blackburn meadows renewable energy plant environmental .../media/pdfs/generation/...part 2: the site...

Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant

Environmental Statement

11721_BLACKBURN BIOMASS FC_AW 12/3/08 15:22 Page 3

Environmental Statement Proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows

Proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Compiled by E.ON Engineering on behalf of E.ON UK Renewables

Authorised for Issue by

……………………………

Nilton Chan E.ON UK

13 March 2008

i


Contributors This report has been produced for: E.ON UK (on behalf of E.ON Climate and Renewables) Westwood Way Westwood Business Park Coventry CV4 8LG Tel: +44 (0) 24 7642 4000 Fax: +44 (0) 24 7642 5432 By: E.ON Engineering UK Ratcliffe-on-Soar Nottingham NG11 0EE Tel: +44 (0)115 936 2000 Fax: +44 (0)115 936 2711 Main Contributors: Kevin Brown Ian Cresswell Rob Lennard Joanne Frost Keith Sadler Joanna Thomas Khamun Ward Steven Wilson Karen Atkins (Atmos Consulting) Peter Braithwaite (Arup) Bob Bray (Robert Bray Associates) Yolanda Chakava (Atkins Ltd) Caroline Duckworth (Building Design Partnership) Peter Firth (Scott Wilson) Tim Hodges (Mott MacDonald) Kevin Hume (Young Associates) Catherine Kamulu (Scott Wilson) Gavin Kinsley (Trent and Peak Archeaology Unit) Tony Magee (Scott Wilson) Roger Nowell (Green Estate) Ogo Osammor (Sheffield City Council) Ian Renshaw (Arup) Ian Ruthven (Building Design Partnership) David Sharpe (Environmental and Planning Management) Peter Tooher (Broadway Malyan)

ii


Preface This Environmental Statement has been prepared by E.ON Engineering, on behalf of E.ON UK, to accompany its application to Sheffield City Council for consent under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to construct a biomass fired Renewable Energy Power Plant at Blackburn Meadows, near Sheffield in South Yorkshire. E.ON is considering building a biomass fired renewable energy plant as a means of increasing the generation derived from non-fossil fuels. The proposed biomass fired power plant will be located at Blackburn Meadows, which is adjacent to the M1 motorway between junction 34 Meadowhall (north) and Tinsley (south) roundabouts, approximately 5.5km north east of Sheffield City centre and is referred to in this Environmental Statement as the ‘Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant’ or ‘Renewable Energy Plant’ or ‘Plant’. This document has been produced in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. It presents an analysis of the likely environmental effects of the proposal to construct and operate the new Plant. This Environmental Statement is presented in three main sections: Part 1: Introduction – the background to the project is reviewed in the context of consent procedures and the planning framework. Part 2: The Site and the Project - considers aspects of the biomass fired plant design and the construction phase for the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant. Part 3: Environmental Impact Assessment – details the effects of the proposed new biomass fired Renewable Energy Plant on the environment in terms of emissions, site ecology and history, visual aspects, noise, flood risk, traffic and the socio-economic implications for the local community. A glossary of terms and abbreviations, and a list of references are also included. A Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of the Environmental Statement has been produced as a separate document, in accordance with requirements of the Regulations above.

iii


The Environmental Statement and the Non-Technical Summary (together with relevant reference documents) have been placed on deposit at the following addresses Sheffield City Council: City Development Division Development Services Sheffield City Council Hodwen House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH Darnell Ward Town Hall Sheffield S1 SHH

Rotherham MBC Department of Planning Norfolk House Walker Place Rotherham S60 1QT

English Heritage Customer Services Department PO Box 569 Swindon SN2 2YP

South Yorkshire Forest Partnership 4 Park Square Newton Chambers Road Sheffield S35 2PH

English Nature – Natural England Natural England South Yorkshire Team Bullring House Northgate Wakefield WF1 3BJ

Yorkshire Forward Head Office - Leeds Victoria House Victoria Place Leeds LS11 5AE

Environment Agency Development Planning Team Phoenix House Global Avenue Leeds West Yorkshire LS11 8PG

Tinsley Forum One Stop Shop 120 – 126 Bawtry Road Tinsley Sheffield S9 1UE

Groundwork Sheffield The Brokerage 19 Paradise Square Sheffield S1 2DE

Sheffield Wildlife Trust HQ 37 Stafford Road Sheffield S2 2SF

Highways Agency Development Control Team City House New Station Street Leeds LS1 4UR

iv


The Environmental Statement and the Non-Technical Summary are also available on-line at the E.ON UK website www.eon-uk.com Printed copies and CDs of the Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary may be obtained by writing to E.ON UK plc at the following address:- Dr Nilton Chan Blackburn Meadows Project Manager E.ON UK Westwood Way Westwood Business Park Coventry CV4 8LG A discretionary charge may be requested for each copy of the Environmental Statement. Any requests for further information on the proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant or information relating to E.ON UK plc in general should be made to Emily Highmore, UK Communications, E.ON UK plc or Sandra Stephens, EON Climate and Renewables at the above address. Unless otherwise stated, copyright to all diagrams, illustrations and photographs belong solely to E.ON UK plc and must not be reproduced without written permission. Certain figures are based upon Ordnance Survey maps, which have been reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

v

http://www.eon-uk.com/


Contents 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Background to the Proposed Development ....................................................1 1.2 Consents Procedure..........................................................................................3 1.3 Planning Framework..........................................................................................4

1.3.1 National Planning Policy ...............................................................................5 1.3.2 National Planning Policy - Assessment ........................................................8 1.3.3 Development Plan ........................................................................................9 1.3.4 Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and Humberside ............................9 1.3.5 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan. The Draft RSS Incorporating the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes (2007) ...................................11 1.3.6 Sheffield Unitary Development Plan ...........................................................13 1.3.7 Draft Core Strategy Sheffield Development Framework.............................15 1.3.8 Sheffield Development Framework Preferred Options for City Sites (2007) .........................................................................................................16 1.3.9 Sheffield Development Framework Preferred Options for City Policies (2007) ............................................................................................17 1.3.10 Renewable Energy Scoping and Feasibility Study for Sheffield, Final Report, Sheffield City Council (September 2006) ..............................18 1.3.11 Development Plan Policy – Assessment ....................................................18

1.4 Environmental Assessment............................................................................19 1.5 Sustainability Statement .................................................................................20

1.5.1 Use of Heat.................................................................................................21 2 The Site and the Project .........................................................................................23

2.1 The Site .............................................................................................................23 2.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................23 2.1.2 Location ......................................................................................................23 2.1.3 Access to the Site .......................................................................................23 2.1.4 General Description of the Site...................................................................24 2.1.5 Site History .................................................................................................25

2.2 Choice of Blackburn Meadows Site for the New Renewable Energy Plant25 2.2.1 The Need for New Power Stations .............................................................25 2.2.2 The choice of Renewable Energy Plant......................................................25 2.2.3 The choice of the Blackburn Meadows Site................................................26

2.3 The Renewable Energy Plant – Description of the Application...................27 2.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................27 2.3.2 Overview of the Proposed Development ....................................................28

2.4 Construction.....................................................................................................34 2.4.1 Construction Facilities, Workforce and Programme ...................................34

3 Environmental Impact Assessment ......................................................................35 3.1 Air Quality.........................................................................................................35

3.1.1 Plant Emissions ..........................................................................................35 3.1.2 Traffic Emissions ........................................................................................58 3.1.3 Odour Emissions ........................................................................................64 3.1.4 References .................................................................................................69

3.2 Water Quality....................................................................................................70 3.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................70 3.2.2 Water Supply ..............................................................................................70 3.2.3 Aqueous Discharges...................................................................................70 3.2.4 Construction Impacts ..................................................................................71 3.2.5 Site Drainage ..............................................................................................71 3.2.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................75

3.3 By-products and Solid Waste .........................................................................76

vi


3.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................76 3.3.2 Generation of By-products and Waste........................................................76 3.3.3 Ash Disposal...............................................................................................78 3.3.4 Water Treatment Wastes............................................................................78 3.3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................78

3.4 Flood Risk.........................................................................................................79 3.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................79 3.4.2 Planning Context ........................................................................................80 3.4.3 Environment Agency Requirements ...........................................................81 3.4.4 Sources of Flooding....................................................................................81 3.4.5 Actual Flood Risk........................................................................................84 3.4.6 Control of Flood Risk ..................................................................................92 3.4.7 Residual Flood Risk....................................................................................97 3.4.8 Application of Flood Risk Policy................................................................100 3.4.9 Conclusions & Recommendations............................................................102 3.4.10 References ...............................................................................................103

3.5 Ecology ...........................................................................................................104 3.5.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................104 3.5.2 Legislative and Planning Policy Context...................................................105 3.5.3 Desk Top Study and Review of Existing Data ..........................................106 3.5.4 Methodology .............................................................................................107 3.5.5 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................111 3.5.6 Nature Conservation Evaluation ...............................................................115 3.5.7 Ecological Impact Assessment .................................................................118 3.5.8 Mitigation ..................................................................................................120 3.5.9 Residual Effects........................................................................................124

3.6 Landscape and Visual Effects ......................................................................125 3.6.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................125 3.6.2 Methodology .............................................................................................125 3.6.3 Description of the Proposals.....................................................................125 3.6.4 Baseline Studies .......................................................................................126 3.6.5 Potential Effects Assessment ...................................................................138 3.6.6 Landscape Strategy and Mitigation Measures..........................................143 3.6.7 Assessment of Residual Effects ...............................................................145 3.6.8 Compliance with Land Use Planning Policy .............................................147 3.6.9 Summary and Conclusions.......................................................................147

3.7 Transport ........................................................................................................149 3.7.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................149 3.7.2 Proposed Methods of Transport ...............................................................149 3.7.3 Methodology for Assessment of Road Transport .....................................152 3.7.4 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................152 3.7.5 Committed Development ..........................................................................153 3.7.6 The Development Proposal ......................................................................153 3.7.7 Traffic Generation .....................................................................................154 3.7.8 Traffic Impact ............................................................................................158 3.7.9 Analysis of Sensitive Environmental Receptors .......................................160 3.7.10 Monitoring and Mitigation Measures.........................................................161 3.7.11 Conclusions ..............................................................................................162

3.8 Noise ...............................................................................................................163 3.8.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................163 3.8.2 Environmental Noise Overview.................................................................163 3.8.3 Assessment Approach..............................................................................163 3.8.4 Environmental Noise Climate Measurements...........................................164 3.8.5 Noise Survey Results ...............................................................................168

vii


3.8.6 Environmental Noise from the Renewable Energy Plant..........................168 3.8.7 Environmental Noise Level due to the Renewable Energy Plant .............169 3.8.8 Proposed Environmental Noise Criteria (ENC).........................................170 3.8.9 Non-Continuous Noise Emissions ............................................................171 3.8.10 Traffic Noise..............................................................................................172 3.8.11 Operational Vibration ................................................................................173 3.8.12 Noise Complaint Management .................................................................173 3.8.13 Mitigation & Quality Control ......................................................................173 3.8.14 Summary ..................................................................................................174 3.8.15 References ...............................................................................................175

3.9 Socio-Economic Effects................................................................................176 3.9.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................176 3.9.2 Economy...................................................................................................176 3.9.3 Employment..............................................................................................176 3.9.4 Social Issues.............................................................................................177 3.9.5 Conclusions ..............................................................................................179 3.9.6 References ...............................................................................................179

3.10 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................180 3.10.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................180 3.10.2 Definition of Study Area ............................................................................180 3.10.3 Sources of Information..............................................................................180 3.10.4 The Archaeology and History of the Development Site ............................183 3.10.5 Archaeological Potential ...........................................................................187 3.10.6 Impact of Development.............................................................................188 3.10.7 Recommendations for Further Work.........................................................188

3.11 Geology and Contaminated Land .............................................................189 3.11.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................189 3.11.2 Methodology and Evaluation Criteria........................................................189 3.11.3 Baseline Conditions ..................................................................................189 3.11.4 Contaminated Land ..................................................................................199 3.11.5 Mitigation Measures..................................................................................205 3.11.6 Reference .................................................................................................212

4 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................213 5 Glossary.................................................................................................................214 6 Figures ...................................................................................................................215 Appendices A Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Statement B Results of Consultations on Scoping Statement C Additional Information on Landscape and Visual Study D Flood Risk Assessment Appendices (Appendix A – G) E Additional Information on Ecology Studies F Additional Information on Cultural Heritage G Use of Heat H Sequential Test and Exception Test I Sustainability Statement J Waste Wood Supply and Carbon Saving Potential

viii


1 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Proposed Development E.ON is the world’s largest privately owned energy company. Electricity and gas are the core business of the company with leading positions in Europe and the US Midwest. E.ON UK plc’s holding company, E.ON AG, is based in Düsseldorf and is responsible for managing the E.ON group as a whole. E.ON UK plc was formed following E.ON’s purchase of Powergen UK plc in 2002. Powergen UK plc was formed in 1989 from the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) as part of the privatisation of the electricity industry in the United Kingdom. At E.ON UK Renewables, we are making a major contribution to the growth in renewable energy. In the UK, we are one of the UK's leading renewable generation businesses. We already generate enough green energy to meet the residential power needs of a city the size of Manchester. Our current portfolio of operational projects consists of onshore and offshore wind farms, hydro power schemes and biomass-fuelled generation. These include the UK's first offshore wind farm, the largest hydro-electric scheme in England and Wales and the UK’s largest dedicated biomass fired power plant in the course of commissioning at Lockerbie in Scotland. Our objective is to increase our renewable generation capacity to 1,100MW by 2010 and to help build a sustainable future for generations to come. The UK is forecast to become increasingly reliant upon imported natural gas for combustion in electricity generation. E.ON believes therefore that there is an important role for coal, renewables and other innovative technologies in the generation portfolio for the UK, in order to ensure security of supply. In 1997 the UK government signed up to the Kyoto Protocol in which industrial nations agreed to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide by 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008 to 2012 and help to tackle climate change. This has led to the introduction of a number of schemes / directives which will impact on the energy industry, which is the largest single contributor to GHG emissions in the UK. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol provide real impetus for combating climate change through the stabilisation of greenhouse gases within the atmosphere. A very important consideration is the production of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, a key mechanism for the production of which is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the UK government is legally bound to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels. A second issue, which faces the UK, is the decline in indigenous energy supplies. It is predicted that the UK will soon be a net importer of fossil fuels. Clearly, this will give rise to issues surrounding the security of energy supplies for the UK in the years to come. It is a further reason why alternative forms of energy need to be developed and promoted to cater for the needs of future generations. In February 2003, the UK government published its Energy White Paper detailing its new energy policy and aiming to ensure that energy, the environment and economic growth are properly and sustainably integrated. The White Paper puts forward plans to avoid over-dependence on imported energy by developing renewable energy

1


sources within the UK. In his forward to the Energy White Paper, the Prime Minister states that "We are showing leadership by putting the UK on a path to a 60% reduction in its carbon dioxide emissions by 2050". In May 2007, the Department of Trade and Industry published a White Paper on Energy: Meeting the Energy Challenge. The paper highlighted that energy is essential in almost every aspect of our lives and for the success of our economy and the two long-term energy challenges that we are facing are:

• tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions both within the UK and abroad; and

• ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy as we become increasingly

dependent on imported fuel The White Paper sets out the Government’s international and domestic energy strategy to respond to these changing circumstances, address the long-term energy challenges we face and deliver our four energy policy goals, which are as follows:

• to be a concerted global effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide;

• rising fossil fuel prices and slower than expected liberalisation of EU energy

markets at a time when the UK is increasingly relying on imported energy;

• heightened awareness of the risks arising from the concentration of the world’s remaining oil and gas reserves in fewer regions around the world;

• in the UK, companies will need to make substantial new investment in power

stations, the electricity grid, and gas infrastructure. The White Paper also confirmed the intention to strengthen the Renewable Obligation, increasing the Obligation to up to 20% as and when increasing amounts of renewables are deployed. The UK has a lot of work to do to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewables sources. In the UK in the year 2000, renewables (excluding large hydro plant and mixed waste incineration) supplied only 1.3% of our electricity, compared with 16.7% in Denmark, 4% in the Netherlands, 3.2% in Germany and 3.4% in Spain. The government’s aim is for the UK to produce 10% of its electricity from renewables by 2010 with an aspiration to double this to 20% by 2020. The UK Government has introduced the Renewables Obligation (RO), in order to provide additional support for the development of renewable electricity generation. The RO was introduced on 1st April 2002, through the Renewables Obligation Order (ROO) for England & Wales. Under the RO, licensed electricity suppliers are obliged to meet a defined percentage of their retail sales from renewable sources. The RO started at 3% in the financial year 2002/3 and rises in stages to 15.4% in 2015/16.

2


Suppliers can meet their obligation in three ways:

1. By producing ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) to show that they have generated or bought electricity from recognised renewable energy generators.

2. By buying ROCs on the open market from other suppliers with a surplus.

3. By paying a ‘buyout price’ to make up the shortfall between their stock of

ROCs and their statutory target. Buyout price receipts are recycled back to suppliers in proportion to their ROC holdings.

The aim of the ROO is to provide an extra revenue boost for renewables projects that would not otherwise be viable, thus providing assistance to promote the development of renewable generation. The conversion of biomass fuel to electricity has been shown to be effectively carbon neutral and the proposal outlined in this document is for a renewable energy generating plant fuelled by biomass at the Blackburn Meadows site. The Plant would be constructed, owned and operated by E.ON UK Renewables, and would make a significant contribution towards UK renewables targets whilst at the same time bringing significant and long term benefits to local business and community. The development would provide a clean, 'renewable' electrical generating capacity of approximately 25MW, sufficient to provide for the needs of approximately 40,000 homes and is expected to result in savings of at least 80,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Furthermore, the Plant will only burn fuel conforming to the definition of ‘biomass’ contained with the Renewables Obligation Order. Dependent on fuel availability, quality and price, the main fuel would be recycled wood waste sourced within a 50 mile journey distance of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. However, small volumes of other biomass fuels including forestry residues, energy crops (such as Miscanthus), cereal co-products (such as straw) and solid recovered fuel may be introduced in the future dependent upon availability, sustainability and economical viability. 1.2 Consents Procedure The Plant is subject to an application for planning permission to Sheffield City Council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant would be defined as a combustion plant under Part A1 process under Schedule 1 of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. The aim of Pollution Prevention and Control is to minimise the environmental impact of large industrial installations on the environment using a system of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the prevention of pollution and a system of compliance control operated by the Environment Agency for Part A1 processes. An application for a permit to operate a Part A1 process will be required from the Environment Agency and an application will be made for such in due course.

3


1.3 Planning Framework The development plan for the Blackburn Meadows site comprises:

• Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for Yorkshire and the Humber to 2016 (2004) • Sheffield City Council Unitary Development Plan (2004).

Also relevant is the Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy incorporating the Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes 2007 which carries significant weight. The Sheffield Development Framework comprising submission draft of the Core Strategy, Preferred Options for City Policies and City Sites (2007) and the Renewable Energy Scoping and Feasibility Study for Sheffield (Final Report 2006) are also considered. Due consideration has been given to the policies which relate to the proposal to construct and operate the Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows. The following extracts and commentary are based on the plans referred to above. The policies quoted below are those that are relevant to the Blackburn Meadows site as a whole. In addition, policies relevant to renewable generation are identified. This section confirms the national, regional and local planning context relevant to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. In doing so, the proposed Renewable Energy Plant is considered in the context of the relevant policy and guidance. The review concentrates on strategic and overarching policy issues. Further policy detail and assessment of site development issues is provided in other relevant chapters of the Environmental Statement, such as the Flood Risk Assessment and the Transport Assessment. For the sake of completeness this assessment also considers waste policy at national, local and regional level. Notwithstanding that this proposal related to a Biomass Fuel Renewable Energy which will use Biomass materials principally wood from a variety of sources. The nature of the boiler to be used and other equipment will preclude the use of substantial amount of “virgin wood” due to the relatively high moisture content. The predominant source of material will therefore be previously used wood. This material will comprise the following:

• Category AI: Waste wood in its natural state or only mechanically worked which, during use, was, at most, insignificantly contaminated with substances harmful to health.

• Category AII: Treated wood with no halogenated organic compounds in the

coating and no wood preservatives • Category AIII: Wood with halogenated organic compounds in the coating with

no preservatives. This material will be processed and monitored for contaminants off site prior to being brought to the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant.

This section is structured so as to consider in turn, national planning policy and the development plan, comprising regional and local policy as well as related documents.

4


The national policy documents considered are:

• PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (and supplement) • PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management • PPS22 Renewable Energy (including the companion guide) • PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control • PPS25 Development and Flood Risk • PPG13 Transport

Development Plan documents considered are:

• Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and Humberside. • Sheffield City Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

A revision of Regional Spatial Strategy is well advanced and Sheffield City Council is developing the Sheffield Development Framework (to replace the UDP). These emerging documents will therefore be considered as part of the development plan context, as will a Renewable Energy Scoping and Feasibility Study, prepared by Sheffield City Council in 2006. 1.3.1 National Planning Policy 1.3.1.1 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) This PPS provides the overarching framework for national planning policy and places sustainable development at the heart of the planning process. In establishing the key principles of national planning policy the PPS confirms that, amongst other things:

• Regional and local planning authorities should ensure that development plans ‘contribute to global sustainability by addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change’. This is to be achieved by policy through, inter alia, promoting ‘the development of renewable energy resources’ (para B (ii)).

In considering the prudent use of natural resources the PPS confirms that planning authorities ‘should promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).’ The supplement to PPS1, Planning and Climate Change (December 2007) provides further guidance on approaches to renewable energy generation. At para.19 the supplement confirms that in developing core strategies and supporting local development documents, planning authorities should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy generation. Policies should be designed to promote and not restrict renewable and low-carbon energy and supporting infrastructure. In particular, planning authorities should:

5


• not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;

• ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is

consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances20;

• alongside any criteria-based policy developed in line with PPS22, consider

identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources, but in doing so take care to avoid stifling innovation including by rejecting proposals solely because they are outside areas identified for energy generation; and expect a proportion of the energy supply of new development to be secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources.

1.3.1.2 PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management This PPS establishes a number of key objectives for waste management. Regional planning bodies and all planning authorities should, amongst other things: “Help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option…..” Annex C to the PPS confirms the waste hierarchy, which in order of preference is:

1. Reduction 2. Re-use 3. Recycling and Composting 4. Energy Recovery 5. Disposal

1.3.1.3 PPS22: Renewable Energy (2004) This PPS establishes the approach to facilitating the development of renewable energy sources. The key principles for national planning policies on renewable energy confirm that, amongst other things:

• Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily (para 1 (i)).

• Regional Spatial Strategies and local development documents should contain

policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy sources (para 1 (ii)).

6


• Planning authorities should set out the criteria that will be applied in assessing applications for planning permission for renewable projects (para 1 (iii)).

• The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for

renewable energy are material considerations and should be given significant weight in determining applications (para 1 (iv)).

• Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic

and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures (para 1 (viii)).

The PPS notes that biomass projects are likely to require the transportation of material leading to increases in traffic (para 24). It is noted that such facilities should be located as close as possible to sources of fuel. However, in determining planning applications, planning authorities should recognise that other considerations, such as connection to the grid and the potential to use heat will influence suitable locations.

1.3.1.4 Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 This guide provides advice on the planning and consideration of renewable energy schemes as an accompaniment to PPS22. The guide illustrates some of the potential benefits of renewable energy schemes (para 2.7) including:

• Reducing carbon emissions; • Creating new habitats (such as woodland planting); • Promoting the management of existing environments; • Improving air quality (through the reduction in fossil fuel emissions); and • Landfill reduction.

Economic benefits can include (para 2.8):

• Job creation – direct, indirect and induced; and • Increased security and reliability of supply.

The guide confirms the positive approach to be taken to applications for renewable energy proposals and the use of criteria based policies (para 2.16). Regional and local authorities are to establish policies that ‘will be supportive of renewable energy proposals in locations where environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily’ (para 2.18). The guide at Technical Annex 1 Biomass provides guidance on the consideration of biomass renewable energy proposals, which is reflected in the approach taken in this Environmental Statement.

7


1.3.1.5 PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control This PPS confirms that any considerations of the quality of land, air, water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health are capable of being material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The importance that Government attaches to controlling and minimising pollution is underlined. The policy in this PPS has been reflected in the approach to the proposed development and is reflected in the approach to the assessment in this Environmental Statement. The matter of pollution control is considered in further detail in other relevant chapters of this Statement.

1.3.1.6 PPS25: Development and Flood Risk This PPS confirms the key planning objectives on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flood and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall. Planning applications in areas at risk of flooding are to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. Government policy on managing flood risk has been noted in developing the application proposals and in the preparation of this Environmental Statement. This is considered in more detail in the Flood Risk Assessment chapter.

1.3.1.7 PPG13 : Transport PPG 13 provided guidance on how the need for travel is to be managed through the planning process and the consideration to be given to promoting sustainable forms of transport and freight distribution. Significant developments are to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Government guidance on transport has been reflected in the development of the proposals for the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant and in the preparation of this Environmental Statement. Accessibility and traffic movements are considered further in the Transport chapter of this statement. 1.3.2 National Planning Policy - Assessment National planning policy is supportive of renewable energy development, recognising its contribution towards sustainable development and tackling climate change. Policy requires regional and local authorities to be positive in their approach towards renewable energy generation development proposals. Policy acknowledges the range of location drivers for energy generation including connection to the National

8


Grid and the potential to use heat generated by the process. Both of these factors are directly relevant to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows. Waste policy also requires consideration to be given to driving waste management up the waste hierarchy. This proposal will make use of, in energy recovery, material that would otherwise be disposed of to land fill. Within that context, policy notes that environmental, economic and social factors also need to be assessed in considered in determining development proposals. Notwithstanding that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy are material considerations and should be given significant weight in determining applications. 1.3.3 Development Plan The development plan for the Blackburn Meadows site comprises:

• Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for Yorkshire and the Humber to 2016 (2004) • Sheffield City Council Unitary Development Plan (1998)

The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (GOYH) is currently updating and revising RSS and this is well advanced. The draft RSS has been the subject of an Examination in Public and Proposed Changes to the RSS were published by GOYH in September 2007 on behalf of the Secretary of State. The draft RSS can therefore be considered a relevant material consideration in this application. Sheffield City Council is also in the process of updating the development plan through the preparation of the Local Development Framework. The submission version of the Core Strategy was made available for public consultation in September 2007 and is planned to be the subject of an Examination in public in 2008. A City Sites and a City Policies document with accompanying Proposals Map have been consulted on as Preferred Options documents in 2007. Both will be subject to further statutory consultation and an Examination in public, potentially commencing in 2009. Limited weight can therefore be attached to these documents; however it is applicable to consider them as part of this policy review. Sheffield City Council has also prepared a Scoping and Feasibility Study on Renewable Energy in 2003. This has been confirmed at Cabinet and outlines the City Council’s approach to Renewable Energy Schemes and specifically considers the Blackburn Meadow site. 1.3.4 Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for Yorkshire and Humberside was published by Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber in 2004 following a selective review of Regional Planning Guidance (2001). The RSS forms part of the development plan for the purposes of determining planning applications.

9


The RSS confirms that the region’s commitment to sustainability is ‘absolute’ (para 1.7). The RSS establishes four central objectives of sustainable development including ‘the prudent use of resources’ and ‘promoting the sustainable management of waste’’ (para 3.6). A number of areas are identified as contributing toward this objective, including ‘reducing resource consumption and encouraging use of renewable energy’ (para 3.6). The RSS goes on to outline a series of themes that contribute to achieving the core objectives. These include Theme 4 – Conserving and Enhancing Natural Resources. This is to be achieved by, amongst other things, ‘seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address impacts of climate change’ (para 3.13). The RSS establishes a number of policies directly relevant to the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant proposals. Policy S1 – Applying the Sustainable Development Principles confirms that: ‘Development plans and major strategies, proposals and programmes of regional stakeholders should be designed to achieve sustainable development and pursue the key objectives of RSS’. Policy S2 – Regeneration Priority Areas confirms that South Yorkshire and the Coalfields are the first priority for regeneration in the region. Policy S5 deals with climate change. Local and regional authorities and agencies should: ‘a) include policies and proposals in their development plans, local transport plans, strategies and investment programmes to help reduce the Region’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2015’. Policy S6 deals with the sustainable use of physical resources. Local and regional authorities should, amongst other things: ‘e) include policies and proposals in development plans to help achieve the regional renewable energy capacity targets set out in Policy R12. These should ensure that at least 9.4% of electricity consumed in Yorkshire and the Humber is from renewable sources by 2010 and 22.5% by 2020’. Policy E3 deals with planning the overall provision of employment land. There is to be good (but not excessive) range of sizes and qualities of general employment land for sub-regional and local development, well integrated with urban industrial areas. Para 5.36 notes that Policy E3 sets out the criteria for local planning authorities to use in estimating the overall amount of employment land that may be required in their area. This should also be informed by the findings of a regional employment land survey. Policy R5 Waste Management Strategic Principles confirms that local authority should seek to identify the combination of facilities and other waste management options based on the following optional principles;

10


• The waste hierarchy • Regional, sub regional and local self sufficiency, at the lowest practicable

level for the waste stream, • The proximity principles • The objectives and targets of the Regional Waste Management Strategy.

Policy R10 Energy from waste provides for waste to energy plants, subject to, amongst other things, the removal of recyclable and compostible material. Policy R12 deals with Energy Generation Transmission and Supply. The policy establishes targets for installed renewable energy generation capacity by 2010. The target for South Yorkshire is at least 100MW. A regional target for 2020 of at least 1850MW is also established. Development plans are also to ‘maximise’ the use of renewable energy resources, including technologies such as biomass. 1.3.5 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan. The Draft RSS Incorporating the Secretary

of State’s Proposed Changes (2007) This draft of the RSS incorporates the Secretary of State’s proposed changed to RSS made in the light of the Panel Report into the Examination in Public of the draft RSS. The draft RSS has been published for consultation and carries considerable weight. The consultation period ends on 21st December 2007. When finalised, the new RSS will replace the existing RSS, published in 2004. Table 3.2 of the draft RSS confirms the ‘Spatial Vision and Headline Outcomes’. ‘In Yorkshire and the Humber over the next 15 to 20 years there will be more sustainable patterns and forms of development, investment and activity, and a greater emphasis on matching needs with opportunities and managing the environment as a key resource’. Policy YH2 deals with Climate Change and Resource Use. Plans, strategies and investment decisions are to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by, amongst other things, ‘increasing renewable energy capacity and carbon capture’. Policy E1 deals with Creating a Successful and Competitive Regional Economy. In order to create a more successful and competitive regional economy, plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should help to deliver amongst other things: ‘Opportunities for business relating to the region’s unique environmental assets and challenges, including sustainable construction, renewable energy, resource and waste efficiency and environmental technologies and the low carbon economy’. Policy E3 considers Land and Premises for Economic Development. Table 14.6 of the Policy suggests that at 2006, there is 380 hectares of employment land allocated in Sheffield. This is contrasted with an estimated potential net change in industrial and storage and distribution uses between 2006 and 2021 of around 80 hectares.

11


The table confirms that there is a need to review allocations in South Yorkshire taking account of the restructuring of the Sheffield economy, the limited net increasing in expected land requirements and the land requirements arising from relocations and the ‘redevelopment of historic employment sites for alternative uses as part of the ‘transformational agenda’. At paragraph 14.15 the RSS underlines the scope for review, stating ‘at a simplistic level … the region has more employment land allocated than is likely to be required in the future’. Policy E5 provides for the safeguarding of employment land. The policy provides for Local Development Framework (LDF) to define criteria or areas where it is considered necessary to offer special protection to designated employment sites. This approach can be applied where it can be shown that:

1. It is necessary to safeguard employment land on the basis of the demonstrable level of competing demand from other land uses, and

2. The employment land so identified is necessary to support policies YHS,

YH6 and YH, and

3. A review of employment land has been carried out in accordance with policies E1-E4 or the sites are part of an area subject to an agreed masterplan’.

As referred to in Policy E3 of RSS and Policy E5 of Draft RSS, Sheffield City Council has undertaken an Employment Sites Survey and Employment Land Assessment. In the opinion of the local authority an appropriate supply of land existing in the City, taking account of existing allocations, commitments and those proposed through the LDF. Policy ENV5 considers Energy. The policy commits the region to maximising improvements to energy efficiency and increases in renewable energy capacity. This is to be done by, amongst other things: ‘Providing for new efficient energy generation and transmission infrastructure in keeping with local amenity and areas of demand’. Policy also established minimum targets for renewable energy capacity. South Yorkshire is to achieve at least 47MW of installed grid–connected renewable energy capacity by 2010 and 160MW by 2021. Table 15.12 translates these sub-regional targets to illustrate district level targets. Illustrative targets for Sheffield at 2010 and 2021 are 11MW and 52MW respectively. Policy ENV12 deals with Regional Waste Management Objectives. Plans, Strategies, investment decisions and programmes should aim to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover as much waste as possible. Local Authorities should support the urgent provision of waste management initiatives based on, amongst other things: ‘1. Moving the management of all waste streams up the waste hierarchy….

12


4. Managing waste at the nearest appropriate location, where necessary by seeking agreement with neighbouring authorities,’ Policy ENV13 deals with the provision of Waste Management and Treatment Facilities. Waste Planning Authorities should ensure that adjacent sites and facilities are available to manage forecast quantities of waste. Waste Management authorities are to take account of, amongst other things, the need to increase the capacity of treatment and recovery facilities, including energy from waste by 2020. Annex C of the Policy develops the capacity targets for each authority area within the region. Annex C confirms the requirements for treatment capacity (i.e. other than land fill or recycling) in Sheffield as follows:

Tonnes per year 2010 2015 2021

Municipal waste 67 133 171 Commercial and Construction 452 453 455 Policy ENV14 deals with the Strategic Locational Criteria for Waste Management Facilities. This policy establishes a number of relevant criteria: ‘A Waste should be managed on the site where it arises or if not possible at the nearest appropriate location…. C Facilities should be located in accordance with the Core Approach and the proposed distribution of housing and economic growth. E In all areas, identification of sites for facilities should also take account of the following priority order: Established and proposed industrial sites which have the potential for the location of waste management facilities… Previously developed land….. Redundant farm buildings and their curtilages.’ 1.3.6 Sheffield Unitary Development Plan The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in March 1998. The majority of policies and all those relevant to this application have been saved until such time as the Sheffield Development Framework is adopted. The UDP allocates the core of the application site as Proposed Industrial and Business site. The south west corner of the site is allocated as Fringe Industry and Business Areas. These allocations will be considered again in this section in the context of relevant policies.

13


Part I of the UDP establishes a number of strategic policies. Policies relevant to the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant and E.ON UK’s Blackburn Meadows landholding are:

1.3.6.1 SP1 A City for People ‘A balance will be struck between competing land uses, and between new development, conservation and transport, which would ….. (b) meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (f) promote the re-use of urban land for development wherever practicable while allowing greenfield developments on allocated sites’

1.3.6.2 BE4 Environmental Improvements ‘Priority for environmental improvements will be given to areas where the environment is unsatisfactory in: (f) the MI Corridor …’

1.3.6.3 IB2 Locations for Industrial Development ‘New industrial development will be promoted in suitable locations, particularly near the MI, Strategic Roads, bus and Supertram Routes, railways and City Airport. The main locations will be: …. (b) the Lower Don Valley ….’ Part II of the UDP develops the detail of these strategic policies through further policy and justification. Policy BE2 Views and Vistas in the Built-up Area propose that ‘new development will be expected to respect the skylines, roofscapes and views that are particularly visible within the city’. Policy BE2 Building Design and Siting proposes that ‘Good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new and refurbished buildings and extensions’. BE6, Landscape Design states that ‘good quality design will be expected in new development ….’ Policy BE9 Design for Vehicles requires new developments to provide safe, efficient and environmentally acceptable site layout for all vehicles (including cycles) and pedestrians.

