ferrybridge multifuel 2 (fm2) - iema - home · 2018-07-20 · ferrybridge multifuel 2 (fm2)...

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)

Document Ref: 6.1

PINS Ref: EN010061


Ferrybridge Power Station Site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire

Environmental Statement (ES) – Non Technical Summary

(NTS)

The Planning Act 2008

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)

Regulations 2009

Regulation 5(2)(a)

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations

2009

Applicant: Multifuel Energy Limited

July 2014


Document Ref: 6.1

Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary

June 2014 i

Document Number 6.1

Revision Final

Author Emma Bonser

Signed Date July 2014

Approved By Richard Lowe

Signed Date June 2014

Document Owner URS

Revision History

Revision No. Date Reason for Revision Authorised By

Submission version July 2014 R Lowe


Document Ref: 6.1

ES Non-Technical Summary

July 2014 ii

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.2. The Applicant ................................................................................................................... 1

1.3. The Proposed Development and Site .............................................................................. 1

2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION .................................................................... 4

2.1. The Proposed Development Consent Order .................................................................... 4

2.2. Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statements ......................................................... 4

2.3. National Planning Policy Framework ............................................................................... 4

2.4. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) Development Plans ............................ 4

3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 5

3.1. EIA Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2. Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping .................................................................... 5

3.3. The Preliminary Environmental information (PEI) Report ................................................ 6

4. TRANSPORT AND ACCESS .................................................................. 7

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.2. Effects During Construction ............................................................................................. 7

4.3. Effects During Operation .................................................................................................. 7

4.4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 8

5. AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................... 9

5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9

5.2. Effects During Construction ............................................................................................. 9

5.3. Effects During Operation .................................................................................................. 9

5.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 10

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................... 11

6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11

6.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 11

6.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 11

6.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 12

7. LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS ................................................ 13

7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 13



7.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 13

8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY ................................................ 14

8.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 14



8.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 15

9. WATER RESOURCES AND FLOOD RISK .......................................... 16

9.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 16




Document Ref: 6.1


July 2014 Page iii of NTS

9.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 17

10. GROUND CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 18

10.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 18



10.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 18

11. ECOLOGY ............................................................................................. 19

11.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 19



11.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 20

12. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .................................. 21

12.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 21



12.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 21

13. WASTE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ......................................... 22

13.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 22



13.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 23

14. SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................. 24

14.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 24



14.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 24

15. HEALTH IMPACT SUMMARY .............................................................. 25

15.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 25



15.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 25

16. CUMULATIVE AND COMBINED EFFECTS ......................................... 26

17. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 27


Document Ref: 6.1


July 2014 Page iv of NTS

Figures

Figure NTS1 Site Location

Figure NTS-2 Proposed Development Application Site Boundary and FM1 Site

Boundary

Figure NTS-3 Proposed Transport Routes

Figure NTS-4 Indicative Concept Layout for the Proposed Development

Figure NTS5a and NTS5b Known Environmental Constraints within the Study Area

Figure NTS6 View from Darkfield Lane, Pontefract With and Without the Proposed

Development (Photomontage)

Figure NTS7 Other Proposed Developments Assessed for Cumulative Impacts


Document Ref: 6.1

ES Non-Technical Summary

July 2014 Page 1 of NTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1. This document provides a Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement (ES)

that has been prepared for a proposed generating station, known as Ferrybridge Multifuel

2 (FM2) Power Station or the Proposed Development, which will be capable of producing

low carbon electricity from various waste derived fuels. The purpose of this Non-

Technical Summary is to describe the Proposed Development and provide a summary in

non-technical language of the key findings of the ES for the benefit of consultees and

stakeholders. Full technical details are provided within the ES (Volume I – Main Report

(Application Document Ref. No. 6.2), Volume II – Figures (Application Document Ref. No.

6.3), and Volume III – Appendices (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4)).

1.1.2. The ES has been prepared to comply with The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) and is submitted with the

application for Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Proposed Development.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic process to predict the adverse

and beneficial effects of a proposed development.

1.1.3. This Non-Technical Summary is available free of charge. A copy of the Environmental

Statement can be purchased as a hard copy for £150 from the Applicant at the address

below. All documents are also available on CD for £15.

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Consultation

Multifuel Energy Ltd

Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station

Stranglands Lane

Knottingley

WF11 8SQ

1.1.4. Further information on the Applicant can be found on the Proposed Development project

website: www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2

1.2. The Applicant

1.2.1. SSE Generation Ltd and WTI/ EFW Holdings Ltd (a subsidiary of Wheelabrator

Technologies Inc (WTI)), have formed a 50:50 joint venture known as Multifuel Energy

Limited (MEL) to develop a low carbon electricity generating station that will use fuels

derived from waste. This joint venture is known as Multifuel Energy Limited, who is the

Applicant for the Development Consent Order under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Development Consent Order will allow for the construction and operation of the

Proposed Development.

1.3. The Proposed Development and Site

1.3.1. The Proposed Development will be capable of producing low carbon electricity through

the use of fuel derived from various sources of processed municipal solid waste,

‘commercial and industrial’ waste and waste wood. The fuel will be processed off-Site by

third parties and transported to the Site to an agreed specification. It is estimated that the

Proposed Development will use a maximum of 675,000 tonnes of fuel per year, producing

around 90 megawatts electrical (MWe) output. The actual volume of fuel used will be

determined by the energy content of the fuel (its Net Calorific Value).

1.3.2. The Proposed Development will make a positive contribution towards addressing a

number of challenges. These include the UK Government’s climate change

commitments, security of national electricity supply, and positive use of waste materials


Document Ref: 6.1



that may otherwise be disposed of to landfill. The Proposed Development thereby forms

part of an integrated waste management system and supports the waste hierarchy, which

is the principle that waste should be managed in the following order of priority:

prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and finally disposal.

1.3.3. The Ferrybridge Power Station site is located off Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, West

Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ, between the River Aire to the north and east and the A1(M)

Motorway immediately to the west. The Application Site (‘the Site’) is located at the

Ferrybridge Power Station site, within the administrative boundary of Wakefield

Metropolitan District Council (WMDC). See Figures NTS1 and NTS2.

1.3.4. The Site is approximately 32 hectares (ha) in area and is located almost entirely within

the boundary of the Ferrybridge Power Station site. The majority of the Site was

originally part of the former Ferrybridge Power Station golf course.

1.3.5. The Proposed Development will be located to the north of the consented Ferrybridge

Multifuel Power Station (now known and referred to in this report as 'FM1'). FM1 is

currently being constructed, and operation is anticipated to start at the end of 2015.

1.3.6. Fuel would be delivered to the Proposed Development by road and, where feasible, by

rail. The method of delivery is entirely dependent on the fuel contracts available

(including for example the location of the fuel source, the distance from the Site and the

availability of transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the fuel source). Each technical

chapter of the EIA considers the worst case scenario for that environmental effect, which

is generally that all fuel is delivered to the Site by road, and all waste materials from the

operation of the Proposed Development (such as ash) are removed by road, although for

example the noise assessment also considers the impacts of deliveries by rail which may

be noisier than road deliveries at certain times of the day.

