management Plan, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124803.aspx (Accessed 13/01/2014)



162 February 2014

6.424 The only determinand to have concentrations in excess of the Environment Agency’s EQS or the thresholds within the WSR 2000 was selenium, where two samples recorded a concentration of 11 µg/l, against the threshold within the WSR 2000 of 10µg/l.

6.425 Three separate surface water samples were collected by Halcrow in 2007. These samples were analysed for:

• Heavy metals;

• TPH speciated as aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon fractions;

• Speciated PAH suite; and

• pH.

6.426 All surface water samples recorded concentrations of all determinands analysed below the Environment Agency EQS for cyprinid fish and, where this EQS was unavailable, the WSR 2000 thresholds.

Conceptual site model

6.427 A CSM has been derived from the information presented in this chapter utilising a Source – Pathway – Receptor model and outlines the potential risks to the water environment. A summary of the CSM is presented below and will be expanded further in the full assessment.

6.428 It is expected that the main source will comprise construction materials and chemical and fuels used and stored on site during construction.

6.429 Following the production of the baseline assessment above a number of surface water and groundwater receptors have been considered for the purpose of this assessment, and include the following;

• Groundwater – Secondary A Aquifer of the Warwickshire Group as the primary receptor;

• Groundwater – Principal Aquifer of the Sherwood Sandstone Group;

• River Trent and its tributary;

• Trent and Mersey Canal;

• Unnamed Drains;

• Ponds; and

• Stone Meadows and Crown Meadows Local Nature Reserves - potential secondary receptors. Stone Meadows and Crown Meadows are situated downstream of the site, on the banks of the River Trent and therefore there is potential that the proposed development could impact these conservation sites.


February 2014 163

6.430 Due to the distance of the King's and Hargreaves Woods SSSI receptor from the site and the presence of the River Trent between the site and the SSSI it is not considered a receptor with respect to the water environment.

6.431 In order for sources of contamination to affect a receptor, a pathway must be present. The following pathways are considered possible and therefore further assessment will be required in the Water section of the impact assessment report;

• Infiltration to the groundwater system;

• Run-off to the surface water system; and

• New pathways developed during and as a result of the construction process, for example excavation or piling may create a preferential pathway for infiltration to the groundwater system.

Potential effects

6.432 Groundwater levels and flow regimes can potentially be affected by activities such as piling or the physical presence of the development and its foundations; these activities can impact groundwater flow and quality, by creating contaminant pathways or altering the flow regime.

6.433 Surface water flows and levels can potentially be altered due to an increase in the area of impermeable surfaces and changes to the surface water flow regime and mobilise contaminants into the water environment.

6.434 Flood risk can be affected where developments increase the impermeable areas across a site or where ground is compacted during construction. Such effects can have implications within the wider catchment areas as well as localised impacts (this is discussed in more detail in Appendix 5).

6.435 Conversely the water environment can have an effect on the development, for example the implications of flood water for the design of building materials or aggressive groundwater conditions impacting on foundation materials.

6.436 Changes in groundwater and surface water quality can also occur due to changes in the conditions on site, such as through the introduction of new pollutants, resulting in an increase in the pollutant loading of groundwater and surface water courses. It is recognised that the deliberate or accidental discharge of polluting material into Controlled Water is an offence under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. Such changes in water quality can affect physical, chemical, and biological parameters. These changes in the water environment can occur during both the construction phase and when the development is operational.

6.437 During the construction phase of works there is the potential for impact on the water environment via the creation of linkages between source and receptor. The potential impacts to the identified receptors are as follows:


164 February 2014

• Construction works may introduce sources of contamination and/or create pathways to the Secondary A Aquifer underlying the site or the nearby surface water courses;

• Development of hard standing or compaction of the ground by construction vehicles may reduce infiltration across the site, reducing the base flow to rivers. This can also increase the flood risk potential, as discussed in the Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 5);

• Impacts to the Secondary A aquifer may have a knock on effect on the nearby Principal Aquifer and associated Source Protection Zone, assuming a level of hydraulic continuity between the two bodies;

• Spills of fuel ,oil, and building materials have the potential to cause pollution to surface water and groundwater receptors;

• Suspended solids from the construction phase could enter the surface water run-off and enter the existing water courses, decreasing quality and impacting ecology; and

• Development of piling foundations, if required, may create a pathway to the underlying aquifer.

6.438 In summary the works associated with the proposed development which may have an adverse impact on the water environment include:

• Construction of areas of hardstanding;

• Use of soakaways to manage surface water and roof drainage;

• Constructions of a drainage scheme to manage roadway run-off;

• Construction of a sewage system for removal of fouls;

• Positioning of buried services;

• Excavation of building and road foundations, possible cut and fill operations in order to provide a suitable construction platform; and

• Activities within contactor storage and work areas during the construction phase, including fuels storage, and the use of other substances which may be harmful to the Water Environment.

6.439 In addition, during the operation of the proposed development there is potential for impact on the water environment from activities such as:

• Poor maintenance of surface water drainage features;

• Poor maintenance of fouls drainage;

• Improper storage of materials, such as fuels, which may be harmful to the water environment; and

• Improper maintenance of vehicles and machinery, which may cause accidental spills.


February 2014 165

Water Cooling

6.440 Should abstraction from and discharge to the River Trent or canal be required for cooling, there may be impacts with respect to the river flow levels and water chemistry of the receiving water (this is dependent on whether dosing is required following water intake).


6.441 The ES water chapter will expand on those environmental impacts from the proposed development on the surface water and groundwater environment identified in this scoping report and determine potential mitigation strategies where applicable.

6.442 The primary focus will be to assess the potential environmental impact that the proposed development poses through the construction and operation phases.

6.443 The assessment criteria which will be used are based on the methodology for appraising the impact of projects set out in the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.3.644 and the specific guidance for the water environment sub-objective set out in TAG Unit 3.3.1145. Although this methodology has been developed for the assessment of road and bridge projects it can be used to assess the impacts of other developments such as this development.

6.444 The methodology takes into account the importance, magnitude, and significance of predicted impacts on the water environment. Importance is based on the value of the feature or resource, where the magnitude of a potential impact is estimated based on the likely effects and is independent of the importance of the feature.

6.445 The severity of a specific potential effect is then derived by considering both the importance and sensitivity of the feature and the magnitude of the impacts (impacts must be quantified where possible, also estimating change from the baseline conditions and the range of uncertainty). The significance of the impacts must be identified then opportunities for further environmental enhancement can be considered.

6.446 A Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment will be prepared and will be based on the Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment for the scheme. This assessment will be prepared in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework, Environment Agency standing advice, and following the guidance given in CIRIA Report Development and Flood Risk – Guidance for the Construction Industry46.

44 The Environment Objective, Tag Unit 3.3, December 2004, Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guide (TAG) 45 The Water Environment Sub-Objectives, Tag Unit 3.3.11, June 2003, Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guide (TAG) 46 CIRIA, 2004. CIRIA C624: Development and flood Risk – guidance for the construction industry. London


166 February 2014

6.447 A more detailed assessment will be required for the ES stage. The following tasks will therefore be carried out:

• Undertake a site walkover to determine the presence of surface water at the site and identify any additional factors present;

• Liaison with Environment Agency;

• Assessment of aspects of the development that are likely to affect the water environment; this shall include estimates of the impermeable area that will be created by the development;

• Review and update the existing CSM using information on baseline conditions and the proposed aspects of the development that are likely to impact the water environment. The CSM will identify the Source-Pathway-Receptor linkages;

• A detailed impact assessment of the construction and operational phase of the development based on the CSM. This will include establishing the magnitude and the significance of any impacts identified;

• Identification of cumulative impacts (that is, relevant impacts that may be compounded by those arising from this development);

• Description of mitigation measures, where required, to address significant adverse effects; and

• Identification of residual effects likely to arise as a consequence of the development.