14


Policy GE20 deals with Flood Defence. Development will not be permitted where flooding risk to it or existing development would not be overcome by suitable on-site protective measures. Policies GE22, GE23 and GE24 deal with pollution, air pollution and noise pollution. Policy GE27 considers alternative energy sources. ‘The development of alternative energy sources will be permitted where it would not significantly harm the natural or built environment nor create unacceptable living conditions for nearby residents’. E.ON UK’s Blackburn Meadows site is identified as a 13 hectare site to be developed in accordance with policy IB6. The preferred uses defined in policy IB6 are:

• Business B1 • General Industry B2 • Warehouses B8 (excluding open storage)

Policy IB8 identified industrial and business sites. On these sites only the preferred uses set out in other relevant policies will be permitted, provided that they comply with policy IB9. Policy MW3 deals with Waste Management. When catering for waste materials, all recycling and disposal options will be examined so that, amongst other things, sufficient waste, recycling and disposal sites and facilities will be available. 1.3.7 Draft Core Strategy Sheffield Development Framework The Draft Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in September 2007. The Core Strategy, once adopted, will provide the overall spatial strategy for the city. The key diagram to the draft core strategy identifies the general location of Blackburn Meadows as one for manufacturing, distribution/warehousing and other non-office businesses (Policy SB4). The overall vision outlined in the core strategy is centred on the themes of transformation and sustainability. Part 6 of the vision states that Sheffield is to be a city that ‘will respect the global environment, by reducing the city’s impact on climate change and by using resources and designing sustainability’. Objectives to underpin this part of the vision include:

• ‘S11.2 Renewable energy (including solar and wind power and biomass) generating in a variety of schemes and by new buildings in excess of regional targets.’

• ‘S12.4 Waste reduces, re-used, used for energy, composted or recycled and

land requirements for disposal met but minimised.’ The vision and objectives are translated into a Spatial Vision. The Spatial Vision for the Lower Don Valley is one that complements the city centre as a primary location

15


for employment supported by a mix of related uses and providing for developments not appropriate in the city centre. The vision and objectives are supported by a series of city-wide spatial policies. Policy option SB1 Land for Employment and Economic Development proposed provision to be made for 43.5 hectares of land per year for new, expanding and relocating business and industry. This includes 31 hectares for general industry and storage/distribution. A 5 year supply of land in each business/industrial category is to be maintained. Preferred Option SB4 deals with locations for manufacturing, distribution/ warehousing and other non-office business uses. This confirms the locations for such uses, including the Lower Don Valley. The Environment section of the draft core strategy confirms that Flood Risk is an environmental issue with spatial implications. However it is noted that flood risk does not affect the strategic emphasis on employment uses in the valleys, including the Lower Don Valley. Preferred Policy Option SE4 confirms that action will be taken to protect air quality in all areas of the city. Further action will be taken to improve air quality across the built-up area, and particularly where residents in road corridors with high levels of traffic are directly exposed to levels of pollution above national levels. The Meadowhall Centre area is noted, at para 11.12, as one location where air quality currently fails to meet national targets. Preferred Policy Option SE5 deals with Renewable Energy Generation. Para 11.14 confirms that renewable energy generation is a key part of achieving strategic aims of combating climate change. Preferred Policy Option SE9 states that ‘Renewable Energy capacity in the city will exceed 12MW by 2010 and 60MW by 2021’. Preferred option SW1 deals with waste management objectives. The City’s waste is to be managed more sustainably by, amongst other things: ‘E Permitting a range of additional treatment facilities, mainly in industrial areas, sufficient to meet the regional apportionment for commercial and industrial waste together with requirements for other waste streams where the city is best placed to meet local and wider needs; and F Avoiding the unnecessary use of greenfield land when identifying sustainable sites/areas and permitting other waste development.’ 1.3.8 Sheffield Development Framework Preferred Options for City Sites (2007) The City Sites document is intended to identify those sites in the city that are allocated for specific uses. The application site is part of Site 613. The preferred option for this site is for allocation for industrial uses, (to be dominated by use classes B2 and B8). The site is also identified as a potential park and ride location.

16


Site 666 reserved land for the Fixed Link Road proposal. This route is adjacent to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant, within the application site owned by E.ON. 1.3.9 Sheffield Development Framework Preferred Options for City Policies (2007) The Preferred Option for City Policies Development Plan Document provides guidance relevant to the consideration of new development in the city. The preparation of the document is at an early, if substantive stage. Option policies of direct relevance to the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant proposal are considered below. Policy PB5 deals with Development in Industrial Areas (as E.ON’s Blackburn Meadows site is allocated in the City Sites preferred options). In such areas general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) but excluding open storage will be the preferred use. Other uses, such as lorry parks and waste management facilities will be acceptable. 70% of the uses of any such site are to be for B2 or B8. Preferred option Policy PR1, Development at Risk of Flooding considered flood risk. In areas at risk of flooding from rivers and stream, development will only be permitted where: ‘a adequate on and off site flood protection and warning measures are provided, and b the risk of flooding or water pollution both on-site and further downstream in Sheffield or beyond would not be increased ….’. Policy Preferred Option PR6 Air Quality states that development will not be permitted if it would cause deterioration in air quality that would have an unacceptable impact. Preferred option PW3 established the criteria for permitting waste management development. Waste management facilities will be permitted where they would, amongst other things: ‘C Not generate levels of traffic that would make roads unsafe or harm the character of the immediate area or areas along the routes used; and D Use sustainable alternatives to road transport such as canal, rail or pipeline facilities, wherever practicable and beneficial; and E Use previously designated industrial areas in preference to other locations.’

17


1.3.10 Renewable Energy Scoping and Feasibility Study for Sheffield, Final Report,

Sheffield City Council (September 2006) A Scoping and Feasibility Study on Renewable Energy in Sheffield was commissioned by Sheffield City Council in 2006 to better understand the opportunities for renewable energy across the City. The study assessed the renewable energy resource for wind, biomass, hydro, solar and heat pumps and considered a range of sites for the generation of power by wind, biomass and hydro. The study has been used to inform policy in the draft Sheffield Development Framework 2007. The study also provides guidance on dealing with planning applications for renewable energy. Of the range of sites considered, the study identifies a number of suitable sites within the City that have potential for the installation of renewable energy technologies. The study identified E.ON’s Blackburn Meadows site as seeming a ‘very suitable’ (Table 9) location for a biomass generator. Drawing on the companion guide to PPG 22 the study confirms the key development control matters in considering biomass energy regeneration proposals as including:

• The positive benefit of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant to the local economy

• Visual intrusion • Noise from traffic and plant operations; • Any effects on health, local ecology or conservation from airborne and water

borne emissions. (A biomass energy plant has significantly lower harmful emissions than a similar fossil fuel power stations but must meet UK and European Standards and ensure necessary pollution control measures are in place);

• Traffic to and from the site in order to transport biomass fuel and subsequent by-products; and

• Carbon mitigation These factors are reflected in approach taken in this Environmental Statement. 1.3.11 Development Plan Policy – Assessment RSS confirms that South Yorkshire is a priority for regeneration and investment. The UDP notes that the MI corridor is one of a number of areas in the City that is a priority for environmental improvement. The development is a major investment that will, amongst other things bring about the re-use of a currently derelict, brownfield site in the M1 Corridor. The extent and emerging Development Plan is very supportive of renewable energy generation proposals and for the development of approaches to drive the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. The proposed Renewable Energy Plant will make a significant contribution towards meeting renewable energy generation targets. The Scoping and Feasibility Study undertaken for Sheffield City Council confirms the potential of E.ON’s Blackburn Meadows site.

18


The Development Plan and emerging policy identify the site for industrial and business uses. A Renewable Energy Plant is a sui-generis use, not covered by the Use Classes order, however that the nature of the proposed development is comparable with industrial use. Further, the development will generate levels of direct and indirect employment consistent with an industrial / distribution use. The Supplement to PPS 1 confirms that innovation in renewable energy generation should not be stifled simply by rejecting proposals solely because they are outside areas identified for energy generation The emerging RSS, to which significant weight can be attached, confirms the established industrial locations are the first priority for the location of facilities involved in waste management. This is reflected in the emerging LDF. It is therefore considered that the existing policy allocation of the Blackburn Meadows site does not preclude its use for a Renewable Energy Plant as proposed. The Development Plan requires a range of environmental and other considerations to be taken into account in determining development proposals. These are reflected in the development of the proposals for Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant and in the preparation of this Environmental Statement. 1.4 Environmental Assessment The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 provides that an Environmental Statement (ES) must be prepared for projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. In terms of the regulations the project falls within Schedule 2, E.ON in this case have chosen to prepare an Environmental Statement without reference to a screening application. The objective of this Environmental Statement is to identify, examine and assess the likely impacts of the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant on the environment. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 require that certain information be provided by the Environmental Statement ("the specified information"). This information is identical to that required by the Council Directive 85/337/EEC. The required information is given in the list below: (a) A description of the development proposed, comprising information about the site, the design and size or scale of the development; (b) The data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment; (c) A description of the likely significant impacts, direct and indirect, on the environment, explained by reference to its possible impact on - human beings; flora;

19


fauna; soil; water; air; climate; the landscape; the inter-action between any of the foregoing; material assets; the cultural heritage; (d) Where significant effects are identified with respect to any of the foregoing, a description of the measure envisaged in order to avoid, reduce or remedy those effects; and (e) A summary in non-technical language of the information specified above. In addition, the Environmental Statement should include by way of explanation or amplification of any specified information, further information on the main characteristics of the development and process, types and quantities of emissions, the main reasons for choosing a site and the technology and predictive tools used in the assessment or uncertainties in the results. As part of the whole consent process, a Scoping Document of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant was produced and issued to various key consultees in July 2007 to enable comment and approval of the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment. A copy of this Scoping Document can be found in Appendix A. The parties consulted in this process were:

• English Heritage • English Nature • Environment Agency • Darnell Area Panel • Groundwork Sheffield • Highway Agency • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council • Sheffield City Council • Sheffield Wildlife Trust • South Yorkshire Forest Partnership • Tinsley Forum • Yorkshire Forward

This Environmental Statement reflects the advice of Sheffield City Council (appended to this report) given in response to the scoping report. 1.5 Sustainability Statement Sheffield City Council has provided guidance to translate the new national, regional and emerging local policy position on sustainability and climate change. This guidance should be used when developing new proposals to ensure they are sustainable and the process documented in a sustainability statement.

20


A Sustainability Statement, prepared by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) for E.ON, accompanies an outline planning application for the development of a Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows, Sheffield. The Statement outlines the commitments made by E.ON to ensure that the project meets the criteria for a sustainable development. In summary the proposed development will contribute to sustainable development though: • Commitment to ensure employment opportunities for during both the construction and lifetime of the development are taken locally. • Regeneration of a vacant site and enhancement of the local environment. • Commitment to community involvement and contribution to a community fund. • Ensuring the new development is accessible by all transport modes. • Minimising the impacts of transporting fuel to the Plant. • Minimise the impact of emissions to air. • Commitment to recycle waste generated by the Plant. • Use of renewable energy for the large majority of the Plant’s energy needs. • Commitment to developing a high quality design for the Plant that will contribute both to energy efficiency and local distinctiveness. The Sustainability Statement can be found in Appendix I. 1.5.1 Use of Heat E.ON is committed to developing options for CHP at its proposal for a Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows. However the development and implementation of a CHP option depends on existing or potential developers in the locality being interested receiving heat and/or power, the economics of a CHP scheme, and the ability to install local infrastructure to connect those developments to Blackburn Meadows. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has recently published its decision document on the reforms proposed within the 2007 Energy White Paper. This paper proposed additional support to biomass CHP schemes by granting additional ROC’s (Renewable Obligation Certificates) to schemes which met specified requirements. The Bill has been introduced to Parliament and is expected to have Royal Assent by summer 2008. E.ON UK has completed a study to help identify potential local customers of heat and/or power (Appendix G). This study identified several potential customers local to the proposed development who have initially shown interest in receiving heat, or heat and power, from the proposed development.

21


These are;

• Yorkshire Water Sewage Treatment Works • Meadowhall Centre Ltd • Magna Science Adventure Centre • Ordic Investments • Veolia Environmental Services • Guests & Chimes

There are also three potential developers who are interested in receiving heat and/or power from the Renewable Energy Plant;

• Future Energy Yorkshire- pellet mill • British Land • Veolia Heat expansion

Heat and/or power supply from Blackburn Meadows is technically feasible. However, until the specific requirements from potential customers are known it is not possible to finalise the design of any CHP component of the proposed biomass plant. However, in the plant tender enquiry documentation submitted to potential bidders for the construction of the plant, E.ON specified a level of heat offtake broadly equivalent to temperature and pressure that would be required for a potential pellet mill. A separate study has also been undertaken to identify the required pipework and infrastructure to supply a pellet mill and a district heating scheme of the same capacity. Assessments to-date show that a heat connection to Veolia’s city heat distribution ring would be the preferred choice of heat customer. Furthermore, this adds to potential of supplying along the route, such as the development proposed by British Land. Further detailed discussions are continuing with both Veolia and British Land. Until potential customer requirements are known it is not possible to give a firm commitment that a CHP option at Blackburn Meadows can be economically developed. However, the plant design and layout will be flexible to be able to accommodate the initial CHP options identified to-date.

22


2 The Site and the Project 2.1 The Site 2.1.1 Introduction The proposed site for the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant is located within E.ON UK’s existing land holdings, previously known as Blackburn Meadows Power Station. The total area of the site is approximately 12.5 hectares (31 acres), however, due to the shape of the site and its existing use, only about 9 hectares (22 acres) is potentially available for future development. The site is largely flat and quite featureless. The structures of the former power station have been removed, although some concrete foundations remain and vegetation has colonised much of the site. A 33kV electricity sub-station is located near to the centre of the site and this is owned by YEDL, formerly the Yorkshire Electricity Board. E.ON UK’s total landholding at Blackburn Meadows and the proposed planning application area for the new Renewable Energy Plant is shown in Figure 2.1.1. 2.1.2 Location The Blackburn Meadows site is located immediately to the east of the M1 motorway between junction 34 Meadowhall (north) and Tinsley (south) roundabouts, approximately 5.5km north east of Sheffield City centre. The Ordnance Survey grid square reference for the site is given as NGR 4398 3916. When built, the proposed Renewable Energy Plant will occupy a small area of land of approximately 3.5 hectares in size, adjacent to existing sewage treatment works to the north east edge of the site boundary and will be contained within the present E.ON UK’s landholding. No additional land will be required during the construction phase for contractors’ working areas and storage. The entire site falls within the unitary authority of Sheffield City Council and is close to the administrative boundary with Rotherham MBC which is located to the north of the sewage works and to the east of the nature reserve. 2.1.3 Access to the Site The only existing vehicular access to the site is Alsing Road via the Meadowhall interchange and is located to the west of the site, passing beneath the M1 motorway and Tinsley viaduct. Alsing Road is a no through road of width 6.5m with footpaths on either side. Its surface is in good condition until a few metres before the sharp bend adjacent to the Sheffield Super Tram level crossing. This crossing is controlled using give-way signs to warn road users of on coming trams. It is intended to bring all fuel deliveries in to the site using this route, however it is recognised that some improvements will be required to the road surface and at the tram crossing.

23


The site can also be accessed on foot through a restricted gate at the south-eastern corner of the site, leading to the public footpath along the River Don. 2.1.4 General Description of the Site The boundary of the site is broadly formed by the Blackburn Meadows Sewage Works to the north, the A6178 to the south and sewage works and Blackburn Meadows Nature Reserve to the east. The Tinsley viaduct, carrying the M1 motorway and the A631, passes overhead to the western edge of the site. The site comprises predominantly disused industrial land. The land is comparatively level ranging from approximately 30.0m to 32.0m above ordnance datum. The majority of the site lies between 30.2m and 30.6m above ordnance datum with it rising above 31.0m above ordnance datum on the northern and western boundaries. Information previously obtained from the Environment Agency indicates that the site is partially located within Flood Zone 3a. This comprises land assessed as having a significant chance of flooding from the River Don, with a 1 in 100 year or greater (<1%) annually probability. To the west of the site, the two natural draught cooling towers associated with the former power coal fired station remain. These cooling towers were two of seven cooling towers that made up part of the Blackburn Meadows Power Station, built between 1937 and 1942. In the late 1960s, the M1 was built around the cooling towers while the power station was still operational. The main power station was demolished in the 1970s but the two cooling towers, numbered 6 and 7, remained standing as engineers did not have the expertise to bring them down safely without compromising the integrity of the M1 viaduct. The future of the towers has been regularly considered over a number of years and EON UK have even considered using them as part of our plans to develop the new power station. However, based on specialist engineering data collected over 30 years, and supported by the results of a structural survey, E.ON engineers have taken the decision to demolish the towers for safety reasons. With advancements in controlled demolition, and after the recent strengthening of the viaduct, E.ON are now confident that the demolition will not affect the motorway's integrity. This proposed demolition and the area surrounding the two cooling towers do not form part of this planning application. A 33kV YEDL Primary Substation is located in the heart of the site, however it is excluded from this application site. Large parts of the site are covered with concrete foundations. These were left when the former power station was demolished in the 1970’s. A preliminary ground investigation indicated that reinforced concrete was encountered to a typical depth of 0.3 – 0.35m and underlain by backfilled voids in the northern and north western parts of the site. It is found that concrete bases below the backfilled voids were encountered at between 1.8 and 1.9 (meter below ground level (mbgl). Former chimney foundation pads comprised mass concrete down to approximately 1.7mbgl. Ground slabs were thinner in the eastern part of the site. Typical thicknesses of concrete in these areas were 0.2m. Intact concrete slabs were also encountered at between 2.5 and 2.8mbgl in the north eastern parts of the site.

24


Subject to further ground investigation and feasibility studies, these foundations may provide a source of material for raising ground levels for the proposed Plant and be used as part of the proposed development, however this largely depends upon their load bearing capability and results from contamination testing. 2.1.5 Site History The site was the location of the former Blackburn Meadows power station. It was built between 1937 and 1942 but was demolished over 30 years ago. In addition, two older coal-fired power stations built in the 1900s once stood on the site and generated electricity. Two natural draft cooling towers remain today. The site has been derelict and vacant for some 30 years. A 33kV operational electricity substation (Blackburn Meadows B) is located near to the Centre of the site. It is fully operational and is owned by the local network operator, YEDL. The land is owned by E.ON and is leased to YEDL under a long term contract. 2.2 Choice of Blackburn Meadows Site for the New Renewable Energy

Plant 2.2.1 The Need for New Power Stations

• The UK will have a significant supply/demand gap in coming years, especially as most existing power stations come to the end of their useful life.

• Even with advances in energy efficiency, distributed generation and the

replacement of existing large power stations, there is still an important role for renewables and other innovative technologies in the generation portfolio for the UK in order to ensure security of supply and protect the climate.

• Importing a significant proportion of electricity from outside the UK would

make the UK reliant on other countries for one of the fundamental building blocks of the economy and society.

• Therefore it is prudent for a country to be self-sufficient in generation

capacity. Additionally the transport of electricity over long distances leads to losses in power.

• As a generator of 10% of the UK electricity and with the need to replace 3GW

of generating plant, E.ON UK is undertaking many projects, diversifying the generation method, to fill the supply/demand gap.

2.2.2 The choice of Renewable Energy Plant

• In the same way that the UK does not want to be reliant on imported electricity neither does it want to be reliant on one fuel source for electricity generation.

25


• Therefore the UK must have a diverse supply of fuel sources for the

replacement electricity generation capacity that has to be built, such as renewables, gas and coal. This is particularly important as the UK becomes an importer of natural gas as North Sea reserves decline.

• The UK government is a party to the Kyoto Protocol in which industrial

nations have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Support for renewables has been given through the Renewables Obligation in which electricity suppliers are obliged to meet a defined percentage of their retail sales from renewable sources.

• Biomass has the potential to provide a valuable source of renewable energy

in the UK. It is derived directly or indirectly from animal or vegetable matter and when burnt in a biomass energy plant to generate energy, the amount of carbon dioxide produced is equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during the growing cycle. Biomass combustion is therefore described as being ‘carbon neutral’. E.ON has several existing Biomass Renewable Energy Plants across Europe which demonstrate the viability of the technology.

• The Sheffield area is well placed to secure the required volumes of biomass,

principally clean recycled waste wood, from the wider Yorkshire area. The proposed Plant will also be designed to accept other wood based biomass including forestry residues, energy crops such as Miscanthus, cereal co-products such as straw and solid recovered fuel.

2.2.3 The choice of the Blackburn Meadows Site Key factors in selecting a suitable site are

• fuel availability • land availability and suitability • electrical connection

E.ON has initially considered the development of renewable energy plants at its own power station sites to take advantage of existing infrastructure and electrical connections. Fuel supply studies have been undertaken by experienced consultants based on a number of the more appropriate sites. These studies have demonstrated that the Blackburn Meadows site is well positioned to take advantage of the large volumes of recycled wood that is currently going to landfill. In identifying a suitable location for the Renewable Energy Plant on the Blackburn Meadows site, due consideration has been given to the land requirements for further potential developments, the proximity of major road networks and the risk of flooding from the River Don. As a result, the area to the North East boundary of the site has been identified as the most appropriate location. The main factors considered in the site selection process included the following:

• Proximity to the electricity infrastructure: There is an electrical export infrastructure existing on E.ON’s Blackburn Meadows site with a 33kV substation owned by the local network operator, YEDL. It is proposed that the connection circuit from the Renewable Energy Plant would be via an existing

26


33kV circuit breaker at Blackburn Meadows substation. The connection to the Renewable Energy Plant will be via a 33kV underground cable.

• Re-use of existing site ‘assets’: In order to maximise the opportunity for

sustainability, it is proposed to re-use the existing road network surface drainage systems and the remaining foundations from the previous power station whenever possible. To some extent, reinstatement and some improvements may be required.

• Proximity to established transport infrastructures: The impacts of construction

and operational road traffic are considered in detail in Section 3.7. It is found that the proximity to existing road networks is considered advantageous.

• Available space within the landholding: There is sufficient land within the land

holdings on the Blackburn Meadows site to accommodate the Renewable Energy Plant, and to provide sufficient flood risk compensation area.

The area for the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant is shown in Figure 2.1.2. 2.3 The Renewable Energy Plant – Description of the Application 2.3.1 Introduction This Environmental Statement supports an outline planning application for the proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant. The detailed design of the Renewable Energy Plant will be carried out on behalf of E.ON by the contractors chosen for the design, construction and commissioning of the Plant. Notwithstanding that this Environmental Statement is based upon the known and definitive parameters of the proposed development that are to be established through this planning application. These parameters, set out in the Environmental Statement are based on the particular circumstances of the site and the experience of other similar developments, notably similar plants owned and operated by E.ON in Germany and the plant currently being commissioned for E.ON UK at Steven’s Croft, Lockerbie in Scotland. A photograph of the Stevens’ Croft development is shown in Figure 2.1.5. The final plant components and configuration will therefore not be materially different from that described and any changes will not have a significant impact on the environmental analysis. The final layout of the Plant will be put forward based on technicality, economical viability and to some extent, building design factors. The proposed Plant will be licensed for operation by the Environment Agency under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations and suitable plant and systems will be incorporated in the design to minimise emissions in line with Best Practicable Environmental Options and Best Available Techniques. This section of the Environmental Statement provides a detailed description of the proposed Plant. This forms part of the planning application. In summary the proposed development is described as ‘A Renewable Energy Plant’ with associated flood management works, landscaping and improvements to an existing access’.

27


2.3.2 Overview of the Proposed Development The application site extends to approximately 10.9 hectares. The application site reflects E.ON UK’s land ownership at Blackburn Meadows. However an area around the former Cooling Towers, also in the ownership of E.ON UK is not included in the application site. The potential of this area will be considered separately by E.ON UK in consultation with the City Council following the planned demolition of the towers. The existing Blackburn Meadows Primary Sub-station is also excluded from the application site. YEDL holds this site on a long lease from E.ON UK. The application site and other land in the ownership of E.ON UK is shown in Figure 2.1.1 This description of the application reflects the indicative layout shown in Figure 2.1.3. The site is accessed via the existing access of Alsing Road. This is an adopted road up to the boundary of the site. Some improvements will be required to this road, including the Supertram crossing. The core development area of the site, comprising the Renewable Energy Plant, will be located on a raised area to the northern boundary of the site, north of the Primary Sub-station. This area will be raised to 31.53 Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The access road will be raised as appropriate as it approaches this area to reach this level. The core development area extends to approximately 4 hectares. This area has formed the basis of the Flood Risk Assessment and the associated flood compensation and mitigation works referred to elsewhere in this Statement. It has been assumed for the purposes this application that the raised area will be bounded by a retaining wall. At detailed design this may be amended to an embankment. This would reduce the developable area of the raised platform. The contractor’s area to the eastern boundary of the site will be reprofiled but not raised. However chemicals and temporary fuel storage will be kept above the flood risk level. To provide compensatory flood storage much of the remainder of the application site will be reprofiled. This will be undertaken in conjunction with a decontamination strategy. The reprofiled areas will be established and planted to create a riverine environment and to augment the sustainable drainage strategy. A new access road will be constructed from the principal site access road to the primary substation. Development, other than works associated with flood mitigation and landscaping will not take place within the area of the proposed alignment of the Fixed Link Road as agreed with Sheffield City Council. The Renewable Energy Plant will consist of a single generating unit, which will include a combustor and boiler and a steam turbine that are likely to be housed in a separate building. The boiler house dimensions are expected to be around 32m by 25m by 46m high and the turbine house dimensions around 32m by 18m by 15m high. The generating unit will discharge its flue gas through a chimney stack, which is

28


expected to be around 90m high. The exact height will be determined by emissions modelling when specific plant design parameters are available, ensuring that permitted ground level concentrations are not exceeded. An indicative layout of the Renewable Energy Plant is shown in Figure 2.1.3 with typical dimensions of main buildings and structures shown in Figure 2.1.4. The final site layout will be determined by the plant contractor, in agreement with E.ON and in acceptance to Sheffield City Council. A simplified schematic diagram of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant is shown in Figure 2.1.6.

2.3.2.1 General Description of the Process and the Plant Biomass Fuel Storage and Handling Biomass fuel will be delivered to site already processed for use and, via a fuel unloading facility, will be conveyed to the bulk fuel store with a capacity of five days’ operation at full load. The biomass fuel will undergo a final screening to filter out oversize material, and both ferrous and non-ferrous metals before convey to the fuel store. The store will be fully enclosed with automatic filling and discharging and may be either an ‘A’ frame building or two or more cylindrical silos. The choice of fuel store type will be dependent upon the selection of supplier of the fuel handling plant. Fuel will be transferred from the bulk store to two or more buffer silos at the boiler house with a combined capacity of less than one hour at full load. Fuel will be metered from the buffer silos and conveyed to the boiler at the required rate by means of a system of chain and screw conveyors. The entire fuel handling and storage system will be totally enclosed with necessary dust extraction and filtration equipment to prevent dust egress to atmosphere. Combustor The combustor design will be either a fluidised bed or a grate. Both of these designs have extensive reference plant applications in burning a range of biomass fuels and the choice of technology will be dependent upon the selection of boiler plant supplier. In fluidised bed combustors, preheated air is blown through a bed of inert material, normally sand, with sufficient velocity to ‘fluidise’ the bed to the point where it resembles a rapidly boiling liquid. The bed is initially brought up to combustion temperature by means of auxiliary oil burners. The biomass is then introduced and burns rapidly in the turbulent conditions of the bed. Ash and tramp material is periodically automatically removed from the bed along with some of the bed material. The extracted material is cooled and classified, with the usable bed material being conveyed to the bed make up silo and the ash and tramp material collected in skips for disposal off-site. In grate combustors the biomass is moved mechanically by means of reciprocating or rotating grate elements from the feed end, through a drying zone, a main combustion zone and finally, a burn out zone. The functions of the grate are to move and mix the biomass and to distribute primary combustion air evenly across the bed of material.

29


Ash and tramp material is conveyed off the end of the grate where it is cooled and transferred to skips for disposal off-site. Initial burn out of the biomass occurs in the grate or fluidised bed and the combustion process is completed by introducing additional combustion air at either one or two further stages as the combustion gases pass up the combustion zone. Combustion air will be ambient air extracted from the top of the boiler house. The air will be pre-heated by a combination of steam heat exchangers taking steam bleed from the turbine and flue gas heat exchangers. Boiler The boiler will be a conventional natural circulation water tube drum boiler. It is intended to draw boiler feedwater from a town water supply from the existing public water mains. The town water will be treated by an on-site water treatment facility. The boiler will be integral with the combustor with the walls of the combustion chamber being lined with boiler water tubes. The hot combustion gases at around 1100degC will pass up the combustion chamber and will flow through two or three gas passes before entering the flue gas treatment plant at a temperature of about 150degC. The boiler will consist of evaporative tubes, primary and secondary superheater and economiser. A flue gas heat exchanger will be installed downstream of the economiser to preheat the combustion air. Superheated steam from the secondary superheater will be piped to the steam turbine unit. The steam conditions of the Plant will be determined during the process optimisation stage in conjunction with the Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) contractor. A balance will be achieved between the requirement to maximise cycle efficiency and considerations of component life. Steam Turbine and Generator Superheated steam will be piped from the boiler to the steam turbine. The steam will cool as it expands through the turbine and will be condensed in an air cooled condenser (ACC) or a Hybrid Cooling Tower system after passing through the final row of turbine blades. The turbine will drive an electricity generator that will export power to an existing 33kV substation located at the centre of the site, via an underground cable. Provision has been made to incorporate stream extraction points to draw stream at a pre-design pressure and temperature required by an industrial process equivalent to a 50,000 tonnes pellet mill scheme. Cooling System Either an Air Cooled Condenser (ACC) or a Hybrid Cooling Tower system will be applied. An ACC consists of a cooling matrix of banks of tubes through which the exhausted steam will flow. A number of fans below the matrix will blow ambient air over the tubes to provide the cooling effect, converting the low pressure and temperature steam back into water. The water will be pumped back to the boiler for re-use via a feed heating and de-aeration system. A Hybrid Cooling Tower system is a combination of a wet cooling system and a dry cooling system as in ACC.

30


Flue Gas Treatment Plant The Renewable Energy Plant will be fitted with flue gas cleaning equipment in line with current legislation, which will consist of:

• Bag filters (solid dust residue removal) and, if necessary, • Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for removal of oxides of nitrogen

(if required) Solid dust residues entrained within the flue gases will be captured in a highly efficient fabric filter unit. Each compartment of the filter unit will contain a large number of individual filter bags. The filter bags are stretched over wire support frames, each one being over 2m long. The filter house will be compartmentalised with each compartment being fitted with isolation devices. There will be sufficient filtration capacity to permit full operation of the Plant with one compartment isolated. The particle laden gases will enter the filter housing and distribution baffles inside each compartment will ensure that the gases are distributed evenly across the filter surfaces. The flue gases will pass through the fabric filter bags from the outside to the inside thus depositing the dust particles on the outer surface. Suction is provided by the induced draught (ID) fan that transfers the cleaned flue gas from the fabric filter unit to the stack. Each filter compartment will be equipped with reverse air jet cleaning. During the cleaning cycle, a jet of compressed air is admitted down the centre of each bag, the flow of air through the filter bags is reversed momentarily, the filter bags expand and the filter cake is dislodged from the surface of the filter bags into the collection hoppers beneath each compartment. The collected dust residues, known as filter ash, will be conveyed to a storage silo by a combination of mechanical and pneumatic transportation systems. The whole system will be totally enclosed to avoid dust egress. Transport air will be discharged from the silo through a small filter unit. In order to meet the required emission limits, a reagent injection system will be installed upstream of the fabric filter. Lime will be injected to neutralise acid gases and activated carbon to remove any dioxins and heavy metals. The production of nitrogen oxides (NOx) will be limited by good combustion control through combustion air staging and limiting combustion temperatures. However, to minimise NOx emission levels, a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system may be required to be installed consisting of an ammonia or urea injection system at the top of the combustion zone. The SNCR system converts a proportion of the NOx into nitrogen and water vapour. The cleaned flue gas will be discharged to the stack at typical 150degC via the induced draft (ID fan). A continuous flue gas emission monitoring and sampling system will be installed within the stack. This system will be used to continuously monitor and record emissions as required under the operating licence and also to allow operating parameters to be varied to minimise emission levels. Lower stack exit temperature may be achievable depending on the final plant design conditions and will be subject to further practicality and techno-economical assessment. The chimney stack, may be up to 90m high, however the exact height will be determined by emissions modelling when specific plant design parameters are available, ensuring that permitted ground level concentrations are not exceeded.

31


Water Treatment Facility A pre-treatment and/or filtration system is required to ensure acceptable water quality, prior to any reverse osmosis or ion exchange stages, for feeding to the downstream water treatment plant, particularly in terms of suspended solids, residual oil, microbiological activity, ionic composition and pH. Where the EPC Contractor has proposed a demineralisation stage utilising ion exchange and/or membrane technologies, the water treatment facility will be designed to remove residual suspended solids and ionic constituents to produce a purified water of a quality and composition suitable for make-up to the boiler and any other identified uses.

2.3.2.2 Fuel Supply The choice of potential biomass fuels is restricted by the need to comply with the strict definition of ‘biomass’ given in the Renewables Obligation Order (ROO) as well as E.ON’s preference for clean materials. ‘Biomass’ means fuel of which at least 90% of the energy content is derived directly or indirectly from plant or animal matter and is thus sustainable. The biomass fired renewable energy plant currently being commissioned at Lockerbie will burn predominantly forestry products, a small volume of recycled waste wood and energy crop in the form of short rotation crop (SRC) willow. On the basis of a commitment to burn an agreed proportion of SRC, the project received financial support through the Bio-energy Capital Grant Scheme. This Scheme is now closed and in the absence of any additional financial support, and under the current ROO rules, the experience in developing the Lockerbie project has shown that forestry products may not be available at the right price and in sufficient quantities to ensure the financial viability of future projects. For this reason, clean recycled wood has been selected as the main biomass fuel for the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant. Other biomass fuels such as forestry products, energy crops, cereal co-products and solid recovered fuel may be burnt in the Plant if these fuels can be obtained in a sustainable manner and at a competitive price. Around 180,000 tonnes of biomass will be burnt by the Plant on an annual basis. This volume is based on an annual utilisation of 87.5%. The annual volume will vary dependent upon actual utilisation, plant efficiency and will also vary to a small extent dependent upon the water content of the delivered fuel. Due consideration has been given to the practicalities of bringing the fuel to the site by rail or canal. However, due to location of the nearest rail terminal at Rotherham and the restrictions associated with using the canal, receiving fuel by these methods of transport is considered to be neither practical nor economically viable at the present time.

Sustainability Fuel Supply Our investigation in using waste wood as part of the defined scope of biomass material for our proposed Renewable Energy Plant confirms that the use of waste wood as a renewable biomass fuel will realise significant greenhouse gas and replacement fossil fuel benefits.

32


It is found that a substantial amount of waste wood is currently sent to landfill. The recovery of energy from waste wood has significant greenhouse gas benefits over landfill and indeed recycling options. Whilst the material will need to be transported to site, this is likely to be equivalent to transportation to landfill sites or recycling plant. There is a strong supply of waste material within 50 miles of the proposed Blackburn Meadows site which is likely to increase in future through the increase in the waste stream and waste recovery and in the development of the biomass market as a consequence of this and other projects. A detailed review of waste wood supply and its carbon saving potential is included in Appendix J. 2.3.2.3 Auxiliary Fuel The auxiliary fuel facilities would include, but not be limited to: storage tank; fuel pipeline and fuel unloading pumps; valves; a fuel oil metering station; supports, trace heating, anchor bolts and plates. The Renewable Energy Plant would be designed to be controlled from the Central Control Room, although the off-loading of delivery vehicles would be capable of being operated locally. The fuel oil storage tank would be fitted with local mechanical means and remote electronic means of measuring the quantity of fuel oil within them. The tank would have a minimum capacity of 70,000 litres. The chemical delivery area, spill tanks and unloading point would be designed in accordance with the relevant Codes for fuel/chemical handling and would be designed to retain any spillage within a controlled area and direct such spillage and wash down to an oil interceptor/spill tank prior to discharge to any other holding basin within the Plant waste water system. The fuel storage tank would be complete in all respects with all necessary vents, drains, man access doors, cleaning facilities, and level and quantity indicators.

2.3.2.4 Ground Conditions Historic and recent ground investigation analyses indicate that the site is considered to have adequate ground conditions, although some further limited investigations may be necessary.

2.3.2.5 Temporary Contractors’ Work Area (Laydown) In general, an area approximately equal to that of the final development will be necessary for the purposes of fabrication, storage and site facilities such as Contractors’ accommodation, etc. during the construction period. The laydown areas will be located adjacent to the construction site.