1.3.7. Vehicles will access the Site during both construction and operation from the motorway

network via the A162 onto Stranglands Lane, turning up Kirkhaw Lane to enter the

Ferrybridge Power Station site. An alternative route for cars and vans may be used via an

existing track known as the ‘unnamed road’ adjacent to the A1(M) (currently the site

access for FM1) to reduce the number of vehicles using Kirkhaw Lane. HGVs leaving the

site will exit via Kirkhaw Lane, turning left onto Stranglands Lane and then north onto the

A162. Vehicles heading south to join the main motorway network will then turn round at

the new Dish Hill roundabout on the A162 at Low Street. See Figure NTS3.

1.3.8. An indicative concept layout for the Proposed Development, based on maximum building

dimensions, is shown in Figure NTS4. This shows the largest building dimensions and

footprint that could be built although the final dimensions/footprint is likely to be smaller

than the image shown.

1.3.9. Fuel will be delivered to Site via weighbridges before being taken into a fully enclosed

fuel tipping hall and deposited into a fuel storage bunker, which will be partially sunken

into the ground (but constructed above groundwater level).

1.3.10. The fuel will be fed into two combustion lines housed in the same building. On each line,

fuel will be delivered into a furnace kept at a steady operating temperature. The heat from

the combustion of the fuel will turn water into steam in a boiler, with the steam then

passed to a steam turbine to generate electricity. Air cooled condensers will then turn the

steam back into water for re-use in the process.

1.3.11. A number of additional activities will be undertaken to clean the gases from the furnace

before they are emitted to air from a new stack (chimney). The stack will be about 119 m

high, assuming a ground level of around 17 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) (with the


Document Ref: 6.1



emission point fixed at 136 mAOD). Combustion by-products from the furnaces will be

collected and stored prior to being sent off-site for recovery or disposal.

1.3.12. Additional facilities will be required to support the operation of the Proposed

Development, including a water treatment plant to purify groundwater abstracted for use

in the boiler, internal site access roads constructed within the Ferrybridge Power Station

site, drainage systems, connections to the electricity grid and other services, and auxiliary

buildings, stores and workshops. Three possible options for connecting to the electricity

grid are included and have been assessed; a single option will be selected at the detailed

design stage.

1.3.13. Some existing (or under construction) facilities will be shared with the existing Ferrybridge

‘C’ Power Station and FM1, including the FM1 rail spur and gantry, utility connections,

groundwater borehole and access routes. These are not included in the Application for

the Proposed Development, but environmental effects associated with their use by the

Proposed Development have been assessed where relevant.

1.3.14. The combustion of fuel will generate a number of residual outputs, including bottom ash

from the furnaces, flue gas treatment residue collected in bag filters, wastewater effluent

(predominantly ‘blowdown’ from the boilers) and heat. Where possible these outputs will

be re-used within the Proposed Development or sent off-site for re-use.

1.3.15. As with any development of this nature, the design process is based upon lessons

learned from previous similar developments underpinned by the application of Best

Available Techniques as published at the time of detailed design. The contractor that will

construct the Proposed Development is yet to be selected, therefore a number of

elements of the Proposed Development cannot be finalised in detail at this stage as

different contractors may have different approaches to certain activities. Where this is the

case, the reasons are outlined in the ES and an indication of the minimum and maximum

parameters for those specific elements of the Proposed Development are clearly defined

and assessed within the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref. No.

6.2)). Examples of where this applies include some of the building dimensions and the

connection point to the electricity grid.

1.3.16. The ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2)) also sets out

information on the expected construction activities and timescales, including anticipated

staff numbers and skill levels, mobile plant and machinery likely to be used, construction

hours, delivery routes and an outline construction programme. Construction works will be

formalised and agreed with regulators through the development of a Construction Method

Statement (CMS) by the contractor and a Construction Environmental Management Plan

(CEMP).

1.3.17. The concept design of the Proposed Development has been developed with the input of

environmental specialists. A number of aspects of the design have evolved through the

EIA and design process and where practicable, decisions have been influenced by

findings of the EIA in order to design out or minimise environmental effects through

embedded mitigation where possible. For example, the height of the stack has been

determined based on air quality modelling and tighter emission limits are to be used for

emissions of nitrogen oxides in order to reduce the predicted effects of the Proposed

Development on air quality. This process is described in detail in Chapter 4 Need,

Alternatives and Design Evolution of the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application

Document Ref. No. 6.2)).


Document Ref: 6.1



2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION

2.1. The Proposed Development Consent Order

2.1.1. The Proposed Development falls within the definition of a ‘Nationally Significant

Infrastructure Project’ under the Planning Act 2008, because it is an onshore generating

station in England that will have a generating capacity greater than 50 MWe gross output.

As such, a Development Consent Order (DCO) is required to enable the construction,

operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development.

2.1.2. If the DCO is granted, construction work on Site is envisaged to start at the end of 2015

and will last approximately three years, starting with ground preparation works followed

by construction of the buildings and structures and installation of process equipment. The

construction and commissioning of the Proposed Development is anticipated to be

completed in 2018 and commercial operation will start towards the end of that year.

2.2. The Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statements

2.2.1. The Planning Act 2008 provides a system for granting DCOs for Nationally Significant

Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Planning Inspectorate is responsible for receiving

and examining DCO applications, upon which they make a recommendation to the

relevant Secretary of State, who then decides whether the DCO should be granted.

2.2.2. The Government has put in place a series of National Policy Statements, which set out

the policy for considering NSIPs. There are a number of National Policy Statements

covering new energy developments, which define the need for new energy generating

plant to be developed in the UK, utilising a range of different fuels including waste

materials. The relevant National Policy Statements are described in more detail, including

the specific policies relevant to the Proposed Development, in the ES (Volume I – Main

Report (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2)).

2.3. The National Planning Policy Framework

2.3.1. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for

England and how they are to be applied, though it clearly states that it does not contain

specific policies for NSIPs (these policies are provided by the National Policy Statements

referred to above). The National Planning Policy Framework can, however, be a material

consideration in examining applications for DCOs and therefore the EIA has considered

its policies where relevant.

2.4. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) Development

Plans

2.4.1. There are a number of WMDC local development plan documents that set out relevant

local policy and these have been considered during the assessment process. These

policies are described further within the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application



Document Ref: 6.1



3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1. EIA Methodology

3.1.1. The assessment presented in the ES follows a standard EIA methodology, which is

summarised below.

3.1.2. The objective of the EIA process is to anticipate the changes (or ‘impacts’) that may occur

to the environment as a result of the Proposed Development, such as increases in traffic,

and changes to air quality or noise. The changes are compared to the environmental

conditions that would have occurred without the Proposed Development (defined as ‘the

baseline’). The EIA process identifies potentially sensitive ‘receptors’ that may be affected

by these changes (e.g. people living near the development, local flora and fauna) and

defines the extent to which these receptors may be affected by the predicted changes

(i.e. whether or not the receptors are likely to experience a ‘significant effect’).