Water Cooling

6.448 Should abstraction from and discharge to the River Trent or canal be required for cooling, a WFD assessment will need to be undertaken to assess the likely impact on water chemistry and river flow. This would require (or make reasonable assumptions about) the quantities of water required for cooling, any chemical modification required, and existing water chemistry and river flow data.


6.449 The proposed development will be designed and constructed so as to minimise the risk of pollution to the Water Environment.

6.450 During construction, good working practices should be developed and employed. This will reduce the number of accidental discharges and lower the risk of works on the site. Good working practices should be carried forward during the operation of the proposed development to prevent any future impact on the Water Environment.

6.451 The amount of hardstanding and ground cover in the final development may reduce the infiltration levels however, the use of Sustainable Drainage Schemes can be employed to minimise the impact this has on groundwater.


February 2014 167

Waste

Introduction

6.452 This section presents the proposed approach to the assessment of waste material. It includes a discussion of baseline conditions, preliminary identification of potential impacts and their effects, the proposed impact assessment methodology for consideration of the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed development, and potential requirements for mitigation.

6.453 The proposed development has the potential to generate large quantities of waste material which need to be well managed to reduce the environmental impact of the project, enable utilisation of the waste as a resource, and ensure it is managed as high up the waste hierarchy as possible.

6.454 Due to the nature of the proposed development, the types of waste that will be produced include site clearance waste, excavation waste, and construction waste (including materials brought to site but not used) as well as waste and materials generated through the decommissioning and demolition phase.

6.455 In planning and constructing new developments, the recycling and segregation of waste materials is crucial to sustainable design and good site management. Reducing the waste arisings benefits the environment and can reduce the overall costs of the development.

6.456 Minimising waste arisings at the design stage, and optimising reuse on-site is the preferred option for minimising traffic movements and reducing the impacts on local infrastructure. Any hazardous waste material generated must be stored and transported following the appropriate waste regulations to mitigate their environmental impact.

6.457 In addition, an appreciation of the quantities of waste that will arise once a development is operational or occupied will also help to assist in the mitigation of impacts associated with the waste produced on site and its management.

Study area

6.458 The study area for the waste assessment will be based on the immediate area of the proposed development site including the MEC generation station site itself, the connection corridors and any other associated development including proposed highways.

6.459 Waste is managed on a sub-regional and regional level therefore the baseline section and subsequent assessment will consider the latest published data relating to existing levels of Construction Demolition and Excavation Waste (CDEW) and Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste generation at a county level.


168 February 2014


6.460 Data relating to the current levels of CDEW and C&I, at a county level, are provided in this section. These waste streams are representative of the types of waste that will be generated by the proposed development.

6.461 The movement of waste from the waste producer to its final destination is a complex process as waste may pass through several waste treatment facilities, and be mixed with other waste streams before reaching its final destination. Waste arisings are managed at a county, regional or sub-regional level depending on the waste type and availability of facilities.

6.462 In order to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development it is necessary to understand the current levels of waste generation in the area to ascertain the effects that the proposed development may have on the local waste infrastructure capacity.

6.463 The baseline position presented represents the most recently available published data concerning waste arisings at a county level.

6.464 The site, whilst current undeveloped, previously accommodated two former coal-fired power stations, and so it is assumed that current waste arisings are zero. Any waste generated by the proposed development will therefore be an increase in relation to the current baseline.

6.465 In terms of the current situation on site, the ground conditions section of this report provides details of the current ground conditions noted on a site walkover carried out in January 2014. This identified that whilst the former power station generation buildings and cooling towers together with a number of ancillary buildings were demolished, there are a number of remaining surface structures that will need to be managed as part of the proposed development. At present, detail on the type and quantity of material that will require management is not yet known but this will be calculated through the assessment process.

Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste

6.466 The Annual Monitoring Report for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent for 2012/2013 details the amount of C&I and CD&EW produced in the sub-region (Table 33).

Table 33: C&I and CD&EW produced in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent47

Staffordshire Stoke-on-Trent Total

C&I (tonnes) 1,200,000 414,000 1,614,000

CD&E (tonnes) 1,483,000 356,000 1,839,000

47 http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/planning/policy/monitoringreports/Final-draft-Annual-Monitoring-Report-2012-13-updated2.pdf

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/planning/policy/monitoringreports/Final-draft-Annual


February 2014 169

6.467 It states that the total available capacity in the area for recycling and aggregate recycling are 1,424,663 tonnes per annum (tpa) and 967,940 tpa respectively47.

6.468 Circa 15.5 million m3 of landfill capacity was also available in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. Table 34 sets out the county and regional capacity for 201148.

Table 34: Total landfill capacity in the West Midlands and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

Landfill Type Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent West Midlands

Capacity (m3) Number of facilities49

Total Capacity (m3)

Hazardous 130 0 130

Non-Hazardous 12,312 5 50,428

Inert 2,611 7 10,431

Total 15,053 12 60,989

Source Environment Agency 201150 and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent 2012

Commercial and industrial waste (C&I)

6.469 In terms of C&I waste, the waste can vary greatly in composition and therefore it is managed at a wide range of facilities. The waste is often similar in composition to Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and facilities often treat both waste streams together.

6.470 The appendices from the Joint Waste Core Strategy 51 reports that C&I waste accounts for 39% of the total waste arisings within the counties. It is estimated that two-thirds of the waste is generated from industrial sources and one third from commercial sources

6.471 Table 35 provides information on the capacity of waste treatment facilities within the county area. The Core Strategy for Staffordshire is also the Development Plan for Stoke on Trent Council. Therefore data for both areas is presented for completeness.

48 The Environment Agency Landfill Inputs and Capacity Report presented data in cubic metres, therefore the following density conversion figures were used. Hazardous waste: 0.87, Non-hazardous waste: 0.87 and Inert: 1.24 49 http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/planning/policy/monitoringreports/Final-draft-Annual-Monitoring-Report-2012-13-updated2.pdf 50 Environment Agency (2010) West Midlands landfill inputs and capacity 2010 51 Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council (2011)Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy 2010-2026, Publication Document – Appendices.

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/planning/policy/monitoringreports/Final-draft-Annual


170 February 2014

Table 35: Capacity of Facilities in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

Staffordshire (tonnes)

Stoke-on-Trent (tonnes)

Total (tonnes)

Recycling facilities 819,770 523,193 1,342,963

Organic treatment facilities 522,595 39,784 562,379

Residual treatment facilities (includes MSW treatment)

544,843 335,952 880,795

Aggregate recycling facilities 518,401 312,039 830,440

Waste transfer facilities 1,332,730 354,761 1,687,491

Source – Staffordshire County Council 201152

Potential effects

Construction Impacts

6.472 The proposed development will require clearance of the site, including areas of excavations and stockpiles of soil and rubble associated with the demolition of the former power stations together with surface structures remaining on site.

6.473 Excavations will be required in relation to the foundations of the buildings of the power station, cable routes and associated development including drainage and potentially highway improvement works. The ground conditions section of this report highlights that the site may have potentially contaminated material, in the form of PFA landfill and also sludge deposits. Consideration as to how this material would need to be managed will be assessed through the EIA process.

6.474 The key building elements of the MEC will lead to quantities of waste being generated through the construction process as well as waste from packaging material and material that is brought onto site but not used. It is anticipated that potential impacts will be addressed through the design and construction of the development to ensure that wastage of construction materials is minimised, with efforts made to maximise on-site reuse and off-site recycling and recovery of any excavation and construction material generated.