33


2.4 Construction E.ON has a vast experience of large generating plant construction and retrofit projects, and has successfully undertaken the role of Owner’s Engineer for many construction projects and also on the behalf of external customers both in the UK and overseas. A dedicated project management team of experienced E.ON employees will oversee the construction of the Renewable Energy Plant to ensure that all works are being carried out in a safe, efficient and proper manner. The management team will ensure that all works take place in accordance with the requirements of any consents, licences, authorisations or permission granted to E.ON for the development. 2.4.1 Construction Facilities, Workforce and Programme The area used for temporary site facilities and construction laydown will be contained within the Blackburn Meadows site. Vehicle parking for the construction workforce will be accommodated within the wider Blackburn Meadows site. The Renewable Energy Plant is expected to be constructed and put into commercial operation within about 30 months. Hot commissioning, including firing with biomass, is expected to occur about 24 months from the start of construction. The construction workforce is expected to peak at just under 200 with the average number over the whole construction period being about 75. The normal hours of work will be between 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and between 07.30 and 17.30 on Saturday. Sunday working is not envisaged except in exceptional circumstances and to ensure the safety of the site. Night working will only be considered to recover programme delays and will only be undertaken within constructed buildings to avoid light and noise nuisance to sensitive receptors. 24 hour working will be required when the Plant is undergoing hot commissioning and testing. However, the operational activities will be contained within the plant buildings and no construction activities or movement of lorries or mobile plant will take place outside of the hours of construction outlined above.

34


3 Environmental Impact Assessment 3.1 Air Quality The air quality assessment has been carried out in the following three areas:

• Emissions to air resulting from the operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant (Plant Emissions)

• Emissions from vehicles whose movements are a result of the proposed Renewable

Energy Plant (Traffic Emissions)

• Odorous emissions resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant and the effects from neighbouring odorous sources on construction and operations staff (Odour Emissions)

3.1.1 Plant Emissions The Plant emissions assessment has been undertaken by E.ON Engineering on behalf of E.ON. An atmospheric dispersion model has been used to assess the air quality impacts of the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows. The primary releases from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant will be nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matters (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and dioxins and furans. Ground level concentrations predicted by the model are combined with the contribution from all other sources (represented by estimates of background ground level concentrations based on monitoring data) and compared with the relevant air quality standards. The assessment is based on a number of conservative assumptions that are set out later in this section. It is therefore considered that it is reasonable to assume that impacts of the Renewable Energy Plant on local air quality are likely to be lower than predicted.

3.1.1.1 Air Quality Standards This section of the assessment establishes the standards adopted for the Air Quality assessment. The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sets out air quality objectives for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particles (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO) and other substances. The Strategy was first published in 2000, with an Addendum published in 2003 containing tightened objectives for some pollutants (Defra and the devolved administrations, 2003). Following a recent review, the latest Air Quality Strategy was published by the UK Government and the devolved administrations in July 2007 (Defra and the devolved administrations, 2007). Provisional objectives for PM10 described in the 2003 Addendum (to be met by 2010) have been replaced with a new ‘exposure reduction’ approach for managing levels of fine particles (PM2.5). The new approach consists of an annual mean objective and an objective for reducing exposure to

35


PM2.5 in urban areas by 15%. Objectives for PM10 given in the 2000 Air Quality Strategy have been retained. Current values of the objectives as prescribed in legislation and applicable in the area surrounding Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant have been adopted in this study. In addition, the assessment takes account of

• new annual mean objective for PM2.5 as described in the latest Air Quality Strategy (to be achieved by 2020 in the UK except Scotland).

• the guideline for maximum 1 hour hydrogen chloride concentrations to protect

against health effects (EPAQS, 2006) as recommended by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (2006).

Environmental Assessment Levels listed by the Environment Agency have also been used (Environment Agency, 2003). Health-based objectives adopted in this study are shown in Table 3.1.1 and, taken together, are referred to as ‘air quality standards’ from hereon.

36


Table 3.1.1: Air Quality Standards for the Protection of Human Health

Objective Substance Concentration Measured as

Date to be achieved by (for AQS objectives)

40µg/m3 Annual mean 31 December 2005 Nitrogen dioxide 200µg/m3 1 hour mean not to

be exceeded more than 18 times a year (99.79th percentile)

31 December 2005

266µg/m3 15 minute mean not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year (99.9th percentile)

31 December 2005

350µg/m3 1 hour mean not to be exceeded more than 24 times a year (99.73th percentile)

31 December 2004

125µg/m3 24 hour mean not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year (99.18th percentile)

31 December 2004

Sulphur dioxide

50µg/m3 Annual mean - 50µg/m3 24 hour mean not

to be exceeded more than 18 times a year (90.41th percentile)

31 December 2004 Particles (PM10)

40µg/m3 Annual mean 31 December 2004 Particles (PM2.5) 25µg/m3 Annual mean 2020 (UK except

Scotland) Carbon monoxide 10,000µg/m3 Not to be exceeded

when expressed as an 8 hour running mean

31 December 2003

750µg/m3 1 hour mean - Hydrogen chloride 20µg/m3 Annual mean -

There are no air quality standards or guidelines for dioxins and furans. Any potential impacts will be associated with long-term rather than short-term exposure. To allow the Plant contribution to be placed in the context of contributions from other sources, predicted annual mean concentrations are compared to existing background concentrations. The Air Quality Strategy in 2000 (DETR and the devolved administrations, 2000) set out objectives for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems. These objectives have been retained in the latest version of the Strategy and are shown in Table 3.1.2.

37


Table 3.1.2: AQS for the Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems

Objective Substance Concentration Measured as

Date to be achieved by

Nitrogen oxides (as NO2)

30µg/m3 Annual mean 31 December 2000

20µg/m3 Annual mean 31 December 2000 Sulphur dioxide 20µg/m3 Winter average

(1 Oct to 31 Mar)

31 December 2000

These objectives are only intended to apply at locations that are:

1. more than 20 km from an agglomeration (population > 250,000); 2. more than 5 km from a Part A industrial process such as the proposed Plant; 3. more than 5 km from motorways; and 4. more than 5 km from built up areas (population >5,000)

These objectives are designed to apply to an area of impact much larger than that produced by the proposed Renewable Energy Plant and, additionally, implicitly exclude the area around the proposed Plant. However, to provide additional confidence that the proposed Plant will not have a significant impact on nearby vegetation and ecosystems, predicted concentrations at the maximum impact location are compared to the objectives. In addition, the objectives are used to assess the effects of air quality at designated habitat sites.

3.1.1.2 Existing (Baseline) Air Quality Long-term mean measurements provide an indication of the contribution of all sources to existing air quality. These measurements are considered in combination with the modelled plant contribution to indicate whether air quality standards are likely to be complied with when the proposed Plant is operational. There are six automatic continuous monitors situated in the vicinity of the proposed Blackburn Meadows development site:

• There are three automatic monitors operated on behalf of Defra at Sheffield Centre (NO2, CO and PM), Sheffield Tinsley (NO2 and CO), and Rotherham Centre (NO2, SO2)

• Sheffield City Council operate an automatic monitor at Tinsley Infants School (NO2, SO2 and PM)

• Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council operates automatic monitors at Brinsworth (NO2) and Howarth (NO2)

The locations of the continuous monitors relative to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant are shown in Figure 3.1.1. Diffusion tube measurements of NO2 are made by Sheffield City Council at various locations in the Sheffield area. A number of diffusion tube measurements are also carried out in the Rotherham area as part of the network operated by Netcen on behalf of Defra. Diffusion tube measurements are significantly less expensive than continuous monitors and can provide a useful indication of the spatial distribution of concentrations. However, the measurements are not as accurate as automatic monitors. The automatic data have therefore been used to evaluate a suitable baseline concentration for the study.

38


Annual mean and short-term concentrations of NO2, SO2, particles (PM10) and CO recently recorded at the automatic monitoring sites are shown in Tables 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 respectively. Table 3.1.3: Existing (baseline) Concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide

Statistic Location Year Concentration (μg/m3)

2006 40 2005 32

Sheffield Tinsley (Urban industrial)

2004 40 2006 - 2005 -

Sheffield Centre (Urban centre)

2004 31 2006 37 2005 34

Rotherham Centre (Urban Centre)

2004 35 2006 - Tinsley Infants School 2005 42 2004 49 2006 20 Brinsworth 2005 26 2004 - 2006 20

Annual mean

Howarth 2005 20 2004 20 2006 141 2005 145

Sheffield Tinsley (Urban industrial)

2004 118 2006 - 2005 -


2004 84 2006 166 2005 118

99.8th percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations


2004 111 Note: “-“ indicates where data unavailable. The entire Sheffield urban area has been designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) (Sheffield City Council, 2006) principally due to high NO2 concentrations from road traffic. The proposed Renewable Energy Plant lies just inside the AQMA. In Rotherham, levels of NO2 in some areas are at or near the air quality standards (Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, 2002). As a result, a number of AQMAs have been designated in the Rotherham area. Those nearest to the proposed site are the Brinsworth Area 1 AQMA (along a short section of the M1 to the north-west of the proposed Plant) Brinsworth Area 2 (along a section of the M1 to the south-east of the proposed Plant) and Kimberworth (approximately 1.5km to the north-east of the proposed Plant). Table 3.1.3 confirms that long-term background NO2 concentrations at some locations near to the proposed Plant site have exceeded the air quality standard of 40μg/m3 in recent years,

39


principally due to their proximity to the M1 and the large volume of traffic. At Rotherham Centre, the highest annual mean concentration recorded in recent years was 37�g/m3 in 2006. In other locations (e.g. Brinsworth and Howarth) monitored annual mean concentrations are significantly lower.

40


Table 3.1.4: Existing (baseline) Concentrations of Sulphur Dioxide Statistic Location Concentration (μg/m3) Year

2006 7 2005 9


2004 7 2003 7 2002 9 2006 - 2005 - 2004 15

Annual mean


2003 12 2002 12 2006 35 2005 29


2004 40 2003 106 2002 112 2006 - 2005 - 2004 -

99.9th percentile of 15 minute mean concentrations


2003 98 2002 90 2005 80 2004 130

Maximum 15 minute mean concentration

Tinsley Infants School

2003 178 2006 21 2005 21


2004 29 2003 69 2002 67 2006 - 2005 - 2004 40

99.7rd percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations


2003 72 2002 51 2006 14 2005 15

Sheffield Centre Urban centre) (

2004 15 2003 25 2002 27 2006 - 2005 - 2004 26

99th percentile of 24 hour mean concentrations


2003 33 2002 28

Note: “-“ indicates where data unavailable.

41


SO2 concentrations in Table 3.1.4 comply with the air quality standards by a significant margin. No areas of Sheffield are expected to be at risk of exceeding the standards for SO2 (Sheffield City Council, 2006). Similarly, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council does not consider compliance with the standards for SO2 to be a problem, given the background levels. A concentration of 15µg/m3 corresponding to the maximum recorded long-term concentration has been adopted to represent background concentrations for this study. This is likely to be a conservatively high estimate of the background concentration in the vicinity of the proposed Plant. Table 3.1.5: Existing (baseline) Concentrations of Particulate Matters (PM10) Statistic Location Concentration (μg/m3) Year

2006 25 2005 22


2004 22 2003 27 2002 25 2006 - 2005 27

Annual mean

Tinsley Infants School

2004 26 2003 31 2002 28 2006 42 2005 35 2004 36 2003 49

90.41th percentile of 24 hour mean concentrations


2002 40 Note: “-“ indicates where data unavailable. Particulate Matters (PM10) concentrations comply with the air quality standard. Background concentrations are represented in this study by a value of 32µg/m3, corresponding to the maximum annual mean concentration recorded at the Sheffield Centre monitoring site in the last five years.

42


Table 3.1.6: Existing (baseline) Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Statistic Location Concentration (mg/m3) Year

2006 0.3 2005 0.4


2004 0.4 2003 0.4 2002 0.4 2006 0.3 2005 0.4 2004 0.5

Annual mean


2003 - 2002 0.4 2006 2.9 2005 3.8


2004 2.1 2003 4.4 2002 3.4 2006 2.9 2005 3.5 2004 2.7

Annual max hourly concentration


2003 - 2002 3.9

Note: “-“ indicates where data unavailable. CO levels measured at Sheffield Centre and Rotherham Centre are shown in Table 3.1.6. Maximum 8-hourly running mean concentrations for Sheffield Centre and Sheffield Tinsley are given in Sheffield City Council’s Air Quality Updating & Screening Assessment document (Sheffield City Council, 2006). The Council have concluded that CO levels in Sheffield are well below the short-term 10mg/m3 objective. Similarly, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council does not consider CO to be a pollutant of concern in terms of compliance with air quality standards. In this study, a background level of 500µg/m3 has been assumed, corresponding to the highest annual mean concentration measured at Rotherham Centre in the past 5 years. Hydrogen chloride concentrations have been measured at 12 sites throughout the UK as part of the Defra nitric acid network. The background concentration at the Blackburn Meadows site has been assumed to be 0.4µg/m3, the maximum of the average 1999-2002 concentrations at all of the monitoring sites. Dioxins and furans are measured at six sites within the UK. Annual mean concentrations recorded during 2002 to 2004 ranged between 6.5 and 81fg/m3 ITEQ.

3.1.1.3 Impact Assessment An atmospheric dispersion model has been used to calculate the contribution of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant to ground level concentrations of pollutants. The atmospheric dispersion model ADMS 3 (Air Dispersion Modelling System), version 3.3 (3.3.0.0) has been used. ADMS is used extensively by power station operators and the

43


Environment Agency and also by many other industries and consultancies. ADMS was developed by CERC (Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants) and has been verified extensively against measurement (CERC, 2000).

3.1.1.4 Emission Characteristics Emission characteristics for the proposed Plant are shown in Table 3.1.6. Table 3.1.6: Emission Characteristics for the Proposed Renewable Energy Plant Parameter Proposed Plant Stack location (m) 439829, 391650 Stack height (m) 90 Flue diameter (m) 2.5 Volume flow rate (full load at stack exit conditions) (m3/s)

78.3

Exit velocity (m/s) 15.9 Stack exit temperature (°C) 150 NOx (as NO2) emission concentration (mg/Nm3)

200 & 400

SO2 emission concentration (mg/Nm3) 50 & 200 CO emission concentration (mg/Nm3) 50 PM10 emission concentration (mg/Nm3) 10 HCl emission concentration (mg/Nm3) 10 & 60 Dioxins and furans emission concentration (ng/Nm3)

0.1

NOx (as NO2) emission rate (g/s) 9.0 & 18.1 SO2 emission rate (g/s) 2.3 & 9.0 CO emission rate (g/s) 2.3 PM10 emission rate (g/s) 0.5 HCl emission rate (g/s) 0.5 & 2.7

4.5 x 10-9 Dioxins and furans emission rate (g/s) Note: Emission concentrations are quoted at 101.3kPa, 273K, dry, 11% v/v O2 dry. Where two concentrations are given, the lower value refers to the 24-hour average and higher to half-hour average limit given in the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). Emission concentrations correspond to the limits specified in the Waste Incineration Directive (European Commission, 2000) which the Plant will be obliged to meet. Where two emission concentrations are given, releases of these substances are regulated in the Directive via two different averaging times: half-hourly averages and daily averages. In each case, the smaller value refers to daily averages and has been used in the model to calculate air quality concentrations based on an averaging time of 24 hours or more. The larger half-hourly value has been used to calculate statistics based on averaging times of less than 24 hours. The stack height of 90m exceeds the minimum stack height of 70m calculated using Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1 (HMIP, 1993). The proposed Renewable Energy Plant is assumed to operate continuously at full load throughout the year.

44


3.1.1.5 Other Model Inputs The Air Quality Strategy objectives for the protection of human health relate to the concentrations of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) component of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Approximately 5% of the NOx at the stack exit will be in the form of NO2, with the remaining 95% in the form of nitric oxide (NO). Once released, NO can be converted to NO2 by reaction with low level ozone in the atmosphere. The process is also reversible in sunlight and the net rate of conversion of NO to NO2 in the plume is therefore a function of the rate of dilution of the plume by ambient air, trace gas concentrations in the air and meteorology. The following assumptions have been made, as recommended by the Environment Agency:

• For the calculation of short-term concentrations (i.e. the 99.79th percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations), it has been assumed that 35% of the NOx at ground level is in the form of NO2

• For the calculation of long-term concentrations (i.e. annual mean concentrations), it has been assumed that 70% of the NOx at ground level is in the form of NO2.

Five years of hourly sequential meteorological data from the Met Office monitoring sites at Waddington (65km away) and Church Fenton (42km away) have been used for the dispersion modelling. These are the two closest operational meteorological sites to the proposed Plant site that record all necessary parameters for dispersion modelling using ADMS. Using data from both sites ensures that the likely range of weather conditions at the Blackburn Meadows site is more likely to be represented in the dispersion modelling. The results quoted in this report are the highest obtained using both sets of data. The modelling has also taken into consideration the influence of nearby hills on the dispersion of pollution. Ground-level concentrations have been calculated on a regular grid of points extending 2km north, south, east and west of the proposed Plant. The spacing between points is 50m. Surface roughness length is a measure of the influence of the surface features on dispersion. A value of 0.6m is considered to be representative of the surface features in the vicinity of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Large buildings (greater than approximately one third of the stack height) can influence the dispersion of substances from an elevated source such as the Plant stack. Buildings can interrupt the wind flow and give higher ground-level concentrations close to the source. The only site building or structure which is expected to be taller than one third of the stack height is the Plant boiler house. The impact of the building on dispersion of released substances has been considered, including its effect on the calculation of an appropriate stack height for the Plant. The estimated dimensions and location of the boiler house are given in Table 3.1.8.

45


Table 3.1.8: Plant Building Dimensions Renewable Energy Plant Boiler House Co-ordinates of building centre (m) 439847, 391636 Height (m) 46 Length (m) 32 Width (m) 25 Building orientation (angle between building length and north) (°) 60

3.1.1.6 Impacts on Human Health Predicted ground level concentrations resulting from the Renewable Energy Plant are shown in Table 3.1.9 below. For each substance and statistic, the table shows the air quality standard, background concentration, the Process Contribution (i.e. the contribution of emissions from the proposed Plant to ground level concentrations), and the Predicted Environmental Concentration (i.e. the combined contribution of the proposed Plant and background concentrations). The Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentration are also shown expressed as a percentage of the relevant air quality standard. For dioxins and furans, in the absence of air quality standards, the Process Contribution is expressed as a percentage of typical UK levels. The Process Contribution has been predicted directly by the model using emissions data for the proposed Plant. The Process Contribution presented is the maximum predicted across the modelled domain using any of the five years of meteorological data from both meteorological monitoring sites.

3.1.1.6.1 Predicted Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations Predicted ground level concentrations of NO2 arising due to operation of the Plant are shown in contour form in Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 (based on worst-case meteorological data from Waddington) and Figures 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 (based on worst-case meteorological data from Church Fenton). In each case, the first plot shows annual mean concentrations while the second shows the 99.79th percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations. Worst case long-term concentrations were predicted using 2003 data from Waddington. Worst-case short-term concentrations were predicted using 2003 data from Church Fenton. The figures indicate that highest long-term concentrations are likely to occur to the east and north-east of the proposed Plant and within a distance of 1km. Given the location of the maximum impacts, an estimated background concentration of 37µg/m3 has been assumed in the assessment. This is the maximum recorded at Rotherham Centre in recent years. The maximum predicted Process Contribution to annual mean NO2 concentrations of 0.6µg/m3 represents just 1.4% of the long-term air quality standard (40µg/m3). Taking into account the background concentration, the maximum Predicted Environmental Concentration comprises 94% of the air quality standard. The maximum predicted short-term Process Contribution of 14.6µg/m3 for the 99.79th percentile of 1 hour mean NO2 concentrations equates to 7.3% of the air quality standard value of 200µg/m3. Taking into account the background concentration, the maximum

46


Predicted Environmental Concentration of 51.6µg/m3 comprises 26% of the air quality standard. Maximum predicted impacts are away from the Sheffield AQMA and the nearby Brinsworth Areas 1 and 2 AQMAs i.e. they do not coincide with the areas where NO2 concentrations due to traffic sources are highest. Although the Kimberworth AQMA is likely to be downwind of the proposed Plant, maximum long-term NO2 concentrations are predicted to be less than 1% of the air quality standard at this distance (Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.4). Predicted impacts at the AQMAs near Rotherham town centre are lower. The actual Plant contribution to ground level concentrations is likely to be less than the values presented. The proportion of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the form of NO2 is largely determined by the concentration of ozone in the background air. When background concentrations of NOx are high, as they are in the vicinity of the Plant, concentrations of ozone tend to be low. Because ozone is required to convert nitric oxide in the plume to nitrogen dioxide, the rate of conversion and hence the Plant contribution will tend to be low. In addition, worst case impacts have been considered based on the worst-case year of meteorological data and maximum concentration arising at any point in the study area.

3.1.1.6.2 Predicted Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations Predicted maximum ground level SO2 concentrations resulting from the proposed Plant are 22.9µg/m3 for the 99.9th percentile of 15 minute mean concentrations, 20.4µg/m3 for the 99.73rd percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations and 2.2µg/m3 for the 99.18th percentile of 24 hour mean concentrations. The predicted concentrations comprise less than 9%, 6% and 2% of the relevant short-term air quality standards. Predicted annual mean concentrations also comprise a small fraction (less than 0.5%) of the long-term standard of 50µg/m3. Taking into account background concentrations, Predicted Environmental Concentrations comprise 30% or less of the air quality standards and therefore comply by a significant margin. Predicted ground level concentrations of SO2 resulting from the proposed Plant are shown in contour form in Figure 3.1.6 for annual mean and Figure 3.1.7 for the 99.9th percentile of 15 minute mean concentrations. The figures are based on the meteorological site and year of data that resulted in the maximum prediction. Predicted 15 minute mean concentrations have been output directly by the dispersion model, rather than using a factor for conversion from hourly mean concentrations. This method has been shown to give good agreement between measured and modelled concentrations, most recently by Bethan (2007), and is the methodology recommended for use by the energy companies’ Joint Environmental Programme (JEP).

3.1.1.6.3 Predicted Particulate Matters (PM10) Concentrations Predicted ground level concentrations of particles (PM10) resulting from the Plant comprise less than 1% of the air quality standards. Such levels can be termed “insignificant” (Environment Agency, 2003). Predicted Environmental Concentrations comprise 64% of the short-term PM10 standard and 80% of the long-term PM10 standard. PM10 concentrations are clearly dominated by other sources.

47


The new annual mean objective of 25µg/m3 for the fine component of PM10 (i.e. PM2.5) given in the latest Air Quality Strategy has also been considered. Based on the 2006 Pollution Inventory Methodology for the Electrical Supply Industry (JEP, 2007) 50% of PM10 emitted from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant has been assumed to be in the form of PM2.5. It has been assumed that two thirds of the background PM10 concentration consists of PM2.5 (Defra and the devolved administrations, 2007). On this basis, the proposed Plant contributes less than 1% of the objective at the maximum impact point such that impacts are “insignificant”, while the Predicted Environmental Concentration represents 84% of the objective.

3.1.1.6.4 Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations The predicted maximum 8 hour rolling mean concentration comprises less than 1% of the air quality standard. As described above, such levels are considered “insignificant”. Taking into account background concentrations, the Predicted Environmental Concentration is comfortably within the air quality standard, representing around 5% of the objective level.

3.1.1.6.5 Predicted Hydrogen Chloride Concentrations Predicted ground level concentrations of hydrogen chloride resulting from the proposed Plant comprise 1% and 0.2% of the standards for 1 hour and annual mean concentrations respectively and are therefore considered insignificant. Predicted Environmental Concentrations are similarly well within the standards.

3.1.1.6.6 Predicted Dioxin and Furan Concentrations The predicted Plant contribution to ground level concentrations of dioxins and furans comprises a small fraction of existing background measurements. Predicted annual mean concentrations comprise between 0.5% and 6% of the maximum and minimum UK background values recorded during 2002 to 2004.

48


Table 3.1.9: Maximum Predicted Ground Level Concentrations from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant Sub-stance

Statistic AQ Standard(µg/m3)

Back-ground conc. (µg/m3)

Process Cont. PC (µg/m3)

PC/ AQ Standard (µg/m3)

Predicted Environmental Conc. PEC (µg/m3)

PEC/ AQ Standard (µg/m3)

99.79th %ile of 1 hour mean concentrations

200 14.6 (41.8)

7.3% 51.6

26% NO2

40

37

0.6 (0.8)

1.4% Annual mean 37.6 94%

99.9th %ile of 15 minute mean concentrations

266 22.9 8.6% 37.9 14% SO2

99.73rd %ile of 1 hour mean concentrations

350 20.4 5.8% 35.4 10%

99.18th %ile of 24 hour mean concentrations

125 2.2 1.8% 17.2 14%

50

15

0.20 0.4% Annual mean 15.2 30% 90.41st %ile of 24 hour mean concentrations

50 0.2 0.1% 32.2 64% Particles (PM10)

40

32

0.05 0.1% Annual mean 32.05 80% Particles (PM2.5)

Annual mean 25 21 0.02 0.1% 21.02 84%

CO Maximum 8 hour running mean

10,000 500 5.3 0.1% 505.3 5%

Maximum 1 hour mean

750 7.2 1.0% 7.6 1% HCl

20

0.4

0.04 0.2% Annual mean 0.44 2% Dioxins & Furans

Annual mean None 6.5 – 81 fg/m3 (ITEQ)

7.9 x 10-10

0.5% - 6% (of back-ground)

- -

Note: Modelled NOx concentrations are given in brackets.

3.1.1.7 Impact on Vegetation This section describes the assessment of the impacts of emissions from the proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant on local ecologically sensitive sites (those within 10km), specifically Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). There are no ‘Natural 2000’ sites (designated under the Habitats Directive) within 10km of the site.

49


3.1.1.7.1 Local Ecologically Sensitive Sites Sites of Special Scientific Interest located within 10km of the Plant are:

• Bradgate Brickworks • Wadley Fossil Forest • Stannington Ruffs • Neepsend Railway Cutting • Neepsend Brickworks • Moss Valley Meadows

Five of these sites have been designated because of the presence of geological features only; hence no assessment of station impacts is required. Only Moss Valley Meadows has been designated because of the presence of sensitive vegetation. An assessment has therefore been carried out for Moss Valley Meadows SSSI only. The locations of all SSSIs within 10km of the proposed Plant are shown in Figure 3.1.8.

3.1.1.7.2 Modelling Methodology for Sensitive Habitats Potential impacts on sensitive receptors at the local sites include direct effects resulting from concentrations of SO2 and NOx, together with the effects related to the deposition of acidity and nutrient nitrogen. Impacts on vegetation and ecosystems are generally long term effects. It has been assumed that the Renewable Energy Plant will operate continuously at full load in most time throughout the year. Information related to the sensitivity to air concentrations and acid and nutrient nitrogen deposition of the special interest features at Moss Valley Meadows has been extracted from the Air Pollution Information System (APIS) database (www.apis.ac.uk). APIS is a support tool for staff in the UK conservation and regulatory agencies, industry and local authorities, for assessing the potential effects of air pollutants on habitats and species. Concentrations and deposition have been predicted on a 20km by 20km grid centred on the Plant with a grid spacing of 250m. Five years of meteorology were used from both the Waddington and Church Fenton meteorological sites, to ensure that worst case meteorological conditions were captured. Results presented are the maximum predicted for any year of meteorological data. Objectives for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems apply to total NOx (as NO2) concentrations. Model runs have been performed without deposition to determine concentrations of NOx and SO2 for the sensitive habitats assessment. For the purposes of the assessment of deposition impacts, ADMS model runs have been performed using the ADMS dry deposition module. Deposition to both low-lying and woodland features has been assessed using the deposition velocities shown in Table 3.1.12. Wet deposition of both SO2 and NOx is negligible in comparison with dry deposition and has therefore been omitted. The deposition methodology is consistent with that developed through the Habitats Directive Working Group, comprising of members of the power generator’s Joint Environmental Programme, the Environment Agency and the UK Conservation Agencies (Griffiths et al, 2006).

50


Table 3.1.12 Deposition Parameter Values used in ADMS Substance Dry deposition velocity for

low-lying vegetation, vd (m/s)

Dry deposition velocity for woodlands, vd (m/s)

Nitrogen Dioxide 0.0015 0.003 Sulphur Dioxide 0.012 0.024

3.1.1.7.3 Air Concentration Impacts on Vegetation and Ecosystems As described in Section 3.1.1.1 the Air Quality Strategy Objectives for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems are not intended to apply at all locations. For example they are not intended to apply within 5km of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. The objectives are used in Section 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2 to assess impacts at designated conservation sites within 10km of the Renewable Energy Plant. However to provide additional confidence that that the Plant will not have a significant impact on any nearby vegetation and ecosystems, including locations not designated as nature conservation sites, predicted concentrations at the point of maximum impact for the Plant are also compared to the objectives. Predicted ground level concentrations of NOx at the point of maximum impact equal 1.28µg/m3. This is well within the objective of 30µg/m3 and is based on the worst year of meteorology, i.e. the monitoring site and year which produces the maximum predicted concentration. Background concentrations at the maximum impact location have been obtained from APIS. The background NOx as NO2 concentration at the point of maximum impact is 42.3µg/m3, and hence already exceeds the objective value of 30µg/m3. It is clear that other sources dominate NOx concentrations at this point. The contribution from the Plant comprises 4.3% of the objective value. Predicted concentrations at distances of more than 5km from the Plant, i.e. outside the area where the objectives do not strictly apply, are less than 0.34µg/m3 and hence comprise around 1% of the objective at most. Given the pessimistic nature of the emissions scenario, the low level of impact and the compliance with the air quality objective, it can be assumed that NOx concentrations arising due to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant are unlikely to have a significant impact on local vegetation and ecosystems. Predicted annual mean sulphur dioxide concentrations resulting from the Plant at the point of maximum impact equal 0.64µg/m3. Background concentrations taken from APIS equal 16µg/m3. The Renewable Energy Plant contribution on its own and in combination with existing background concentrations therefore complies with the air quality standard for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems of 20µg/m3.

3.1.1.7.4 Air Concentrations at Designated Sites There is only one designated site (Moss Valley Meadows SSSI) within 10km of the proposed Plant for which an assessment of impacts is required. The default critical levels of annual averages of 20µg/m3 for SO2 and 30µg/m3 for NOx (taken from the UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives for the Protection of Vegetation and Ecosystems) have been assumed for the assessment. The SSSI citation does not suggest the presence of lichen species, which would show greater sensitivity to SO2.

51


The highest modelled concentrations over the site and over the five meteorological years modelled (from both meteorological sites) were used to ensure a suitably precautionary approach. Similarly, the exclusion of deposition processes for the air concentration ADMS runs, which would in practice lower concentrations by removing material from the plume, further ensures a precautionary approach. Table 3.1.13 presents the maximum modelled SO2 concentrations due to operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant at the Moss Valley Meadows SSSI (the process contribution, PC), together with the background concentration taken from the APIS database. The concentrations relative to the critical level (or Environmental Assessment Level, EAL) are also shown. It can be seen that concentration of SO2 due to emissions from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant is well below 1% of the critical level. The Environment Agency states that emissions contributing less than 1% of a long-term environmental threshold are unlikely to cause a significant impact on the local receiving environment (Environment Agency, 2003). Furthermore, the combination of process and background concentrations does not exceed the SO2 critical level at the sensitive site. Table 3.1.14 presents the maximum modelled NOx concentrations at the Moss Valley Meadows SSSI together with the background concentration taken from the APIS database. It can be seen that the 1% significance threshold is not reached at the site. Although the combined Process Contribution and background concentration exceeds the critical level, it is clear that the background concentration has driven the exceedance. Given the precautionary nature of the assessment, taking the maximum concentration at any point on the site for all years of meteorological data and the assumption of full load operation throughout the year, it can be concluded with confidence that SO2 and NOx emissions from the proposed biomass station would not be at levels likely to lead to adverse effects on the sensitive features at Moss Valley Meadows SSSI. Table 3.1.13: Sulphur Dioxide Concentration due to Emissions from the Proposed Renewable Energy Plant Assessed Against the 20µg/m3 SO2 Critical Level

Site PC (µg/m3) PC/EAL

Back- ground (µg/m3)

PEC (µg/m3) PEC/EAL

Moss Valley Meadows SSSI 0.03 0.1% 10.4 10.43 52% Table 3.1.14: Nitrogen Oxides Concentration due to Emissions from the Proposed Renewable Energy Plant Assessed Against the 30µg/m3 NOx

Site PC (µg/m3) PC/EAL

Back- ground (µg/m3)

PEC (µg/m3) PEC/EAL

Moss Valley Meadows SSSI 0.05 0.2% 34.8 34.85 116%

3.1.1.7.5 Deposition from Air to Land at Designated Habitat Sites Emissions can also have an impact on sensitive ecological sites via deposition of acidity or nutrient nitrogen from air to land. Acid and nutrient nitrogen critical loads (Cload) for the

52


single local sensitive site (Moss Valley Meadows SSSI) have been extracted from the APIS database for the appropriate designated features. The highest deposition over the sensitive site for the five years modelled (from both meteorological sites) has been assessed against the most stringent critical load for all features present, in order to ensure a precautionary approach.

Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition Assessment Table 3.1.17 presents the nutrient nitrogen critical load assessment for Moss Valley Meadows SSSI. It can be seen that the nutrient nitrogen deposition arising from the proposed biomass station is well below the assigned critical load (for both low-lying and woodland features) and does not reach the 1% significance threshold. A comparison of the process contribution to background deposition clearly indicates that sources other than the proposed Plant dominate nitrogen deposition impacts at the site. It is clear that the contribution from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant would make a negligible difference to the impacts of deposited nitrogen. Given the extremely low levels of impact and the worst case nature of the assessment, it can reasonably be assumed that nitrogen deposition resulting from emissions from the proposed station will not be at levels likely to damage the special interest features at the Moss Valley Meadows SSSI. Table 3.1.17: Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition due to Emissions from the Proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Moss Valley Meadows SSSI, Assessed Against Nutrient Nitrogen Critical Load Features Cload PC

kgN/ha/ yr

PC/EAL Back- ground kgN/ha/yr

PEC kgN/ha/yr

PEC/ EAL

Low-lying 10 0.007 0.07% 28.8 28.807 288% Woodland 10 0.014 0.14% 48.9 48.914 489%

Acid Deposition Assessment Table 3.1.18 presents the acid deposition assessment using the critical load extracted from the APIS database. It should be noted that APIS presents critical loads as total acidity and the modelled deposited acidity is the sum of the nitrogen and sulphur components as keq/ha/yr. Again, the worst case deposition over the five years of data from each meteorological site and the highest deposition over any point on the site have been used. Table 3.1.18 shows that acid deposition arising from the proposed Plant is well below the critical load for both low-lying and woodland features and the 1% significance threshold is not reached. In contrast, the background contribution exceeds the critical load. It is evident that sources other than the proposed Plant dominate acid deposition impacts at the site and that the contribution from the proposed Plant would make a negligible difference to the total deposited acidity. The above assessment can be considered an extremely pessimistic scenario for the following reasons:

• The highest deposition across the whole of the site was assessed.

53


• The highest deposition across all years of meteorological data was assessed. • The lowest assigned critical loads have been used. • It has been assumed that all nitrogen emissions are in the form of NO2. Emissions of

NOx from combustion plant are primarily in the form of NO (>90%) which has a negligible dry deposition rate. Within ten kilometres of the Plant, the maximum conversion from NO to NO2 is likely to be 75% and will be less than this closer to the stack (Futter et al, 2002). The net effect will be to over-estimate deposition due to NOx emissions.

• It has been assumed that the station operates on full load continuously for the entire year, whereas in practice a lower load factor would be more likely.