3.1.3. The future impacts of the operation of FM1 (which is currently under construction) have

been included in the baseline. This is because FM1 will be operational by the time that

the Proposed Development would be constructed and operated, and also due to its

location and similarity with the Proposed Development, specific details are available on

the potential effects of FM1.

3.1.4. Where possible, the EIA uses standard methodologies, based on legislation, definitive

standards and accepted industry criteria. This is set out in detail in each technical chapter

of the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2)).

3.1.5. As the design of the Proposed Development has evolved, the Applicant has worked with

the environmental specialists to ensure the design avoids or reduces environmental

effects on receptors where possible, through the use of embedded mitigation measures.

These measures are taken into account in the EIA and assessment of effects of the

Proposed Development.

3.1.6. Effects on receptors can be adverse (negative), neutral (neither negative nor positive) or

beneficial (positive). They can also be temporary (e.g. noise during construction) or

permanent (e.g. the visual effect of the finished buildings).

3.1.7. For the purpose of the ES, adverse and beneficial effects are described as ‘significant’ or

‘not significant’. Where the environmental assessment predicts a significant effect on one

or more receptors, mitigation measures are identified where possible to avoid or reduce

the effect, or to reduce the likelihood of it happening.

3.2. Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping

3.2.1. EIA Scoping is a process that is designed to identify relevant topics that should be

included in the EIA and reported in the ES. The Applicant submitted an EIA Scoping

Report on 6 June 2013 to the Planning Inspectorate and relevant consultees to allow

them to contribute to defining the extent and approach to the environmental assessments

being undertaken.

3.2.2. The scoping process concluded which environmental assessment topics are relevant to

the EIA process. These topics have therefore been assessed and reported within the ES,

and summarised in this Non-Technical Summary.

3.2.3. The EIA scoping process concluded that the following technical topics are not relevant to

the EIA:

• aviation;


Document Ref: 6.1



• electronic interference (TV reception); and

• accidental events/ health and safety.

3.3. The Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report and

Other EIA-Related Consultation

3.3.1. A Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report was published for consultation in

October 2013, to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project based on

preliminary findings of the environmental assessments undertaken at that time. This

allowed consultees the opportunity to provide informed comment on the Proposed

Development, the assessment process and preliminary findings prior to the Applicant

finalising the ES.

3.3.2. Consultation with key stakeholders has continued since the formal consultation stage,

including review of draft ES chapters, and comments have been addressed in the final

ES.

3.3.3. A summary of feedback received and how it has been addressed can be found in

Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref.

No. 6.2)) and Appendices 1C and 1D of the ES (Volume III – Appendices) (Application

Document Ref. No. 6.4).


Document Ref: 6.1



4. TRANSPORT AND ACCESS

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. The transport and access assessment identifies the potential effects of the Proposed

Development on Kirkhaw Lane, Stranglands Lane and the A162 Ferrybridge Bypass (the

study area). The assessment considers the predicted number of vehicle movements

generated during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development, and the

sensitivity (including pedestrian and cyclist safety) and capacity of the road network.

Effects during the decommissioning phase are anticipated to be similar to those during

the construction phase.

4.2. Effects During Construction

4.2.1. Routes for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic travelling to and from the Site from the

motorway network have been defined avoiding residential areas wherever possible.

HGVs will leave the M62 at Junction 33 and travel on the A162 to Stranglands Lane,

accessing the Site via Kirkhaw Lane. HGVs leaving the Site will use the same route, but

will need to travel north on the A162 and U-turn at the new Dish Hill roundabout to travel

south, in order to avoid Ferrybridge centre. Cars and Light Goods Vehicles will either use

Kirkhaw Lane or the unnamed road off Stranglands Lane, immediately to the east of the

A1(M). See Figure NTS3.

4.2.2. The Proposed Development construction traffic will result in small, temporary, increases

of traffic flows, including HGVs, on the roads leading to the Site. However the

assessment concludes that predicted number of construction traffic movements will not

have a significant adverse effect on the road network in terms of capacity and effect on

sensitive road users (pedestrians and cyclists). Any abnormal loads would be timed to

minimise disruption following consultation with the local authority, and a Construction

Traffic Management Plan will be developed by the contractor to manage and where

possible, reduce the number of vehicles accessing the Site.

4.3. Effects During Operation

4.3.1. Traffic associated with the operation of the Proposed Development will use the same

routes as for construction traffic (described above).

4.3.2. As a worst case, for the purposes of the EIA, the traffic assessment assumes all fuel (up

to a maximum of 675,000 tonnes per year) will be delivered by road and all combustion

by-products will be removed by road. These deliveries will be restricted to agreed times.

Following consultation, extended delivery times have been adopted (between 0700 and

2200 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1830 hours on Saturday) which should help to

spread out the volume of deliveries across the day, in line with delivery times already in

place for other facilities in the vicinity of the Ferrybridge Power Station site. However the

assessment assumes a ‘worst case’ or shorter delivery hours.

4.3.3. Considering the relatively low sensitivity of the road network (in terms of its use by

pedestrians and cyclists for example) and existing junction capacities, no significant

adverse effects are predicted. As during the construction phase, an Operational Traffic

Management Plan will be used to manage and where possible, reduce the number of

vehicles accessing the Site.


Document Ref: 6.1



4.4. Conclusions

4.4.1. The transport assessment has assumed the ‘worst case’ number of HGVs during

operation based on the maximum tonnage of fuel, and all fuel deliveries coming by road

over shorter (not extended) delivery hours. In summary there are no predicted significant

transport or access effects and the surrounding road network has the capacity to absorb

the additional vehicle movements as a result of the Proposed Development.

4.4.2. The Applicant is continuing to consider other transport methods for material deliveries

and ash removal (e.g. rail or barge) and to encourage the workforce to travel to Site by

shared car, public transport or bicycle through the implementation of Travel Plans.


Document Ref: 6.1



5. AIR QUALITY

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. The air quality assessment has considered potential impacts up to 10 km from the

Proposed Development (the study area) on both human and ecological receptors

including residential properties, schools, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Nature

Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites . There are no internationally designated (European)

ecological sites within the study area. The Site is located within the M62 Air Quality

Management Area that was declared due to higher levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the

air (close to European air quality standards), largely from traffic sources. The Site is also

close to the Castleford Air Quality Management Area, also designated for the same

reason. See Figures NTS5a and NTS5b.

5.1.2. The assessment used computer models to predict the dispersion of air emissions from

the construction and operation of the Proposed Development including anticipated

emissions from the new stack and traffic emissions associated with the Proposed

Development. Effects during the decommissioning phase are anticipated to be similar to

the construction phase.

5.1.3. As discussed in paragraph 3.1.3 above, the combined impacts of FM1 and the Proposed

Development have been assessed by determining a modified air quality baseline from

FM1 traffic and stack emissions, on to which the predicted impacts of the Proposed

Development emissions have been added.