Operational Impacts

6.475 Once operational, it is anticipated that the MEC will employ 30 Full Time Employees (FTE). The waste generation from these staff is likely to be minimal and include food waste, packaging and office waste. However the operations of the facility may result in the production of waste as outputs and also as a result of maintenance works, the types and quantities of waste will need to be assessed and

52 Staffordshire County Council (2011) Staffordshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Annual Monitoring Report


February 2014 171

opportunities for treatment rather than disposal considered.

Decommissioning impacts

6.476 The decommissioning and demolition of the MEC has the potential to generate large quantities of materials and wastes. Whilst this will be longer term, it is necessary to consider the impacts on longer term facility capacity. Opportunities for recovery will be identified, however it should be recognised that waste management is a rapidly evolving industry and the opportunities for recycling will most likely have changed before the decommissioning phase.


6.477 The following lifecycles of the development will be considered:

• Construction (including excavation);

• Operation; and

• Decommissioning.

6.478 The approach to the waste management assessment will be to carry out a review of local and national policy guidance governing such a construction project to assess the prevailing policy regime on waste.

Construction Phase

6.479 The assessment will also consider the likely types and volumes of waste generated during construction works (to include excavation and demolition). Information on waste generated by the project will also be obtained and will include:

• Volume and types of waste generated in the construction phase including excavated material;

• Volume and type of material which could be reused on-site without any treatment for the construction phase of the project;

• Volume and types of material which could be treated on-site for use in the construction phase;

• Volume and type of material which could be sent off-site for recovery and recycling and identify where this will occur;

• Volume and types of waste which would be taken off-site for disposal; and

• Targets will be set for onsite reuse and recycling / recovery either onsite or offsite (this will include consideration of material with a recycled content in the construction process).

6.480 The quantity and type of excavated material surplus to requirements of the project will be calculated. This will consider the amount of material that could be reused within the scheme and assess potential end uses off site that do not require disposal. A forecast of the quantity of hazardous material likely to be generated by


172 February 2014

the excavation works, which cannot be remediated and reused on-site, will be produced.

6.481 During construction, waste could be generated through materials brought onto site for construction and not being used or from being surplus to requirements. Waste from the construction phase will be forecast either through detailed design information or where data is unavailable through the use of standard indices.

6.482 During the construction phase it is anticipated that up to 800 construction jobs will be created. This will result in waste generated on site, for example food waste and office waste, which must be appropriately managed.

Operational Phase

6.483 During the operational phase, we will consider the solid waste elements produced by the proposed development both by the site staff and also through maintenance works etc.

Decommissioning Phase

6.484 Consideration will be given to the waste likely to arise at the end of the MEC’s life. The assessment will consider the materials that will be produced together with opportunities for recycling.

Assessment of significant impacts

6.485 The quantity of waste requiring treatment/disposal during all three phases will then be assessed against the existing waste collection, recycling and disposal infrastructure in the Staffordshire area to determine if a significant impact is anticipated.

6.486 The significance criteria used to assess the impact of the proposed development has been developed specific to the scheme and is detailed in Table 36 below.

Table 36: Waste Significance Criteria

Significance criteria

Description

Major adverse Severe permanent reduction in landfill void space capacity on a local and regional scale. Need for large scale waste treatment facilities.

Moderate adverse

Slight or moderate, local-scale reduction in landfill void space capacity. Need for medium scale waste treatment facilities.

Minor adverse Slight or moderate, local-scale reduction in landfill void space capacity reversible with time. Need for medium scale waste treatment facilities.

Neutral No waste generation, no discernible impact on local waste management capacity.

Minor beneficial Minor decrease in waste generation or minor increase in re-use and recycling levels. Slight or moderate, local-scale reduction in use of


February 2014 173

Significance criteria

Description

landfill.

Moderate beneficial

Slight or moderate decrease in waste generation or moderate increase in reuse and recycling levels. Slight or moderate reduction in use of landfill.

Major beneficial Significant decrease in waste generation, landfill disposal or major increase in recycling and re-use levels.

6.487 For the purposes of the waste assessment, those effects indicated as being of ‘major adverse’ and ‘moderate adverse’ may be considered as significant.


6.488 If the assessment identifies that mitigation measures are required, the following measures may reduce the potential impacts from waste generated by the proposed development.

• Segregation of excavated materials onsite will enable the allocation of materials for reuse on site and those requiring off site treatment (involving remediation of contaminated material , recycling and recovery);

• Reuse of excavated material where possible;

• Surplus material used on site for levelling, infilling and landscape proposals;

• Encourage use of non-primary materials over primary materials (with the requirement for considerable amounts of steel);

• Preference given to renewable materials, materials with low(er) environmental impacts and towards components with high(er) proportions of recycled material; and

• Support for waste minimisation and recycling initiatives – setting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

Appendix 1: Site location plan

Appendix 2: LVIA provisional viewpoints and study area

→"↑→"↑

→"↑→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→" ↑

→ " ↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→"↑

→ " ↑

→"↑

±

ORIGINAL SIZE: ORIGINATOR: CHECKED: REVIEWED: AUTHORISED:SCALE:

OFFICE: DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE:

Status/Rev:Type:Discipline:Project No:

File R

efe

rence

:

5105324 MEA ENV

A3

GBBMA

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

5105324

-ME

A-E

NV

-021-C1:30,000

Atkins Limited

The Axis

10 Holliday StreetBirmingham, West Midlands,

B1 1TF

England

Telephone +44(0)121 483 5000

Fax +44(0)121 483 5252

Project N

o:D

iscipline:

Num

ber:

Status/R

ev:

5105324

ME

AE

NV

C

C

RH SRSWKSJD

20-02-14

Type:

021

Number:

021P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div80\510\5105324 SMD Power Sites (CL)\MEAFORD\4 DRAWINGS\GIS\WIP\LV\5105324_MEA_LV_RCP_02_GEO034.mxd

0 1KILOMETRES

20-02-14 20-02-14 20-02-14

REV DESCRIPTION BY DATE CHK'D REV'W AUTH

C Inter Discipline Review SJD 20-02-14 SWK RH SR

TM

TM


Visual Receptor Groups and Potential Photomontage Locations Scoping Report

NOTES

1. DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING.

Project red line boundary

2.5km study area

→"↑ Visual receptor group

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's

Stationery office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Client Name: MEAFORD ENERGY LIMITED

Licence number: 100019980

¬«3

¬«9Visual receptor group and potential photomontage location

Group

NoReceptors

Direction of

view towards

site

1 Residences in Meaford (east of the A34) North-east

2 Recreational users of PRoWs (bridleways) Stone

Rural 38 and Stone Rural 39

North-east

3 Residences in Stone North

4 Residences at Meaford Hall East

5 Vehicle users and residences on the Meaford Road East

6 Meaford Old Hall Farm North

7 Residences along Wash Dale Lane North-west

8 Meaford Farm West

9 Recreational users of PRoWs (bridleways Stone

Rural 46 and 47 and Barlaston 3)

West

10 Residences in Barlaston South

11 Residences in Tittensor South-east

12 Residences along the A34 East

13 Residences in Meaford adjacent the A34 East

14 Recreational users of PRoW (Bridleway) Barlaston 1 South

15 Recreational users of PRoW (Bridleway) Barlaston 32

and Barlaston Golf Course

South

16 Recreational users of PRoW (bridleway) Stone Rural

36)

East

17 Vehicular users along the A34 East

18 Users of the Western mainline railway West

19 Recreational users of the Trent and Mersey Canal West

20 Employment users within MBP South

21 Residences at Vincent Mews and Meaford Road

junction

North

¬«1¬«2

¬«3

¬«6

¬«7

¬«8

¬«13

¬«12

¬«9

¬«10

¬«14

¬«11

¬«15

¬«12

¬«17

¬«16 ¬«19¬«5

¬«20

¬«18

¬«4

¬«9

¬«10

¬«21

±




File R

efe

rence

:

5105324 MEA ENV

A3

GBBMA

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

5105324

-ME

A-E

NV

-020-C1:30,000

Atkins Limited

The Axis


B1 1TF

England

Telephone +44(0)121 483 5000

Fax +44(0)121 483 5252

Project N

o:D

iscipline:

Num

ber:

Status/R

ev:

5105324

ME

AE

NV

C

C

RH SRSWKSJD

18-02-14

Type:

020

Number:

020P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div80\510\5105324 SMD Power Sites (CL)\MEAFORD\4 DRAWINGS\GIS\WIP\LV\5105324_MEA_LV_ZVI_02_GEO033.mxd

0 1KILOMETRES

18-02-14 18-02-14 18-02-14


C Inter Discipline Review SJD 18-02-14 SWK RH SR

TM

TM


Base Plan and Site Boundary with 2.5km Study Area and Theoretical Zone of Visual Influence

NOTES



2.5km study area

Theoretical Zone of Visual Influence





Appendix 3: Phase 1 habitat plan

Appendix 4: Environmental constraints plan

±




File R

efe

rence

:

5105324 MEA ENV

A3

GBBMA

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

5105324

-ME

A-E

NV

-019-C


Cultural Heritage Constraints

1:25,000

Atkins Limited

The Axis


B1 1TF

England

Telephone +44(0)121 483 5000

Fax +44(0)121 483 5252

NOTES

1.�DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING.

Project N

o:D

iscipline:

Num

ber:

Status/R

ev:

5105324

ME

AE

NV


2km study area

Constraints

!. Grade I listed building

!. Grade II* listed building

!. Grade II listed building

Registered park or garden

Conservation areas

Scheduled monument

C

C

BB SRIEWSJD

18-02-14

Type:

019

Number:

019P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div80\510\5105324 SMD Power Sites (CL)\MEAFORD\4 DRAWINGS\GIS\WIP\CH\5105324_MEA_CH_CON_02_GEO031.mxd

0 1KILOMETRES

18-02-14 18-02-14 18-02-14


C Inter Discipline Review SJD 18-02-14 IEW SR SR

TM

TM





Barlaston and Oulton Ward

Stonefield andChristchurch Ward

SwynnertonWard

Walton Ward

King's &Hargreaves

Woods (SSSI)

Trentham Gardens(Registered

Garden)Barlaston andRough Close

Common (LNR)

CrownMeadow

(LNR)

StoneMeadows

(LNR)

Saxon's Lowe,Tittensor

Common (SM)

Multivallatehillfort at

Bury Bank (SM)

Moated site atGreat Hartwell

Farm (SM)

Trent andMersey

Canal (CA)

BeechcliffWood (AW)

DarlestonWood (AW)

TrentWood (AW)

KingsWood(AW)

CotwaltonDrumble

(AW)

ModdershallOaks (AW)

MillWood(AW)

Meaford

Service R

d

Tittensor Road

Old

Roa

d/B

arla

sto

n

Old

Roa

d

Mea

ford

Roa

d

A34/Tittensor

Road Junction

A34/Meaford

Road Junction

TittensorChase(LWS)

Lakeside GolfCourse (LWS)

DarlastonWood (LWS)

TittensorChase(LWS)

TrentWood (SBI)

The Drumble,Stone (LWS)

CommonPlot

(LWS)

DownsBanks(SBI)

MeafordSludge

Beds (LWS)

Trent andMersey Canal

(Meaford) (BAS)

±




File R

efe

rence

:

5105324 MEA ENV

A3

GBBMA

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

5105324

-ME

A-E

NV

-018-D


Environmental Constraints

1:25,000

Atkins Limited

The Axis


B1 1TF

England

Telephone +44(0)121 483 5000

Fax +44(0)121 483 5252

NOTES


Project N

o:D

iscipline:

Num

ber:

Status/R

ev:

5105324

ME

AE

NV


Roads within transport study area

500m catchment area

1km catchment area

2km catchment area

Constraints

!. Grade I listed building

!. Grade II* listed building

!. Grade II listed building

Registered park or garden

Ancient woodland (AW)

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

R R R R RR R R R RR R R R R

Local nature reserves (LNR)

Conservation area (CA)

Scheduled monument (SM)

! ! !

! ! !

Sites of biological importance (SBI) within 1km of red line boundaryBiodiversity Alert Site (BAS) within 1km of red line boundaryLocal Wildlife Site (LWS) within 1km of red line

boundary

D

D

SR SRIEWSJD

18-02-14

Type:

018

Number:

018P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div80\510\5105324 SMD Power Sites (CL)\MEAFORD\4 DRAWINGS\GIS\WIP\CT\5105324_MEA_CT_CON_04_GEO030.mxd

0 1KILOMETRES

18-02-14 18-02-14 18-02-14


D Inter Discipline Review SJD 18-02-14 IEW SR SR

TM

TM





!(

<

<(

<

<(

<

<(

!(

!(

<

<(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Meaford Road(south)

Properties on Joules Drive,

Barnton Edge Saltersford

Rise & Navigation Loop

Properties off Meaford

Road (Home Farm, Home

Farm Cottages, Vincent

Mews & Admiral View)

Meaford OldHall Farm

Pool Cottage,

Wash Dale Lane

Meaford Farm & Ivy

Cottage, Wash Dale

Lane

Properties on Meaford RoadNorth and Silver Ridge

A34(south)

A34(north)

Ford Farm,

Wash Dale Lane

Keepers CottageWash Dale Lane

Spring

Cottage

±




File R

efe

rence

:

5105324 MEA ENV

A3

GBBMA

TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

5105324

-ME

A-E

NV

-017-B1:18,000

Atkins Limited

The Axis


B1 1TF

England

Telephone +44(0)121 483 5000

Fax +44(0)121 483 5252

Project N

o:D

iscipline:

Num

ber:

Status/R

ev:

5105324

ME

AE

NV

B

B

AM/RG SRIEWSJD

18-02-14

Type:

017

Number:

017P:\GBBMA\DE2\Div80\510\5105324 SMD Power Sites (CL)\MEAFORD\4 DRAWINGS\GIS\WIP\AQ\5105324_MEA_AN_RCP_01_GEO028.mxd

0 0.5KILOMETRES

18-02-14 18-02-14 18-02-14


B Inter Discipline Review SJD 18-02-14 IEWAM/RG SR

TM

TM


Air Quality and Noise Receptor Locations

NOTES



1km study area

Receptor group type

!( Air quality

!( Noise

<

<( Noise and air quality





Appendix 5: Flood Risk Assessment

Meaford Energy Centre Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment Meaford Energy Limited

20 February 2014


Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Meaford Energy Limited’s information and use in relation to the development of a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine at Meaford Business Park, Meaford, Staffordshire. Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection

with this document and/or its contents.

Document history

Job number: 5105324 Document ref:

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment

EP TC AB DM Feb 2014

Client signoff

Client Meaford Energy Limited

Project Meaford Energy Centre

Document title Meaford Energy Centre

Job no. 5105324

Copy no.