Given the above, it is reasonable to assume that acid deposition arising due to emissions from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant would not be at levels likely to damage the special interest features at Moss Valley SSSI, the only site within 10km of the Plant with sensitive vegetation. Table 3.1.18: Acid Deposition due to Emissions from the Proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Moss Valley Meadows SSSI, Assessed Against Acid Critical Load Features Cload PC

(keq/ha/yr)PC/EAL Back

ground (keq/ha/yr)

PEC (keq/ha/yr)

PEC/ EAL

Low-lying 1.5 0.003 0.2% 2.91 2.913 194% Woodland 2.85 0.005 0.2% 4.38 4.385 154%

3.1.1.8 Other Impacts

3.1.1.8.1 Plume Visibility Cooling at the proposed Renewable Energy Plant would be achieved through either the use an air-cooled condenser (ACC) or a Hybrid Cooling Tower System. ACC is a ‘dry’ cooling system that does not give rise to any visible plumes of condensed water vapour. A Hybrid Cooling Tower System is combined wet/air cooled system which can be controlled in a way that visible plume can be limited. A visible plume of condensed water vapour will often be seen exiting the Plant stack. Such a plume is formed as hot, moist flue gases leaving the stack mix with colder ambient air leading to condensation. The extent of the visible plume will depend on atmospheric conditions such as ambient temperature, relative humidity and wind speed. The plume will disperse naturally in the atmosphere and will therefore rarely extend beyond the boundary of the Plant. In addition, dispersion of the visible plume will prevent it from reaching the ground.

3.1.1.8.2 Dust during Construction During the construction of the proposed Plant, there is potential for dust to be generated from various activities:

• Construction of buildings; • Access road construction, if required; • Transportation of materials to and from site by construction traffic; and • Soil stripping and earthworks.

54


Dust from these activities may be generated and transported beyond the site boundary in smaller or greater amounts depending primarily on the wind, moisture content of material and its physical properties such as particle size and friability. Once airborne, the distance the dust is transported is primarily governed by the wind speed and the particle size. Smaller dust particles remain airborne for longer, dispersing widely and depositing more slowly over a wider area. Research has shown that large dust particles (greater than about 30μm), that make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from construction activities will largely deposit within 100m of sources. Typically, dust particles in the size range 10 – 30μm are likely to travel distances of 200m to 500m. Smaller particles than these are not produced in significant amounts from construction sites. Concerns from residents about dust are most likely to be experienced near to dust sources, generally within 100m, depending on site characteristics and in the absence of appropriate mitigation (ODPM, 2005). Government guidance (ODPM, 2005) classifies residential areas as being of medium sensitivity to dust impacts. The closest residential properties to the proposed site are beyond Sheffield Road, located around 500m south of the proposed site. Given that winds are rarely from a northerly direction, dust impacts would be expected to be minimal, particularly considering the mitigation measures described below. Residential properties to the north are more than 600m away from the proposed site. There are no facilities within 500m of the proposed Plant which may have the potential to show high sensitivity to dust, according to government guidance (ODPM, 2005).

55


To ensure that any risk of dust nuisance is minimised, the following site management practices will be adopted:

• Sheeting of HGVs carrying loose materials; • Use of water sprays during hot dry periods to dampen down work areas and

roadways; • Frequent washing of roads and surfaces; • Wheel washing of vehicles leaving the site when this is likely to otherwise lead to

airborne dust. Wherever possible E.ON will ensure that GLA Best Practice is followed during construction at all times.

3.1.1.8.3 Climate Change Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have been identified as playing a major role in Global Warming. Biomass energy plants are a ‘renewable’ form of energy. The plants are regarded as effectively carbon neutral, i.e. although they will release carbon dioxide from the combustion of biomass, the carbon in the biomass comes from biogenic sources. In addition, the Plant will provide a clean ‘renewable’ electrical generating capacity of approximately 25MWe, displacing other sources of energy with a greater global warming impact. It is expected that the Plant will displace at least 80,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, thus playing a role in the UK Government’s targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

3.1.1.8.4 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential In addition to being a greenhouse gas, when present in the lower part of the atmosphere, ozone may be harmful to human health if it is present at a sufficiently high concentration. Therefore, although ozone is beneficial in the upper layers of the atmosphere (stratospheric ozone), it may pose health effects when present at ground level. Ozone at or near ground level reacts with NO leading to the formation of NO2. Emissions of nitrogen oxides released from the Plant will be primarily in the form of NO, rather than NO2. The subsequent conversion of NO to NO2 in the atmosphere will therefore consume ozone. The proposed Plant is therefore expected to result in beneficial reductions in local concentrations of low-level ozone.

3.1.1.9 Conclusions The main focus of the assessment on the proposed Renewable Energy Plant emissions is on impacts of the proposed Plant on human health and vegetation.

Impacts on Human Health Predicted changes in ground level concentrations of NO2 resulting from the operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant represent 7.3% and 1.4% of the short-term and long-term air quality standards, respectively. The combination of existing background

56


concentrations and the predicted plant contributions also comply with the standards. Maximum predicted impacts do not coincide with any Air Quality Management Areas designated due to high NO2 concentrations. The contribution of the proposed Plant to ground level concentrations of SO2 is well within air quality standards with and without taking into account existing background concentrations. The combined background and plant concentrations represent less than 30% of the relevant air quality standards for SO2.

• Predicted ground level concentrations of particles (PM10), carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride resulting from operation of the proposed Plant comprise 1% or less of the air quality standards. The combined plant and background concentrations comply with air quality standards. The contribution of the Plant to ground level concentrations of dioxins and furans comprises between 0.5% and 6% of existing UK levels.

• In summary, concentrations of the main pollutants released from the proposed Plant,

nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, Particulate Matters (PM10), carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride, comply with air quality standards, both alone and taking into account existing background concentrations. On this basis, emissions to air from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant are not expected to have a significant adverse effect on human health.

Impacts on Vegetation Assessments for air concentrations, nutrient nitrogen deposition and acid deposition have been performed for the single ecologically sensitive site within 10km of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. The precautionary nature of the assessment process and the low levels of relative impact confirm that neither air concentrations nor deposition arising as a result of plant emissions are at levels likely to damage the site’s special interest features or elsewhere.

57


3.1.2 Traffic Emissions

3.1.2.1 Introduction An assessment of the effect from traffic emissions was carried out by Environmental Protection Service of Sheffield City Council and deals with an assessment of air quality matters arising from traffic accessing the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. The assessment considers both construction and operational traffic. Nitrogen oxides (nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO)) commonly known as NOx, as well as fine particles (PM10) are found in combustion engine vehicle emissions. As set out in the Transport chapter of this Environmental Statement, the proposed development will generate a certain amount of traffic during its construction and operation. This assessment considers the potential effects on local air quality of traffic movements generated by the proposed development with specific reference to NOx and fine particles (PM10). The assessment reflects the forecast traffic generation figures set out in Section 3.7 – Transport.

3.1.2.2 Scope of the Assessment Transport consulting Engineers, Scott Wilson Ltd. provided the initial set of traffic data that was used in the Air Quality Assessment. The data was then further processed to produce required traffic flows representing the predicted Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the development. The following areas where then considered:

• The impact of NO2 and PM10 emissions from the construction phase traffic on local air quality.

• The impact of NO2 and PM10 emissions from traffic associated with the operation of

the proposed Renewable Energy Plant development on ambient air quality.

3.1.2.3 Methodology The potential impact of NOx and PM10 emissions from predicted traffic flow due to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant was investigated by utilising the Airviro data model. The scenarios were investigated under annual average weather conditions. The model is able to predict the hourly average pollution levels of a given area. Airviro uses a detailed map of Sheffield together with meteorological data collected from a Sheffield City Council mast located at Woodburn Road, S9. The location of the mast is within 4.2km southeast of the proposed development site at Blackburn Meadows and the weather data is considered to be representative. The dispersion modelling undertaken assessed the year 2011 “without” and “with” development NOx and PM10 emissions, and the year 2006 NOx and PM10 emissions. The year 2006 results served as baseline and were used to determine predicted future year NOx and PM10 concentrations effects on local air quality which may be due to additional traffic growth and changes in engine and fuel technologies.

58


59

The model was verified by predicting the NO2 concentration, for year 2006 at the location of an automatic monitoring station, GH2, located at Siemens Close, Sheffield S9. The predicted annual average NO2 concentration was then compared with the measured annual average NO2 value for the monitoring station. This enabled the calculation of a correction factor which was applied to the model results. For PM10, a background value for the location of the proposed development was obtained from “The UK Air Quality Archive: LAQM Tool” and added to the predicted PM10 values. The Airviro model is not a chemical model. It does not account for any chemical changes to NOx after release. Consequently, within the model, NOx emissions were treated as an inert gas. Application of the Derwent and Middleton1 (D-M) function enabled the predicted NOx emissions levels to be expressed as NO2.

3.1.2.4 Modelling Assessment and Results The traffic data provided by Scott Wilson (refer to Section 3.7 – Transport) was used to construct emissions databases (EDBs) in Airviro, for the years 2006, 2009 and 2011 (proposed opening year), respectively. The area modelled included the development site and the location of an automatic NOx and PM10 monitoring station, GH2, at Siemens Close, Tinsley. The area spans approximately 7.9km x 5.4km and includes sources of NOx and PM10 emissions from road traffic, industrial, commercial and residential locations. A Gaussian model was used because it is suitable for local and urban scale dispersion modelling. Emissions Database (EDB) The emissions database is a way of storing information on every major source of air pollution in the City. The database details the variations in emissions from each source and the variables that affect the total pollution loading in the air. Examples include variations in emissions brought about by changes in road networks, number of vehicles and performance, fuel technology, and/or alterations in industrial processes. Consequently, it provides useful reference or background information against which the impact of new developments can be assessed. NOx and PM10 Dispersion Results The dispersion modelling results below detail the estimated impact of NOx and PM10 traffic emissions during the construction and operation phases of the proposed development.

3.1.2.4.1 Construction Phase Dispersion Model Runs No. 1 & 2 These were based on year 2009 Emissions Database. NOx and PM10 emissions respectively were considered and the simulation results served both as the 2008 baseline, and as the “before construction” scenario.

1 Derwent R. G. and Middleton D. R., (1996), An Empirical Function for the Ratio NO2:NOx. Clean Air and Environmental Protection. Vol. 26, No.’s 3 and 4. National Society of Clean Air and Environmental Protection.


The results of this simulation enabled a comparison of the “before construction” scenario with that of the “during construction” scenario results. The simulation results were post-processed to obtain the annual average and other percentile NO2 concentration values for 2009. Post-processing involves the use of a statistical module within Airviro to obtain additional and desired statistical results. For example, annual or other hour averages, 8 or 24 hours. This allows a determination of whether predicted pollution levels breached any Government objectives. The simulation result – Figure 3.1(A) shows the predicted “before construction” annual average NO2 concentrations for year 2009, at the proposed development site. The predicted annual average NO2 concentrations in 2009 in the vicinity of the proposed development were found to be in the range 0.01 – 1.0 μg.m-3. The simulation result - Figure 3.1(B) shows the predicted “before construction” annual average PM10 concentrations for year 2009, at the proposed development site. The predicted annual average PM10 concentrations in 2009 in the vicinity of the proposed development were found to be in the range 0.001 – 0.019 μg.m-3. It is worth to mention that the predicted levels of NOx concentration impact due to construction traffic is low and falls outside the lower limit of the Derwent and Middleton1 above function, and therefore cannot be used to facilitate obtaining a meaningful conversion of NOx to NO2 concentrations. At these levels the complete conversion of NOx to NO2 can be assumed, and the predicted NOx concentrations considered as the NO2 equivalent. The results obtained would consequently represent worst case. Dispersion Model Run No. 3 & 4 These were also based on the year 2009 Emissions Database. The simulations were for the “during construction” traffic emissions scenario for NOx and for PM10 respectively for the proposed development. The results of these simulations will enable a comparison with the results of the “before construction” scenario. The simulation result – Figure 3.1(C) shows the predicted “during construction” annual average NO2 concentrations for year 2009. The predicted concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed development were found to be in the range 0 – 1.73 μg.m-3. The simulation result - Figure 3.1(D) shows the predicted “during construction” annual average PM10 concentrations for year 2009. The predicted concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed development were found to be in the range 0 – 0.03 μg.m-3.

Conclusion – Construction Phase The predicted impact of NO2 concentration from construction traffic for the proposed Renewable Energy Plant development in 2009 is shown in Table 3.1.2.1 and Figure 3.1(E). The table shows the difference in NO2 concentrations at various receptor locations, whilst the isopleths shown in Figure 3.1(E) show the difference in NO2 concentration between the levels predicted in Run 3 from those in Run 1, the ‘during construction’ and ‘before construction’ scenarios respectively.

60


From the assessment, the impact of NO2 concentration due to the construction traffic is predicted to be in the range, 0 – 1.03μg.m-3, the location of highest impact being under the M1 Viaduct on Alsing Road. Similarly, the predicted impact of PM10 concentrations from the construction phase traffic on local air quality in 2009, are shown in Figure 3.1(F). The table shows the difference in PM10 concentration at various receptor location, whilst the isopleths shown in Figure 3.1(F) show the difference in PM10 concentrations between the levels predicted in Run 4 from those in Run 2, the ‘during construction’ and ‘before construction’ scenarios respectively. From the assessment, the impact of PM10 concentration due to the construction phase traffic of the proposed development is predicted to be in the range, 0 – 0.025 μg.m-3, the location of highest impact being under the Viaduct on Alsing Road. The Operational Phase Modelling of the NOx and PM10 traffic emissions respectively, for the 2011 “with” and “without” development scenarios was also carried out. The impact of traffic emissions due to the proposed development was determined by comparing the “with” and the “without” development scenarios. The predicted pollutants concentrations for the “with” scenario was subtracted from those of the “without” scenario. Figures 3.1(G) – 3.1 (L) show detail dispersion maps of the predicted concentrations of NOx and PM10, respectively. Figures 3.1(M) and 3.1(N) in particular show the NOx and PM10 development phase traffic impact. The modelling results show that the impact of development traffic NOx and PM10 emissions respectively, on local air quality are very small, and that the predicted concentrations of both pollutants due to traffic are less than 0.9μg.m-3. The location of the highest predicted values of NOx or PM10 respectively, was found to be under the M1 Viaduct along Alsing Road (Table 3.1.2.1).

Table 3.1.2.1 – Receptor Locations

Construction Phase Year

2009 Before Construction Baseline

2009 "During" Construction Impact

Construction Traffic Impact

Receptor Location X Y NO2 PM10 NO2 PM10 NO2 PM10 Groundhog 2 440077 390794 0.004 0.0001 0.011 0.0003 0.006 0.0002 Sheffield Tinsley (SUN*) 440158 390677 0.003 0.0001 0.009 0.0002 0.005 0.0001 Tansley St 438741 391595 0.010 0.0003 0.025 0.0007 0.015 0.0004 Raby St 440239 391159 0.006 0.0002 0.015 0.0004 0.009 0.0002 Jenkins Rd School 438587 390645 0.004 0.0001 0.010 0.0003 0.006 0.0002 Alsing Rd 439388 391373 0.212 0.0055 0.525 0.0138 0.313 0.0082 Meadow Hall 439192 390957 0.013 0.0003 0.033 0.0009 0.020 0.0005 The Viaduct 439453 391472 0.635 0.0166 1.570 0.0412 0.938 0.0246 * - Statutory Urban Network

61


Operation Phase Year

2011 Before Operation: Baseline

2011 Operation Impact

Operation Traffic Impact

Receptor Location X Y NO2 PM10 NO2 PM10 NO2 PM10 Groundhog 2 440077 390794 0.9020 0.0272 0.9130 0.0275 0.0111 0.0003 Sheffield Tinsley (SUN*) 440158 390677 0.6280 0.0190 0.6370 0.0193 0.0083 0.0002 Tansley St 438741 391595 1.3700 0.0351 1.3900 0.0356 0.0203 0.0005 Raby St 440239 391159 0.7940 0.0237 0.8050 0.0240 0.0109 0.0003 Jenkins Rd School 438587 390645 0.7050 0.0200 0.7140 0.0203 0.0092 0.0002 Alsing Rd 439388 391373 5.9600 0.1670 6.2900 0.1750 0.3330 0.0082 Meadow Hall 439192 390957 2.600 0.0768 2.6400 0.777 0.0337 0.0009 The Viaduct 439453 391472 4.3600 0.1170 5.2000 0.1380 0.8420 0.0205

3.1.2.5 The Proposed Development NO2 Impact and the Air Quality Objective The annual average air quality for NO2 is 40µg/m3. The modelling results show that the predicted NO2 levels at the proposed Blackburn Meadows development site are in the range 23 - 33µg/m3 and are below the annual objective. The predicted NO2 contribution to local air quality from the proposed development is estimated to be in the range 0 - 85µg/m3. These results suggest that the proposed Renewable Energy Plant development is unlikely to cause a significant extension of the existing AQMA. However, adequate mitigation measures will go some way to further reduce this level of impact.

3.1.2.6 The Proposed Development PM10 Impact and the Air Quality Objective The annual average air quality objective for PM10 is 40µg/m3. The modelling results show that the predicted PM10 concentrations at the proposed development site are in the range 20.8 – 22.4µg/m3 and are below the annual objective. The predicted PM10 contribution to local air quality from the proposed development is determined to be in the range 0 – 0.0205µg/m3. These results suggest that the proposed Renewable Energy Plant development is unlikely to cause the creation of a new AQMA based upon PM10.

3.1.2.7 Conclusions The Air Quality Assessment of the impacts of traffic generated by the proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant was conducted by computer modelling. The results show that the predicted local NOx (NO2) and PM10 concentration increases as a result of the development traffic in 2011 of between 0 – 0.85 and 0 – 0.0205 μg.m-3 respectively, are of minor significance and are unlikely to cause a breach of the annual average air quality objective or render unworkable any action on the Air Quality Action Plan or cause an extension of the existing Sheffield Air Quality Management Area.

62


Adequate mitigation measures will go some way to reducing the air quality impact of the proposed development.

3.1.2.8 Recommendations It is considered that the minor impacts of NO2 and PM10 that have been estimated can be mitigated by the following measures:

1. Construction phase – Use the London Councils’ Best Practice Guidance, November 2006, “The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition”, as guide to evaluate and manage dust emissions during this phase.

2. Fleet management – Ensure that heavy and light duty vehicles delivering to the

proposed site are fitted with exhaust after treatment technologies such as catalysts, if the vehicles are Euro II standard, or that they meet Euro III standard minimum and that by 2011 such vehicles should be upgraded to Euro IV standard.

• Establish a fleet improvement agreement, and

• Adopt an effective Fleet management system

3. Support to Air Quality Action Plan as appropriate

63


64

3.1.3 Odour Emissions An overview of the relevant practice for the assessment of odour in the UK is described and this has been used as context to describe the baseline conditions in the area of the Blackburn Meadows site and the potential impact of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant.

3.1.3.1 Planning There are no statutory standards for odour in the UK, however, excessive odour can be considered to be a statutory nuisance. A recent Code of Practice published by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)2 provides further information on when an odour may become a nuisance using the following factors:

• Frequency: How often an individual is exposed to an odour • Intensity: The perceived strength of the odour • Duration: The length of a particular odour event • Offensiveness: The nature of the odour – whether it is particularly unpleasant • Location: The type of land use and nature of the activities in the area

These principles indicate that for an odour nuisance to arise, individuals must be exposed to a level of odour above a particular threshold on a number of occasions. The DEFRA Code of Practice indicates that dispersion modelling can be used to assess the changes in odour levels and that numerical criteria are required against which the results of the modelling can be compared. The Code notes that there are no statutory limits in the UK although there are limits based on custom and practice.

3.1.3.1.1 National Planning Policy Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 Odour is primarily controlled through the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (1990). Part III of the EPA consolidated and strengthened existing controls over statutory nuisance and allows powers for action to be taken by Local Authorities or individuals against a statutory nuisance that exists or is likely to occur or re-occur. Statutory nuisances include: “(b) any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises, which are prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. Air quality assessment largely concentrates on the impact of more typical health related pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. However, a more frequent air quality related matter appears to be increasingly important in reaching planning decisions namely the potential odour impacts of development, or the potential impact of neighbouring activities on the proposed development.

2 Code of Practice on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Works, Defra, 2006


65

Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control3, sets out the Government’s core policies and principles on land use planning issues related to pollution. “Any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to an impact on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from any land use”. Appendix A to PPS23 reinforces the role of the Environmental Protection Act, in consideration in decisions on individual planning applications, stating: “emissions of….smell….from the development might nevertheless be seriously detrimental to amenity in addition to constituting a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990”. PPS23 further describes the requirement for appropriate siting of development with regard to existing sources of pollution: “the need to separate necessary but potentially polluting and other land uses…so as to reduce conflicts, for example by identifying where necessary areas around existing sources of pollution (including roads) in which proposed new developments and uses, should be carefully considered”. In the case of potentially polluting developments, consideration is given to the effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site such that the cumulative effects of pollution when the proposed development is added would make that development unacceptable.

3.1.3.1.2 Local Planning Policy The Sheffield City Council – Unitary Development Plan (UDP)4, which is the statutory development plan for Sheffield, affords no specific attention to the issue of odour, although deals with it indirectly through GE23, relating to air pollution: “Development will be permitted only where it would not locate sensitive uses where they would be adversely affected by sources of air pollution”. Sensitive uses are further described as including hotels, residential institutions, housing and community facilities. The site is further defined by the Proposals Map as a Location for Industrial Development (Policy IB2). “New industrial development will be promoted in suitable locations, particularly near the M1 motorway”.

3 ODPM, 2007. Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control 4 The Sheffield City Council Unitary Development Plan, Sheffield City Council, Adopted March 1998


3.1.3.2 Baseline Land use in general is mixed, with main roads including the M1 motorway, railway lines, the River Don, industrial and commercial units in the proximity of the Blackburn Meadows site. In addition, dense areas of residential properties are also found located to the north and south of the site. Of particular note is the Blackburn Meadows Sewage Treatment Works (STW), which lies to the north and east of the site, and is operated by Yorkshire Water Services. Sewage is produced as a by-product of human existence and numerous industrial processes and is odorous by nature. Although primarily comprised of water, sewage contains various other biological and chemical materials that are capable of causing pollution. Although odours may arise from any number of activities in the area, the Blackburn Meadows STW is expected to represent the dominant source. The nature of operations at the STW gives rise to offensive odour which, if not adequately controlled, can give cause for public complaint. Discussions are ongoing between Yorkshire Water Serves, the Environment Agency and Sheffield City Council to reduce the incidence of odour from this STW.

3.1.3.3 Potential impacts from odorous emissions In summary, the following observations may be drawn:

• Whilst there are no statutory standards for odour in the UK, excessive odour can be considered to be a statutory nuisance;

• The land use in general around the application site is mixed but of particular note is

the adjacent Blackburn Meadows Sewage Treatment Works.

• The construction of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant development would not entail any activities not found generally on typical construction sites in the UK.

• Land use at the Blackburn Meadows site recognises the challenges of the spatial

setting, in terms of the adjacent sewage treatment works and other sites, and proximity with the M1 motorway corridor. In support of this, the site designation as Location for Industrial Development restricts exposure to increased residential and commercial occupants;

• The operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant would not include any

activities that generate odour.

3.1.3.4 Impact Assessment Potential impacts have been considered with respect to the construction and operational phases of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant.

66


Construction Impacts The construction of the proposed development would not entail any activities not found on a typical construction site in the UK. Odour is not associated with construction sites except during removal or reclamation of contaminated land, particularly in the case of gas works. Refer to Section 3.10 – Contaminated Land/Geology.

Operational Impacts Clean recycled wood chip fuel is not inherently odorous. In order to provide thermal performance, and to ensure air quality emission are maintained within acceptable limits, clean recycled wood chip fuel would be expected to be free from contamination and therefore not provide odour other than that of the natural wood. Material would be provided by an external contractor according to a specified requirement relating to particle size, composition and contamination. Routine inspection of material delivered to site would ensure that wood chip on site would be within acceptable limits with regards to both levels of non-wood material and to the particle size which may affect the potential for odour migration through airborne particulates. Material not complying with the required specification would either be not accepted, or stored temporarily prior to removal off-site. Biomass fuel in the form of recycled wood chips, forest residues, cereal co-products and solid recovered fuel would be delivered to the site in covered heavy goods vehicles and off load to a fuel reception terminal. The biomass fuel would then be transferred pneumatically to contained fuel store. Displaced air from storage areas would pass through filters prior to release to the atmosphere. Within the site, movement of materials within enclosed conveyors would further minimise exposure of materials. The Renewable Energy Plant would not be expected to include any other components that generate odour. As a result, operation of the proposed Plant would not be expected to include any activities that generate odour.

3.1.3.5 Effects from Adjacent Sites Operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant would not be expected to be significantly affected by the presence of the adjacent Sewage Treatment Works. While odour generated at the STW may affect the Renewable Energy Plant, use of the Blackburn Meadows site for industrial purposes may be considered complimentary to the STW, as recognised by demarcation of the site by the UDP as a ‘Location for Industrial Development’. Both during construction and operation, access to the site would be restricted to authorised personnel, and controlled by health and safety provisions appropriate to the site conditions. Above all, exposure of Renewable Energy Plant employees to odour would not be expected to exceed levels of exposure by employees at the STW.

3.1.3.6 Conclusions

• While there are no statutory standards for odour in the UK, excessive odour can be considered to be a statutory nuisance;

• The land use in general around the application site is mixed but of particular note is

the adjacent Blackburn Meadows Sewage Treatment Works.

67


• The construction of the proposed development would not entail any activities not

found on a typical construction site in the UK. • Land use at the Blackburn Meadows site recognises the challenges of the spatial

setting, in terms of the adjacent sewage treatment works and other sites, and proximity with the M1 motorway corridor. In support of this, the site designation as Location for Industrial Development restricts exposure to increased residential and commercial occupants;

• The operation of the proposed development would not include any activities that

generate odour.

68


3.1.4 References

• Bethan, S. (2007) Predicted and measured SO2 concentrations presented in AQMP reviews 2001 – 2004. JEP Report, PT/06/BE1121/R

• CERC, (2000) ADMS 3 Validation Summary. ED/TS/SP191.

• Defra and the devolved administrations, (2000). The Air Quality Strategy for

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Cm4548, SE2000/3, NIA7.

• Defra and the devolved administrations, (2003). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Addendum, Product Code PB7874.

• Defra and the devolved administrations, (2007). The Air Quality Strategy for

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Cm 7169 NIA 61/06-07

• Environment Agency, (2003). Horizontal Technical Guidance Note IPPC H1, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT, Version 6, July 2003. ISBN 0 11 3101082

• EPAQS, (2006). Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, Guidelines for Halogens and

Hydrogen Halides in Ambient Air for Protecting Human Health against Acute Irritancy Effects,

• http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/publications/halogens/index.htm (October 2007)

• European Commission (2000). European Commission, Waste Incineration Directive,

2000/76/EC, December 2000.

• HMIP, (1993) Technical Guidance Note (Dispersion) D1. Guidelines on discharge stack heights for polluting emissions. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, June 1993. ISBN 0 11 752794 7

• JEP, 2007. Pollution Inventory 2006: Electricity Supply Industry Methodology. Joint

Environmental Programme report, January 2007.

• ODPM, (2005) Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, March 2005.

• Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (2002) Stage 4 Air Quality Review and

Assessment. Available at • http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/graphics/Environment/Air+Quality (October 2007)

• Sheffield City Council (2006) Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment 2006.

Available at http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/environment/waste-and-pollutio-ir-and-noise-pollutio-ir-quality/air-quality-management/review-and-assessment (October 2007)

• Sheffield City Council (2007), Development Environment and Leisure. Air Quality

Impact Assessment.

69


3.2 Water Quality 3.2.1 Introduction The proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows will be fitted with either an Air Cooled Condenser (ACC) or a hybrid cooling tower system in order to condense the discharge steam from the turbine. This will reduce both water requirements for the Plant and the volume of aqueous discharges. However, the Plant will require a water supply and there will be small volumes of effluent discharged from it. 3.2.2 Water Supply The Renewable Energy Plant will utilise a towns water supply to be drawn from the existing public water mains. This water will be required for:

• Filling and topping up the boiler water (boiler feedwater) • Ancillary services • Domestic requirements

The supply from the existing public water main will be sufficient owing to the inclusion of an ACC, which will consume negligible quantities of water. In the case of a Hybrid Cooling Tower system being used, it is envisaged that the cooling water will be abstracted and discharged to the River Don, subject to consent as part of the IPPC permit for the Plant. A water treatment plant will be installed to treat the towns water that is used as boiler feedwater to the high quality required by the steam turbine and boilers. The incoming water supply will be received at the Plant’s break tank(s) which will comply with water bye-laws and prevent reverse contamination back into the towns water supply. 3.2.3 Aqueous Discharges The following aqueous discharges will be produced by the Renewable Energy Plant:

• Surface water drainage • Sewage discharge • Treated process water

The process water will comprise:

• Effluent from the water demineralisation plant • Boiler blow down

Surface Water Drainage Clean water run off from building roofs will be discharged into the River Don. Other surface water from hard standing and car parking areas will be discharged into the River Don via a suitable separator.

70


The biomass wood chips will be stored in an enclosed storage facility and buffer silos. This will prevent any ammonia being leached from decomposing wood and bark into the surface waters. Sewage Discharge and Process Water Discharge Foul (sewage) drainage water will be discharged into the existing sewer network and not the River Don. From discussions with Yorkshire Water, there is sufficient capacity for the infrequent discharge of process water. 3.2.4 Construction Impacts Water will be required during the construction phase. Potential effects from the construction site include run-off of suspended solids and chemical or oil spillages reaching the drains or contaminating groundwater. These will be managed under an environmental management plan designed to prevent such impacts occurring. There is a possibility of some water being required for chemical cleaning during the construction of the Plant. Any such process will be controlled closely by formal method statements and agreed with the Environment Agency. It is anticipated that there will be very little need for such cleaning with modern manufacturing and construction techniques. 3.2.5 Site Drainage Surface water from the development will be discharged via a drainage system. The system will include an oil interceptor facility. The on-site storage facilities for processed biomass fuel and ash will be enclosed; therefore there will be no contamination of surface water through dissolution or from suspended solids contribution from these stores. There should be no contamination of groundwaters resulting from the proposed development. At the detailed design stage for the proposed development careful consideration will be given to the following mitigation options:

• Rainwater harvesting involving the collection and storage of rainwater from roofs of buildings and paved “clean” areas for subsequent re-use. The intention is for collected rainwater to supplement the water supply for Plant facilities (i.e. flushing toilets).

• The installation of extensive green roofs on some of the buildings such as the

administration building. A green roof is a multi-layered system that covers the top of a building with vegetation, and can be used to reduce both the volume and rate of runoff so as to mimic pre-development state.

• The control, treatment and disposal of surface water where practical using

Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) techniques such as permeable paving to prevent pollution to the River Don and groundwater;

• Excavation and removal of the existing paved / concrete surfaces on the Blackburn

Meadows site as part of the mitigation compensation works. The undeveloped site will then be re-profiled. Reducing the existing paved surfaces from the remaining site will reduce the impermeable area, and consequently reduce the rate of runoff overall.

For further information refer to Appendix D.

71


3.2.5.1 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Introduction The site for the proposed development is located next to the River Don in Sheffield and to the east of the M1 at Tinsley comprising approximately 12 hectares. The site currently falls within the 1 in 100 year flood plain, Flood Zone 3a, but following consultation with the Environment Agency the proposed development is classified as essential infrastructure and has been designed with the regard to flood risk. • the proposed buildings will be raised above 1 in 100 year flood level with allowance for

climate change and with a 300mm freeboard • mitigation for loss of flood plain will provide a net gain in storage volume • a surface water management plan to control rate and volume of runoff from the site

incorporating SUDS proposals will be prepared • a flood alarm system (see Blackburn Meadows – Flood Risk Assessment) will be

provided

This design statement considers a ‘surface water management plan’ for the development and describes a Sustainable Drainage (SUDS) design to control the rate, frequency and volume of runoff from the proposed development, prevent pollution of the river and surrounding area, and provide amenity with biodiversity benefits as described in current guidance -The SUDS Manual 2007 CIRIA 697. The new SUDS Manual CIRIA C 697 describes Outline Drainage Proposals p 2-14: ‘The proposal should describe ideas for integrating the drainage system into the landscape or required public open space and the methods that will be used for linking systems together and managing flows in excess of the design event. At this stage there should be no need to submit initial calculations, but they should be carried out to roughly size any significant drainage structures.’ This Outline Drainage Proposal describes the SUDS strategy, together with the type of SUDS techniques proposed for the scheme, the management train and source control as required as ‘best practice’ in the guidance and recognises that full details will be required for Detailed Drainage Design. Site Context The mitigation measures proposed for the site raise the development area, where buildings and access roads are located, to above the 1 in 100 year flood plain with allowance for climate change and a freeboard of 300mm to a level of 31.53 AOD. The remainder of the site is lowered, where appropriate, to provide additional floodplain storage at levels between 28.6 – 30.6m AOD.

The site is now considered to comprise two distinct components:

• the developed area above the 1 in 100 year flood plain and • the lower area within the floodplain subject to flooding on a more frequent basis.

72


The surface water management plan for the development of the site will provide a SUDS scheme for the raised developed area and a landscape strategy for both the higher and the lower area to provide flooding capacity with integrated landscape and biodiversity opportunities.

The SUDS scheme will collect, clean and store runoff from the developed part of the site

discharging the water at ‘greenfield rate’ of runoff to the floodplain. Storage for the 1 in 100 return period with an allowance for climate change will be stored within the developed part of the site.

The floodplain area, created for flood mitigation purposes, will be designed to flood as part of

natural river behaviour with landscape character to provide screening where necessary and habitat development as part of local Biodiversity Action Plan recommendations. SUDS Strategy The proposed Renewable Energy Plant is conceived to demonstrate sustainability ‘best practice’ and it is proposed that the Sustainable Drainage will provide an example of SUDS ‘best practice’ which is legible and understandable to visitors. • A review of site practice will determine ‘prevention’ measures to ensure that point source

pollution or spillage is managed on site and cannot contaminate runoff. • All runoff from roofs and hard surfaces will be collected through ‘source control’

techniques such as greenroofs, permeable pavement, filter strips or under-drained swales as a ‘first stage’ cleaning process. These features will be located throughout the developed area to collect runoff ‘at source’. Green roofs will be limited to those roofs appropriate to this SUDS technique but other roofs can be used for rain harvesting. Please refer to Figure 3.2.1.

• Conveyance routes, such as open swales, will carry the water to the second ‘treatment

stage’ areas comprising temporary storage basins within the site landscape. These SUDS structures will be designed as landscape features.

• Stage 3 is a proposed linear wetland and storage feature along the southern edge of the

development with final discharge to the floodplain at ‘greenfield rate’. This completes a three stage ‘management train’ as recommended in The SUDS Manual guidance.

Maximum storage volumes are based upon approximately 71mm of rainfall on all developed areas during a 1 in 100 year return period with 20% allowance for climate change. This assessment, based on the HR Wallingford Rational methodology can provide a series of surface water storage volumes for different return periods allowing sequential storage of runoff in the ‘management train’ as recommended in the new SUDS Manual guidance. The maximum developed area, not allowing for green space, is approximately 33200m2 which will result in a proposed maximum total storage volume of 2357.2m3. This volume will reduce on analysis of green space and green roof allowances. Interception storage, the first 5mm, will be achieved using SUDS technique selection to encourage infiltration or evaporation back into the atmosphere. This is a new recommendation in the guidance. The remaining storage volume will be distributed around the development site within permeable pavement, detention basins and the final treatment wetland.

73


Each ‘treatment stage’ in the ‘management train’ will be visible, wherever possible, with simple control structures and conveyance routes to provide a SUDS system that can offer a learning resource as well as be a simple system to maintain. The final controlled outfalls from the ‘stage 3’ linear wetland will deliver clean water, at greenfield rate of runoff (5L/sec/ha or as agreed) to a ‘natural’ flow path that leads through the flood plain landscape to an outfall to the River Don. In the event of exceedance of the design storm there will be a clear exceedance route to allow excess water to flow slowly into the flood mitigation space and onward to the River Don. Rain harvesting Although it is expected that there will be relatively few permanent staff on site, it should be practical to include a simple rain harvesting system using roof water or rainfall collected in permeable pavement to provide non-potable water for uses such as toilet flushing. This facility would again be an example of ‘best practice’ for the site. Landscape Strategy The site comprises two discreet areas, the upper level accommodating the proposed Renewable Energy Plant with associated infrastructure and the lower areas designed to provide mitigation for floodplain storage. Please refer to Figure 3.2.2. The Upper Development Level The upper level will use a combination of native and amenity planting to provide an attractive Plant site with some screen planting towards the river along the banks of the proposed treatment wetland. Where possible, the SUDS features will create a visual infrastructure with planting designed to reflect the direction of water flow and a sense of place around the collector basins.