5.1.4. An Odour Management Plan (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4.11) has been prepared

to reduce the potential for nuisance caused by odours.


5.2.1. During construction, impacts could arise from emissions from construction vehicles and

mobile construction plant as well as dust and particulate matter from material

management activities. Any increases in emissions are assessed to have no significant

adverse effects on human or ecological receptors, with dust impacts avoided through the

employment of good practice dust control measures during construction works and the

use of construction travel plans.


5.3.1. The stack height for the Proposed Development has been set at 136 mAOD (slightly

higher than that for FM1) and the emission limit for nitrogen oxides from the stack has

been set at a tighter level than is required by legislation, in order to ensure sufficient

control and dispersion of the air emissions so that no significant air quality effects are

predicted at sensitive receptors through the use of this embedded mitigation. Emissions

from the Proposed Development during operation will be carefully controlled by the strict

requirements of an Environmental Permit that will be required from the Environment

Agency prior to commercial operation of the Proposed Development. The Permit will set

out specific requirements to ensure continuous compliance with European and national

legislation for this type of power station.

5.3.2. To further reduce the predicted effects on the air quality – and in particular the Air Quality

Management Area - traffic emissions will be reduced by the commitment to use of a

‘cleaner’ fleet of HGVs (meeting the 2014 new engine performance standard from the

start of commercial operation) for contracted fuel deliveries and ash collection vehicles.


Document Ref: 6.1



5.3.3. The assessment has concluded that the air quality at all human receptors would comply

with the NO2 and particulate national air quality standards, and any change due to the

operation of the Proposed Development would have no significant adverse effect. Non-

significant adverse effects are also predicted for any trace pollutants that may be emitted

from the Proposed Development stack.

5.3.4. The effects of any change in NO2 on ecological receptors due to the operation of the

Proposed Development are considered to have no significant adverse effect, as the

change in concentration would be very small at the closest ecological receptor.

5.3.5. A separate assessment has been undertaken of the potential health effects of any uptake

or ingestion of trace species that may be emitted from the stack of the Proposed

Development and this has concluded that there are no significant adverse effects on

health.

5.4. Conclusions

5.4.1. In summary it is concluded that there would be no significant effects arising from air

quality changes as a result of the Proposed Development through the use of embedded

mitigation.


Document Ref: 6.1



6. NOISE AND VIBRATION

6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. The study area for the noise and vibration assessment includes the nearest receptors in

each direction from the Site and roads that may be affected by changes in traffic flows.

6.1.2. The potential for increased noise during both construction and operation has been

predicted using noise models and the results compared with recorded baseline noise

levels during the day and night. The degree of change has been compared with national

standards for noise to conclude whether the increased noise will be noticeable at

receptors and whether there is therefore the potential for significant effects.

6.1.3. The assessment has considered the potential for vibration effects from both construction

and operation of the Proposed Development, and concluded that due to the distance to

any utilities and/or buildings (which could be affected by vibration), and the nature of the

works proposed, it is highly unlikely there would be any vibration impacts.

6.1.4. The noise and vibration effects during decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to

those identified for construction.


6.2.1. Due to the distance of the Site from potential receptors and with the implementation of

best practice measures to reduce noise, the assessment concluded that there will be no

significant effects resulting from construction noise emissions during the daytime.

6.2.2. Based on the experience of constructing FM1, it is assumed that some night-time

construction work will be required. Due to the sensitivity of the receptors it has been

concluded that a significant adverse effect on sensitive receptors from noise emissions

could occur, so mitigation measures will therefore be put in place to control night-time

activities, including noise monitoring, limits on the types of activity that can occur and a

noise limit at the Site boundary during night-time hours.

6.2.3. Abnormal loads may be required to be delivered at night during the construction period to

comply with Highways Agency requirements for road closures or restrictions. Such

deliveries would have the potential for a significant adverse but temporary effect on

residential receptors so the Applicant will liaise with WMDC to notify them of plans in

advance through the implementation of the construction traffic routing and management

plan.


6.3.1. The ‘noisiest’ part of the Proposed Development during operation will be the air cooled

condensers. The position of this equipment has therefore been fixed to ensure that other

buildings screen this noise from the closest sensitive receptors.

6.3.2. The assessment also considers the potential for noise to arise from increased traffic

movements on local roads during operation of the Proposed Development. As described

in Section 4 above, fuel delivery times will be restricted to certain times of day. It is

concluded there will be no perceptible increase in traffic noise due to the Proposed

Development during the daytime.

6.3.3. Rail deliveries could occur 24 hours a day to either FM1 or the Proposed Development,

since the rail siding and gantry is shared infrastructure between the two operations. The

potential additional noise effects of the nighttime offloading of rail deliveries for the


Document Ref: 6.1



Proposed Development have been assessed. No significant noise effects are predicted

from the operation of the gantry crane at night.

6.3.4. During the operation of the Proposed Development, noise from the power station and

associated activities on the Site (including deliveries by road and rail) is predicted to have

no significant adverse effect on the nearest receptors.

6.4. Conclusions

6.4.1. In summary it is concluded that there would be no significant noise and vibration effects

as a result of the Proposed Development, with the implementation of identified mitigation.


Document Ref: 6.1



7. LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

7.1. Introduction

7.1.1. This assessment considers the potential economic impacts of the Proposed Development

on the area surrounding the Site, and social impacts in terms of employment benefits,

land use, amenity and leisure activities. The effects during construction and operation

are described below and the decommissioning phase is considered to be similar to

construction.

7.1.2. The study area used for the economic assessment includes Wakefield District and parts

of North Yorkshire, including Selby. Economic benefits can arise directly (through

employment of local people) and indirectly (e.g. during the construction phase, when

contractors may be using local accommodation and other amenities).

7.1.3. Historically, employment in Wakefield was above the regional and national averages, but

the recent economic recession has resulted in increasing unemployment rates, of 10.0%

in Wakefield compared to 9.3% in Yorkshire and the Humber and nationally, based on

2012 statistics.


7.2.1. The Applicant is committed to taking practical measures to encourage the use local

suppliers and workers, including holding a ‘meet the buyer’ day.

7.2.2. The Proposed Development is predicted to have a temporary significant beneficial effect

on the local and regional economy through the creation of up to 500 construction jobs at

the peak of construction (350 on average), some of which will provide opportunities for

local employment, as well as indirect economic benefits during the construction phase.

7.2.3. No significant effects on land use are anticipated as the majority of the Site lies within the

existing Ferrybridge Power Station site and is currently used as a construction laydown

area for FM1. The Site is also allocated for power generation use in the local

development plan. No Public Rights of Way will be affected by the Proposed

Development.


7.3.1. During operation the Proposed Development will employ between 35 and 46 full-time

permanent staff. Assuming a conservative figure of 35 jobs, approximately 27 are

expected to be filled by people from the local and regional area based on evidence from

similar past projects. This is not predicted to result in a significant beneficial effect on the

local or regional economy.

7.3.2. The assessment concludes that there will be no significant adverse effect on land use,

leisure and amenity, given the current and allocated use of the land and that no Public

Rights of Way will be affected by the Proposed Development.