Document reference



Contents

1. Introduction 1

Background 1

Report Scope 1

Proposed Development 2

2. Relevant Legislation 3

National Planning Policy Framework 3

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 3

3. Site and Surroundings 5

Site Location 5

Site Description 6

4. Current Site Flood Classification 9

Flood Classification 9

Flood Risk and Flood Probability 10

History of Flooding 10

Tidal Flooding 11

River Flooding (Fluvial) 11

Groundwater Flooding 12

Surface Water (Overland) Flooding 13

Sewer Flooding 14

Infrastructure Failure Flooding 14

Climate Change 16

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 17

Conclusions 17

Recommendations 17



Tables Table 1 - Definition of AEP and Return Period of Flood Events 10

Figures Figure 1 - Potential Sites within the Meaford Business Park 5 Figure 2 - Red Line Boundary 6 Figure 3 - High Level Constraints within Meaford Business Park 8 Figure 4 - Environment Agency Flood Map 12 Figure 5 - Environment Agency Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Map 13 Figure 6 - Environment Agency Reservoir and Lakes Flood Map 15



February 2014 1

1. Introduction

Background

1.1. This Level 1 site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared to support the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping report prepared on behalf of Meaford Energy

Limited (MEL), for the development of a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) facility and

associated infrastructure at the Meaford Business Park, Staffordshire. MEL is a joint venture

between St Modwen and Glenfinnan Properties, established with the intention of providing a

new power station development at the Meaford Business Park. Both companies have extensive

experience in the development and economic regeneration of sites throughout the UK and within

the energy sector.

1.2. The site is largely brownfield, with planning permission for 1.2 million square feet (110,000 m2) of

development for warehousing, industrial, offices, and other business support facilities. The

Meaford Business Park is the location of the former Meaford A and B Power Stations, demolished

in 1982 and 1996 respectively. At present, the site is largely undeveloped.

1.3. Developments have the potential to be at risk of a range of flooding mechanisms and increase

the potential flood risk to the development and the surrounding area. As such flood risk is

assessed with respect to damage to properties, risk to human life, and the effect the

development may have on surrounding bodies of water and drainage systems. This Level 1 FRA

has been prepared to examine the possible sources of flooding, within the context of the

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)1and Technical Guidance2.

Report Scope

1.4. A FRA should consider a range of flooding mechanisms to satisfy the following three key

objectives:

• To assess flood risk to the proposed development and to demonstrate whether any residual

risk to the development and its user would be acceptable;

• To assess the potential impact of the proposed development on flood risk elsewhere and to

demonstrate that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere; and

• To satisfy the requirements of national planning, should the scheme not be Permitted

Development.

1.5. Flood risk should be considered alongside other spatial planning matters such as transport,

housing, economic growth, natural resources, regeneration, biodiversity, the historic

environment and the management of other hazards. Policies should recognise the positive

contribution that avoidance and management of flood risk can make to the development of

sustainable communities, including improving local amenities and better overall quality of life. 1 Department for Communities and Local Government, 03/2012. National Planning Policy Framework

2 Department for Communities and Local Government, 03/2012. Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, London



February 2014 2

1.6. A FRA should be carried out to an appropriate degree at all levels of the planning process. It

should assess the risks of all forms of flooding to and from the development, taking into account

climate change, and should inform the application of the sequential approach if applicable.

1.7. CIRIA C624 “Development and Flood Risk – Guidance for the Construction Industry”3 recommend

a phase approach with three levels of assessment as define below:

• Level 1: Screening Study to identify whether there are any flooding or surface water

management issues related to a development site that may warrant further consideration.

The screening study will ascertain whether a Level 2 or 3 FRA is required.

• Level 2: Scoping Study to be undertaken if the Level 1 FRA indicates that the site may lie

within an area that is at risk of flooding, or that the site may increase flood risk due to increase

run-off. This study should confirm the sources of flooding which may affect the site.

• Level 3: Detailed Study to be undertaken if the Level 2 study concludes that the quantitative

analysis is required to assess the flood risk related to the development site.

1.8. This report forms the Level 1 Screening Study. It is based on readily available existing

information, including Environment Agency Flood Maps. The following work and assessments

have been carried out to support this study:

• Review of the site information and likely extent of any flood risk at the site;

• Identify whether there are any flooding or surface water management issues related to the

development site that may warrant further consideration;

• Identification and scoping of other flood risks as required i.e. groundwater flooding; and

• Assess whether further assessment is required i.e. a Level 2 or 3 FRA.

Proposed Development

1.9. MEL proposes to develop a new CCGT power station at Meaford Business Park to the north of

Stone. The proposed power station will have an electrical generation capacity of up to 299 MW. It

will require a connection from the national gas transmission network and a connection to the

electricity grid. These connections are integral to the project as a whole in terms of both

Environmental Impact Assessment and the subsequent operation of the completed

development. The power station also requires a cooling system, which may require water to be

abstracted from and discharged to either the River Trent or the Trent and Mersey Canal. The

facility will comprise the following key components:

• turbine building – typically 45 m wide, 60 m long, 20 to 25 m high

• HRSG buildings – typically 15 m wide, 30 m long, 30 to 40 m high

• cooling system – approximately 50 m square, 25 to 30 m high

• chimney stacks – approximately 6 m in diameter and in the region of 40 to 50 m high

(assuming a 1 or 2 turbine/ 1 or 2 stack design)

• gas connection – approximately 400 – 600 mm diameter pipeline, operating at a pressure to

be determined during design development but not to exceed 85 bar pressure at a minimum

depth of 1.1 m below ground level for the underground sections.

3 Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), January 2004, CIRIA C624: Development and Flood Risk – Guidance for the

Construction Industry



February 2014 3

2. Relevant Legislation

National Planning Policy Framework

2.1. The NPPF published in March 2012, is a key part of the government’s reform to make the

planning system less complex and more accessible; to protect the environment and to promote

sustainable growth.

2.2. In addition, the Technical Guidance to the NPPF published in March 2012 by the Department for

Communities and Local Government has also been reviewed in relation to Flood Risk. This

document provides additional guidance to ensure the effective implementation of the planning

policy set out in the NPPF on development in areas at risk of flooding.

2.3. Local Authorities should only consider development in flood risk areas appropriate where

informed by a site specific FRA, based upon the Environment Agency’s Standing Advice on flood

risk. The FRA should identify and assess the risks of all forms of flooding to and from the

development and demonstrate how flood risks will be managed so that the development

remains safe throughout its lifetime, taking climate change into account.

2.4. Development should be directed as far as practicable towards Flood Zone 1 areas (Low

Probability (<0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of fluvial/ sea flooding)) to avoid fluvial

flood risks wherever this is possible. For development proposed in Flood Zone 1, if the

development area is greater than 1 hectare a FRA will still be required to address design issues

related to the control of surface water runoff and climate change, as well as considering any

other potential sources of flood risk for the development site.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

2.5. A detailed SFRA was produced on behalf of Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent

City Council in 20104 by Land Use Consultants and SLR Consulting Ltd. This SFRA was informed

by District and Borough Council SFRAs; of particular relevance to this project is the Stafford

Borough Council SFRA completed by Halcrow Group Limited5.

2.6. The findings of the 2010 SFRA, whilst undertaken with a view to describing waste management,

have been used to inform this Level 1 FRA.

2.7. The SFRA designated sites within the Staffordshire County and the Stoke-on-Trent City area in

terms of Flood Zone, relating to flood risk. The sequential test, a process where zones of high

flood risk are screened out for development areas, as outlined in PPS256 which has since been

superseded by the NPPF, was used in the SFRA.

4 Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 07/2010. Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Core Strategy: Strategic Flood

Risk Assessment. 5 Stafford Borough Council (Halcrow), 01/2008. SFRA for LDF: Level 1. Study area extends to cover Lichfield District Council/Stafford Borough Council/

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council/ Tamworth Borough Council 6 Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2010, Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25).