It is proposed that the Plant will have a social function by encouraging organised pre-arranged visits by the public to a working Renewable Energy Plant. Therefore an access and circular path system leading into the lower level and back again is incorporated in the design.

The upper level is a working industrial space and will therefore reflect this functionality in the practical hard surface design and robust planting proposals.

Detailed planting proposals will be provided at detail design stage subject to consultation and agreement.

The Lower Flood Mitigation Level The lower level of the site offers a unique opportunity to recreate a semi-natural landscape that allows periodic flooding within a bio-diverse infrastructure.

The main visually important component of the landscape in the lower area is the provision of woodland screening from the south. This will provide a wooded corridor immediately next to the river reducing visual permeability towards the Plant. However this screen will be penetrated by the proposed Fixed Link Road, if built, where woodland is interrupted to reduce possible impacts on canopy foraging fauna.

74


The excavated profile of the new floodplain will comprise a diverse surface profile to provide a slow route for cleaned runoff to reach the River Don with habitat creation to reflect the wetland mosaic expected in a river floodplain. The mosaic should include temporary and permanent water features in both shaded and un-shaded situations, open habitat and re-generating river valley woodland. The proposals should meet BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) and HAP (Habitat Action Plan) recommendations with a presumption in favour of native species and creative natural planting based on locally appropriate NVC communities. The future soil and hydrological characteristics of the site will be difficult to predict so a degree of flexibility in planting and management will be required for the project.

A ‘demonstration’ energy crop area adjacent to a ‘wildlife pond’ with controlled access will be developed to provide visitor interest and an educational resource.

A controlled pedestrian and vehicle entry to the flood mitigation area, with a simple circulation pattern, will allow access for occasional management of habitat areas and a route for an exciting visitor experience.

Detailed planting proposals will be provided at detail design stage subject to consultation and agreement. 3.2.6 Conclusions The waste water will be treated before discharge and is expected to have a negligible impact on the River Don and will comply with the regulations and limits set down by the Environment Agency.

75


3.3 By-products and Solid Waste 3.3.1 Introduction This section describes the by-products and solid wastes produced as a result of constructing and operating the Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows, and the means of their disposal. 3.3.2 Generation of By-products and Waste

3.3.2.1 Pre-Construction / Construction It is envisaged that existing made ground from the previous power station will be excavated and re-used on site where possible. This will assist in minimising the number of construction traffic movements to and from the site. All material must be re-used on site in accordance with Waste Management Regulations 1994. Preferably, the re-use of material should be performed in accordance with a waste management license exemption, which can be obtained for non-hazardous waste only with a risk assessment. The presence of significant levels of contamination including asbestos, heavy metals and hydrocarbon contamination can render the waste hazardous. Intrusive ground investigations performed on site have identified the presence of Hazardous contamination in the following areas:

• Elevated levels of hydrocarbons and detectable levels of asbestos fibres have been identified in the northern part of the former Blackburn Meadows power station turbine hall and in the location of the former cooling tower in the centre of the northern site boundary;

• Elevated levels of asbestos fibres have been encountered at two locations in the

demolition spoil mound in the east of the site.

• A Type 2 Standard Sampling Asbestos Survey encountered asbestos fragments on the surface at a number of locations. The surface contamination was however considered to be “minor and sporadic”

Where possible on-site remediation methods will be utilised in accordance with a Mobile Plant License, or Waste Management license exemption, to minimize the requirement for off-site disposal of contaminated material. Where disposal is unavoidable this will be undertaken in accordance with the pre-treatment requirements of the Landfill Regulations 2002, as amended. Further sampling will be undertaken to identify only those areas of contaminated material, and to minimise disposal of non-hazardous soil. All waste will be classified in accordance with the Waste Acceptance Criteria defined under the Landfill Regulations and transferred using carriers authorised under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and the Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991. A watching brief will also be maintained when significant excavation of the site is required. Caution will therefore be applied and operatives informed accordingly.

76


Any other waste produced will be managed in accordance with an Environmental Management Plan as outlined in the “Geology and Land Contamination” section.

3.3.2.2 Operational Impacts The burning of biomass produces two types of ash:

• Furnace Bottom Ash • Filter Ash

Furnace Bottom Ash Furnace Bottom Ash (FBA) is formed from an inorganic material with a small proportion of carbon particles resulting from combustion of biomass. It is usually produced when ash adheres as hot particles to the furnace walls, agglomerates and then falls down to the furnace base, where it can be removed. FBA ranges in grain size from fine particulate matter to coarse lumps and is dark grey to black in appearance. In the case of a fluidised bed combustor, there will also be a proportion of rejected agglomerated bed sand within the FBA. Assuming a 90% load factor it is expected that approximately 1500 tonnes of FBA will be produced annually. It is anticipated that the FBA will be sold for commercial applications such as block making, road construction and construction infill. Any FBA that has not been sold will be treated as a waste product from the process. The EU Commission Decision 2000/532/EC, which establishes the criteria and procedures for acceptance at landfills, has been implemented by The List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005 (SI/895). FBA from the combustion of biomass is likely to be classified as non hazardous waste. FBA, as with other wastes, will need to meet Waste Acceptance Criteria testing thresholds before being accepted for landfill (Environment Agency, 2006). FBA will not be stored on site for a prolonged period. It is expected to be sold and transported away from the site by road, using the appropriate dust mitigation measures.

Filter Ash Fly ash is formed from an inorganic material with a small proportion of carbon particles resulting from combustion. It is trapped in the Fabric Filter unit from which it is then removed. It has similar chemical compositions to FBA. Fly ash usually consists of very fine particulate matter of even consistency and is light grey in appearance. The combustion process will produce high quality fly ash as a by-product, i.e. containing less than 5% carbon in ash by mass and less than 12% by weight of 45μin sieve particle size. However, reagents such as calcium hydroxide and activated carbon will be injected up stream of the Fabric Filter in order to control emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere. Due to the addition of reagents to the fly ash, in accordance with The List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005 (SI/895), the resulting Filter Ash is likely to be classified as a hazardous waste and will need to be disposed of in a suitably licensed site.

77


Assuming a 90% load factor, it is expected that an average of 6,000 tonnes of Filter Ash will be produced annually. 3.3.3 Ash Disposal All of the FBA for the existing units is sold to the construction industry, mostly for road construction. There is a significant demand for this type of ash within this industry. E.ON is seeking long-term ash sales options in the locality, although more specific details cannot be provided at present. E.ON UK has successfully sold an average of over 85% of ash produced in the period 2001 – 2005 and this is published in its Corporate Social Responsibility Report. There is likely to be a high demand for ash in the area so this level of sales, or even higher, should be maintained. Filter Ash is likely to be disposed of to a suitable licensed landfill site although every effort will be made to sell the Filter Ash if possible. Due to the diverse nature and location of customers and landfill sites, all ash will continue to be transported by road. The transport assessment includes a worst case assessment of this. FBA will be transported from site in covered lorries. Filter Ash will be transported from site in a dry form in sealed road tankers or it will be conditioned with water for dust suppression and transported from site in covered lorries. 3.3.4 Water Treatment Wastes The make-up water treatment plant will generate a liquid waste with a greater dissolved salt concentration than the raw water, together with excess acids and alkalis and rinse water. The pre-treatment plant, where supplied, will generate both solid and liquid wastes. All liquid wastes from the make-up water treatment plant shall be directed to one or more sumps or holding tanks capable of holding the wastes from a 24 hour operating period. This system shall include automatic facilities for mixing, neutralising and monitoring the combined liquid waste to an acceptable pH range for discharge under local environmental legislation in accordance with Best Available Technique (BAT). Solid wastes from the water treatment process shall be concentrated and dewatered, if necessary, and disposed to landfill, or other such route as identified in accordance with local environmental and pollution control legislation. 3.3.5 Conclusions The by-products and solid wastes produced as a result of constructing and operating the Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows will be re-used where possible otherwise disposed in accordance with the relevant waste management regulations as referred above.

78


3.4 Flood Risk 3.4.1 Introduction This Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared by Atkins Limited for E.ON, in support of the planning application for their proposed Renewable Energy Plant at the former Blackburn Meadows power station site in Sheffield. This FRA has been undertaken in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk (PPS25), to support the planning application submission to Sheffield County Council. This Assessment includes a ‘Sequential Test’ and an ‘Exception Test’ (Appendix H) as required under paragraph 18 of PPS25. The Section contains a commentary on the reasons leading to the requirement for the Sequential and Exception Tests, examination of relevant considerations relating to flood risk, an assessment of residual risks following mitigation and overall conclusions in relation to the acceptability of the project in the flood plain. Site Conditions The site is designated as ‘brownfield,’ covered with the remnants of paved surfaces such as roads, concrete slabs and disused drainage infrastructure (see Figure 3.4.1). Grassed areas are visible along the south western corner. An existing YEDL’s primary electrical substation served by underground cables is located in the centre of the site (see Figure 3.4.2). The published geological map for the area shows the site to be underlain by alluvium deposits, mapped as mudstone and siltstone of the Upper Coal Measures of Carboniferous age. Factual data obtained from the ‘Blackburn Meadows Power Station Redevelopment Interpretative Report on Preliminary Ground Investigation’ (Soil Mechanics, 2007), indicates the site geology is composed of made ground and alluvium overlying medium to dense Coarse Sands and Gravels. Catchment Description The River Don rises in the Southern Pennines and flows for approximately 112km eastbound through the Don Valley. The catchment comprises large urban and industrial areas, including all of Sheffield and its surrounding urban areas, Rotherham, Doncaster, Barnsley and Chesterfield. The Don’s two main tributaries are the River Rother to the South and the Dearne to the North. Further downstream of Doncaster, another watercourse joins the Don called Ea Beck. The steep upper parts of the Don, Rother and Dearne contrast sharply with the very flat Ea Beck and Lower Don. Consequently the Don, Rother and Dearne respond quickly to rainfall in their headwaters; but in the lower reaches of the Ea Beck and Don significant flood events tend to be much longer in duration. Almost half the catchment upstream of the site in Sheffield drains through several water supply reservoirs which influence the flood response. According to the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH)-CD ROM, the River Don catchment area upstream of the site is approximately 42 km2.

79


3.4.2 Planning Context Flood risk should be considered alongside other spatial planning issues 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 improved local amenities and better overall quality of life. Planning Policy Statement 25 PPS25 published in December 2006 sets out government policy on development and flood risk. It aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages of the planning process, to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is thought necessary in areas of flood risk, PPS25 aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reduce flood risk overall. PPS25 replaces Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPG25), published in July 2001. PPS25 promotes a sequential risk-based approach to determine the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas. The application of the Sequential Test is described in Section 3.4.8. PPS25 classifies the proposed Renewable Energy Plant as ‘Essential Infrastructure’, permitted in high probability flood zones, subject to passing the Exception Test. As stated in Table D.1 of PPS25, essential infrastructure permitted in high probability flood zones (Zone 3), “should be designed and constructed to remain operational in times of flood.” Strategic Flood Risk Assessment A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) informs the Local Development Framework (LDF), to ensure future sustainability of districts with regards to flood risk. A SFRA for Sheffield has been undertaken on behalf of Sheffield County Council, and is readily available on their website. Following consultations with the Environment Agency, it is understood that there are fundamental errors with the SFRA. As recommended by the Environment Agency, the site-specific flood risk information contained in the SFRA was considered as reference material only.

80


Flood Risk and Return Period Flood Risk includes the statistical probability of an event occurring and the scale of the potential consequences. The risk is estimated from historical data and expressed in terms of the expected frequency (or ‘return period’) of a flood of a given magnitude. The 10-year, 50-year and the 100-year floods have a 10%, 2% and 1% chance respectively of occurring in any given year (this is termed the Annual Exceedance Probability, AEP), however over a longer period the probability of flooding is considerably greater. 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 year; • a 26% chance of it occurring or being exceeded in a 30-year period; and • a 51% chance of it occurring or being exceeded in a 70-year period.

3.4.3 Environment Agency Requirements Following consultations with the Development Control Section of the regional Environment Agency office, it has been agreed the proposed site lies in Flood Zone 3a and the proposed development is classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ (see Scope of Studies in Appendix A). This FRA has been undertaken to satisfy the following main requirements as identified by the Environment Agency:

• Assess flood risk to the proposed Plant taking into account the recent June 2007 extreme flood event;

• assess the mechanisms of flooding at the site and demonstrate that the development would not increase flood risk to existing infrastructure (e.g. electricity sub-station) and elsewhere;

• provide mitigation and flood compensation for the proposed development against the 1 in 100 year flood event, including 20% allowance for climate change;

• limit the rate of runoff from the proposed development to the allowable existing discharge rate from the undeveloped site, and reduce the rate of runoff overall;

• to demonstrate that any residual risks to the development and its users would be acceptable and that essential elements of Plant will remain operational during extreme events;

• provide safe access and egress to and from the site during flood events; • ensure a flood warning strategy is in place; and • aim to reduce flood risk overall

The methodology adopted for this FRA has been based upon Environment Agency ‘best practice’. The agreed ‘Scope of Studies’ dated 8th October, was presented to the Environment Agency on 25th October 2007 (copy of the scope is included in Appendix D). 3.4.4 Sources of Flooding

3.4.4.1 General PPS25 states that all types of flooding should be considered in the LDF. The extent to which these should be considered will vary and depend on whether they are considered as significant at the spatial planning scale and in setting constraints on development in certain areas. Consultations have been undertaken with the Environment Agency to determine their

81


specific requirements for this FRA, for the proposed development of the Blackburn Meadows site. The site is potentially at risk from the possible sources of flooding:

• Rivers - The River Don • Groundwater • Surface Water Runoff • Surcharge of Sewers • Infrastructure Failure

3.4.4.2 Flooding from Rivers

Flooding from rivers occurs when the flow capacity of the channel of a river is exceeded, typically after periods of higher than average rainfall. Environment Agency Flood Risk Classification Flood Maps published by the Environment Agency and contain Flood Zones for use in accordance with PPS25. The Flood Zones represent flooding from rivers and the sea. Flood Zone 2 delineates an extreme flood outline from both the sea and rivers and is considered to represent a 0.1% probability (1000 year) flood event. Flood Zone 3 represents flooding from rivers with a 1% probability of flooding (100 year) occurring in any given year and from the sea with a 0.5 % probability of flooding (200 year) occurring in any given year. Both delineated flood outlines illustrate flood extent without either river or coastal flood defences. The Flood Zone outlines have been generated using a broad scale modelling approach and a crude digital terrain model to derive the flood outline. Figure 3.4.3 is an extract from the Environment Agency’s flood map with the site area edged in red (note this map assumes no flood defences are present). The flood map shows the site to be in Flood Zone 3; an area that has a significant chance of river flooding with a 1.3% (75 year) annual probability.

82


The food map illustrates the site is located wholly within the floodplain of the River Don. Consequently, if designed without appropriate mitigation, the site is considered at a high risk of river flooding (refer to Section 3.4.6 for proposed mitigation measures).

3.4.4.3 Flooding from Groundwater Groundwater flooding is caused by water originating from beneath the ground surface from permeable strata through a natural process, usually after periods of higher than average rainfall. This can lead to high levels of infiltration to sewers, underground services and soak-aways, reducing their capacity to remove surface water runoff. Information obtained from the ‘Blackburn Meadows Power Station Redevelopment Interpretative Report on Preliminary Ground Investigation’ (Soil Mechanics, 2007), indicates groundwater was observed at depths ranging from 0.15m to 4.70m below ground level. The presence of perched groundwater identified at shallow depths (i.e. localised bodies of water above the main water table), could potentially pose a high risk of groundwater flooding to below ground structures such as basements. The Groundwater Source Protection Zone map published by the Environment Agency indicates that the application site does not lie within any Source Protection Zone (i.e. designated areas around key drinking water abstraction points).

3.4.4.4 Flooding from Surface Water Runoff Flooding from surface water runoff includes water flowing over the ground that has not reached a natural or artificial drainage channel. This can occur when intense rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the ground, or when the ground is so highly saturated that it cannot accept anymore. Excess surface water runoff can originate either from on-site or from adjacent sites. The existing manholes and gullies identified on-site provide evidence of an existing piped drainage system, though it is understood this system is no longer operational. On this basis, although the Environment Agency have noted much of the site currently consists of paved areas, the maximum permitted direct discharge to the River Don has been restricted to 5 litres/second/hectare. This is considered equivalent to the ‘greenfield’ runoff rate from the undeveloped site. The Environment Agency has also indicated they would be looking for a minimum of 20% overall reduction in surface water runoff from the paved areas of the site, to take into account the effects of climate change. If designed without appropriate mitigation, the proposed development may increase the risk of flooding downstream due to the generation of increased volumes of surface water. Proposals for the design are included in the mitigation section 3.4.6. The risk of flooding from surface water runoff from adjacent sites is considered low, as the surrounding topography generally flat and there is no record of such events occurring in the past.

83


3.4.4.5 Flooding from Sewers The risk of developments flooding from sewers comes from either poorly performing drains and/or from the system drainage surcharging due to high river water levels in the receiving watercourse. There are no records of sewer flooding occurring at this site. The risk of flooding from rainfall intensities exceeding the ability of the system to collect and drain the site is described in the surface water runoff section above. Proposals for the design are included in the mitigation section 3.4.6. Off-site, a Sewage Treatment Works (SWT) is located along the northern boundary and a Canal is located in a north easterly direction. A storm water overflow drain lies along the northern boundary of the STW, which outfalls into the River Don further downstream of the site. Anecdotal evidence suggests this overflow drain was very close to being overtopped during the extreme June 2007 flood event. However due to the topography, it is anticipated excess flows from the overflow drain will be directed eastbound to discharge into the River Don downstream of the site boundary. Therefore, the risk of flooding from off-site sewers is considered low.

3.4.4.6 Flooding from Infrastructure Failure Flood risk can result from failure of infrastructure which transmits, retains or controls the flow of water. Examples could include failure of a dam, canals, burst water mains or blocked sewers. Complete or partial blockage of any existing structures on the River Don upstream of the site presents a flood risk to the proposed development (This has been addressed as part of the assessment of River Flooding). Nearby infrastructure presenting potential flood risks to the site identified as part of this assessment include the aforementioned Sewage Treatment Works and Canal. There is no other known flood risk to the site from failure of infrastructure elsewhere. Due to the presence of the overflow drain and surrounding flat topography, the site is considered to be at a low risk from infrastructure failure. 3.4.5 Actual Flood Risk

3.4.5.1 Data Collection The following information was collected for this assessment:

• The Environment Agency Flood Map covering the site and adjacent areas. • topographic survey of existing ground levels at the site; • details of the proposed development site layout; • existing hydraulic model of the River Don; • site photographs and records from the recent June 2007 extreme flood event; • historical flooding data for the site; • hydrometric data for Hadfields, Ashlow and Rotherham gauges on the River Don; • flood warning and flood forecasting information relating to the River Don at the site.

84


3.4.5.2 Topography The topographic survey of the existing site is shown in Appendix D. The survey indicates the site is comparatively level, ranging from approximately 30.0 to 32.0m Above Ordinance Datum (AOD). A majority of the site lies between 30.2 and 30.6m AOD, rising above 31.0m AOD along the northern boundary and south western corner of the site. The existing paved surfaces are also illustrated.

3.4.5.3 Climate Change The potential effects of climate change must be accounted for in order to demonstrate that the development will be sustainable in flood risk terms. The official advice from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is that an additional 20% should be added to river flows to allow for climate change. Due to the relationship between rainfall and runoff being non-linear, the use of 10% additional rainfall is considered to approximate to a 20% increase in runoff for larger events. Therefore, when calculating storage volumes, 10% is added to the rainfall depth.

3.4.5.4 Flooding History The Flooding History: Flood Levels and Extents map covering the site was provided by the Environment Agency and is included in Appendix D. As illustrated, the site did not experience flooding from the River Don during the extreme historical floods of 1947 and autumn 2000. However, it is noted the information provided only covers the watercourses surveyed after the flood events, and other localised flooding may have occurred which is not shown. The flood history information provided by the Environment Agency does not take into account the recent extreme June 2007 flood event. June 2007 Flood Event Records show that the site was affected during this extreme flood event. Surveyed water levels indicate the site was inundated up to depths of 0.9m in areas. This event is the only available record the site has ever flooded to this extent. Consequently, the Environment Agency has requested for the extreme June 2007 flood event to be taken into account when assessing the actual flood risk at the site. The existing primary substation on-site is owned by YEDL and held on a long lease from E.ON UK. In light of the extreme June flood event, the Environment Agency has requested that the existing standard of flood protection to the substation is improved, to ensure the proposed Plant will remain operational during a flood.

3.4.5.5 Assessment of River Flooding The Environment Agency has previously undertaken detailed hydraulic modelling of the River Don and this model has been used as the basis of this assessment. A detailed hydrological analysis has been undertaken to ensure that the design flood levels obtained for the site take full account of the June 2007 flood event. The model has been verified using data obtained from the Environment Agency from the June 2007 and design flow estimates have been updated.

85


River Don Section 105 Model The existing hydraulic model of the River Don was obtained from the Environment Agency. The model is an ISIS hydrodynamic model developed for Section 105 flood risk mapping in 2004. The model is extensive and complex covering the Rivers Don, Rother and many tributaries through the urban areas of Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster. The River Don model extends to Hadfields gauging station approximately 1.5km upstream of the site. The model includes extensive floodplain areas in the lower reaches of the River Don, but is bank to bank in the upper reaches including the site. The Section 105 model was designed for simulating the 100 year flood event and does not contain sufficient floodplain data to accurately simulate larger events in all areas. Hydrological inflows to the model are derived from a continuous simulation process using a calibrated PDM (Probability Distributed Model) hydrological model. This methodology was adopted for the River Don Section 105 study as the best method of simulating the complex storage effects of the River Don washlands. Hydraulic Modelling Methodology The Section 105 model has been used as the basis of all hydraulic analysis. A schematic layout of the model in the area of the development site is shown in Figure 3.4.4. The existing Flood Zone 3 outline for the area is shown in Figure 3.4.5 showing that flooding of the site should be expected for the 100 year event. Modifications were made to the model to adapt it to the requirements of this study and to extend the model for use at higher flows;

• The model reaches were reduced to the Upper Don from Hadfields gauging station to the confluence with the River Rother.

• The topographic survey of the site was included in the model in the form of a reservoir unit (floodplain storage area).

• Overtopping of bridges at high flows was allowed by inclusion of spill units on all structures upstream of Blackburn Meadows.

• Out of bank flows at Hadfields gauging station were represented by a reservoir unit to the left bank.

• The floodplain reservoirs at the site, and adjacent to Hadfields were connected to represent the potential flood flow route under the A631 viaduct.

The extension of the model to higher flows was achieved using surveyed topographic data where available i.e. at the development site. Upstream of the viaduct topographic data was not available and the out of bank areas have been approximated by extrapolation of model bank data and structure details. This approach is acceptable as the model is only required to represent the out of bank flow routes; accurate flood levels upstream of the viaduct are not required. The modifications to the hydraulic model will only have an affect at very high flows (greater than a 100 year event). For flows up to bank full the model results are unchanged at the site. Verification of the hydraulic model performance at very high flows has been undertaken using data from the June 2007 event (see below).

86


Hydrological Modelling Methodology The Section 105 model used FEH statistical methods in combination with the continuous simulation model to derive design event flows for the catchment. The continuous simulation method does not lend itself to individual event analysis and without access to extensive hydrometric data records it cannot be reviewed or reproduced. A different approach to the hydrological analysis is therefore required for this study. The hydrological analysis of the River Don at the Blackburn Meadows site for this flood risk assessment has included the following;

• Review of hydrometric data including gauge ratings and event data • Derive event flows for the June 2007 event for model verification • Derive model inflow hydrographs for the 100 year event including the effects of

climate change

Hydrometric Data The River Don is gauged at Hadfields approximately 1.5km upstream of the Blackburn Meadows site. The Blackburn Brook tributary which joins the River Don just downstream of Hadfields is also gauged at Ashlow Works. These two gauge sites represent the total flow in the River Don at the Blackburn Meadows site. The location of these gauges relative to the site is shown schematically on Figure 3.4.4. Downstream of the site the nearest gauge is approximately 4km away in Rotherham at the confluence of the Don with the River Rother. Reviews of the data quality at Hadfields and Ashlow works have been undertaken to determine how suitable these gauges are for model calibration and design flow analysis. Hydrometric data was provided by the Environment Agency and included the following items:

• Hadfields gauge rating equations • Hadfields flow gaugings • Hadfields AMAX series • Ashlow Works gauge rating equations • Ashlow Works flow gaugings • Ashlow Works AMAX series • Flow and level data for June 2007 at Hadfields, Ashlow Works and Rotherham

Hadfields Gauge The Hadfields gauge is a high flow gauge and is listed on the Environment Agency’s Hiflows website. The website indicates that the gauge data can be used with confidence for FEH statistical pooling analysis and is not normally subject to bypassing. However the rating equations on the Hiflows website differ from the rating equations provided by the Environment Agency. For extreme flows such as in June 2007 there is a significant difference between the two rating equations, and there are insufficient flow gaugings to support either rating. The hydraulic model has been extended to include out of bank flow routes in the vicinity of Hadfields gauge, and the resultant rating for the adjusted model is similar to the rating equations given on Hiflows.

87


Given the uncertainty in the high flow ratings at Hadfields the hydrological and hydraulic analysis has considered flow data using both rating equations. Further details of the Hadfields gauge rating can be found in the hydrological assessment in Appendix D. Ashlow Works Gauge Ashlow Works is a low flow gauge with no Hiflows listing. Flow gaugings have been taken but only at very low flows, indicating that the flow data for Ashlow Works is unreliable at high flows. Further details of the Ashlow Works gauge rating can be found in the hydrological assessment in Appendix D. June 2007 Flood Event Data During the June 2007 event flows bypassed both the Hadfields and Ashlow Works gauging site and both gauges failed shortly before the peak of the event. The Environment Agency obtained a peak level for the event from the water mark within the Hadfields gauge hut and used this in combination with data from other gauges to infill the recorded level hydrograph for the event. Flows for the June 2007 event can be calculated using the recorded level data and the gauge rating equations: Hadfields

• June 2007 peak flow (EA rating) 239m³/s • June 2007 peak flow (Hiflows rating) 340m³/s

The Ashlow Works gauge records have not been infilled. Flows have been estimated by scaling the Hadfields gauge flow hydrograph by the catchment area; Ashlow Works

• June 2007 peak flow (scaling Hadfields – EA rating) 27m³/s • June 2007 peak flow (scaling Hadfields – Hiflows rating) 39m³/s

Flows for the June 2007 event exceeded the limits of the gauging stations and are therefore subject to a great deal of uncertainty. Although the Environment Agency have confidence in the level data provided for Hadfields the gauge ratings and therefore the flows are unreliable for this scale of event. Further details of the June 2007 event data can be found in the hydrological assessment in Appendix D. Model Verification The Section 105 model had been calibrated previously for a number of events including November 2000. The model has been extended at the Blackburn Meadows site for higher flows and verification was required for the June 2007 event to ensure that out of bank flow routes were adequately represented in the model. Flood event data was available in the form of site notes, photographs and wrack levels at the site which was flooded on 25th June 2007. The site was inundated from both upstream and downstream, indicating a flood flow route from upstream of the viaduct. Photos at the Meadowhall Shopping Centre indicate the flood waters reached bank full and caused surcharging of bridges upstream of the site. The Environment Agency data also states that flows were out of bank at Hadfields and Ashlow Works gauging stations. The Environment Agency has also indicated that the Meadowhall access bridge was partially blocked during

88


this event which contributed to flooding at Hadfields. Figure 3.4.6 indicates the known flood flow routes and data for June 2007. The hydraulic model has two inflows, the Upper Don catchment to Hadfields and the Blackburn Brook catchment to Ashlow Works. Event flow hydrographs for June 2007 were obtained from the data provided by the Environment Agency. Two sets of flow data were tested;

• Hadfields 239m³/s, Ashlow Works 27m³/s – based on the EA rating at Hadfields • Hadfields 340m³/s, Ashlow Works 39m³/s – based on the Hiflows rating at Hadfields

Recorded levels at Rotherham were used for the downstream boundary of the model. The model simulations using the lower flows at Hadfields (EA rating) showed flows in bank throughout the reach from Hadfields gauge down to the development site. Adjustments of model parameters such as mannings roughness values and structure coefficients were made but these had minimal impact on peak water levels. The blockage of Meadowhall access bridge was also investigated. To reproduce the flooding in the area of Hadfields gauge would require a blockage in excess of 75% of the bridge opening. This level of blockage would force flows out of bank downstream of Hadfields weir and the floodwaters could then flow towards the development site. However the levels in the Don at the lower part of the site would still remain in bank throughout the event. The model simulations using the higher flows at Hadfields (Hiflows rating) were able to reproduce the mechanisms and extents of flooding witnessed. The model indicated out of bank flows to the left bank from Hadfields down to Meadowhall access bridge, and further flooding to the left bank at the downstream part of the site. Flooding of the site was simulated directly from the River Don at the lower part of the site and from an out of bank flow route under the viaduct. The modelled water levels for the site 31.36m AOD compares well with the wrack data which ranges from 31.2 to 31.4m AOD. Although there are doubts over the quality of the hydrometric data it has been demonstrated that the River Don model does reproduce the flooding mechanisms and severity observed at the Blackburn Meadows site during June 2007. In addition the verification has shown that the Environment Agency gauge rating equations at Hadfields significantly underestimate the flow magnitude for the June 2007 event, and provide added confidence in the Hiflows rating for Hadfields. Design Flow Analysis Analysis of design flows for the Blackburn Meadows site was undertaken using FEH statistical methods and the Revitalised Flood Hydrograph (ReFH) model. Design inflows to the model were required for the Upper Don at Hadfields and Blackburn Brook at Ashlow Works. The Section 105 model had used FEH single site analysis to derive design flows for Hadfields and FEH pooling analysis for Ashlow Works. The continuous simulation rainfall runoff model inflows were scaled to fit the statistical design flows at each gauge location. The Section 105 design flows derived by these methods gave 100 year flows of 243m³/s at Hadfields and 19m³/s at Ashlow Works.

89


FEH Statistical Analysis The FEH statistical methods derive design flows by calculating QMED (median annual flood) and applying a growth curve to obtain peak flows for each return period. The QMED value is calculated from gauge AMAX (annual maximum flood data) where available, or it can be estimated using catchment descriptors and then adjusted using data from hydrologically similar gauged donor catchments. Growth curves can be derived from a single site analysis of the gauge data where an extensive record is available or from pooling of hydrologically similar catchments. At Hadfields gauging station flows have been calculated using a pooling analysis and a single site analysis. The single site analysis at Hadfields was also undertaken using the AMAX series (calculated using the Hiflows rating) for a 48 year period up to 2007. At Ashlow Works the gauge data is unreliable so flows have been calculated using a FEH pooling analysis. Statistical flows for Hadfields and Ashlow Works are given in Table 3.4.1. Further details of the statistical methods are given in Appendix D. Revitalised Flood Hydrograph The revitalised flood hydrograph (ReFH) was also used to provide flood hydrographs for Hadfields and Ashlow Works. The Hadfields critical storm of 12 hour duration was used for both inflows. ReFH flows for Hadfields and Ashlow Works are given in Table 3.4.1. Further details of the statistical methods are given in Appendix D. Comparison of flows Statistical and ReFH flows are given in Table 3.4.1: 1for the 100 year event. Flows from the previous Section 105 study are given for comparison. Table 3.4.1: 100 year flow estimates

Hadfields Ashlow Works FEH Pooling 188 29 FEH single site 261 N/A ReFH 284 35 Section 105 243 19

The FEH statistical methods give a huge variation in design flows at Hadfields, this combined with the rating issues identified at Hadfields (see Appendix D for details) suggests that statistical methods are not the most appropriate method to use. The ReFH method has been adopted for design flow analysis as this method is conservative and does not rely on flow data calculated from the Hadfields gauge rating. Design inflows are required for the 100 year event, and the 100 year event including the impacts of climate change. Climate change has been represented by a 20% increase in flows for both inflows. Design flows are given in Table 3.4.2 below. Table 3.4.2: Design flows

Hadfields Ashlow Works 100 year 284 35 100 year + 20% climate change

341 42

90


Modelled Flood Levels The design inflows were run through the model to obtain design peak water levels for the development site. For the 100 year event the flows are in bank upstream of the site and so the flood flow route from upstream of the viaduct is not active. Flooding of the site is expected to occur from its eastern boundary and the 100 year flood level of 30.76m AOD has been taken from the cross section located closest to the eastern corner of the site. With the effects of climate change the flooding mechanisms would be similar to those experienced during June 2007. The upstream flood flow route is active and the flood level for the site of 31.23m AOD (100 year + 20%), also considers the flows through the site from upstream.

3.4.5.6 Assessment of Groundwater Flood Risk Piezometers were installed at 3 locations on-site in May 2007 to monitor groundwater levels. During the extreme June 2007 flood event, the groundwater entry was measured at the existing ground level. Additional measurements taken by Atkins in November 2007 indicated groundwater entry was between 2.1m – 2.6m below existing ground level. This is unlikely to represent the winter highs early in the wet season, but is considered typical for this time of year. Whilst there is no known history of groundwater flooding at the site, given that the site is within the floodplain it is likely that groundwater levels are largely governed by the water level in the River Don. It is not anticipated the proposed development will significantly impact the seasonal fluctuations in groundwater. During extreme events, high ground water levels will continue to drain into the river as with the existing situation. Therefore, the proposed development is considered at a low risk of groundwater flooding.

3.4.5.7 Assessment of Flood Risk from Surface Water Runoff To mitigate the risk of flooding from surface water runoff generated as a result of the proposed development, flows in excess of the permitted 5litres/second/hectare need to be attenuated and/or stored on-site. An assessment of the volume of water that will need to be stored on site has been undertaken using the modified rational method. The modified rational method provides a means of estimating flows for small catchments such as the proposed development site. A percentage runoff of 95% has been assumed for the total area contributing to the increase in surface water runoff from the site. In accordance with current guidance documents, a critical storm duration of 6 hours (360mins) has been assumed. This is considered a reasonable assumption of a realistic requirement for storage to be effective, particularly for small catchments. The total increased volumes of surface water run-off as a result of the proposed development, for rainfall events up to the 100 year storm (including 20% allowance for climate change) is approximately 1,550m3. A full set of design calculations can be found in Appendix D.

91


3.4.5.8 Assessment of Flood Risk Sewers A surface water management plan for the proposed development will be developed involving the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). A SUDS strategy will be used to collect, clean and store runoff from the developed area, to discharge at permitted rate of 5litres/second/hectare. Please refer to Section 3.2 – Water Quality, for a full description of SUDS scheme proposals. The following SUDS options are proposed to be developed further during the detailed design stage.

• Rainwater harvesting involving the collection and storage of rainwater from roofs of buildings and paved “clean” areas for subsequent re-use. The intention is for collected rainwater to supplement the water supply to the demineralisation plant required for the plant use. It could also be used for plant facilities (i.e. flushing toilets).

• The installation of extensive green roofs on some of the buildings such as the

administration block. A green roof is a multi-layered system that covers the top of a building with vegetation, and can be used to reduce both the volume and rate of runoff so as to mimic the pre-development state.

• The control, treatment and disposal of surface water from the car park using SUDS

techniques such as permeable paving to prevent pollution to the River Don and groundwater;

• Excavation and removal of the existing paved / concrete surfaces on the

undeveloped site as part of the mitigation compensation works. The undeveloped site will then be re-profiled and landscaped. Reducing the existing paved surfaces from the remaining undeveloped site will reduce the impermeable area, and consequently reduce the rate of runoff overall.