7.4. Conclusions

7.4.1. The economic benefits generated by the construction of the Proposed Development will

be significant and beneficial on the local and regional economy. No other significant

beneficial or adverse effects on the local or regional economy, land use, amenity and

leisure are predicted.


Document Ref: 6.1



8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY

8.1. Introduction

8.1.1. The study area for landscape and visual effects includes areas where it is considered that

there is potential for significant direct or indirect effects on landscape character or

sensitive views due to the construction or operation of the Proposed Development.

Within the study area, ten representative viewpoints have been identified and agreed with

WMDC for the purposes of the visual assessment.

8.1.2. The existing landscape character is recognised to be influenced by existing large power

stations which may visible over long distances. Within the immediate local landscape,

the Ferrybridge Power Station site is considered to have a significant influence on the

surrounding landscape character.

8.1.3. A Landscape Strategy has been prepared and will be implemented as part of the

Proposed Development. This will deliver landscape, green infrastructure and biodiversity

enhancements within the Site.

8.1.4. A Lighting Strategy has also been prepared, which seeks to minimise lightspill onto

sensitive receptors including residential properties.

8.1.5. The effects during decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the construction

effects described below.


8.2.1. Considering the scale of the Proposed Development and the context of the existing

landscape setting within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, the landscape

character is not predicted to be significantly affected by the construction of the Proposed

Development.

8.2.2. Changes to views from the identified viewpoints agreed with WMDC during the

construction period relate largely to the visibility of the tower cranes, stack and largest

buildings. The assessment concluded that there will be no significant visual effect from

most of the viewpoints, however, one representative viewpoint (residential properties to

the south-west of the Site in the vicinity of the northern end of Darkfield Lane, Pontefract)

would experience a moderately significant adverse effect due to the visibility of tower

cranes, tall structures and stack.

8.2.3. Due to the size and massing of the structures, no specific mitigation measures are

proposed although landscaping will be undertaken within the Site to aid low level

screening and enhance the value of the Site in terms of amenity for site workers, green

infrastructure and biodiversity.


8.3.1. As for the construction phase, no significant effect is anticipated on landscape character

during operation given the characteristics of the setting provided by the existing

Ferrybridge Power Station site.

8.3.2. Only the stack and in some instances the largest buildings will be partially visible from

most of the identified viewpoints during operation. It is anticipated that for all but one

viewpoint there will be no significant visual effect, but due to the angle of the view from

residential properties around the northern end of Darkfield Lane, Pontefract, the stack

and main buildings of the Proposed Development will be visible resulting in a moderately


Document Ref: 6.1



significant adverse effect. See Figure NTS6. This cannot be mitigated by landscape

planting within the Site due to the scale of the buildings and stack.

8.3.3. Landscaping within the Site will aid low level screening and enhance the value of the Site

in terms of amenity for site workers, green infrastructure and biodiversity.

8.4. Conclusions

8.4.1. The only significant effect identified on visual amenity is an anticipated moderate adverse

visual effect on residential properties around the northern end of Darkfield Lane,

Pontefract. No significant adverse effects on landscape character are predicted.

8.4.2. The Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies for the Site will increase the amenity value to

site workers and visitors and enhance the green infrastructure and biodiversity value of

the Site.


Document Ref: 6.1



9. WATER RESOURCES AND FLOOD RISK

9.1. Introduction

9.1.1. The assessment identifies the key water bodies that may receive run-off from the Site

during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development, and

considers the potential contamination risk to these water bodies as a result. The study

areas for groundwater and surface water have been defined based on the potential for

impacts to occur; the groundwater study area is larger than the surface water study area

due to the rock below the Site being highly fractured.

9.1.2. The main surface watercourses close to the Site are the River Aire to the east and

Fryston Beck, which flows through the Ferrybridge Power Station site, partly open and

partly underground. The Site is not within a groundwater protection zone however the

groundwater beneath the site is used for public water supply (defined as a Principal

Aquifer).

9.1.3. The regulator for the water environment (the Environment Agency) defines the existing

quality of watercourses by their ‘potential’ in terms of ecological and chemical quality in

accordance with the Water Framework Directive.

9.1.4. The majority of the Site is located in an area that is at low risk of flooding from surface

watercourses (as defined by the Environment Agency) but some parts of the Site (the

north-east and eastern areas of the Site, Kirkhaw Lane and a small area in the south-

west of the Site adjacent to the A1(M)) are at medium risk. See Figure NTS5b.

9.1.5. Decommissioning effects are anticipated to be similar to those predicted during the

construction phase.


9.2.1. The assessment has concluded that during construction there is the potential for spillages

to occur, but the likelihood of these occurring would be very low through the use of best

practice construction methods. As a result, the potential impact of such an incident is not

considered likely to result in a significant effect on surface or groundwater.

9.2.2. Construction storage and stockpiles will be located away from medium flood risk areas

wherever possible.


9.3.1. During operation of the Proposed Development, the risk and potential impacts are largely

the same as those identified for the construction phase, and therefore will be managed by

similar best practice measures for working procedures and the storage of materials and

fuels. These measures will be implemented through the site Environmental Management

System that will be developed by the operator to maintain compliance with the

Environmental Permit. The drainage design will prevent potentially polluted runoff from

causing pollution of surface or ground water bodies.

9.3.2. The Proposed Development will not increase the risk of flooding off Site because the

drainage of surface water and rainwater from the Site will be designed to restrict the rate

of runoff from the Site. The Proposed Development itself is at low risk of flooding based

on the published flood risk zones and proposed ground levels.


Document Ref: 6.1



9.4. Conclusions

9.4.1. No significant effects on surface or ground water bodies are predicted due to the

proposed use of best practice measures during construction, operation and

decommissioning, and the design of the drainage system for the Proposed Development.

9.4.2. The majority of the Site is at low risk of flooding and the Proposed Development will not

result in any increase in flood risk off Site.


Document Ref: 6.1



10. GROUND CONDITIONS

10.1. Introduction

10.1.1. A desk based assessment of historical ground condition information and previous studies

has been undertaken to identify the potential effects associated with ground conditions.

Further, intrusive ground investigation was also undertaken to provide more site-specific

information on ground conditions within the Site.

10.1.2. Baseline information indicates that the Site sits on mainly thin deposits of Made Ground

directly over limestone bedrock (a Principal Aquifer) in the west of the Site. In the east

and south-east of the Site, the Made Ground is thicker, with natural alluvium at lower

depths and limestone bedrock below. The Site is in an area of historical coal mining

activity but the potential for below ground movements is low.

10.1.3. The assessment has considered the potential risks to people (staff on site during

construction and operation), surrounding land uses, ecological receptors, buildings, soils

and groundwater from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed

Development. Decommissioning effects are predicted to be similar to those described

below for the construction phase.


10.2.1. Best practice measures to protect construction staff and the environment will be used,

including use of Personal Protective Equipment and appropriate storage of materials on

Site.