February 2014 4



February 2014 5

3. Site and Surroundings

Site Location

3.1. The Meaford Business Park is a largely brownfield development of approximately 110,000 m2,

located at approximate National Grid Reference (NGR) SJ 889 336. The business park has

planning permission for warehousing, industrial, offices, and business support activities. MEL

currently proposes the construction of a CCGT power station at one of three locations within the

business park, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Potential Sites within the Meaford Business Park

3.2. Approximately 600 m to the north of the business park lies the town of Barlaston (NGR SJ 894

387). To the east and adjacent to the business park is the Trent and Mersey Canal, which runs

continuously along the eastern boundary. Adjacent to this canal is a railway, running from Stoke

on Trent in the north to Stone in the south. To the south of the business park, approximately 1

km away, lies the town of Stone (NGR SJ 902 342). To the west of and adjacent to the business

park is the Meaford Road. To the west of Meaford Road is the River Trent, which at its closest

point is adjacent to the red line boundary (Figure 2). Access to the business park is currently via

Meaford Road, with a formalised junction to the north, opposite the Barlaston Golf Club.

3.3. Associated with the development of the CCGT is a gas connection between the CCGT and

National Grid’s gas network, which is illustrated on Figure 2. The current location of the gas

connection has not been defined at present; however the entire red line boundary will be

assessed in terms of its flood risk.



February 2014 6

Figure 2 - Red Line Boundary

Site Description

Topography

3.4. The Meaford Business Park is located in a low lying position between the River Trent and the

Trent and Mersey Canal. Although the business park is generally on a level gradient the surface is

undulating due to excavations and stockpiles of soil and rubble associated with the demolition of

the former power stations.

3.5. From current Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping7, the north-eastern corner of the site is seen to

have the greatest elevation, of approximately 105 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The site

slopes at a shallow gradient, with the western side of the site having an elevation of

approximately 95 m AOD.

Geology and Hydrogeology

3.6. The Meaford Business Park has undergone previous Ground Investigations (GI), summarised in a

Geo-Environmental Assessment by Halcrow Group Ltd (Halcrow)8. The ground conditions

identified are summarised below.

7 Ordnance Survey, 2012. Ordnance Survey GetAMap http://www.getamap.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk/ (Accessed 10/01/2014)

8 Halcrow Group Limited, March 2008. Meaford Business Park, Stone, Staffordshire: Geo-Environmental Assessment



February 2014 7

3.7. The Made Ground was encountered across the majority of the site and typically comprised of

clayey, gravelly fine to coarse sand, with a thickness up to 4.0 m. The Made Ground is underlain

by superficial deposits of Glacial Till, Alluvium, or First River Terrace deposits. The superficial

deposits are designated by the Environment Agency9 as Secondary A Aquifers, capable of

supporting water supplies at a local rather than a strategic scale and potentially forming an

important source of baseflow to rivers.

3.8. The solid geology underling the superficial deposits consist of weathered mudstone which

overlays the fine grained sandstone of the Halesowen Formation10. The Environment Agency has

designated the underlying bedrock as a Secondary A Aquifer.

3.9. The southernmost extent of the site is identified by BGS maps as being the Bromsgrove

Sandstone Formation, a pebbly sandstone. The Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation is a part of the

Sherwood Sandstone Group. The Sherwood Sandstone Group is designated as a Principal

Aquifer; this is an aquifer capable of providing a high level of water, supporting water supply

and/or baseflow to rivers.

3.10. The contact between the Halesowen Formation and the Bromsgrove Formation is inferred to be

faulted by the BGS11.

3.11. Groundwater contours were constructed for the Halcrow Geo-Environmental Assessment, which

indicate a flow from east to west, toward the River Trent. Locally, the GI found perched water in

much of the Made Ground, and a water table within the Halesowen Formation. A comparison of

the groundwater contours8 constructed on 10/09/2007 against the OS topographical contours, it

can be inferred that the perched water table is between 1 m to 2 m below ground level (bgl).

3.12. Within the Halesowen Formation, groundwater was typically present at a depth of 6 m to 15 m

bgl. The Halesowen Formation was not considered to be saturated. Generally, the groundwater

was not thought to be in hydraulic continuity with the perched water.

Hydrology

3.13. There are three water courses bordering or running through the site. Adjacent to the west lies the

River Trent. The Trent and Mersey Canal is adjacent to the east of the site. A tributary of the

River Trent is located in the southernmost extent of the site. This flows east to west, toward the

River Trent.

9 Environment Agency, 03/01/2014. Interactive Maps http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx (Accessed 10/01/2014)

10 British Geological Survey, 2014, Lexicon of Named Rock Units, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/ (Accessed 10/01/2014)

11 British Geological Survey, 2014. GeoIndex Onshore http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html (accessed 10/01/2014)



February 2014 8

Figure 3 - High Level Constraints within Meaford Business Park

3.14. Within the Meaford Business Park, several small water bodies have been identified (Figure 3). At

the northern end of the business park the water body within a wooded area is fed by a surface

water course or field drain which originates in the fields to the north to the site. Of the other

ponds within the site boundary one is located in the central area of the site and three are located

along the sites western boundary. It is currently unknown how these are fed and whether they

relate to surface water or groundwater flows. .

3.15. The gas connection is likely to cross the canal over an existing overbridge. To the east of the

canal, at the north-eastern extent of the red line boundary, there are six field drains identified

from OS maps. One of these field drains feeds the surface water body at the northern extent of

the business park.



February 2014 9

4. Current Site Flood Classification

Flood Classification

4.1. This scoping desk based study has been prepared to identify potential sources of flooding and

the likely mechanisms by which flooding could occur.

4.2. The site is currently open scrubland with substrata formed by previous reclamation works and

thus subject only to greenfield runoff for stormwater flows. At present, this largely brownfield

site is generally undeveloped and there are excavations and stockpiles of soil and rubble

associated with the demolition of the former power stations. The southern and north eastern

areas of the site are well vegetated with mature trees, the remainder of the site is sparsely

vegetated with scrub and grass.

4.3. Potential sources of flooding and associated mechanisms for review are as follows:

• Tidal Sources - Potential flooding resulting from tidal sources

• Fluvial Sources - Potential flooding resulting from watercourses near to the site or from the

sea

• Groundwater - Potential flooding as a result of rising groundwater levels

• Overland Flow - Potential flooding as a result of surface water flows from adjacent land

• Sewers and Drains - Potential flooding resulting from sewers or drains

• Reservoir / Lake Flooding - Potential flooding resulting from overtopping or bursting of

reservoirs or lakes

• Infrastructure - Potential flooding as a result of failed or burst water mains

4.4. In the following sections of the report, these scenarios have been discussed and the flood risks to

the development examined in more detail.

4.5. The proposed development is classified as Essential Infrastructure in the Technical Guidance for

NPPF which includes strategic utility infrastructure, electricity generating power stations and

grid and primary substations. The Technical Guidance states that such developments are

appropriate in fluvial Flood Zones 1 (low probability of flooding) and 2 (medium probability of

flooding) and the exception test is required should the development be proposed for Flood Zone

3 (high probability of flooding).

4.6. Where the Exception Test is required the following criteria needs to be met by the application

and accompanying Flood Risk Assessment.

• It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the

community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared.

• The development should be on developable previously developed land or, if it is not on

previously developed land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable

previously developed land; and

• A FRA must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk

elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.



February 2014 10

Flood Risk and Flood Probability

4.7. Flooding is a natural process that can present a range of different risks depending on its form.

Flood practitioners and professionals define the risks presented by flooding according to an

Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), or as having a ‘return period’.

4.8. Flood Risk includes the statistical probability of an event occurring and the scale of the potential

consequences. Flood risk is estimated from historical data and expressed in terms of the

expected frequency of a flood of a given magnitude. The 10 year, 50 year and the 100 year floods

have a 10%, 2%, and 1% chance of occurring in any given year, respectively. However, over a

longer period the probability of flooding is considerably greater.

4.9. For example, for the 100 year return period flood:

• There is a 1% chance of the 100 year flood occurring or being exceeded in any single year;

• A 26% chance of it occurring or being exceeded in a 30 year period;

• A 51% chance of it occurring or being exceeded in a 70 year period.