Section 3.2.5 demonstrates the feasibility of the above SUDS options and outlines the SUDS strategy for the proposed development, incorporating environmental enhancements where possible. 3.4.6 Control of Flood Risk

3.4.6.1 Mitigation Measures Raising of the Development above Flood Risk Levels As identified in A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25 ‘Living Draft’; Communities and Local Government (February 2007), raising the land above the level of flood risk is an appropriate mitigation method to reduce flood risk to acceptable levels. The proposed development will be constructed above the 100 year design flood level including 20% allowance for climate change. Due to the requirement of the proposed development to remain operational in times of flood (Essential Infrastructure),’ sufficient additional freeboard allowance will be provided. The proposed building level for the proposed development is 31.53m AOD, which is approximately 300m higher than the modelled 100 year + 20% climate change flood level; and extreme June 2007 event. Following raising the land to 31.53m AOD, the proposed development and access route will

92


be located outside the flood risk zone and above the highest water level recorded on-site during the extreme June 2007 event. The proposed car park located towards the north east corner of the site will be reprofiled but not raised. A flood warning and parking management scheme will be implemented to ensure the car park is vacated prior to the onset of flooding. Continued Operation of the Existing Primary Sub-Station As noted in pre-application discussions with Sheffield City Council and the Environment Agency the proposed Renewable Energy Plant will access the distribution network via the Blackburn Meadows Primary Substation. The substation is owned by Yorkshire Electricity (YEDL) and held on a long lease from E.ON UK. In light of the extreme June 2007 flood event it is understood that the City Council and Environment Agency require the existing standard of flood protection to the substation to be improved to enable the proposed Renewable Energy Plant development to be acceptable. This improvement is to address the residual risk at the substation over and above the 100-year flood event plus climate change. E.ON is in discussion with YEDL over the timescales and scope of any works they may undertake as part of the connection contract agreement with E.ON UK to connect the Renewable Energy Plant to the distribution network. The form of the works will be confirmed and agreed with YEDL in due course. To facilitate the approval of the application for the Renewable Energy Plant it is proposed that the matter of flood defences to the substation is dealt with via a ‘Grampian’ condition on an approval, linking the operation of the plant to the improvement of flood defence works to the substation. It is understood that in principle this is acceptable to both the City Council and the Environment Agency. No changes are proposed to the ground level of the access and egress of the existing sub-station. This is understood to be acceptable to the Environment Agency. Mitigation – Flood Compensation As stated in the Practice Guide Companion to PPS25 ‘Living Draft’; Communities and Local Government (February 2007), raising of land within the floodplain (land that serves a conveyance function), must be accompanied by compensatory provision of flood storage. The Environment Agency have confirmed “like for like” flood storage compensation (i.e. at the same volume and the same level relative to the design flood level, as the lost storage), is required for any severity of flood up to the 100 year flood event. Therefore, any floodplain volume lost as a result of the proposed development would require provision of compensatory storage at another location within the site boundary. To provide an indicative volume of flood storage that, without mitigation, would be lost as a result of the proposed development (i.e. volume below the design flood level occupied by raised land); an initial assessment has been carried out using the 100 year design flood level of 30.76m AOD and a 3-Dimensional ground model of the site. In accordance with Environment Agency requirements, the lost floodplain storage volume has been calculated in 0.2m depth bands, to ensure an equal volume will be provided to that taken up by the proposed development footprint (i.e. “like for like”). Without mitigation, the

93


total floodplain storage volume which would be lost as a result of the proposed development is approximately 12,029m3. Table 3.4.3 below shows the volume of floodplain storage lost in each band. Drawing number 5058012/FRA/001B in Appendix D illustrates the maximum flood depth and lost floodplain storage for the 100 year event.

94


Table 3.4.3: Impact of Development on Floodplain Storage Volume for the 100 Year Flood Event

Depth bands (m AOD)

Total volume of water between top band level and existing ground level (m3)

Volume within band (m3)

30.60-30.76 12029 4045 30.40-30.60 7984 3796 30.20-30.40 4288 1968 30.00-30.20 2220 1277 29.80-30.00 943 758 29.60-29.80 185 185 29.40-29.60 1 1

A conceptual flood compensation scheme for the site has been produced by assessing volumes of ground available for excavation within each depth band in different zones of the site. The proposed flood storage compensation scheme would provide a storage volume of 12,146m3, i.e. in excess of that lost. Table 3.4.4 below shows total available band volumes for Zones 1 – 6. Drawing number 5058012/FRA/002C in Appendix D identifies the zones on-site where ground levels can be reduced by excavation to provide the required compensation. Drawings 5058012/FRA/003A-007A in Appendix D illustrates the site cut at different cross sections on a level for level basis at ~0.2m depth bands.

95


Table 3.4.4: Compensation Volumes by Zone and Depth Band

Surface Level (m AOD)

Volume between existing ground level and surface level (m3)

Band volume(m3)

Zone 1 29.60 657.63 206.14 Zone 1 29.80 451.49 206.14 Zone 1 30.00 245.35 191.49 Zone 1 30.20 53.86 53.73 Zone 1 30.40 0.13 0.13 Zone 1 30.60 0 0 Zone 1 30.76 0 Zone 1 Total 1408.46 657.63 Zone 2 29.80 1690.13 600.59 Zone 2 30.00 1089.54 567.13 Zone 2 30.20 522.41 448.84 Zone 2 30.40 73.57 72.96 Zone 2 30.60 0.61 0.61 Zone 2 30.76 0 Zone 2 Total 3376.26 1690.13 Zone 3 30.00 1211.09 552.53 Zone 3 30.20 658.56 432.25 Zone 3 30.40 226.31 184.71 Zone 3 30.60 41.6 38.02 Zone 3 30.76 3.58 Zone 3 Total 2141.14 1207.51 Zone 4 30.20 1466.82 1034.77 Zone 4 30.40 432.05 363.87 Zone 4 30.60 68.18 52.93 Zone 4 30.76 15.25 Zone 4 Total 1982.3 1451.57 Zone 5 30.40 4550.16 2553.08 Zone 5 30.60 1997.08 1124.63 Zone 5 30.76 872.45 Zone 5 Total 6169.81 3109.01 Zone 6 30.60 10606.4 2431.14 Zone 6 30.76 8175.26 Zone 6 Total 14112.28 1716.22 Zone 7 30.40 1509.48 632.77 Zone 7 30.60 876.71 397.8 Zone 7 Total 2386.19 1030.57 Zone 1 – 7 Total 12146.26

As agreed with the Environment Agency, the provision of “like for like” flood storage compensation for any severity of flood up to the 100 year event is acceptable for the proposed development. The proposed flood compensation scheme would result in an increase in flood storage capacity of approximately 118m3.

96


3.4.6.2 Off-Site Impacts The proposed development will be constructed above the 100 year design flood level + 20% allowance for climate change including sufficient additional freeboard allowance. To compensate for the loss of floodplain storage as a result of the proposed development, an equivalent volume of storage is provided within the site. These changes have been applied to the hydraulic model by adjustment of the depth area relationship of the reservoir unit which represents the development site. Modelling of the proposed development in this way confirmed that with the provision of compensatory storage there is no increase in the flows being passed downstream of the site. 3.4.7 Residual Flood Risk

3.4.7.1 Flood Warning and Evacuation An initial study has been carried out in consultation with the Environment Agency to establish if there is an existing flood warning system for the site, obtain advice on whether the existing system is suitable and make recommendations for improvements regarding flood warning. As the site is classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ and E.ON is a Category 2 Responder (Utilities), this study was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of using Flood Warning to mitigate the flood risk to the proposed development and help manage the use of the car park. The Existing Flood Forecasting and Warning System The Environment Agency operates a level of flood warning for this site. The warning is based upon forecasts from the River Don flood forecasting model* and also a series of water level and flow triggers at various locations throughout the entire catchment. (N/B *The River Don Section 105 model was converted for flood forecasting purposes within the River Don catchment). The site lies within an area that is only warned as part of the first stage of warning, a Flood Watch. The Flood Watch area is known as the River Don Middle Catchment (123WAFRF971) by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency’s definition of a Flood Watch is described below.

Flood Watch - Flooding of low lying land and roads is expected. Be aware, be prepared, watch out!

This means that the site is currently warned to provide information of possible out of bank flooding, although not for flooding of properties. The Flood Watch is triggered from the Hadfields gauging station which currently uses the following trigger to issue various warnings. The only warning which is issued to the site is the Flood Watch. The other trigger levels listed in the Table 3.4.5 below provide an indication of the levels of which other warnings are issued downstream of the site and also upstream of the site at Meadowhall.

97


Table 3.4.5: Trigger Levels for Warnings Level of Warning Warning Area Stage

(m) Level (mAOD)

Forecast Stage (m)

Flood Watch River Don Middle Catchment 1.25 31.60 - Flood Warning River Don at Meadowhall 1.8 32.15 2.25

Flood Warning River Don at Tembleborough and Ickles 2.15 32.5 2.41

Flood Warning River Don at Rotherham 1 2.40 32.75 2.8 Flood Warning River Don at Rotherham 1U 2.6 32.95 3.0 Severe Flood Warning River Don at Rotherham S 2.8 33.15 3.2

Severe Flood Warning River Don at Rotherham SU 3.2 33.55 3.55

It should be noted that the Flood Warning Procedures also state the level in which the sewage treatment works (STW) at Blackburn Meadows are warned. The owners of the STW at Blackburn Meadows, Yorkshire Water, are warned at a level of 2.4m. This warning provides them with information that overtopping at Blackburn Meadows is expected in 2hrs. The Meadowhall Shopping Centre has similar warnings in place at the Severe Flood Warning level of 2.8m. Suitability of the Existing System The current Flood Watch is a broad indicative alarm. Although the existing forecasting and warning system may not have the appropriate flood warning and triggers in place to warn for the site at present, the forecasting model will allow for a suitable forecast trigger level for the site to be defined in consultation with the Environment Agency. The following historical flood event information adds context to the level of warning that will need to be provided to the site. Historic Flood Maps provided by the Environment Agency also suggest that the whole site has only been inundated once and that was during the recent extreme June 2007 flood event (see Appendix D). Table 3.4.6 shows that the flooding that occurred in June 2007 was in excess of the severe flood warning trigger levels. Early indications suggest that any form of Operational Warning or Alarm will be set at a trigger level in excess of the Severe Flood Warning trigger levels. Table 3.4.6: Flooding History at Hadfields Gauging Station

Stage (m)

Level (mAOD) Comments

0 30.35 Datum Level 0.4 30.75 Normal Water Level 1.25 31.60 Flood – Feb 2002 2.71 33.06 Flood - April 1970 2.77 33.12 Flood – June 1982 2.89 33.24 Flood – Autumn 2000 3.01 33.36 Flood – 15th June 2007 3.06 33.41 Flood – December 1987 3.73 34.08* Flood – 25th June 2007* (see below)

*The flood level of 34.08mAOD on 25th June 2007 is the last recorded flood level before Hadfields gauge failed. Once the gauge failed, the infilled peak flood level provided by the Environment Agency using wrack data and correlation with other gauges is 34.88mAOD.

98


The Environment Agency has also indicated that an Operational Alarm could be set-up for the site to warn of flooding and this would also utilise the existing forecasting system. Any warning that is provided by the Environment Agency will also have a back up warning system in place. In this case it may be possible to provide a warning/operational alarm based on an ‘At Site’ gauging station close to the site, and a ‘Remote’ trigger upstream of the site. Due to the classification of development on the site, it is recommended that backup gauges are used for warning the site of a flood event. In consultation with the Environment Agency, it was indicated that there are plans to install a gauging station at Halfpenny Bridge (which is located close to the downstream boundary of the site), if this is the case, the gauging station will be highly beneficial in providing warning to the site. Following some brief analysis of travel times during the latest flood event in June 2007, the travel time between the Hadfields gauging station and the Rotherham gauging station (which are approximately 5.63km apart) was 1hr 15mins for the first peak in June 2007 and approx. 5hrs 30mins during the second peak, this could have been due to floodplain influences. In order for the site to be warned suitably, a flood warning lead time of 3hrs is ideally required if technically feasible, defined as the time between receipt of the warning, and the onset of flooding at the site. This initial study indicates it is feasible to provide an appropriate flood warning system for the proposed development by utilising the existing forecasting system, and providing backup gauges close to the site if necessary. Implementation of the feasible options will require further analysis to determine the appropriate warning trigger levels and assistance from the Environment Agency in implementing any recommended improvements. The recommended improvements will form part of the Flood Action Plan for the proposed development. Evacuation Procedures Following raising the land to 31.53m AOD, the proposed development and site access route will be located outside the floodplain. In the event of a Flood Warning at the appropriate trigger level on-site, staff will be evacuated safely and promptly. The raised evacuation route to be used by staff during a flood will be clearly signed, and the marking used to identify such routes will be clearly visible during a flood event. The car park retained within the floodplain will be clearly signed as such. In conjunction with the warning systems, a planned response to imminent flooding will be implemented and maintained with clear instructions to the operations planned response. This will be in addition and alongside the normal evacuation plans required for such events as bomb threats and fires. In developing the emergency evacuation plans, advice will be taken from the Local Planning Authority and local resilience forums to ensure that flood risk is fully accounted for as part of their activities, including the resilience of emergency infrastructure required to operate during floods. As the operator/development is classed as a Category 2 responder, it is important that emergency planning arrangements are shared with Category 1 responders (e.g. Emergency Services and Local Authorities), and this is in line with the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

99


3.4.7.2 Access and Egress Conditions The proposed access route to the site will be raised above the flood risk level and the highest water level recorded on-site during the extreme June 2007 event. The Environment Agency Flood map indicates the surrounding area beyond the site access route is in Flood Zone 3, however this does not take into account the effect of defences. As noted earlier in the report; the upstream flood flow route is not active for all events up to the 100 year flood event. Therefore with appropriate flood warning, all staff will be evacuated whilst it is still safe to do so. Due to the requirement for the proposed development to remain operational in times of flood, (Essential Infrastructure) during extreme events when all staff have been evacuated, the plant may be operated remotely for as long as it is possible to do so. No changes are proposed to the existing primary sub-station access and egress. This is understood to be acceptable to the Environment Agency. 3.4.8 Application of Flood Risk Policy

3.4.8.1 Policy Context The broad aim of the Planning Policy Statement 25 is to reduce the number of people and properties within the natural and built environment at risk of flooding. To achieve this aim, planning authorities are required to ensure that flood risk is properly assessed during the initial planning stages of any development. Responsibility for this assessment lies with developers and they must demonstrate the following:

• Whether the proposed development is likely to be affected by flooding; • whether the proposed development will increase flood risk to adjacent properties;

and • that the measures proposed to deal with any flood risk are sustainable.

The developer must prove to the Local Planning Authority and the Environment Agency that any existing flood risk or flood risk associated with the proposed development can be satisfactorily managed.

3.4.8.2 Vulnerability Classification The vulnerability of the development or land use must be taken into account as the consequences of flooding may not be acceptable for particular types of development. PPS25 defines the Flood Risk Vulnerability classification for the proposed use of the development site. As an electricity generating plant, the site is classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ and “should be designed and constructed to remain operational in times of flood.”

100


3.4.8.3 Sequential Test PPS25 states that the risk-based Sequential Test should be applied at all stages of planning. Its aim is to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding. Development should be directed to Flood Zone 1 wherever possible, and then sequentially to Flood Zones 2 and 3, and to the areas of least flood risk within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone ‘Compatibility’ table (see Table 3.4.7) defines that development is appropriate for the site, subject to passing the Exception Test. Table 3.4.7: Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone ‘Compatibility

Flood Risk Vulnerability classification

Essential Infrastructure

Water compatible

Highly Vulnerable

More Vulnerable

Less Vulnerable

Zone 1

Zone 2

Exception test required

Zone 3a



Floo

d Zo

ne

Zone 3b


Key: Development is appropriate Development should not be permitted

The Sequential Test has been undertaken by Building Design Partnership (BDP) and is included in Appendix H. The Exception Test has taken a robust approach to the breadth of sites considered as part of the assessment. The assessment considers sites in both Sheffield and Rotherham. None of the sites considered as part of the assessment are suitable, viable and/or available within a reasonable period. It is therefore considered that the proposed development and the Blackburn Meadow site is consistent with Exception Test, as set out in PPS25.

3.4.8.4 Exception Test The Exception Test has been undertaken by Building Design Partnership (BDP) and is included in Appendix H. In the light of this assessment and the Flood Risk Assessment, it is considered that the proposed development satisfies all aspects of the Exception Test as set out in Annex D PPS25. In doing so, the proposed development will: • Realise significant sustainability benefits and contribute to the objectives of the

submission draft Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy; and • bring about the re-use and reclamation of a brownfield site; and • as set out in the preceding flood risk assessment, the proposed development will be

safe and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

101


3.4.9 Conclusions & Recommendations

• It has been agreed with the Environment Agency that the former Blackburn Meadows power station site lies in Flood Zone 3a (within the floodplain of the River Don), and the proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant is classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure.’

• As stated in paragraph D9c) of PPS25 – “a FRA must demonstrate that the

development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall”. There is no knowledge of flooding occurring on the site prior to the extreme June 2007 flood event when the site was inundated. To adopt a sustainable approach in assessing flood risks; we have updated the 100 year flood level and predicted the June 2007 flood level at the site using the existing River Don model and information obtained from the Environment Agency. This FRA has established that the risks from flooding can be adequately mitigated by appropriate design and flood risk management.

• Mitigation proposals include raising the proposed development and access route

above the design 100 year + 20% (climate change) flood level, including sufficient freeboard allowance. Following the land raising, the proposed development and access route will be located outside the flood risk zone and above the highest water level recorded on-site during the extreme June 2007 event.

• The proposed carpark will be retained at ground level, which will limit the

displacement of floodplain storage volume. This approach complies with guidance given in PPS25.

• The FRA has demonstrated that there will be no net loss of floodplain storage for any

severity of flood up to the 100 year event as a result of the proposed development. A conceptual scheme for providing compensation for the lost storage volume is included in the report. This scheme would result in an overall gain of floodplain storage volume.

• Modelling of the proposed development with the provision of compensatory storage

has confirmed there will be no increase in the flows being passed downstream of the site. The proposed development will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

• Options for mitigating the risk of flooding from surface water runoff involve the use of

SUDS. Several SUDS methods are being promoted as an integral part of the proposed development. By incorporating the use of SUDS and reducing the existing paved surfaces from the remaining undeveloped site, the proposed development will reduce the rate of runoff overall.

• The proposed development is considered at low risk of flooding from other sources

such as groundwater and infrastructure failure.

• Following implementation of mitigation measures such as land raising, a residual risk of flooding remains. This residual risk can be mitigated through providing appropriate flood warning and flood evacuation plans. A feasible flood warning scheme and evacuation plan has been identified will involves utilising the existing forecasting system, subject to Environment Agency Agreement. EON is committed to implement the most appropriate system, which will require further assistance from the Environment Agency to implement.

102


• Safe access and egress will be maintained during extreme flood events. With

appropriate flood warning, staff will be evacuated whilst it is still safe to do so. The proposed development may be operated remotely.

• As required by PPS25, Sequential and Exception Tests have been undertaken to

determine the acceptability of the project in an area subject to flood risk. The Sequential Test has demonstrated that there are no suitable, viable and/or available sites at lower risk of flooding within the Sheffield City Area. It is concluded the Sequential Test has been passed. The Exception Test has satisfied all the requirements as set out in Annex D PPS25. It is concluded the Exception Test has been passed.

3.4.10 References

• Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk; Department for Communities and Local Government, December 2006

• Don Catchment Flood Model, Final Report, JBA Consulting, May 2004 • Development and Flood Risk: A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25 ‘Living Draft’,

Department for Communities and Local Government, February 2007 • Blackburn Meadows Power Station Redevelopment Interpretative Report on

Preliminary Ground Investigation, Soil Mechanics, 2007 • CIRIA C624 Development and Flood Risk – guidance for the construction industry;

CIRIA 2004 • CIRIA C609 Sustainable Drainage Systems, CIRIA 2004 • Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM, CEH Institute of Hydrology, 1999 • Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems, National SUDS Working

Group, July 2004 • Making Space for Water: Developing a new government strategy for flood and coastal

erosion risk management in England, DEFRA, 2004

103


3.5 Ecology 3.5.1 Introduction Young Associates (Environmental Consultants) Ltd was commissioned by E.ON in May 2007 to undertake a range of ecological surveys of land at Blackburn Meadows, the site of a former, now demolished, power station on land between the M1 motorway and the River Don on the western edge of Sheffield. The commission also extended to the production of an independent Ecological Impact Assessment. Following review by consultees, further information was added by Atmos Consulting Ltd.

Objectives of the Study The objectives of the studies presented in this chapter were as follows:

• To describe the ecological interest of the site through desk top study and survey, and to identify any areas of ecological significance.

• To evaluate the nature conservation interest of the site

• To assess the significance of potential impacts of the development on the nature

conservation interest of the site

• To recommend mitigation measures to avoid/minimise any significant impacts on the nature conservation interests of the site; and

• To set out an assessment of the significance of any residual impacts

Site Description The Renewable Energy Plant site is shown in Figure 2.1.1. The site extends to 12.5ha, the main part of which forms an approximately rectangular block, with an additional narrow spur of land extending away from the main block in a north easterly direction. Along this eastern edge, the site is bounded by the River Don, which at this point is a large watercourse flowing slowly between engineered banks. The curving southern boundary of the site is the fence line that runs along the base of embankments supporting a disused railway line, and to the west the site is bounded by two disused cooling towers that are awaiting demolition (these are outside the Site) and a complex of main roads and service roads beneath a flyover that carries the main M1 motorway and the A631 trunk road. The entire northern side of the site is bounded by a Yorkshire Water Sewage Treatment Works (STW), characterised for the most part by hardstanding, buildings and other man-made structures such as tanks and filter beds. With the exception of the banks on the River Don, and the boundary adjacent to the cooling towers, the site is enclosed within a steel palisade security fence. The site is previously developed land, having formerly been occupied by a power station, which has been decommissioned and demolished. Concrete plinths remain as evidence of the Site’s former industrial use. The only built structures remaining from the power station are two hyperbolic natural draught cooling towers, which stand immediately adjacent to the M1 and the westernmost end of the Site, and two sections of tall brick wall on the northern boundary with the STW.

104


In the centre of the main site is an operational electricity sub-station enclosed within a concrete perimeter floodwall. This facility is excluded from the Site. Following demolition of the former power station buildings in the 1970s and 1980s, the Site appears to have been unmanaged and to have undergone the ecological processes of colonisation, predominantly by a range of mainly native species, and succession. It currently supports areas vegetated with grassland, stands of tall ruderals, scrub and young birch/willow woodland over its western two-thirds, with the eastern third having been cleared of vegetation in early 2007 and currently dominated by bare soil. 3.5.2 Legislative and Planning Policy Context National Planning Policy and Legislation Guidance on nature conservation planning policy is provided in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9, 2005). This is concerned with protection through the planning system of statutory and non-statutory sites of biodiversity and/or geological conservation value, as well as species protection and biodiversity conservation in the wider environment. The general objective is to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology. PPS9 sets out a number of key principles, which include the need for up-to-date baseline information; the need for biodiversity to be taken into account at all scales of development planning; the need for appropriate weight to be attached to biodiversity in decision-making; the need to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological interests and the need to promote opportunities for enhancement. In considering biodiversity issues, PPS9 places particular emphasis on the requirement for planning authorities to pay due regard to the conservation and enhancement of habitats and species listed under section 74(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) as being of “principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England”. This list can be viewed on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk. If there is likely to be a significant effect on these or statutory protected species, adequate mitigation must be put in place prior to planning permission being granted. The Government Circular to accompany PPS9 states that the presence of a protected species is “… a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal which, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”. National legislation for the special protection of selected species is provided in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Under Section 1(1) and 1(2), all British bird species, their nests and eggs (excluding some pest and game species) are protected from intentional killing, injury or damage. Under Sections 1(4) and 1(5), special penalties are applied to bird species included in Schedule 1 of the Act and protection is extended for these species to disturbance to birds whilst building, in or near a nest and disturbance to dependant young. Schedule 5 provides special protection to selected animal species other than birds, through paragraph 9(4) of the Act, against damage to “any structure or place which any wild animal (included in the schedule) uses for shelter and protection” and against disturbance whilst in such places. The CRoW Act amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act by introducing a new offence of “reckless” disturbance to protected wildlife and making certain offences punishable by imprisonment. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 provides protection to badgers and their setts.

105

http://www.defra.gov.uk/


A number of animal species are provided additional protection through inclusion on Schedule 2 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended, which transpose into British law the European Community’s Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The Regulations, commonly referred to as the “Habitats Regulations”, extend protection against deliberate disturbance to those animals wherever they are present, and provides tests against which the permission for a development that may have an effect on a Schedule 2 protected species must be assessed before planning consent can be granted.

Local Plan and Local Development Framework The Local Plan for the Area is the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan which was adopted in March 1998. This contains the Chapter “Green Environment”, which contains the following policies relevant to nature conservation:

• Policy GE10 Green Network • Policy GE11 Nature Conservation and Development • Policy GE13 Areas of Natural History Interest and Local Nature Sites • Policy GE15 Trees and Woodland • Policy GE17 Rivers and Streams • Policy GE18 Sheffield and Tinsley Canal • Policy GE26 Water Quality of Waterways

Biodiversity Action Plans Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are part of the British government’s strategy for the implementation of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, to which it is a signatory. BAPs have been developed for the UK and devolved to local levels (LBAPs), to protect a number of rare species and habitats and reverse the declines of more widespread, but declining, species and habitats. Under the CRoW Act 2000, the English government has a duty to have due regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, so it is good practice for BAP and LBAP species and habitats to be taken into consideration in the planning of a development scheme. In addition to the overall UK BAP, the area affected by the proposal is covered by the Sheffield BAP (Sheffield BAP Steering Group, in progress). 3.5.3 Desk Top Study and Review of Existing Data At the commencement of the commission, information on the Blackburn Meadows site was obtained from a variety of pre-existing sources. Review of statutory nature conservation designations on the government’s website MAGIC.gov.uk confirmed that there are no statutory (internationally or nationally important) designated nature conservation sites in or within 2km of the Site. The adopted Sheffield City Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP) on sheffield.gov.uk indicated the presence of an extensive non-statutory (locally important) “Area of Natural History Interest” designation close to the eastern boundary of the site. This non-statutory ANHI designation encompasses the River Don and land to the east of the river, i.e. on the opposite side to the site. Adjoining this designation, further to the north, is land that is

106


designated both as “Urban Greenspace” and as land of “Known Interest Outside Protected Sites” in the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council UDP at Rotherham.gov.uk. Further information was provided by E.ON UK plc’s Biodiversity Champion, who had undertaken consultations on the site and surrounding area during late 2006 in connection with proposals to demolish the two cooling towers. The following individuals/organisations had been consulted on the interest of the area:

• Natural England • Rotherham Biological Records Centre, B. Ely • Sheffield City Council Ecologist, J. Glasscock • Local Bird Recorder, D. Williams • Sheffield Wildlife Trust, Dr. C. Gibson • J. Gaunt, Park Ranger at Blackburn Meadows Local Nature Reserve

Consultee responses indicated the following ecological interests on or near what is now the site of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant:

• The Woolley Wood Local Nature Reserve is located just over 1km away and is separated from the site by the M1 Motorway.

• The River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal are being proposed to be designated as Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC), a non-statutory designation denoting a site of local nature conservation significance.

• Blackburn Meadows, located on the opposite site of the River Don to the Site, is designated as a Local Nature Reserve.

• Badgers are resident on the nearby Tinsley STW site and possibly the Blackburn Meadows LNR, both of which are on the opposite side of the River Don to the proposed Renewable Plant development.

• Otters breed by the River Don, including possibly on a triangle of land owned by a third party to the south of the site, and may access the site.

• Water voles are known to occur on the River Don, but not near to the site. • Records of birds breeding in the vicinity of the site include a number of Schedule 1

species: peregrine falcon, little-ringed plover, green sandpiper, black redstart, kingfisher and barn owl.

• No records of bats were available for the site or its environs. A search of the OS base plan 1:25,000, the 1:10,000 scale base maps underlying the government’s Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website and the Local Development Plan hosted on the Planning Portal website revealed no water bodies within 500m of the site. A visit on 21st May 2007 to the adjacent Yorkshire Water STW, in order to check the status of features shown in blue (indicating presence of water) on OS base maps of the area, found that these features were in fact a variety of concrete structures that are part of the operational infrastructure of the STW and do not ever contain fresh water. 3.5.4 Methodology Daytime visits were made to the site on 21st and 29th May 2007 by a suitably experienced ecologist, to carry out an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and to evaluate the nature conservation interest of the site as outlined below.

107


Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey The process of ecological baseline assessment is described in “Nature Conservation in Environmental Assessment” published by English Nature (1994) and in the “Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment” produced by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995). Phase 1 survey is a standardised method of recording habitat types and characteristic vegetation, as set out in the “Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit” published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC 1993). Plant species nomenclature follows Stace, 1997. This survey method is extended through the additional recording of specific features indicating the presence, or likely presence, of protected species or other species of nature conservation significance. Descriptive “target notes”, are made for characteristic habitats, features of ecological interest, or any other features which require note to aid ecologically sensitive design or mitigation. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey is not a full protected species survey, but instead is a tool for determining the requirement for more detailed protected species surveys on the basis of field signs and habitat quality. When combined with consultations, this method of survey enables professional ecologists to obtain an understanding of the ecology of a site such that either:

• the conservation significance of the site can be confirmed and the potential for impacts on habitats/species likely to represent a material consideration in planning terms can be assessed, or,

• it can be ascertained that further surveys of certain aspects of the site’s ecology will be required before such confirmation can be made.

As a result of the desk-study and Phase 1 survey, it was concluded that further surveys would be required in order to provide data on breeding birds, amphibians, bats and reptiles. Breeding bird, amphibian and bat surveys were therefore undertaken. Reptile surveys were planned, but before they had commenced the site flooded during the unusually heavy rainfall and consequent flooding in June/July 2007. As the site was inundated with standing water that entirely covered all vegetation at ground level for approximately a week, it was considered that even if reptiles were resident there before the flooding, they would be unlikely to be present in the aftermath. Reptile surveys in the remainder of the 2007 survey season would not therefore have provided a reliable indication even of reptile presence/absence, and so were not carried out. Breeding Bird Survey Birds were surveyed using British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Common Bird Census (CBC) techniques over a series of replicate visits. The number of visits can vary, according to the purpose of the survey and the characteristics of the habitats and avifauna of a site. For EcIA purposes, three visits between April and June are considered acceptable (Gilbert et al). In this instance the timescale of the project meant that the first breeding bird visit to the site was carried out on 29th/30th May, with a second visit on 21st June. The site was then flooded, so the third visit was necessarily delayed until 10th July 2007. The survey technique involves walking to within 50m of everywhere on the site and recording all birds seen and heard, noting any evidence of breeding activity on a base map. Signs of

108


breeding that are recorded include the following: singing males in appropriate habitat, a nest, and birds carrying nesting materials or food for young and alarm calling. A new map was used for each visit and CBC notation was used to record the location and activity of birds. To ensure accuracy, the field maps were split up into smaller grid squares and a handheld GPS was used to plot the locations of birds. At the end of the field work, the information from the maps was analysed using an adaptation of the standard BTO territory analysis method. This involved plotting the bird registrations on separate species maps. Instead of the code for the bird, letters are used to denote which visit was involved, thus a bird seen on the first visit is written as A, the second visit B, etc. The map was then analysed to see where clusters of bird registrations from the different visits occurred to indicate the location and extent of breeding territories. In a “cluster” there should be no more than one male and one female per visit but, as this was a shortened version of the CBC, a singing male on one visit was counted as holding a breeding territory. However, this is not a firm “rule”, and professional judgement based on an experienced surveyor’s detailed knowledge of bird behaviour and habitat preferences has to be used when interpreting field signs. For example, a singing reed bunting occurred right on the edge of the site adjacent to the more suitable habitat on the sewage farm. It used a tree on the Blackburn Meadows site as a song post but its nesting and feeding area was more likely to be on the STW. A chaffinch seen on the last visit may well have been a bird displaced by the floods (see limitations section). Breeding Bird Survey Limitations The timescale of the project meant that the survey visits began on 29th May, which is very late in the year for a breeding bird survey. It is possible that some species were missed as they had already finished breeding or, as in the case of peregrine, were not documented fully so as to prove breeding. In the case of the peregrines, as consultation data reviewed during the desk-study indicated the cooling towers of the old power station to be a regular breeding site, they have been included in this EcIA as a breeding species. In terms of early breeding species, the main group of birds for which habitats in the western part of the site appears suitable for nesting are ground-nesting waders, which include species of conservation significance, some of which benefit from special protection, e.g. little-ringed plover. The assessment has considered this possibility, but has concluded that it is unlikely that the site would be used by breeding waders. This is because, in order to rear chicks these species also have a requirement for areas of permanently damp soil for foraging, and this habitat is not present either within the site or any adjacent area into which the parent birds could lead (flightless) chicks after hatching. On all the visits, noise from traffic using the elevated section of the M1 motorway that runs along the western boundary of the site, meant that birds on this side of the site could not be heard so there may be some under-recording in this area. However, as land within the site in this area was largely devoid of vegetation, and thus provides little nesting habitat, this is not considered to be a significant limitation. On the second visit, the security personnel advised that someone had recently been shooting on the site, which may well have displaced some birds. A limitation that is considered to have had a significant effect on the data gathered during the third survey visit occurred in early July, when an unprecedented amount of rain fell over the

109


area and caused extensive flooding. The site was under water for nearly a week and this had a major effect on ground nesting birds, e.g. willow warblers numbers fell from 10-14 singing males registered in May and June to just one bird in July. Other birds disappeared from the site completely (e.g. whitethroat) or were severely reduced in numbers (e.g. wren, dunnock and robin). Although it was expected that, due to the late date of the last visit, some birds may have left the site once their young had fledged, the very large reduction in birds in July could not be fully attributed to this reason. Consultations with the BTO, which monitors British bird populations through a nationwide annual Breeding Birds Survey (BBS), confirms that the widespread flooding is recognised as an unavoidable limiting factor on breeding bird surveys in many areas, and the BTO is having to base its own breeding bird estimates for 2007 on the results of just one visit in many cases (Mike Raven, BBS organizer, pers comm.). Although there are limitations to the survey work carried out at the site during 2007, it is nevertheless considered satisfactory to make an assessment of the general ornithological value of the Blackburn Meadows site based on a combination of desk-study and analysis of those data that have been collected. Mitigation and enhancement is proposed both for species known to be present and for species with potential to be present in future, so it is not considered that further survey would alter either the recommendations for mitigation/enhancement or the conclusions of the residual impact assessment presented in this EcIA. Amphibian Survey The two shallow pools of standing water beneath the cooling towers are the only areas of standing water offering potential amphibian breeding habitat within 500m of the site. They represent sub-optimal habitat for the European protected species great crested newt Triturus cristatus, but are not completely unsuitable, and it was further considered likely that they could support other amphibian species, particularly smooth newts Lissotriton vulgaris. Although it was too late in the season for formal amphibian surveys to be undertaken using the (four-visit) methodology described in published guidance on great crested newts (English Nature, 2001), it was nevertheless considered worthwhile undertaking a single late-season torchlight survey to see what amphibians, if any, were present. Therefore, on 29th May 2007 a preliminary search of these standing waterbodies just outside the Site was made by a suitably experienced ecologist (NE Science and Education Licence no. 20071497). A standard 1,000,000-candle power Clu-lite torch was used to locate and identify amphibians in the waterbodies. No bottle-trapping was undertaken due to the substrate of the waterbodies being entirely hardstanding. Bat Activity Survey Potential bat roost sites were sought on site during the first Phase 1 habitat survey visit on 21st May. No features of high potential to support roosting bats were identified within the site, as all of the old power station except the cooling towers has been demolished and it is understood that there are no subterranean voids beneath the old building footprints, which remain in evidence as partially overgrown concrete plinths. No mature trees with features suitable for use by bats are present within the site, although there are some large mature willow trees on the western bank of the River Don, which forms the boundary of the site. In view of the paucity of potential roosting habitat within the site, but the presence of good quality foraging habitat within it and potential roosting habitat adjacent to the river, a bat

110


activity survey was undertaken in suitable mild, calm and dry conditions at dusk on the evening of 29th May 2007. The main purposes of the survey was to:

• identify whether bat species were using the area; • identify features of the site being used by the bats.