10.2.2. The ground investigation concluded that all soil samples tested had contaminant

concentrations below the relevant criteria for the protection of human health. Therefore

the risk to human health during construction is not considered significant.

10.2.3. If contaminated land is identified during construction, measures would be put in place to

ensure that further disturbance is reduced and remedial work is undertaken where

appropriate to reduce to risk to human health and groundwater.

10.2.4. No significant effects have been identified as a result of the construction phase.


10.3.1. The Proposed Development has been designed to avoid risks of soil and groundwater

pollution, including locating the fuel storage bunker at least 1 m above the groundwater

level, and using impermeable surfacing and bunding of material storage, supported by

leak prevention (and consideration of detection systems).

10.3.2. No significant effects have been identified as a result of the operation of the Proposed

Development.

10.4. Conclusions

10.4.1. Best practice measures to protect people on Site from any potentially contaminated land

and to prevent the risks of causing contamination of soils and groundwater have been

incorporated into the design and management systems of the Proposed Development.

As a result it is not expected that there will be any significant effect relating to ground

conditions during the construction or operation of the Proposed Development.


Document Ref: 6.1



11. ECOLOGY

11.1. Introduction

11.1.1. Ecological receptors have been identified within a 5 km study area of the Proposed

Development (10 km for the potential effects of emissions to air from the operational

Proposed Development) through a desk based study, and a Phase 1 Habitat Survey has

been undertaken for the Site and its immediate surroundings. Within the 5 km study area,

five statutory and 19 non-statutory designated nature conservation sites have been

identified. In addition, the habitat survey indicated that the wider Ferrybridge Power

Station site holds very little value for wildlife. Ecological receptors of note in the Site

vicinity are the River Aire, Fryston Beck, a pond within the former golf course and

woodland habitat, although none of these sites are internationally or nationally

designated. There are no internationally designated sites within 20 km of the Site and

Natural England has confirmed that there are no potential effects on internationally

designated sites.

11.1.2. No European protected species have been recorded on Site and although a number of

protected species have been recorded in the wider study area (notably great crested

newt, common toad, grass snake, common lizard and slow worm), none have been

detected or are expected to use the habitats currently present within the Site.

11.1.3. The ecology of the Site and surrounding area has the potential to change in the time

period leading up to decommissioning, so the effects of decommissioning cannot be

assessed in detail but are anticipated to be less significant than construction effects.

11.1.4. Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies have been prepared and will be implemented as

part of the Proposed Development. These will deliver biodiversity enhancements within

the Site.

11.1.5. A Lighting Strategy has also been prepared, which seeks to minimise lightspill onto

sensitive receptors including Fryston Wood Local Wildlife Site to the north of the Site.


11.2.1. There will be no loss of habitat within any statutory or non-statutory designated sites

(including Fryston Park Local Wildlife Site) as a result of construction of the Proposed

Development, and the loss of the existing habitats within the Site is not considered to be

significant due to their relatively low ecological value.

11.2.2. No direct or indirect effects on statutory or non-statutory sites have been identified.

Natural England has confirmed that there will be no significant effects on statutory sites.

11.2.3. The loss of the former golf course pond would be a significant local effect but the

Proposed Development includes embedded mitigation of a replacement pond, which will

be designed to provide replacement habitat for amphibians, so there will be no significant

adverse effect in the long term.

11.2.4. There will be no significant adverse effect on protected or notable species as a result of

the Proposed Development. There may inevitably be some level of disturbance but this

would be temporary in nature, reversible and therefore not significant. Design measures,

including directional lighting (directed downwards to minimise light spill), limited lighting

along the boundary of Fryston Park woodland and good practice methods to manage

dust will be employed to minimise any disturbance to species using the habitat within

Fryston Park woodland immediately to the north of the Site.


Document Ref: 6.1




11.3.1. The Proposed Development includes Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies which will

enhance the biodiversity value of the Site during operation, providing a significant

beneficial effect in the long term.

11.3.2. The assessment has concluded there will be no significant adverse effects on designated

sites, notable habitats or protected species during operation.

11.4. Conclusions

11.4.1. As a result of the design of the Proposed Development which includes a replacement

pond and Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies, no significant adverse effects on

ecological receptors are predicted as a result of construction and operation.


Document Ref: 6.1



12. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

12.1. Introduction

12.1.1. The desk based assessment of the study area has identified no designated heritage

assets within the Site. In the wider area (within 1 km of the Site), 53 heritage assets were

identified, including two Scheduled Monuments, one Grade I and ten Grade II listed

buildings. See Figures NTS5a and 5b. Historical knowledge and understanding of the

area is well documented from prehistoric (30,000 BC) through to modern times. Assets

recorded from these periods range from chance finds to cropmarks associated with early

agriculture and ritual features.

12.1.2. Construction and operation phase effects are described below. No additional effects are

anticipated during the decommissioning phase.


12.2.1. The Proposed Development will have no impact on designated heritage assets in the

study area, and this has been agreed with English Heritage.

12.2.2. Within the former golf course area it is anticipated that previous disturbance during the

construction of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station (the area was used as laydown area) and

subsequently the golf course has led to the loss of any archaeological assets near to the

ground surface. A desk based study and watching brief were carried out for archaeology

at the time of the golf course construction in 2001. No archaeological assets were

identified during the watching brief.

12.2.3. A ground investigation was carried out across the Site in August 2013 to confirm the level

of disturbance within the topsoil and sub-surface layers. Nothing in the ground

investigation results indicates the survival of archaeological deposits and therefore it is

very unlikely that any deposits of archaeological significance survive within the footprint of

the Proposed Development. One asset previously identified within the Site (a cropmark)

is now thought to be related to the Ferrybridge ‘C’ construction process, based on

photographic evidence from the time of the golf course construction. Parts of the Site

that may contain surviving heritage assets below ground will be subject to a watching

brief during the construction phase.

12.2.4. There will be no impact on any of the non-designated assets identified in the search area

as they lie outside the Site and would therefore be undisturbed. Therefore no significant

effects associated with the construction of the Proposed Development are anticipated.


12.3.1. During operation there will be no impact upon any of the identified non-designated

archaeological assets in the study area.

12.4. Conclusions

12.4.1. With the implementation of mitigation, no significant effects on archaeology and cultural

heritage assets have been identified.


Document Ref: 6.1



13. WASTE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

13.1. Introduction

13.1.1. The assessment has taken into consideration the likely effects associated with the

generation of waste and use of resources during the construction and operation of the

Proposed Development. The assessment does not consider the use of waste materials

as fuel for the Proposed Development (diverting it away from landfill), as this is

considered in a separate Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment (Application

Document Ref. No. 5.9).


13.2.1. It is estimated that the construction of the Proposed Development will generate

approximately 37,800 tonnes of waste based on records from previous comparable

construction projects. This is considered in the context of regional construction,

demolition and excavation waste arisings of around 4.7 million tonnes per year in the

Yorkshire and Humber region. In 2008, 85% of this type of waste in England was

recovered or re-used. Therefore the level of waste expected to be generated from the

construction of the Proposed Development is not considered significant or likely to lead to

any capacity issues within the regional waste management network. Assuming a similar

proportion of demolition waste is recycled at the decommissioning phase, the

decommissioning effects are anticipated to be similar.