4.10. Table 1 below provides a summary of the relevant AEP and corresponding return period events of

a particular severity:

Table 1 - Definition of AEP and Return Period of Flood Events

AEP (%) Return Period (Years)

100% 1 in 1 Year

10% 1 in 10 Years

2% 1 in 50 Years

1% 1 in 100 Years

0.5% 1 in 200 Years

0.1% 1 in 1,000 Years

History of Flooding

4.11. The River Trent Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)12 states that the River Trent area

has a long history of river, tidal, and surface water flooding. The most significant flood event in

the catchment occurred in February 1795, covering an area of more than 8,000 ha to a depth of

more than 3 m. The catchment has a number of designated sites which are considered at risk of

flooding, however many of these sites may contain habitats for which floods are a natural and

important occurrence.

4.12. Under the River Trent CFMP, Meaford is covered under the West Staffs area. The geology is

summarised as predominately Triassic sandstones and millstone grit. The area has a fast

response to rainfall in watercourses due to the steep nature of the upper catchment areas,

causing disruption in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent and Stone. However, the CFMP states that,

taking into account flood defences, the risk is low, with only around 110 properties at risk during

a 1% fluvial flood event. The fluvial flood risk is also not expected to increase considerably in the

future as a result of climate change and urban growth.

12

Environment Agency, December 2010. River Trent Catchment: Flood Management Plan http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/gemi1109brdz-e-

e.pdf (Accessed 10/01/2014)



February 2014 11

4.13. The detailed SFRA undertaken in 2010 for Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City

Council assessed the business park in terms of flood risk. The assessment reported that the site

was entirely within Flood Zone 1, indicating a possibility of flooding of less than 0.1% annually.

.The SFRA4 screened out the site from the list of potential waste sites as it was determined that

developing the site for waste usage had the potential to increase the flood risk in the area.

Tidal Flooding

4.14. Coastal flooding happens when sea levels rise above the normal tidal range. This can happen

anywhere around the coast, including the estuaries. Tidal flooding is a result of one or a

combination of high tides, storm or tidal surges, wave action and high sea levels combining with

high river flows.

4.15. The site is located inland, and does not lie within an area at risk of tidal flooding.

4.16. Tidal flooding is not a flood risk associated with this proposed development and requires no

further consideration.

River Flooding (Fluvial)

4.17. Fluvial flooding occurs when the channel of a river or stream cannot cope with the amount of

surface water run-off draining into them from the land and eventually causes them to overtop

their banks. This happens after periods of heavy and/or prolonged rainfall.

4.18. To the west of the site lies the River Trent, and an associated floodplain. The majority of the

floodplain is designated as ‘High Risk’ indicating that each year the area has a chance of flooding

of greater than 3.3%, taking into account the effect of any flood defences13. The flood zone is

designated a Flood Zone 3, indicating a high risk.

4.19. The Environment Agency maps (Figure 4) show the floodplain for the River Trent does not cross

the Meaford Road, and therefore does not enter the business park. The business park has no

history of flooding from this watercourse14.

4.20. The red line boundary extends across the Meaford Road in two locations, as shown in Figure 4,

and overlaps a section of the flood plain from the River Trent. This puts two small sections along

the western boundary of the site within a Flood Zone 3. It is possible that these areas will be used

to construct a new abstraction from and discharge to the Trent.

4.21. The Flood Zone 3 from a tributary of the River Trent crosses the site from east to west and as

such there is the risk of flooding to the south of Washdale Lane (see Figure 4).

4.22. The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 1 with regards to fluvial flooding, indicating

a low risk. There are localised areas within the red line boundary that are located within a Flood

Zone 3 for fluvial flooding. Fluvial flooding will therefore require further consideration.

13

Environment Agency, 2013. Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) http://maps.environment-

agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=floodmap

(Accessed 10/01/2014)

14 Halcrow Group Limited, November 2007. Meaford Business Park: Drainage Strategy & Flood Risk Statement, Internal Report.



February 2014 12

Figure 4 - Environment Agency Flood Map

(Reproduced with permission from the Environment Agency January 2014)

- Flood Zone 3 – Annual Flood Probability > 1%

- Flood Zone 2 – Annual Flood Probability 0.1% - 1%

- Flood Zone 1 – Annual Flood Probability <0.1%

4.23. It has been shown above that the majority site lies within a Flood Zone 1, and has less than 0.1%

risk annually of flooding, therefore there is no requirement for the sequential or exception tests

in relation to fluvial flooding.

Groundwater Flooding

4.24. Groundwater flooding occurs when groundwater levels rise above ground level. Groundwater

flooding is sporadic in time and location, but when it occurs it usually lasts longer than surface

water flooding and interferes with property and infrastructure (such as roads). In most cases

groundwater flooding cannot be managed or solutions engineered. Groundwater levels may rise

as a result of reactivating springs and short lived water courses (often referred to as ‘clearwater’

flooding), rising groundwater (rebound) following reductions in abstraction, mine water

recovering to natural levels following cessation of pumping, and local shallow drainage/flooding

problems unrelated to deep groundwater responses. .

4.25. The GI undertaken in 2007 by Halcrow8 indicated the presence of perched groundwater in the

Made Ground and the top of the underlying superficial deposits at depths of approximately 1m to

2m bgl. Within the Halesowen Formation, groundwater was typically present at a depth of 6m to

15m bgl. The Halesowen Formation was not considered to be saturated, and the groundwater

was not considered to be in hydraulic continuity with the perched water.

4.26. There is potentially a risk of groundwater flooding affecting the site and this form of flooding will

require further assessment.



February 2014 13

Surface Water (Overland) Flooding

4.27. Pluvial and overland flooding is caused by the build up of water on land causing ponding of

standing water in low-lying areas or sheet flow over impermeably, saturated and/or sloping

ground. This type of flooding can occur when intense rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of

the ground, or when the surface water run-off is not intercepted by natural of artificial drainage.

4.28. The Environment Agency15 indicates that much of the site is at low risk from surface water

flooding (Figure 5); however there are several areas within the site that are considered to be at a

low (0.1 – 1% risk annually) and medium (1 – 3.3% annually) risk of surface water flooding12. The

Environment Agency maps show a large area in the approximate centre of the site with a

medium to low risk of flooding. An area which is not recorded as a surface water body (as per

Figure 5) is located within the middle of the business park, in the approximate location of the

south site, and is shown on the Environment Agency map to have a low (0.1-1% annually) to high

(3.3% annually) associated pluvial flood risk.

Figure 5 - Environment Agency Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Map

(Rreproduced with permission from the Environment Agency January 2014)

- High - Medium - Low - Very Low

4.29. The Trent and Mersey Canal, which passes through the northern extent of the red line boundary,

is marked as an area of high (3.3% annually) risk of flooding. This is an important consideration as

the gas connection is likely to cross the canal.

15

Environment Agency, 2014. Risk of Flooding from Surface Water http://watermaps.environment-

agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?lang=_e&topic=ufmfsw&layer=default&scale=11&x=389080&y=336549#x=388740&y=336616&scale=11

(Accessed 10/01/2014)



February 2014 14

4.30. Within the southern area of the site to the south of Washdale Lane the tributary for the River

Trent is identified as a potential source of pluvial flooding with a high (3.3% annually) risk of

flooding. This tributary is seen to cross the southern extent of the site, from east to west. .

4.31. To the north of the main site, within the northern section of the gas corridor, a surface water

course is shown on Environment Agency mapping as having a low (0.1 – 1% annually) to high

(3.3% annually) risk of pluvial flooding. This is considered to be the field drain mentioned in

Section 3.12, which feeds into the surface water feature at the northern end of the site. It shown

on the map to cross the Meaford Road and to join with the floodplain associated with the River

Trent.