In particular, the survey targeted well-vegetated areas in the east of the site as this is the area most likely to be disturbed by the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Over the course of the evening the surveyor visited a number of areas containing features considered likely to be of use to foraging bats. A Magenta Bat Box III heterodyne bat detector was used to identify bat species and assess levels of activity in terms of number of passes. 3.5.5 Existing Conditions

Habitats and Vegetation The following ecological habitats (types of vegetation/land use), listed in order of abundance from most to least, are present in the site and therefore have potential to be affected by development of the proposed Plant:

• Open expanses of tall, unmanaged neutral grassland; • Building foundations, roads and other types of hardstanding; • Bare soil and piles of spoil from demolition of the previous development on the Site; • Low ephemeral/short perennial communities starting to colonise hardstandings; • Patches of scrub, mainly brambles, wild rose and low-growing willows; • A band of dense young birch/willow woodland along the southern boundary; • Stands of tall ruderals, such as thistles, Michaelmas daisies and the invasive

Japanese knotweed; • Fragments of amenity grassland (former lawns by the entrance to the Site); • Introduced shrubs, e.g. buddleja (“butterfly bushes”); • Scattered mature trees, mainly near the Site boundaries and along the River Don;

and j

Just outside of the Site are two shallow circular pools; one beneath each cooling tower. Refer to Figure 3.5.1 for the Phase 1 Habitat Map and Appendix E1 for the target notes. Semi-Improved Grassland Large areas of the site substrate, being moderately fertile and undisturbed, have been re-colonised since the power station was decommissioned and now support a large open expanse of tall neutral semi-improved grassland that corresponds with the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland, showing affinities in places with both the Festuca rubra and the Centaurea nigra sub-communities. In the absence of management these grasslands have over much of the site developed a complex structure with a dense thatch at ground level, which has become tussocky where cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius and wavy hair-grass Deschamsia flexuosa have colonised to the extent that they predominate over red fescue Festuca rubra. These areas are being invaded, especially around the margins of the site, by robust ruderal species and/or birch scrub. These coarse grasslands are also being colonised by open areas of low-growing bramble scrub, with occasional specimens of dog-rose, hawthorn, goat willow

111


and buddleja starting to establish. This is a botanically diverse but ephemeral habitat, which, in the absence of management, has now reached a successional stage where within the coming 5 – 10 years it is likely to be reduced to small glades within young, dense birch-dominated woodland. Re-colonising Hardstanding/Hardcore Four areas in the centre of the site are composed of either compacted hardcore or broken up hardstanding. These are undergoing a slower process of colonisation by a range of mosses, lichens and depauperate specimens of the same common grasses, annuals and herbaceous species that occur in the surrounding semi-natural grasslands. Hardstanding A path/track runs through the site from the gates in the west by the cooling towers, past the electricity sub-station to the towpath in the north east. The first section of the path is hardstanding and the second is compacted bare ground. The main areas of hardstanding are located in the west of the site in association with the cooling towers, the electricity sub-station and the path. Buildings and Structures To the west just outside of the Site are two large disused cooling towers (B1 and B2). These are concrete structures, the bases of which have filled with shallow water. In the centre of the main Site, but excluded from the application, is a complex of buildings and structures associated with the electrical substation (B3). These are enclosed within a concrete perimeter floodwall. The buildings are flat roofed concrete constructions. Just to the north of the cooling towers two brick walls form part of the Site boundary. The walls are generally in good condition with respect to pointing. However, there are one or two cracks present, so potential for occupation by crevice-dwelling bats could not be ruled out. A blue tit nest was present in the angle of one of the walls, at approximately 4m above ground. Just outside the eastern boundary of the site is a bridge (B4), the abutments of which are brick built. These have the potential to support roosting bats, but are outside of the site. Bare Ground and Spoil In the western part of the Site, adjacent to the cooling towers, are two areas that had been cleared of scrub in 2007. These areas are bare soils at the earliest stages of re-colonisation by grasses, principally annual meadow-grass Poa annua at the time of survey. There are also five heaps of spoil and rubble at various stages of re-colonisation by vegetation located across the Site. Around the bases of the two cooling towers is mainly unvegetated rubble (S1). Next to the southern cooling tower is a long bund of tipped rubble (S2), loosely populated with scrubby birch, buddleia and bramble. Separating the birch/willow woodland and the patch of bare ground to the south of the site is a large pile of brash (S3) left over from scrub clearance in early 2007. In the northernmost corner of the main site are two flattened piles of rubble (S4 and S5). These are in the process of being re-colonised by ruderal and scrubby vegetation.

112


Scrub and Non-native Shrub Most of the north of the Site is a mosaic of dense and scattered birch and goat willow scrub. Along the southern part of the towpath and associated with an electricity pylon in the northwest of the site are a few patches of bramble. In a fenced compound adjacent to the pylon and brick walls is an area of broken hardstanding that has been colonised by the non-native butterfly bush Buddleia davidii. Woodland and Trees Along the southern boundary of the Site is a band of young woodland dominated by dense even-aged growth of downy and silver birch Betula pubescens and B. pendula with willow Salix species, especially goat willow Salix caprea, also represented. This area borders a dismantled railway and associated embankment that lie outside the Site and forms much of its southern boundary. Just north of the electrical sub-station are some young trees including silver birch, goat willow and self-sown apple Malus domestica. There is a discontinuous line of large mature willow Salix trees located on the eastern side of the towpath at the edge of the River Don. Ruderal There are three main areas of ruderal vegetation: one in the northernmost corner of the main part of the Site; one beneath the electricity pylon in the western corner of the site; and one on the embankment adjacent to the towpath in the northeast of the Site. The area in the northernmost corner of the main part of the Site is dominated by rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium and mouse-ear-hawkweed Pilosella officinarum with some Michaelmas daisy Aster novi-belgii agg. There are three stands of the non-native invasive species Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica on the northeastern boundary adjacent to the River Don towpath. The area under the pylon in the western corner of the Site is dominated by common nettle Urtica dioica, as is the embankment adjacent to the towpath. Running Water and Marginal Vegetation The River Don (a pSINC) flows from south to north along the eastern boundary of the Site. This section of the river is heavily engineered. Along the towpath adjacent to the River Don are occasional 1-2m wide strips of marginal vegetation, generally dominated by reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima. The non-native invasive species Himalayan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera is widespread in this area. Standing Water There are two bodies of standing water (P1 and P2) just outside of the Site, each located within the bases of the two cooling towers to the west of the Site boundary. They are both circular and approximately 30m in diameter and 20-30cm in depth. The substrate is concrete

113


and a small amount of vegetation grows around the margins, including water plantain Alysma plantago-aquatica. The main aquatic vegetation is algal.

Fauna Otters and Water Voles The River Don and associated riverside vegetation, outside and to the south of the Site, provides potential foraging habitat and cover for otters, which are reported to range along this stretch of the river. The 2006 consultation exercise indicated that there is potential for an area further to the south of the Site to be used as a breeding site by otters. There are no holt sites within the Site. Even though the Site within the security fence is relatively undisturbed by humans/dogs, its open grassland habitats and dense birch scrub (which provides little vegetative cover at ground level), do not represent habitat with good potential for establishment of couches. Although the perimeter fencing would not prevent otters from accessing the Site, it is unlikely that they would do so to any great extent, as dry woodland and grassland habitats do not currently provide a source of prey items. Suitable habitat for water voles exists along parts the banks of this stretch of the River Don. However, much of the river adjacent to the site boundary is engineered with brick revetments, such that limited opportunity exists for burrow excavation by water voles. Consultations and field survey suggest that this species is not present within the vicinity of the proposed development. Bats There are a number of features just on or outside of the site boundary that have the potential to support roosting bats. These include the brick wall in the west of the site and the mature trees and bridge abutments to the east. The cooling towers, due to their crumbling structure, may also have limited potential to support crevice dwelling bats. Abundant foraging habitat for bats exists on site. These include the grassland, the scrub and woodland and the waterbodies, all of which are attractive to potential invertebrate prey. Conditions on the 29th May were highly suitable for surveying bat activity with evening temperatures not lower than 12°C. There was no rain, a minimal breeze and clear skies. Sunset was calculated at 2123. The survey commenced at 2100 and terminated at 2230. Only one bat species, common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, was recorded on the site. High levels of continuous foraging activity were recorded, particularly in the vicinity of the cooling towers, but also above the trees on the southern boundary. Great Crested Newts The two bodies of standing water (P1 and P2) at the bases of the cooling towers are largely similar to one another in terms of their low potential to support breeding great crested newts. Conditions on the 29th May were highly suitable for surveying great crested newts. Evening temperatures were not lower than 12°C and there was no rain, a minimal breeze and clear skies. Sunset was calculated at 21:23. The survey commenced at 22:30 and terminated at 23:30. No great crested newts were observed in either of the waterbodies during the survey in. However, a total of 25 smooth newts were observed across the two ponds.

114


Badgers No setts or other large animal burrows were found on site, and no signs of badger activity (hairs, latrines, etc.) were observed during any of the survey visits in 2007. Breeding Birds A total of 32 species were logged over the three visits to the site. There was evidence that 19 of these species were holding breeding territories on the site (see table at Appendix 4; map at Appendix 5). Three of these were red-listed birds/UK Priority species of high conservation concern, namely Bullfinch, Hedge Accentor (Dunnock) and Song Thrush and three were amber-listed species of moderate conservation concern: Mistle Thrush, Peregrine and Willow Warbler. Peregrine is afforded further protection as a Schedule 1 species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). A further 10 species were present on the site during at least one of the visits, but were unlikely to be breeding or showed no evidence of breeding on the site. Reptiles The tall grassland and scrub represent highly suitable foraging habitat for reptiles, if any residual population is present, although survival of populations in what is a largely isolated Site seems unlikely given the history of flooding in the area. The dismantled railway has the potential to link the Site to other such suitable habitat, but such habitats are sparse in this urban area between Sheffield and Rotherham. No reptiles were observed in the course of any of the 2007 ecology survey visits. Furthermore, an informal reptile survey conducted by E.ON UK plc Biodiversity Champion in 2006 did not note the presence of any reptile species, and none of the consultees had records of reptiles being present. On balance, available evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely that reptile species are present within the Site. Invertebrates The diversity of habitats present, including fruiting shrubs and flowering plants providing nectar, as well as proximity to the wetland habitat of the River Don and the LNR beyond means that the Site is likely to host a considerable variety of invertebrates. Although many larval insects and other flightless invertebrates would have been lost from the entire Site during the 2007 floods, the potential for species of conservation interest to be present in future cannot be ruled out. 3.5.6 Nature Conservation Evaluation

Habitats and Vegetation The main value of the site lies in the fact that, since the existing power station ceased to operate, it has been allowed to regenerate naturally into a diverse mosaic of habitat types, including semi-improved grassland, young woodland and both dense and scattered scrub. This tends to allow the re-establishment of habitats with a complex structure and provide niches for a diversity of floral and fauna communities. The diversity of habitats present potentially supports both a variety and density of invertebrates which may include species of nature conservation interest in their own right.

115


Irrespective of this, they also provide an abundance of prey for breeding birds, bats and amphibians. Of interest in a local context, in that it complements other habitat within the corridor of the River Don, is the semi-improved grassland within the Site. This is a habitat that is in decline over the local area as it is succeeded by scrub and secondary woodland in the absence of active management. In common with areas outwith the Site, much of its grassland has been succeeded by birch scrub – a pattern that will continue in the absence of any management regime. It should be noted that the flooding of July 2007 left most of the site under 1 – 2 metres of water for more than a week. It is likely that much of the botanical and faunal interest of the site would have been significantly disturbed / destroyed by this event and is unlikely to recover to any significant degree within the 2007 survey season. Japanese knotweed is a non-native invasive species, the spread of which is controlled by its inclusion on Schedule 9 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Stands of Japanese knotweed were recorded to the north east of the site. It should further be noted that Japanese knotweed is often spread by water and it is therefore possible that the stands located in the northeast of the site could have been spread to other parts of the site by the 2007 floods.

Fauna Otters and Water Voles The site borders the River Don. Both otters and water voles are known to occur along the banks of the River Don, and it has been suggested by a consultee that otters may use the area of land adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, including possible for breeding. Water voles, however, are not thought to occur near the site. Because the stretch of the River Don bordering the site is heavily engineered, the most suitable otter and water vole habitats are not those in the immediate vicinity of the Site. However, it is most likely that otters currently commute along the River Don on the eastern Site boundary and the possibly that this species may enter the Site on occasion to shelter cannot be ruled out, although the dry grasslands within the development area do not provide a potential feeding area for this species. It is also likely that, as water voles are present on other stretches of the Don, individuals may also occasional range along this eastern boundary of the Site. Bats There are a number of features of use to roosting bats on the boundary of the Site. These include the brick walls on the northern boundary and the mature trees and bridge abutments to the east. The cooling towers, due to their crumbling structure, may offer limited potential for crevice-dwelling bats. Good quality foraging habitat exists on the site, and foraging activity was recorded during a dusk bat activity survey. Similar good quality bat foraging habitat is widely available along the Don Valley and open land to the east of the river at this point. The vegetated habitats of the Site have been shown to be within the foraging range of bat populations locally, but considered at a landscape scale are unremarkable in comparison with other undeveloped

116


land along this part of the River Don. Whilst the Site is part of the feeding resource available to local bat populations, this resource is not limited to the extent that the Site would be considered a key resource for these species. Maintenance of good quality foraging habitat for bats, and provision of opportunities for roosting bats will be one of the key elements of Site mitigation/enhancement at Blackburn Meadows. Great Crested Newts No records of great crested newts were found on the National Biodiversity Network website (NBN), and none were provided by consultees in late 2006. No great crested newts were observed during a preliminary survey (one visit) of the water-filled bases of the two cooling towers. These waterbodies are considered sub-optimal for this species as they contain little standing water and are reported to dry out in the summer. On balance, taking this into account; the ponds’ isolated status and the site’s history of flooding, it is considered highly unlikely that great crested newts are present there. The only other amphibians of which there was evidence during the 2007 surveys were smooth newts, which were breeding in the ponds beneath the cooling towers just outside the Site. These ponds will unavoidably be lost when the cooling towers are demolished, which is something that is required for reasons of public safety, irrespective of whether the renewable energy plant goes ahead. Creation of new wetlands as part of the proposed development will ensure that habitat for this species is maintained on site in the longer term. Badgers No setts or other large animal burrows were found on site, and no signs of badger activity (hairs, dung pits/latrines, foraging signs, etc.) were observed during any of the survey visits in 2007. It is considered that the site is unlikely to represent key habitat for badgers, if a population ranges locally. Breeding Birds The woodland, scrub and tall grassland are all used by nesting birds in the breeding season. Breeding territories of 19 species were present on the site, including three red-listed species (Bullfinch, Hedge Accentor (Dunnock) and Song Thrush) and three amber-listed species of moderate conservation concern (Mistle Thrush, Peregrine and Willow Warbler). Peregrine, which is reported to breed on the disused cooling towers just outside the Site, is afforded further protection as a Schedule 1 species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Although considered in isolation the Site appears to support a breeding bird population of less than local significance, it is appropriate to consider it as contributing positively to the local significance of the River Don valley species assemblage. The requirements of the BAP/red-listed breeding birds will be one of the key elements to be considered in the detailed design of mitigation measures at Blackburn Meadows.

Summary The proposed development Site at Blackburn Meadows is not a designated nature conservation site, and the habitats and species present are not individually of high nature conservation significance, so do not constitute a constraint to development at the site.

117


However, considered as a whole, the diversity of the site and its location relative to other open greenspace locally, means that it can be considered to be an area that contributes positively to the local conservation value of this part of the River Don corridor. 3.5.7 Ecological Impact Assessment The potential impacts of the development on the ecological interest of the site are presented in this section. However, these must be considered in light of the flooding event that occurred in July 2007 after the surveys were undertaken. Much of the ecological interest is likely to have been disturbed / destroyed by the floods. Sites There are no statutory protected sites in the vicinity of the proposed development. There will be no impacts to the non-statutory River Don pSINC, as no works to the river or its banks are proposed.

Habitats and Vegetation The grassland, scrub and woodland habitats present on site are of value as potential habitat for protected species and breeding birds. Conversion of much of the grassland, scrub and woodland habitats to hardstanding and buildings as a part of the development of a Renewable Energy Plant will result in the loss of some of breeding habitat for nesting birds. The demolition of the cooling towers, which is required for public safety reasons irrespective of whether the renewable energy plant gains consent, will result in the loss of nesting habitat for the peregrine falcon and will also result in the loss of the two waterbodies located within their bases. In the absence of control measures, pre-construction Site Investigation (SI) works, site clearance and construction works have the potential to cause the spread of Japanese knotweed to other parts of the Site. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the flooding in July 2007 may have already spread this invasive weed from a few localised areas in the northeast of the site into the main area of construction. As part of a strategy for control of Japanese knotweed, regular inspections should be undertaken by a suitably experienced person prior to commencement of works, so that it can be controlled/eradicated.

Fauna Otters and Water Voles As no works are proposed to the River Don; no impacts on off-site habitats to the south of the Site; and no loss of any habitat providing a food resource for otters, no adverse impacts to this species are predicted as a consequence of the proposed development. In the longer term, the creation of new undisturbed wetland habitat in the flood attenuation area represent a small increase in the availability of good quality foraging habitat and cover for this species, which is a minor benefit.

118


There is no habitat suitable for use by water voles within the Site, and no works are proposed for the waterside habitats of the River Don, so this species will not be affected by the proposed development. Bats The mature trees and built structures, including the brick wall to the west of the Site and the abutments of the bridge to the east of the Site have the potential to support roosting bats. As these features will be retained and not subjected to disturbance by any phase of the development, there will be no impact on potential bat roost habitats. Pipistrelle bats have been recorded foraging within the site. Loss of grassland, scrub and woodland habitats will temporarily reduce the foraging opportunities available to bats. However, equally good quality foraging habitats exist to the north, south and east of the Site. No significant impacts to bat populations are predicted as a result of temporary reduction of foraging habitat, and continuity of foraging habitat in the long-term is assured by the creation of new permanent wetland habitat in the Blackburn Meadows flood attenuation area. Great Crested Newts This site further has the potential to support the European protected species great crested newts. However, there are no records of this species occurring on or near the site and a preliminary survey failed to find any. That said, further surveys and, at least, a precautionary approach will be recommended to ensure that no harm occurs to individual newts, if present, during the clearance and construction works. Should great crested newts be discovered on the site, all works would have to be deferred pending the application for a site disturbance licence from Natural England and the agreement of an appropriate mitigation strategy. Assessment of the impacts of the development on great crested newt habitat is best deferred until such times as an adequate survey can be undertaken to establish presence or absence of this species. Badgers Although badgers are reported to be present along the Don Valley, no setts or other signs indicating use by badgers were found within the Site. The development is therefore assessed as having no impact on this species. Breeding Birds The site supports breeding birds, protected under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). These include three red and three amber listed species of conservation concern. In addition, the peregrine falcon that nests on the cooling towers outside the Site is protected through inclusion on the Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In accordance with the requirements of the legislation, the potential for direct adverse impacts on breeding birds will be reduced to a minimum, principally by the adoption of reasonable measures to remove potential breeding habitat in advance of construction works. During site clearance it is inevitable that there will be a temporary reduction in the availability of breeding habitat for these species, and they will be displaced from the Site. However, the

119


creation of the new wetland habitat in the flood attenuation area provides an opportunity for creation of habitat suitable for these species to return to and persist in the long term. Reptiles Suitable habitat for reptile species such as common lizards and grass snakes exists on the Site. However, much of their potential habitat was inundated during July 2007. There are no recent records for reptiles on or near the site and, during the course of the other surveys, there were no incidental sightings. On balance, it is not considered that the development will have any impact on reptiles. 3.5.8 Mitigation On the basis of surveys and assessment carried out to date, there are no in-principle ecological constraints to the development of the new Renewable Energy Plant proposed at Blackburn Meadows. However, there is potential for some impacts of significance at a local scale, and so mitigation measures are proposed. In this section, mitigation measures are described under three sub-headings, which correspond with the three main stages of the development process that would follow the granting of outline planning consent(s) for the development.

Design Stage Habitat Retention The first principle of the Strategy is to “design out” and thus avoid adverse impacts wherever possible. It is recommended in particular that the woodland strip along the southern boundary of the site, and the occasional maturing trees present along the northern boundary are retained. Habitat Creation Where features do not warrant retention and cannot practicably be retained in situ, but similar habitat could be replicated and maintained elsewhere within the site, then the opportunity will be taken to create new habitats of similar nature to those lost. As Peregrines are reported to breed on the cooling towers, which have reached the end of their design life and are to be demolished, a breeding platform suitable for them to use as an alternative nest site will be incorporated into the design of the new Renewable Energy Plant. External lighting, where used, will be focussed within the Site, with care taken not to illuminate the corridor of the River Don. Site landscaping will be designed and managed in an ecologically sensitive manner in order to ensure the long-term suitability of habitats on site for species of conservation value, e.g. breeding bullfinches. The principles of habitat creation will be applied to all of the Site landscaping. Opportunities for use by a range of wildlife will be incorporated into all of these areas, irrespective of whether their primary purpose is for ecological mitigation. Awareness of implications when making decisions regarding species/varieties chosen will maximise the value even of areas with a mainly formal landscape purpose. For instance, in terms of flowering trees, shrubs and herbaceous species, more important than the choice of native versus non-native species may be decisions over flower-structure or fruit colour, which determine their value as food sources for wildlife.

120


Any perimeter landscaping will be landscaped with a predominantly native tree and shrub woodland mix based on appropriate National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities. The following communities could be considered: MG4 and MG5 mesotrophic grassland (open grassland type maintained by annual mowing) and woodland of W10 and W8 type (dry areas) and wet woodland (type dependent upon ground moisture conditions) within the flood attenuation area. Trees and shrubs of British (rather than continental European) provenance will be used, as these genotypes have sustainability benefits in terms of optimal establishment and disease resistance. As part of the strategy to maximise the ecological value of the new features of the site, scheme engineers and designers will take into consideration advice on ecologically sensitive design principles. Designs have been kept flexible at this stage, given that there are other potential development proposals in the area. However, if/when these other developments come forward they will be taken into consideration in the Blackburn Meadows habitat creation/landscaping proposals, to optimise biodiversity benefits and minimise the potential for conflicts. In view of the potential Halfpenny Link Road, particular attention will be paid to flightline, barrier and fragmentation issues. In particular, where species-rich grassland is recommended, care will be taken to ensure that non-agricultural grass cultivars are used in combination with commonly occurring locally native wildflowers. Rare or scarce species will not be introduced into newly created grasslands, as this could obscure and confuse understanding of the “natural” distribution of such species. Where practical, sourcing of other herbaceous plants will be in accordance with the principles of Flora Locale, which is a conservation initiative centred on sourcing plants and seed of verifiable British provenance. Habitat Enhancement In tandem with the above habitat retention and creation measures within the planning application site, an assessment is being made of the potential to enhance the ecological value of habitats elsewhere in the application site. Measures will be put in place as follows:

• Replacement of some areas of bare ground with new planting of greater value to wildlife;

• Augmentation of some existing vegetation with new species to enhance its value as habitat;

• Altered management, e.g. mowing regimes, to diversify structure of microhabitats; • Installation of features such as bird and bat boxes; and • A management plan for the Site to optimise its habitat value for a range of species.

These measures will be co-ordinated to complement design and management measures within the newly developed areas, so as to optimise the ecological value of the site as a whole in the short-, medium- and long-term.

Site Clearance and Construction Stage In addition to the design stage, the construction stage of the project will also be based upon principles designed to maintain and enhance the biodiversity of the site. An Environmental

121


Management Plan (EMP) will be developed, with Construction Method Statements for activities in areas of sensitivity. The following general principles will be applied when considering the mitigation of adverse impacts on ecology during construction. Monitoring Change The full development of the site can be expected to take up to five years. During that time, in the absence of management, the ecological character of the undeveloped parts of the site could change significantly, due to the process of ecological succession. During this process, the nature conservation value of the habitats on site will change, as will the complement of species that they support. In recognition of the dynamic nature of habitats on site, ecological monitoring will be undertaken. This monitoring will mean that up-to-date knowledge can be used by a suitably experienced ecologist, referred to as the “site ecologist”, to provide input on nature conservation issues to decision-making about the siting and scheduling of further development on the site. The site ecologist will develop mitigation and enhancement measures that will be co-ordinated with the EMP to ensure that ecological impacts during construction are minimised. For instance, any trees and shrubs that cannot be retained will be taken down before the bird breeding season. Definition of Working Areas The working areas, including temporary access tracks, will be kept to a practical minimum through areas of vegetated habitat, and their boundaries will be clearly delineated at the commencement of works. The site ecologist will be consulted in decision-making over areas proposed for use as construction compounds or site storage areas, so that sensitive habitats are avoided wherever possible. Protective Fencing Existing vegetation to be retained, or other areas defined by the site ecologist as requiring protection from accidental damage or disturbance, will be securely fenced prior to the commencement of site clearance. The area enclosed within the fencing will include the root systems of the vegetation affected. Fencing will be fit for purpose (“Netlon” or similar is not suitable) and be clearly visible to drivers of large construction vehicles. No storage of materials will be permitted within the fenced areas. The fences will be maintained to ensure their continued function throughout construction, but will be removed from site on completion of the works. Retention and protective fencing is recommended at the following locations:

• Edge trees/woodland to be retained for screening on the southern boundary; • Occasional maturing trees on/close to the Site’s northern boundary.

Minimising Risk of Nuisance Good construction site management will be implemented to avoid/minimise generation of excessive litter, dust, noise and vibration. This will be controlled and monitored through the EMP.

122


Protection of Water Quality Good construction site management will be implemented to avoid/minimise potential for problems such as fuel and other chemical spills. There will be no storage of potentially contaminating materials in areas of hydrological sensitivity, e.g. in the vicinity of the River Don. A Pollution Incident Response Plan will be included as part of the EMP, to ensure that impacts from potential accidental spills are reduced to a minimum. Ground Preparation and Restoration Where present, topsoil should be removed and stored separately from the underlying subsoil in piles less than 2 m high. Topsoil, in particular, should be stored for as short a time as possible. When ground affected by construction works is being restored, subsoils should be placed beneath topsoil, and steps taken to ensure that the new surfaces will settle so as to be flush with the surrounding ground level. Minimising Potential for Impacts on Breeding Birds The nests, eggs and young of even common species of wild bird are protected from deliberate damage during the breeding season (March to July inc.) under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Although damage to breeding sites may be the incidental result of a lawful operation, such as the implementation of a planning consent, it is best practice to minimise the potential for such damage by removing vegetation likely to be used by breeding birds outside of the season if at all possible. Alternatively, a search of vegetation by the site ecologist immediately prior to clearance is recommended, so that breeding sites can be identified and their clearance delayed until any young have fledged. Minimising Potential for Impacts on Amphibians and Reptiles As the pools near to the Site will be lost when the cooling towers are demolished, it is recommended that an alternative waterbody be provided in advance of demolition (or soon thereafter) so that any amphibians remaining on Site after the 2007 flooding, e.g. smooth newts, will have alternative breeding habitat available. In the unlikely event that great crested newts or reptiles be discovered on site, works will be deferred until an appropriate Mitigation Strategy is in place. In the case of great crested newts, this would be agreed with Natural England and (if necessary) a licence obtained.

Completed Development Management Plan Continuation of the ongoing monitoring of the site and the continuing nature conservation management by the Environmental Initiatives Officer, or a more formal whole-site landscape and habitat management plan, will ensure that the Site will be managed to maximise its nature conservation value as a whole. An increasing number of E.ON UK plc power stations are developing their own BAPs, with assistance from E.ON’s Biodiversity Champion, so this will also be considered.

123


124

3.5.9 Residual Effects The implementation of ecological mitigation measures in accordance with the principles set out in section 3.5.8 above will reduce potential impacts of significance at the local scale, i.e. those that could constitute a material consideration in terms of the planning application, to being of significance at a low scale, i.e. in the context of the site. Assuming that the above mitigation principles are applied, the significance of the residual impacts of the development of the new Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows would be as set out below. The temporary loss/disturbance to a range of habitat and species from the main Site during earthworks and construction can be classified as a certain/near-certain impact with a detectable effect on the nature conservation status of the Site and its immediate environs. This impact will be permanent on the development plot and temporary, lasting for approximately three years, over the basin proposed for wetland/grassland habitat creation in the flood attenuation area. Whilst being an impact of high magnitude in the context of the Site, this adverse impact would not directly or indirectly affect the River Don pSINC and its constituent assemblage of habitats and species. Nor would it have an adverse impact on either the conservation status or ecological integrity of the semi-natural habitats within the wider river valley corridor locally. This is therefore a temporary adverse impact that is of less than local significance in nature conservation terms. At the end of the development, the creation and management in the long term of locally-appropriate habitats as part of the development’s flood attenuation scheme represents a permanent beneficial impact at the level of the Site and its immediate surroundings. This is a permanent positive impact, also of significance at a less than local scale.


125

3.6 Landscape and Visual Effects 3.6.1 Introduction The purpose of this study is to identify the effects of the proposed development of a Biomass Renewable Energy Plant at the former power station site at Blackburn Meadows, Sheffield, on landscape resources and visual amenity. The site is visible from a wide area of Sheffield and there may therefore be some landscape and visual effects. 3.6.2 Methodology The assessment of the site and the surrounding area has been undertaken with reference to the Countryside Commission’s Landscape Assessment Guidance (1993) and the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995). The approach used for this assessment is based on this guidance. The site and surrounding area have been visited to obtain familiarity with the urban landscape and surrounding countryside areas. Field studies have included the recording of landscape features, the evaluation of landscape character and quality, the recording of views and establishment of representative viewpoints. Desk studies have been carried out including a study of the local topography and land use using maps, the Local Plan, aerial photographs and photographs taken during field studies. Consultation has been limited to meetings with Sheffield City Council. A combination of the information from desk and field studies has been used to determine the extent of the potentially affected area, and to identify the receptors of the landscape and visual effects. A Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) study has also been carried out in order firstly to establish the study area and then to establish the additional area affected by the proposals. A number of viewpoints have been selected to represent views from important locations. Landscape related planning policies from the current land use plans (Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1998 and Rotherham Unitary Development Plan 1999) that affect the site and its surrounding receptors have been identified and inform the assessment. Recent and imminent changes in planning policy have also been considered. The Countryside Commission’s Landscape Assessment Guidance methodology includes the assessment of the impact of the development on landscape resource and visual amenity. The detailed methodology is given in Appendix C. Much of the assessment is presented in written form, but maps, photographs and photomontages are also used. 3.6.3 Description of the Proposals The physical characteristics of the proposals need to be understood in order to identify the extent of the study area required and to accurately predict the nature, magnitude and extent of the impacts. A full description of the proposals is given in section 2.1. The main elements potentially affecting the landscape resource and visual amenity are summarised below. Additional measures or alterations to the design in order to address identified adverse impacts are described in Section 3.6.5.


126

The estimated maximum dimensions of the main components are as follows:

Component Length (m) Width (m) Height (m) Stack 3 90 Boiler House 32 25 46 Turbine Hall 32 18 15 Fuel Reception Building

20 27 15

Processed Fuel Store

50 30 24

Fabric Filter Unit 15 10 17

Air Cooled Condenser

40 26 25

The cladding materials and colours used for the proposed Plant cannot be fully determined until the main Plant contractor has been selected. However, an indicative layout has been provided to support the planning application and this is shown in Figure 2.1.3. The layout shows that the tallest components, the boiler house and stack, will be adjacent to each other. The stack and boiler house will generate the most significant impact in terms of visibility due to their height and mass. Due to the complexity of the urban area, it is not possible to precisely define the extent to which the proposed development will be visible. Site studies, however, have allowed the approximate areas to be defined and these are illustrated in Figure 3.6.1. These areas have been realised through an assessment of topography on and surrounding the site and through on site investigations. The site is currently vacant and therefore it is difficult to assess visibility of the proposed Plant, especially with distance from the site. The cooling towers, approximately 300 metres from the centre of the proposed application site, stand at 76 metres in height. These have been used as visual markers to test the likely visibility of the larger components of the proposed Plant including the stack and the boiler house from the viewing areas. Smaller components of the proposed Plant will add mass but will have a far more localised impart than the stack and the boiler house. 3.6.4 Baseline Studies Site Description The proposed location of the new Renewable Energy Plant is largely flat. The structures of the former power station have been removed and vegetation has colonised much of the site. The wider application site beyond the proposed area for the Plant is also largely vacant with the exception of two of the cooling towers remaining from the former power station and a primary sub station. It is anticipated that the remaining two cooling towers will be demolished during 2008. This site has also been colonised with vegetation and is heavily vegetated along the south boundary that roughly follows the line of the canal and the River Don. The land that bounds the north and east of the site is land owned by Yorkshire Water. This land is occupied by a sewage works and plots of vacant land. The M1 motorway passes the site to the west. This section of the motorway is elevated to cross the Don Valley.


127

The site occupies land within the Don Valley with open floodplain to the east and developed floodplain to the south west. Both sides of the valley are also heavily developed with industrial and commercial development on the lower slopes and residential development on the upper slopes. The local topography makes the site highly visible from a number of locations. The baseline conditions within these areas are described below under headings that roughly correspond to the districts of Sheffield that they cover. Receptors in these areas are identified. Under each heading there is a summary of the sensitivity of these receptors in each area. These are classified in terms of:

• Landscape Resource, which includes: o Recognised Importance of receptor o Local Value of receptor o Sensitivity of receptor

• Visual Amenity – sensitivity of receptor to changes in view.

The methodology in Appendix E provides further detail regarding these assessments.

3.6.4.1 Area 1 – Area Immediately Surrounding the Site (Fig 3.6.2) Site Description Area 1 is within the Don Valley and includes Meadowhall to the west and Blackburn Meadows Nature Reserve to east. The area is severed by the M1 motorway. The Sheffield to Cleethorpes railway passes east west along the north edge of the area. This area includes the site for the proposed Plant but excludes the M1 which is covered later. The area to the east of the M1 motorway is generally sparsely developed with open roughly vegetated land with fragments of industrial infrastructure, the River Don and the Tinsley Canal. There are, however, some significant structures associated with the sewage works and the cooling towers remaining from the former power station. To the west of the M1 motorway is more heavily developed with Meadowhall Shopping Centre and a number of industrial units. Landscape Resource On the whole, this area has a green landscape character to the east of the M1 motorway and an industrial character to the west of the M1 motorway. In terms of recognised importance of the landscape, local policy designations the canal and river corridors and the Transpennine Trail are part of the Green Network (UDP Policy GE10) and the open land to the east of the site are designated an area of Natural History Interest (UDP Policy GE13). Consequently recognised importance of the landscape of this area is moderate. The open space to the east of the site is also a designated a site of nature conservation importance (SNCI) in the Sheffield Development Framework. For these areas, the recognised landscape importance is classified as moderate. The local value of the landscape is judged to be moderate due to the Transpennine Trail passing through the area that is a significant recreational attraction which is likely to be used locally.