13.2.2. A Site Waste Management Plan will be implemented by the contractor to reduce, re-use

and recycle construction waste where feasible (a framework SWMP is included in the ES

(Volume III – Appendices (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4)) as Appendix 16A). The

Proposed Development is being designed to minimise excavation waste by balancing the

‘cut’ of surplus material and ‘fill’ to level the Site prior to construction as much as possible,

and any excess material that cannot be re-used on Site will be considered for the

potential to supply other off-site developments for beneficial re-use. Should that not be

feasible, Welbeck Landfill Site located 8 km to the south-west of the Site could accept

construction waste if it cannot be re-used or recycled.

13.2.3. Good practice waste management procedures will also minimise the risk of adverse

effects on human or ecological receptors from the waste storage, transfer or disposal.

13.2.4. The contractor, where possible, will be required to minimise the use of virgin raw

materials by specifying products and materials with recycled content and which are

durable with a long life.


13.3.1. During operation the Proposed Development will generate up to 116,000 tonnes of ash

and up to 22,500 tonnes of flue gas treatment residue per year, as well as approximately

9 tonnes of general office waste.

13.3.2. Following appropriate storage on Site, the ash will be taken off Site for recycling wherever

possible (for example in cement manufacture or in general low-grade aggregate use) or

sent to landfill if recycling is not possible, and the flue gas treatment residue will be

treated off Site and disposed of as hazardous waste (because of its pH value).

13.3.3. In the context of commercial and industrial waste arisings of around 1.26 million tonnes

per year in Wakefield, and given the proposed waste management procedures, the

generation of waste during operation of the Proposed Development is not considered to

be significant.


Document Ref: 6.1



13.4. Conclusions

13.4.1. It is concluded there will be no significant effects as a result of waste arising from the

construction or operation of the Proposed Development.


Document Ref: 6.1



14. SUSTAINABILITY

14.1. Introduction

14.1.1. This assessment addresses the potential wider sustainability impacts predicted to arise

as a consequence of the Proposed Development, in the context of national, regional and

local planning policy. The Proposed Development will be designed in accordance with the

principle of Best Available Techniques and utilising sustainable building standards, and

by applying these mechanisms, the Proposed Development is considered to meet the key

sustainability requirements as set out in national, regional and local policy.


14.2.1. The construction stage of the Proposed Development will adhere to the basic principles

of environmental sustainability including minimising the use of natural resources,

greenfield land and water consumption, whilst maximising energy efficiency. These will

be achieved through design, including targeting achievement of the Building Research

Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) ‘Very Good’ standard, and

implementation of management plans including a Construction Environmental

Management Plan, Site Waste Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management

Plan.


14.3.1. A carbon assessment and a waste and resource assessment have been undertaken.

These assessments demonstrate that the Proposed Development will provide a low

carbon source of electricity, and is expected to outperform the average existing power

stations in the UK when comparing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of electricity

produced. The proposed diversion of waste from landfill to produce energy is in line with

the waste hierarchy, and also represents significant carbon savings in comparison with

the disposal of waste to landfill. The detailed findings of these assessments are

presented in Appendix 17A and 17B of the ES (Volume III – Appendices (Application


14.3.2. During operation, management plans will also be implemented to improve the

sustainability of the operation, including the implementation of an Environmental

Management System, Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan and Operation

Traffic Management Plan. Continued implementation of the waste hierarchy and energy

and water efficiency will be controlled through measures that will be specified in the

Environmental Permit and the site Environmental Management System.

14.4. Conclusions

14.4.1. The design, construction and operation of the Proposed Development will adhere to

national, regional and local sustainable development policies and the diversion of waste

from landfill for use as fuel is considered to be a significant beneficial effect in accordance

with the waste hierarchy.


Document Ref: 6.1



15. HEALTH IMPACT SUMMARY

15.1. Introduction

15.1.1. Potential effects of the Proposed Development on human health are considered in

several of the chapters discussed above, including Air Quality, Noise and Vibration,

Water Resources and Flood Risk, and Ground Conditions. In addition to these

assessments, a Human Health Risk Assessment has been undertaken focussing on

human health effects associated with emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,

sulphur dioxide, metals and organic substances during the operation of the Proposed

Development. Electromagnetic fields and the risk of accidents have also been assessed

in relation to the operation of the Proposed Development.

15.1.2. In order to deliver improvements to the quality of life and overall life expectancy of the

local population the local health authorities have identified a number of priority areas and

set objectives to deliver benefits to public health and construction and operation of the

Proposed Development have been considered against these objectives.


15.2.1. Potential effects on human health during the construction phase are considered in the Air

Quality, Noise and Vibration, Water Resources and Flood Risk, and Ground Conditions

chapters. No significant adverse effects have been predicted, through the use of the

embedded mitigation measures outlined previously.


15.3.1. Potential effects on human health during the operation phase are also considered in the

Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Water Resources and Flood Risk, and Ground

Conditions chapters. No significant adverse effects have been predicted, through the use

of the embedded mitigation measures outlined previously.

15.3.2. The Human Health Risk Assessment predicted that the concentrations of each air

pollutant (particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide) and exposure to

metals and persistent organic substances (including dioxins and furans) will be so small

that they are not considered to represent a significant risk to the health of the local

population and will not prevent or impair the local health authorities from delivering the

benefits set out in their objectives.

15.3.3. No significant health effects associated with electromagnetic fields of accidents have

been predicted.

15.4. Conclusions

15.4.1. No significant health effects have been identified as a result of the construction or

operation of the Proposed Development following the implementation of the identified

mitigation measures.


Document Ref: 6.1



16. CUMULATIVE AND COMBINED EFFECTS

16.1.1. Other proposed developments that are also likely to be constructed and operated in

future and have the potential to generate cumulative environmental effects together with

the Proposed Development have been identified. Significant cumulative effects may be

possible due to the nature of these developments (e.g. the potential to release emissions

to air) or their location (e.g. close enough to the site to affect the same receptors).

16.1.2. The other proposed developments that are considered to have potential for significant

cumulative effects, and that have been assessed in more detail, are: Ferrybridge Power

Station Golf Course; Pontefract Road, Knottingley Residential Development; Knottingley

Power Project; Darrington Wind Farm; Southmoor Energy Centre; Prowind (Wood Lane)

Wind Farm; Byram Wind Farm; and Hook Moor Wind Farm (see Figure NTS7), although

a wider list of projects has also been considered and screened out from further

consideration.

16.1.3. The potential for cumulative effects with these other developments was considered for all

of the environmental topics following consideration of the available information (including

the Environmental Statements and detailed environmental modelling information where

available). As a result of the detailed consideration undertaken in respect of the identified

proposed developments, no significant cumulative effects during construction or

operation were identified.