4.32. To the west, the red line boundary overlaps two areas adjacent to the River Trent, shown in

Figure 5 to have a low to high risk of pluvial flooding.

4.33. In addition, the proposed development area is greater than 1 hectare and the construction of new

areas of hardstanding can prevent natural infiltration and increase surface run-off. Temporary

ground alteration or compaction at the site can also have the same consequences. Consideration

may be necessary to control such flood risks, particularly as materials or machinery are to be

stored in such areas. This will necessitate consideration of appropriate drainage management.

4.34. There is a risk of surface water (overland) flooding affecting the site, and this form of flooding will

require further assessment.

Sewer Flooding

4.35. Flooding can occur when the sewerage infrastructure becomes overwhelmed by heavy rainfall

(due to inadequate capacity) or blockages in drain systems (such as silt or debris accumulation).

Works above or adjacent to existing sewer networks may also damage buried pipeline to the

extent that it leads to flooding through damage during excavations or through damage causing

blockages below ground.

4.36. A report was completed by Severn Trent Water in 2007, summarised in the Halcrow Geo-

Environmental Assessment. Modelling was undertaken by Severn Trent to determine what affect

additional discharge from development at the Meaford Business Park would have on the present

sewers. Modelling was undertaken using an ‘InfoWorks’ hydraulic model of the Barlaston

sewerage system upstream of the discharge point using data obtained from the UADMS sewer

records database. The system was modelled using multiple simulation runs of 1, 2, 5, 10,20, and

30 year returns and summer storms of 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minute duration.

4.37. The Geo-Environmental Assessment summarised that connecting a development site flow of

27.78 l/s to the existing sewer would not have an adverse effect on the existing public sewerage

system.

4.38. Whilst the development is not considered to have an adverse effect on the sewer system, due

care should be taken during installation of the gas connection to determine the presence of any

additional underground services.

Infrastructure Failure Flooding

4.39. Infrastructure which retains water or transmits or controls flows near the site has the potential to

fail and cause flooding on site. During flood conditions it is possible that other water bodies will

experience the effects of increased rainfall. If these assets are not able to cope during these



February 2014 15

conditions, and overtop or fail, flooding can occur. Such features can include canals, reservoirs,

SuDS features, dams, water supply pipelines or other waterbodies.

Canals and Artificial Waterways

4.40. The Trent and Mersey Canal is present along the eastern boundary of the site and within the red

line boundary

4.41. Figure 5 highlights the canal as an area with a high chance of pluvial flooding. The area of flood

risk does not appear to deviate from the canal, and so the overall risk is considered low. However

the Canal is up topographic gradient of the site and should therefore have further consideration.

Reservoirs / Lakes

4.42. When reservoirs and lakes flood, there can be implications beyond the immediate area of the

water body. Flooding can increase the flow down river as larger than usual volumes of water can

flow from the flooded water body. This can present a flood risk down river, which can create

flashy floods with little warning. Flooding from reservoirs is considered very unlikely see Figure 6.

4.43. Environment Agency flood risk maps (Figure 6) indicate that the Trentham Gardens Lake,

located approximately 3.5 km to the north-west (NGR SJ 86974, 39439) and Black Lake, located

approximately 3.8 km north-west (NGR, SJ 85749, 39316) both present a risk of flooding to the

River Trent in the area adjacent to the site. The floodplain does not cross the Meaford Road and

therefore does not enter the business park.

4.44. However, where the red line boundary crosses the Meaford Road two small areas may be at risk

of flooding from reservoirs / lakes.

Figure 6 - Environment Agency Reservoir and Lakes Flood Map

(reproduced with permission from the Environment Agency January 2014)



February 2014

4.45. The risk of flooding from the near

the site. A small area on the weste

and will be considered further.

Climate Change

4.46. The River Trent CFMP considers clim

a 20% peak flow in all watercours

events. The number of people at r

the catchment.

4.47. However, the CFMP for the West

as a result of climate change to not

4.48. The potential impacts of climate c

development for future sustainabi

development by recognising the n

environmental conditions.

- Maximum Extent of Flooding

nearby reservoirs / lakes is considered very low to the m

estern boundary is exposed to risk from reservoir / lake

ers climate change will have a great impact on the floo

urses is expected, increasing the probability of large

at risk during a 1% flood event is expected to reach 134

est Staffs sub-area (which covers the site) considers th

to not increase considerably.

ate change need to be considered and accommodated i

inability. A precautionary approach should be applied

the need for flood storage and to mitigate and adapt to

16

he majority of

/ lake flooding,

flood risk12. Up to

ge-scale flood

h 134,206 within

rs the flood risk

ated in the

ied to the

pt to changing



February 2014 17

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

5.1. Meaford Energy Limited commissioned a Level 1 FRA to assist in informing decisions regarding

the development of a new CCGT at the Meaford Business Park, Staffordshire. The site considered

within this site specific Level 1 FRA comprised the area within the red line boundary, which

includes the Meaford Business Park as a whole.

5.2. This Level 1 FRA concludes that:

• Tidal Flooding – The site is located inland, and therefore Tidal Flooding will not be discussed

further.

• River Flooding (Fluvial) – The majority of the site is considered at a low risk, however the

southernmost extent of the site and a small section along the western boundary lie within a

Flood Zone 3, and so will require further assessment.

• Groundwater Flooding – Further assessment will be required. Perched water has been

identified at the site, and any ground works below ground surface may be at risk.

• Surface Water (Overland) Flooding – The Environment Agency indicates several areas at a

medium risk of flooding within the site boundary and the proposed development is likely to

change the surface water flow regime for the site therefore further assessment is required.

• Sewer Flooding – Modelling has been undertaken, which shows that the local sewer network

is not thought to be at risk of flooding as result of the development, so no further assessment

is proposed.

• Canal and Artificial Waterways Flooding – The risk of flooding from canals and artificial

waterways requires further assessment.

• Reservoir / Lake Flooding – A small section of the site is considered to be at risk of flooding

from reservoirs / lakes, and will be considered further.

• Climate Change – The potential impacts of climate change need to be assessed in the

development for future sustainability. Temporary works will be short term, and unlikely to be

affected by climate change.

Recommendations

5.3. It is deemed likely that the flood risk at the site will be increased by the development of the CCGT

power station. As such, it is recommended that further investigation be undertaken in the form

of a Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment, addressing the items above requiring further assessment.

5.4. Applying appropriate mitigation, best practice, and following relevant National Planning Policy

Framework and other guidance will help to control the identified flood risk. Flood risk should be

managed to ensure the level of flood risk is appropriate to the nature of the development and

that there is no increase in flood risk to others.



February 2014 18

5.5. The following works are recommended for inclusion in the Level 2 FRA:

• Incorporate appropriate surface water control measures for temporary set down and access

areas i.e. incorporating appropriate SuDS to reduce potential pollution and surface water

risks;

• Incorporate considerations for climate change and design in flood resilience for the

development;

5.6. Appropriate guidance should be used, for example:

• Environment Agency standing guidance;

• The SuDS Manual (CIRIA C697);

• Flood Resilience and Resistance for Critical Infrastructure (CIRIA C688); and

• Environment Agency pollution prevention guidelines.

5.7. The Environment Agency should be contacted to obtain an individual Flood Defence Consent for

all works that will be carried out in or adjacent to (within 8 m) watercourses.

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Anna Butler Atkins The Axis 10 Holliday Street Birmingham B1 1TF

[email protected]

140220 MEL Scoping Report FINAL - Planning …...1.11 The Overarching National Policy Statement for...

Documents

Transcript of 140220 MEL Scoping Report FINAL - Planning …...1.11 The Overarching National Policy Statement for...