16.1.4. Combined effects (meaning the combination of different types of effects from the

Proposed Development on a single receptor) have also been assessed, and no

significant combined effects have been identified.


Document Ref: 6.1



17. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

17.1.1. The ES reports the findings of the EIA that has been undertaken for the Proposed

Development.

17.1.2. The Proposed Development is set within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, and

has been designed in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure (and in line with the

design and finishes agreed for the adjacent FM1 power station). This has worked to

minimise the potential for significant adverse effects.

17.1.3. Following assessment of a comprehensive range of environmental topics, as agreed

through the EIA Scoping and consultation process, the following potential significant

effects have been identified:

• adverse noise effects on nearby properties during evening and night-time

construction works;

• beneficial effects on the local and regional economy generated by construction

employment;

• adverse effects on views from residential properties around the northern end of

Darkfield Lane, Pontefract during construction and operation, due to the visibility

of tower cranes, and the tallest structures and stack; and

• beneficial effects due to the carbon savings associated with the use of waste

derived fuel in comparison to disposal of that waste directly to landfill.

17.1.4. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the identified significant adverse

noise effect during evening and night-time construction work, but due to the scale of the

buildings and stack, the significant adverse effect on the Darkfield Lane representative

viewpoint cannot be mitigated by landscape planting within the Site.

17.1.5. The landscaping and habitat creation enhancements that will be delivered on Site through

the Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies, will have a significant beneficial effect.

17.1.6. No other significant environmental effects have been identified.

17.1.7. Commitment to the key environmental impact avoidance, design and mitigation

measures, where not embedded in the design of the Proposed Development, will be will

be secured by a number of ‘requirements’ contained within the draft Development

Consent Order that will control the construction and operation of the Proposed

Development.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673

0 125 250 375 500Metres

LegendDCO (Application Site) Red Line Boundary

DCO (Application Site) Location

47066159/NTS1Document Number: Revision

0

Scale: Original Size: A41:15,000

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2

NTS1Figure Number:

Site Location PlanFigure Title:

Document Reference: 6.1Environmental Statement- Non Technical Summary

Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck

DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014

Fryston Park Brotherton

Kirkhaw Lane

S tranglands Lane

Ferrybridge 'C'Power Station

FormerGolf Course

Mobile HomePark

A1(M)A1(M)

Fryston Lane

A162


0 80 160 240 320Metres

LegendDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundaryFM1 Building and Rail SpurFM1 Section 36 consent boundaryStorage area for FM1 construction(Permitted Development)

47066159/NTS2Docu ment Nu mber: Revision

0

Scale: Original Siz e: A41:10,000

Ferry bridge Mu ltifu el 2

NTS2Figu re Nu mber:

Proposed DevelopmentApplication Site Bou ndaryand FM1 Site Bou ndary

Figu re Title:

Docu ment Reference:6.1

Environmental Statement– Non Technical Su mmary



A63

42A63

A63

A1M

A162

River Aire

FerrybridgeB6136

A162

32A639

TO M1 MOTORWAY,MANCHESTER & LEEDS M62/A1M

INTERCHANGE

40

A162

River Aire

A1MNORTH

32a41

A1M

River Aire

Gate 'C'

A162

7.5T

7.5T

7.5T

33

TO HULL

Kirkhaw Lane

7.5T

Stranglands Lane

M62WEST

M62EAST

Gate 'B'

Unnamed Road

From M62 J33 To M62 J33

The Square

Fryston Lane

A1MSOUTH

Legend

N

Document Number:

Document Reference:

Figure Title:

Figure Number:

Drawn Checked Approved Date

Revision Details Date

Suffix

By

Check

NTS3

Proposed Transport Routes

6.1

Environmental Statement

ï Design and Access Statement

Ferrybridge Multifuel 2

47066159/NTS3 0

Revision

Main Construction/Operational Routes

to the Proposed Development

Main Construction/Operational Routes

from the Proposed Development

Potential alternative

Construction/Operational

Routes to/from the Proposed

Development for Car and Light Goods

Vehicles

G.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014

Scale: Original Size:

NA A4


Legend

47066159/NTS4Document Number: Revision

0

Scale: Original Siz e: A4

Ferry bridge Multifuel 2

NTS4Figure Number:

Indicative Concept Lay outfor the Proposed Development

Figure Title:

Document Reference:6.1

Environmental Statement– Non Technical Summary



N/A


0 580 1,160 1,740 2,320Metres

Le ge ndStudy AreaDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundaryAir Quality Management AreaResidential ReceptorsFryston Park Local Wildlife SiteLocal Nature ReserveSSSI

Liste d Bu ildingsGrade IGrade II*Grade IIScheduled MonumentRegistered Park and GardenFlood Zone 2Flood Zone 3

47066159/NTS5aDocu me nt Nu mbe r: Re vision

0

Scale : Original Size : A41:70,000

Fe rry bridge Mu ltifu e l 2

NTS5aFigu re Nu mbe r:

Know n Environme ntalConside rations w ithin Stu dy Are a

Figu re Title :

Docu me nt Re fe re nce :6.1

Environme ntal State me nt– Non Te chnical Su mmary




0 170 340 510 680Metres

Le ge ndStudy AreaDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundaryAir Quality Management AreaResidential ReceptorsFryston Park Local Wildlife Site

Liste d Bu ildingsGrade IGrade IIScheduled MonumentFlood Zone 2Flood Zone 3

47066159/NTS5bDocu me nt Nu mbe r: Re vision

0

Scale : Original Size : A41:20,000

Fe rry bridge Mu ltifu e l 2

NTS5bFigu re Nu mbe r:

Know n Environme ntalConside rations w ithin Stu dy Are a

Figu re Title :


Environme ntal State me nt– Non Te chnical Su mmary




Le ge nd

47066159/NTS6Docu me nt Nu mbe r: Re v is ion

0

Scale : Original Size : A4

Fe rrybridge Mu ltifu e l 2

NTS6Figu re Nu mbe r:

Vie w from Darkfie ld Lane ,Ponte fract With and Withou tthe Propos e d De v e lopme nt

Figu re Title :


Env ironme ntal State me nt– Non Te chnical Su mmary



N/A


0 580 1,160 1,740 2,320Metres

LegendDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundary5km from Site Boundary

Proposed Developments Assessed inCumulative Impact Assessment

Byram Wind FarmDarrington Wind FarmPontefract Road, Knottingley ResidentialDevelopmentKnottingley Power ProjectProwind (Wood Lane) Wind FarmSouthmoor Energy Centre

47066159/NTS7Docu ment Nu mber: Revision

0

Scale: Original Siz e: A41:70,000

Ferry bridge Mu ltifu el 2

NTS7Figu re Nu mber:

Location of Developmentsto be considered forCu mu lative Impacts

Figu re Title:

Docu ment Reference:6.1

Environmental Statement– Non Technical Su mmary



Hook Moor Wind Farm off the Map

ferrybridge multifuel 2 (fm2) - iema - home · 2018-07-20 · ferrybridge multifuel 2 (fm2)...

Documents