128

In terms of sensitivity of this landscape to change, the area to the east of the site and the canal and river corridors are judged to have moderate sensitivity. It is judged as moderate rather than high due to the remaining fragments of industrial infrastructure and industrial nature of the wider landscape. To the west of M1 motorway, this area is judged to have low sensitivity to change. This due to the changeable and industrial nature of the landscape of the Upper Don Valley and the inward looking nature of Meadowhall that means its landscape setting is of low importance. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. To the west of the site the proposed Plant will be visible at ground level from Meadowhall Shopping Centre, some parts of the Transpennine Trail that follows the canal and river through this area, from roads serving Meadowhall and the wider Don Valley area and from the Sheffield to Cleethorpes railway. In some areas, views of the proposed Plant will be intermittent due to the screening effect of trees and vegetation that follow the trail. In the area to the east of the M1 motorway the proposed Plant will be visible from some parts of the Transpennine Trail that follows the canal and river through this area and from the Sheffield to Cleethorpes railway. Views will be screened by trees and vegetation that follow the Transpennine Trail but the proposed Plant will be visible where land opens up directly to the east of the site, including from Blackburn Meadows nature reserve. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.2 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. The sensitivity of Meadowhall and the nearby industrial units as a visual receptor is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the limited views from Meadowhall of the site, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of the canal and river corridors and the significant open space to the east of the site as visual receptors is likely to be more significant due to the expected scenic value of these areas. Due to the nature of the area as a whole, there will also be expectations of an industrial townscape and tolerance to change would be high in an area of this nature, especially given the current derelict nature of the site itself, which is visually unappealing. The sensitivity of this receptor group is moderate. Summary

• Landscape Resources o River and canal corridors and open space – moderate landscape importance,

moderate sensitivity and moderate local value. o Retail and industrial development – low landscape importance, low sensitivity

and low local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Views from Meadowhall and industrial workplaces and some commercial

workplaces - low sensitivity o Views from Tinsley Canal and River Don – moderate sensitivity o Views from roads in the area (transient views), excluding M1 motorway – low

sensitivity o Views from railway lines (transient views) – low sensitivity


129

3.6.4.2 Area 2 – Rotherham West (Fig 3.6.3) Site Description Rotherham West area covers residential areas of Richmond Park/Hill Top and Kimberworth, open space and Jordan industrial area. This land rises steeply from the Don Valley giving clear views of the site for the proposed Plant. The lower section of the slope to the south of the A6109 Meadow Bank Road is mainly industrial/commercial premises. To the north of the A6109 is mainly residential with a significant informal open space at Hill Top. There are a number of open spaces and corridors including a large open space at Hill Top which is grassed landfill / slag heap. Landscape Resource In terms of landscape designations a small part of the open space is designated as an area of interest outside of protected sites (UDP Policy ENV 2.2), including areas of species, habitat, geological or archaeological interest. This area in terms of landscape importance is judged to be low. The local value of the landscape is judge to be moderate due to the high number of residents living in this area who will appreciate their local landscape. In terms of sensitivity of this landscape to change, Jordan is judged to have low sensitivity. This is due to Jordan being an industrial development of no special character that is constantly changing, and the inward looking nature of industrial areas in general. For the residential area the sensitivity to change is moderate as while the area has no special landscape character the area is of reasonable quality and reasonably cohesive. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. There will be clear views of the proposed Plant from the A6019 and Jordan Industrial area. Further up the hill at Kimberworth the site is visible, although the nature of development means views are more intermittent. From Richmond Park and Hill Top area views are blocked by a grassed landfill / slag heap which rises higher than the land to the north. Consequently there are no views from Richmond Park and Hill Top. In terms of views from the open spaces and corridors, the site can be seen from some of the open spaces in Kimberworth but the grassed landfill / slag heap blocks views of the site from open spaces on the edge of Hill Top and Richmond Park. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.3 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. The sensitivity of Jordan industrial area as a visual receptor is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of the residential areas and open spaces to changes in the view is moderate. This is because although the view is predominantly industrial and constantly changing, residents and users of open space will appreciate their surroundings and the view at the same time as being tolerant to some change.


130

Summary

• Landscape Resources o Residential areas and open space – low landscape importance, moderate

sensitivity and moderate local value. o Industrial development – low landscape importance, low sensitivity and low

local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Industrial workplaces – low sensitivity o Views from open space and residential areas – moderate sensitivity o Views from roads in the area (transient views) – low sensitivity

3.6.4.3 Area 3 – Tinsley and Brinsworth (Fig 3.6.3) Site Description Tinsley and Brinsworth area includes the residential areas of Tinsley and Brinsworth and the Templeborough Industrial area. The land rises from the valley floor up to the A6178. Either side of the A6178 is the Templeborough Industrial Area which contains a mixture of industrial and commercial premises and a number of vacant sites, some of which are being developed. To the west of Templeborough is a residential area which is part of Tinsley. The land to the south of Templeborough gently rises up to the A631 and Brinsworth, a largely residential area with an area of open space called Brinsworth Grange. Landscape Resource There are no landscape designations in this area. This area in terms of landscape importance is judged to be low. The local value of the landscape is judge to be moderate due to the high number of residents living in this area, particularly Tinsley directly south of the proposed site. The presence of the golf course and driving range on Brinsworth Grange also contributes to moderate local value. In terms of sensitivity of this landscape to change, the sensitivity of the industrial development at Templeborough is low as it is an industrial development of no special character that is constantly changing. For the residential area the sensitivity to change is low as the area has no special landscape character and the residential areas of Tinsley are particularly poor quality. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. There will be clear views of the proposed Plant from Templeborough (and the A6178), Tinsley and Brinsworth (and the A631). The Templeborough Industrial Area sits on land that rises up above the site so the clearest views of the site are from Templeborough although some views are blocked by development and this is likely to intensify as vacant land is developed in the Templeborough area. Views from Tinsley are restricted to the properties fronting onto Sheffield Road (A6178). These views are likely to be come less incessant as vacant land opposite at Templeborough is developed. Views from Brinsworth are restricted to


131

residential properties fronting on to Bawtry Road (A631). These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.3 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. The sensitivity of Templeborough industrial area as a visual receptor is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of the residential areas of Tinsley and Brinsworth is judged to be moderate as residents value the view more than users of the industrial areas. It is considered however that there will be acceptance of change in the area given the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. Summary

• Landscape Resources o Residential areas and open space – low landscape importance, moderate

sensitivity and moderate local value. o Industrial development – low landscape importance, low sensitivity and low

local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Industrial workplaces - low sensitivity o Views from residential areas – moderate sensitivity o Views from roads in the area (transient views) – low sensitivity

3.6.4.4 Area 4 – Junction 34 M1 Motorway (Fig 3.6.4) Site Description The M1, particularly immediately to the north and south of junction 34, is a major gateway to Sheffield. In this area the M1 is elevated to cross the Don Valley, thus in itself is a dominate feature of the landscape and permits strong views of the Don Valley. Landscape Resource Although the proposed Plant will sit in an industrial landscape of the Don Valley and hence not be contrary to the landscape features around it, the proximity of the M1 to the proposed development means the there will be a moderate sensitivity to change in the landscape. This area of the M1 does not have any landscape designations meaning it has low landscape importance. Its position as a major gateway to Sheffield, which is adjacent to the site, means the landscape setting has high local value as a Gateway location. The quality of the landscape of the M1 in this area is particularly poor and it is constantly changing, hence it has low sensitivity to change in landscape. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. Views of the site from the M1 are only apparent in close proximity to junction 34. To the south there are intermittent views from the M1 as it passes the Tinsley area. To the north the grassed landfill/slag heap called Hill Top obscures views of the site almost immediately.


132

From junction 34 the site is highly visible. Visibility of the site will become stronger with the anticipated removal of the cooling towers. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.4 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. Views from the M1 are likely to be highly sensitive to change due to the proximity of junction 34, which signals arrival in Sheffield, closely associating the area with Sheffield meaning it is a very important gateway location. Therefore views from the M1 motorway will be more sensitive to change than less strategic roads. Consequently this receptor has high sensitivity. Summary

• Landscape Resources o Setting of the M1– low recognised importance, high local value, low

sensitivity.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Views from the M1– high sensitivity.

3.6.4.5 Area 5 – Wincobank and Shiregreen (Fig 3.6.5) Site Description This area includes the residential areas of Higher and Lower Wincobank, Grimesthorpe, Shiregreen, Concorde Park and industrial areas of Wood Hill and Wincobank. This area is a large hill that rises steeply from the Don Valley to Concorde Park. The slopes of the hill are predominantly residential with some industrial towards the bottom of the valley. Tyler Street (B6082) runs around the lower part of the hill. Landscape Resource In terms of landscape designations there is Concorde Park, a significant open space which includes an area of natural history interest (GE13). The Transpennine Trail also passes through this park. This area also a green corridor which is part of the green network (GE10) that passes along the edge of Concorde Park and some established and desired green links. Consequently this area has moderate recognised landscape importance and is expected to have high local value. In terms of sensitivity of this landscape to change, the sensitivity of the industrial development at Wincobank and Wood Hill is low as it is industrial development of no special character that is constantly changing. For the residential areas, the sensitivity to change is moderate although as the area has no special landscape character, the residential areas are of reasonable quality and fairly cohesive. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. The topography of the area means there are clear views of the site from High Wincobank and Concorde Park, which are situated towards the top of the hill. Views of the site are more intermittent from Low Wincobank and Wood Hill due to lower position of the hill slope and urban development blocking views. Views from the Transpennine Trail are limited due to screening effect of woodland and urban development. Views from Tyler Street (B6082) are


133

also very limited. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.5 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. The sensitivity of the industrial areas of Wood Hill and Wincobank as visual receptors is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of the residential areas of Wincobank, Shiregreen and Grimesthorpe is judged to be moderate as residents value the view more than users of the industrial areas. It is considered however that there will be acceptance of change in the area given the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of Concorde Park and the Transpennine Trail is judged to be moderate as users will expect some scenic quality and value the view more than industrial users. It is considered however that there will be acceptance of change in the area given the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. Summary

• Landscape Resources o Open space and residential areas – moderate landscape importance,

moderate sensitivity and moderate local value. o Industrial development – low landscape importance, low sensitivity and low

local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Industrial workplaces - low sensitivity o Views from residential areas and open space – moderate sensitivity

3.6.4.6 Area 6 – Don Valley (Fig 3.6.6) Site Description The Don Valley area is quite heavily developed with a mixture of uses, but predominantly industrial uses. Open space and trees is confined to the River Don and Tinsley Canal corridors. Landscape Resource In terms of landscape designations the River Don and Tinsley Canal Corridors are designated as Green Links under the Green Networks policy (UDP Policy GE10) and there are a number of proposed Green Links in the area. This area is also recognised for its special character due to its industrial heritage (UDP Policy GE18). The majority of the built environment, however, is a mixture of industrial development of varying age and quality with no special character. Overall the landscape importance is considered to be moderate. Local value of the area is considered to be moderate due to the green network and industrial heritage.


134

In terms of sensitivity to change, this area is judged to be low. This is because of the industrial development throughout the Don Valley is very mixed in terms of style giving it an disjointed feel and has generally a poor quality environment. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. For much of the Upper Don Valley area the proposed Plant will not be visible at ground level. This is due to the land being relatively flat and the density of development. Only where the land opens up at to the south west of Meadowhall Shopping Centre is the site visible at ground level and even from here views are interrupted by the M1 motorway. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.6 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. From the upper floors of some of the higher buildings in the Don Valley views of the proposed Plant are likely, but these are expected to be few and far between, especially given the lack of windows in many of the buildings here. The sensitivity of the Don Valley as a visual receptor is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. Summary

• Landscape Resources o Green corridors – moderate landscape receptor importance, moderate

sensitivity and moderate local value. o Industrial development – low landscape receptor importance, low sensitivity

and low local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Industrial workplaces – low sensitivity of receptor o Green corridors – moderate sensitivity of receptor o Views from roads in the area (transient views) – low sensitivity

3.6.4.7 Area 7 – Rotherham Central (Fig 3.6.6) Site Description This area includes the industrial area in Don Valley to the west of Rotherham town centre and the Canklow area of Rotherham to the south of the town centre, which is predominantly residential. The Transpennine Trail passes through this site following the Tinsley Canal and then the River Rother. Landscape Resource This area includes areas of designated urban green space (ENV5) along the River Rother corridor. Part of this open space is designated as land of interest outside of statutorily designated sites (ENV2.2). The Transpennine Trail is a nationally recognised recreational pathway. Consequently, this area has moderate landscape importance. The landscape will have moderate local value due to the significant residential population that will value their surroundings and use of the Transpennine Trail.


135

In terms of sensitivity of this landscape to change, the sensitivity of the industrial development on the edge of Rotherham is low as it is an industrial area of no special character that is constantly changing. For the residential area the sensitivity to change is low as the area has no special landscape character and the residential area of Canklow is particularly poor quality. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. The proposed Plant will be highly visible from the residential area of Canklow as here the land rises steeply from the Don Valley with strong views from Rother View Road. The proposed Plant will also be visible from Bessemer Way which is an elevated road leading to a small industrial park in the valley. It is very unlikely there will be views of the proposed Plant from the Transpennine Trail in this area due to is low lying position and the screening affect of urban development and vegetation. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.6 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. The sensitivity of industrial areas to the west of Rotherham town centre as visual receptors is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of the residential area of Canklow is judged to be moderate as residents value the view more than users of the industrial areas. It is considered however that there will be acceptance of change in the area given the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. Summary

• Landscape Resources o Green corridors – moderate landscape importance, moderate sensitivity and

moderate local value. o Residential areas – low landscape importance, moderate sensitivity and

moderate local value. o Industrial development – low landscape importance, low sensitivity and low

local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Industrial workplaces – low sensitivity o Residential areas – moderate sensitivity o Green corridors – moderate sensitivity

3.6.4.8 Area 8 – Sheffield East (Fig 3.6.7) Site Description This area includes a mix of residential, industrial and commercial land uses across Darnall, Handsworth Hill, Wyborune, Attercliffe and Greenland. The area has a number of green open spaces associated with the residential areas. There are a number of significant roads in the area including the A57 Sheffield Parkway and the A6102 Greenland Road.


136

Landscape Resource In terms of landscape importance this area contains green links that follow the Tinsley Canal corridor and some additional proposed green links that are part of the Green Network (GE10). The river corridor is also classed as an area of natural history interest (GE13). Consequently, these areas have moderate landscape importance. The rest of the area has low landscape importance. The landscape will have moderate local value due to the significant residential population that will value their surroundings and use of the green links. The industrial area however will have low local value. In terms of sensitivity of this landscape to change, the sensitivity of the industrial areas in and around Attercliffe is low as it is an area of no special character that is constantly changing. For the residential areas the sensitivity to change is moderate as the area has no special landscape character and some of the residential areas are quite poor quality. Visual Amenity Using the cooling towers as a visual marker, Figure 3.6.1 shows the main areas from which the proposed Plant is likely to be visible in its entirety or partially. The proposed Plant is visible from the industrial area of Tinsley to the west of the M1 motorway and from residential and industrial areas in Attercliffe, although these views are intermittent and quite distant. These views can be seen in photographs in Figure 3.6.7 using the cooling towers as a visual marker. Views were investigated in Handsworth, Darnall and Sheffield Park. There were no views at ground level but there will almost certainly be views of the proposed Plant from some of the flat in the Sheffield Park tower blocks, although these are limited to the upper flats that have a North West aspect. These views will be very distant. The sensitivity of industrial areas of Attercliffe and Tinsley as visual receptors is judged to be low. This is due to the limited numbers of persons valuing the view, the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. The sensitivity of the residential area of Attercliffe as a visual receptor is judged to be moderate as residents value the view more than users of the industrial areas. It is considered however that there will be acceptance of change in the area given the industrial context of the views and the likely expectations and tolerance to change in a continually developing area. Summary

• Landscape Resources o Green corridors – moderate landscape importance, moderate sensitivity and

moderate local value. o Residential areas – low landscape importance, moderate sensitivity and

moderate local value. o Industrial development – low landscape importance, low sensitivity and low

local value.

• Visual Amenity Receptors o Industrial workplaces – low sensitivity o Residential areas – moderate sensitivity o Green corridors – moderate sensitivity


137

o Views from roads in the area (transient views) – low sensitivity

3.6.4.9 Area 9 – Sheffield City Centre and Area 10 – Urban Fringe/Pennine Fringe As part of the on site visual investigations, views from Sheffield City Centre were included due to the importance of the City Centre as a visual receptor, as were views from the urban/Pennine fringe due to the height of the land which meant there is strong potential for views of the site. On site investigations did not find views of the site from ground level in the city centre or from the urban/Pennine fringe. This does not mean there will definitely be no views of the site and proposed Plant from these areas, but if there are views they will be extremely limited, potentially only from tall buildings in the east of the city centre and very distant from urban / Pennine fringe.

3.6.4.10 Planning Policy A detailed review of planning policy context is given as a separate chapter of the Environmental Statement. For the purposes of the landscape and visual assessment a brief review of relevant landscape planning policy is provided in Appendix C. This includes policy for both Sheffield City Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. 3.6.4.11 Future Baseline It is important to consider how the area is likely to develop over the next 20 years. This will include consideration of how the site will be developed if it is not developed for current proposals as well as development around the site that will influence the landscape of the wider area and views of the site. The site itself is designated for fringe industry in the Sheffield UDP 1998. In the Sheffield Development Framework 2007 (SDF) Preferred Options Proposals Map the site is designated for industrial uses. The site is included in a plot that has some specific proposals in the City Sties Preferred Options 2007, which include park and ride, renewable energy uses and open space. The SDF also shows part of the land to the south of the site is designated for a new road, known as the Halfpenny Link. This will contribute to a more industrial landscape developing within the immediate area as well as facilitating development of the site and surrounding area for industrial uses. From this we can deduce that if the site is not developed for the proposed Plant, it is likely the site will be developed for another industrial use. Consequently it is a fair assumption that other further development on the site would have an industrial appearance and mass not dissimilar to the proposals, although the presence of a tall stack would perhaps be less likely. Surrounding the site in Sheffield there are a number of development site that are proposed for a mixture of fringe industry and general industry in the Sheffield UDP 1998. In the SDF land to the north is designated for industry and land to the south is designated for business and industry. Surrounding the site in Rotherham the land is designated for predominantly industrial and business uses with a small area designated for mixed use. Consequently vacant sites surrounding the application site will be developed for industrial uses. This will strengthen the industrial character of the area, keeping with the character of the proposed Plant. Furthermore the intensity of development will reduce the visibility of the proposals.


138

It is anticipated that the two cooling towers will be demolished during 2008. This will remove the largest structures in close vicinity to the proposed Plant and open up clear views of the proposed Plant to the west. 3.6.5 Potential Effects Assessment 3.6.5.1 Introduction Section 3.6.5.2 describes the elements of the proposals that would generate the landscape and visual effects. The baseline studies in Section 3.6.4 have identified the probable receptors and classified them in terms of their sensitivity and importance. A summary of this is given in the table in Appendix C. The landscape and visual effects on those receptors are described and discussed in the following paragraphs. The assessment has been completed using notes from site visits, photographs of key views in Figure 3.6.8 and the photomontages given in Figures 3.6.9 to 3.6.20. Also Figure 3.6.21 shows the proposed Masterplan and Plant elevations. Due to the nature of the elements of the Plant, only the large elements of the Plant are included on the photomontages, including the boiler house and stack. The photomontages show the Plant as it would appear today with the cooling towers, and how the Plant would appear without the cooling towers. 12 key views are given in the photomontages. 3.6.5.2 Assessment of Effects Area 1 – Area surrounding the Site (Figure 3.6.11 – Photomontage C and Figure 3.6.18 Photomontage J) Potential effect on landscape resources For the green corridors, open space and the Transpennine Trail, the proposals become an important feature of the landscape and will moderately change its character and quality. Consequently there is a medium magnitude of change. Overall there is moderate adverse impact on landscape for these receptors as there is moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. For the industrial areas and Meadowhall there is a low magnitude of change as the proposals become a readily visible feature of the landscape and will slightly change its character and quality. Overall there is slight adverse impact on landscape for these receptors moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. Potential effects on visual amenity For the green corridors, open space and the Transpennine Trail there will be a substantial scale of change as the proposals will obstruct or intrude into the view and become the dominating feature, particularly where the Transpennine Trail/river and canal corridor approaches the site from the west and passes the site to the east and south. In terms of the nature of change, there is a substantial change in the nature of the view as the proposals have entirely different characteristics and are out of scale with existing elements in the view, particularly where the Transpennine Trail/river and canal corridor approaches the site from the west and passes the site to the east and south.


139

Overall the proposals will have a substantial adverse impact on green corridors, open space and the Transpennine Trail in Area 1 as there will be major changes to views of moderate sensitivity. For the Industrial areas, Meadowhall and the local roads there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. Area 2 – Rotherham West (Figure 3.6.16 Photomontage H and Figure 3.6.17 Photomontage I) Potential effect on landscape resources For the open spaces, green corridors and residential areas the proposals become an important feature of the landscape and will moderately change its character and quality. Consequently there is a medium magnitude of change. Overall there is moderate adverse impact on landscape for these receptors as there is moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. For the industrial areas there is a low magnitude of change as the proposals become a readily visible feature of the landscape and will slightly change its character and quality. Overall there is slight adverse impact on landscape for these receptors moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. Potential effects on visual amenity For the Industrial areas, residential areas, open spaces and green corridors there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the residential areas, open spaces and green corridors the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Area 3 – Tinsley and Brinsworth (Figure 3.6.10 Photomontage B, Figure 3.6.12 Photomontage D) Potential effect on landscape resources For the open spaces, green corridors and residential areas the proposals become an important feature of the landscape and will moderately change its character and quality. Consequently there is a medium magnitude of change. Overall there is moderate adverse impact on landscape for these receptors as there is moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape.


140

For the industrial areas there is a low magnitude of change as the proposals become a readily visible feature of the landscape and will slightly change its character and quality. Overall there is slight adverse impact on landscape for these receptors moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. Potential effects on visual amenity For the Industrial areas, residential areas, open spaces and green corridors there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics to the overall landscape but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the residential areas, open spaces and green corridors the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Area 4 – Junction 34, M1 (Figure 3.6.9 Photomontage A) Potential effect on landscape resources The proposals become an important feature of the landscape of the M1 near to Junction 34 and will moderately change its character and quality. Consequently there is a medium magnitude of change. Overall there is moderate adverse impact on landscape for these receptors as there is moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Potential effects on visual amenity Due to the proximity of the M1 to the site the proposals will result in substantial scale of change as the proposals will obstruct or intrude into the view and become the dominating feature. The nature of the change will be moderate as the proposals have similar characteristics but are out of scale with existing elements in the view. Overall there will be a substantial adverse impact as there will be major changes to views of moderate sensitivity. Area 5 – Wincobank and Shiregreen (Figure 3.6.13 Photomontage E, Figure 3.6.13 Photomontage F and Figure 3.6.20 Photomontage L) Potential effect on landscape resources For the open spaces, green corridors and residential areas the proposals become an important feature of the landscape and will moderately change its character and quality. Consequently there is a medium magnitude of change. Overall there is moderate adverse impact on landscape for these receptors as there is moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. For the industrial areas there is a low magnitude of change as the proposals become a readily visible feature of the landscape and will slightly change its character and quality. Overall there is slight adverse impact on landscape for these receptors moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity.


141

Potential effects on visual amenity For the Industrial areas, residential areas, open spaces and green corridors there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics to the overall landscape but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the residential areas, open spaces and green corridors the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Area 6 – Don Valley (Figure 3.8.15 Photomontage G) Potential effect on landscape resources For the open spaces and green corridors there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics to the overall landscape but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. For the Industrial areas, there will be low scale of change as the proposals become a readily visible feature of the landscape and that will only slightly change its character and quality. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the open spaces and green corridors the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Potential effects on visual amenity For the Industrial areas, open spaces and green corridors there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics to the overall landscape but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the open spaces and green corridors the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Area 7 – Rotherham Central (Figure 3.6.19 Photomontage K) Potential effect on landscape resources


142

For the residential areas there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics to the overall landscape but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. For the Industrial areas, there will be low scale of change as the proposals become a readily visible feature of the landscape and that will only slightly change its character and quality. For the green corridors and Transpennine Trail the will also be a low scale of change as there is a negligible change to its character due to the proposals only being a minor component of the landscape in this area. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the open spaces and green corridors the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Potential effects on visual amenity For the residential areas there will be moderate scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a moderate degree and become an important feature of the view. In terms of the nature of change, the proposals have similar characteristics to the overall landscape but are out of scale with existing elements in the view, resulting in a moderate change. For the industrial areas there will be a slight scale of change the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a slight degree and become a readily visible component of the view. For the Transpennine Trail and the river and canal corridors there will be a negligible change as the proposals do not noticeably obstruct or intrude into the view. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the residential areas the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. With regard to the open spaces and green corridors there is no significant impact as no part of the proposal will be visible. Area 8 - Sheffield East Potential effect on landscape resources For the residential areas, green corridors and industrial areas there will be a low scale of change as the proposals become a slightly visible feature of the landscape and will slightly change its character and quality. Overall the proposals will have a slightly adverse impact with regard to the industrial areas due to moderate loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. With regard to the open spaces and green corridors and residential areas the proposals will have a moderate adverse impact due to moderate loss and/or change to a moderately sensitive landscape. Potential effects on visual amenity


143

For the residential areas, green corridors and industrial areas there is a slight change in the nature of the view as the proposals have similar characteristics and are broadly in scale with existing elements in the view. There is a slight scale of change as the proposals obstruct or intrude into the view to a slight degree and become a visible component of the view. Overall there is nominal significance as there is slight loss and/or change to a landscape of low sensitivity. 3.6.5.3 Temporary Construction Effects So far we have only considered effects of the proposal whilst operational. It is also important to consider the visual impact of the construction phase. During the construction period the two following changes are predicted:

• An increase in movement associated with construction activities; and • Introduction of new temporary elements.

Operations during the construction phase will occur within the application area. The site is currently vacant so in terms of landscape impacts the construction phase will add car parks, materials stockpiles, site compounds, lighting and fencing. This phase may also see the removal of some trees. Overall there will be a slight negative impact on landscape during the construction phase. Due to the physical nature of the site, within a valley and the presence of heavy vegetation to the south and the M1 motorway to the west and industrial development to the north and east, the majority of the construction impacts such as car parks, materials stockpiles, site compounds, lighting and fencing are likely only to be visible from a limited number views and will thus have a slight negative visual impact during the construction period. 3.6.6 Landscape Strategy and Mitigation Measures 3.6.6.1 Introduction The predicted potential impacts of the development will be used to develop a series of comprehensive mitigation measures. The landscape strategy would normally be part of the mitigation strategy. It usually includes a series of measures specifically aimed at reducing the visibility and perceived scale of the building in order to minimise its impact. Due to the scale of the proposal there is no realistic option of successfully screening the development from view. Consequently landscaping to screen the development will only be part of the mitigation strategy. The assessment of potential landscape and visual effects has demonstrated that the boiler house and stack of the proposal will be visible from many important view points, particularly as it is close to junction 34 on the M1 and the anticipated removal of the cooling towers. Consequently there is an opportunity to treat the proposal as a landmark building of good visual quality to enhance a key gateway into the City and be a symbol of the City’s commitment to renewable energy and the improving the environment. Locating the Plant next to the cooling towers site will provide the opportunity to create a new landmark building that will replace the landmark status the cooling towers have acquired over the years. This approach would result in the building being more prominent, but the appearance of the building would be more acceptable, especially from the closer more sensitive view points such as the junction 34 of the M1 motorway. This can be balanced with some landscaping closer to ground level to screen views of the site from the Transpennine Trail.


144

The strategy is as follows

• To improve the quality of views and minimise the visual effect of a large industrial development on the most sensitive views from the Transpennine Trail and the M1.

• To achieve a modern industrial building of sufficient architectural quality, style and character to earn a place as a landmark feature, especially from the M1.

• To minimise the visual effect from Transpennine Trail, river and canal corridors and other recreation areas close to the site.

• To minimise the visual effect of the proposals from middle distance viewpoints, particularly the residential areas on the upper slopes of the valley.

• To minimise the impact of temporary elements during the construction period. 3.6.6.2 Mitigation Measures Until the contractors have been appointed, the layout of the buildings and the building materials, colour and detailing cannot be finalised. However, there are a number of design and development principles proposed to mitigate the visual and landscape impact. Construction Period The brevity of the construction period means potential mitigation measures are restricted, but potential adverse effects could be reduced by the detailed design of construction works e.g. appropriate location of stockpiles of materials and waste and for car parking, careful use of lighting and general good housekeeping to keep the site tidy. These mitigation measures will reduce the landscape effects associated with the introduction of temporary elements. Design Approach The Design and Access Statement submitted as part of this application considers in detail the design and development principles proposed to be adopted for the development and which will address the landscape impacts considered. The overall approach for the detailed design of the Renewable Energy Plant will be to create a clean industrial character consistent with its role, the use of sustainable energy generation technology, its visible location and context and E.ON’s corporate objectives. Whilst the sites potential ‘land mark’ location is noted the overall image of the site is intended to be one of a contemporary functional, modern, industrial set in a green environment. The Plant will offer architectural character and aesthetic quality through the use of visually strong and, wherever possible, sustainable materials. The design strategy based upon an approach to integrating the wider green environment of the Plant itself whilst establishing a back drop to the more dramatic (visible) elements of the Plant. In this approach many of the smaller buildings would be well integrated into the surrounding environment with use of green roofs and wood and other natural or ‘green’ cladding materials, including green walls. A more contemporary approach could then be taken with a number of the taller structures (ie stack and boiler house) to highlight them and contrast then against a more subdued background. These approaches combined with integrity of design rationale, supported by appropriate building materials, use of colour, lighting and signage can combine to create a very positive, readily recognisable sustainable landmark or landmarks in this location.


145

Within the context of the design approach outline above it is proposed that detailed layout seeks to develop on the following design elements: • Focal points, reinforcing legibility and entry points to the plant – these should respond to

the Aisling Road / M1 view points and the potential entry point from the Fixed Link. • Key elevations / building lines – particular emphasis in terms of design approaches

should be taken to developing positive elevations to buildings to the south and western boundaries of the development area.

Massing / Roof lines Where appropriate opportunities will be taken to develop the appearance of otherwise simply profiled buildings by considering refinement to the roof lines and so forth to create additional interest and reflect some examples of traditional industrial development in the wider area. This approach will need to be consistent with objectives for green roofs as well as other considerations.

Lighting Lighting will be used to meet health and safety requirements and maintain a degree of visibility of the built form after dark. However, light pollution and impact of local habitat areas will be minimised. Landscape Enhancement A key part of the landscape strategy is the provision of woodland screening from the south. This will provide a wooded corridor immediately next to the river reducing visual permeability towards the power station. 3.6.7 Assessment of Residual Effects Residual effects are those which are predicted to remain after the implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 3.6.6. As previously iterated E.ON cannot determine the exact layout of the development or the colours, materials and detailing of the proposed Plant until a contractor has been appointed. We can however recommend the principles behind the mitigation measures suggested are implemented in the design of the proposed Plant. These will reduce the adverse impact of the proposed Plant. The residual effects at the operational stage of the development are described first as it is considered that these are long term and therefore more significant than the temporary effects that occur during the construction phase. The effects during the hours of darkness, seasonal changes in vegetation and temporary construction effects are also considered. In Section 3.6.4 of this report a number of landscape and visual receptors were identified within the zone of visual influence of the proposed Plant. Below it is demonstrated how the mitigation measures proposed can be used to reduce the impact of the proposed Plant. Receptor Group 1 - Open space, green corridors and Transpennine Trail The mitigation measures can be used to reduce the visibility of the proposed Plant from the Transpennine Trail, as it passes directly to the south and east of the site, through retention of


146

existing vegetation and planting of additional vegetation along the south and eastern edge of E.ON UK’s land ownership, which is illustrated in Section 2.1.1. As the vegetation will be directly adjacent to the Transpennine Trail it will screen views of the proposed Plant and make this section of the Trail greener and more attractive. Overall this will dramatically reduce the visibility of the proposals and improve the landscape quality of the Transpennine Trail in this area. For open spaces, green corridors and parts of the Transpennine Trail that are middle range to distant from the proposals, it is not possible to screen views. From these areas it is likely that only the taller components will be visible. The appearance of the upper components of the proposed Plant can be softened with the use of light colours that work with the colour of the sky and blend in. The roof shape can incorporate curves to soften the impact of the skyline. This will reduce the visual impact of the proposals and help it blend into the landscape. Receptor Group 2 - Residential Areas The majority of residential areas are located within middle range distance of the proposed Plant and only the upper parts of the Plant are likely to be visible due to the distance from the site and other development and vegetation between the site and residential areas that block views of the lower parts of the proposal. The appearance of the upper components of the Plant can be softened with the use of light colours that work with the colour of the sky and blend in. The roof shape can incorporate curves to soften the impact of the skyline. This will reduce the visual impact of the proposals and help it blend into the landscape. Receptor Group 3 – Industrial areas From the majority of the industrial areas that are within view of the proposals, only the taller components of the Plant will be visible due to other development, vegetation and the M1 motorway blocking views of the lower parts of the proposal. The appearance of the upper components of the Plant can be softened with the use of light colours that work with the colour of the sky and blend in. The roof shape can incorporate curves to soften the impact of the skyline. This will reduce the visual impact of the proposals and help it blend into the landscape. From some industrial areas, particularly Jordan and parts of Templeborough and the Don Valley the lower parts of the Plant will be visible. Darker colours can be used for the lower parts of the proposals that will help it blend into the mosaic background of vegetation and industrial development. This will reduce the visual impact of the proposals and help it blend into the landscape. Receptor 4 – M1 Motorway The M1 at Junction 34 is very close to the proposed Plant. With the anticipated removal of the cooling towers, the proposed Plant will be highly visible and a distinct feature of the landscape. The elevated position of the motorway in this area and the presence of vegetation will mean views of the lower parts of the Plant will be less prevalent than upper parts of the Plant. Use of darker colours for the lower parts of the proposal will help it blend into the mosaic background of vegetation and industrial development. Use of a limited palette of colours for the upper parts of the Plant, particularly the boiler house and stack will contribute to creating mass and presence. The boiler house roof can be used to create a distinct roofline for the building, along with the stack. Use of lighting at night can accentuate these features. Overall this will contribute to the creation of a landmark building at a major gateway to the city, signalling arrival in Sheffield. The Plant will provide


147

the opportunity to create a new landmark building that will replace the landmark status the cooling towers have acquired. From this close proximity view, the use of high quality materials for exterior walls will give the perception that the Plant is of high status and reflect its importance. Using the Plant as a landmark building will also be a highly appropriate marker of Sheffield’s commitment to renewable energy and improving the environment. This approach will mean the development could have a beneficial visual and landscape impact. 3.6.8 Compliance with Land Use Planning Policy It is important that the design and appearance of the proposals are in accordance with relevant land use planning policy from Sheffield and Rotherham. Further details regarding the Sheffield and Rotherham land use policies is provided in Appendix C. Below the compliance with these policies is discussed. In current planning policy, the site is designated for Fringe Industry in the Sheffield Unitary Development Framework (UDP) 1998. In the Sheffield Development Framework 2007 (SDF) Preferred Options Proposals Map the site is designated for industrial uses. In terms of appearance, certain characteristics are associated with industrial developments. In terms of the scale and dimensions of the proposals and the likely appearance as indicated in the mitigation section, the proposed Plant is in compliance with this policy. In terms of Townscape Design, Sheffield UDP Policy BE1 states that in areas of no conservation value, the opportunity should be taken to improve the City’s townscape and develop its character. Policy ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, in the Rotherham UDP states that development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design. The location and mass of the proposal along with the suggested design principles in this report to create an attractive landmark building, demonstrates compliance with this policy. In terms of landscaping, Policy BE6 in the Sheffield UDP aims to encourage the practice of good quality landscape design by providing an attractive setting for new buildings. Policy ENV3 in the Rotherham UDP stresses the importance of maintaining and enhancing the landscape of the Borough, pursuing and supporting this objective through positive measures or initiatives. Compliance with these policies is demonstrated through the design recommendation to retain vegetation and trees and plant additional landscaping and vegetation along the edge of the application site to enhance the environment along the Transpennine Trail. Policy BE5 (Sheffield UDP) and Policy ENV3.1 (Rotherham UDP) states that good design and the use of good quality materials will be expected in all new buildings. Compliance with this policy is demonstrated through recommendation for use of high quality materials for external walls of the development, particularly for the stack and boiler house. In the Rotherham UDP Policy ENV3.2, Minimising the Impact of Development, seeks to minimise adverse impact on the environment through consideration of scale, appearance, nature and location of development proposals. The measures to minimise the visual impact of the development for middle range to distant views demonstrates compliance with this policy. 3.6.9 Summary and Conclusions 3.6.9.1 Overview of Key Potential Impacts


148

Assessment of the landscape and visual baseline and impacts has been structured so the key impacts can be easily deduced. As the visual appearance of the proposed Plant in terms of colours, shape, detailing and materials is not known, the assessment of landscape and visual impacts is based on the impact of the Plant as a series of white blocks representing the dimensions of the Plant. The most sensitive receptors to the proposed Plant are the M1 near to junction 34 and the Transpennine Trail as it passes the site. The proposal will be particularly apparent in these areas, thus the scale and nature of the change of the views will be strong. It is at these locations where the most substantial adverse landscape and visual impacts are predicted. A number of residential areas and open spaces are identified within the zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the proposed Plant. Views from these areas vary, but in general these areas have a middle range to distant views of the Plant that moderately change the nature of the view and the scale of the proposals will be reasonably apparent. For the majority of these areas, there will be moderate sensitivity to changes in landscape, and users will be moderately sensitive to changes in views. Generally the proposed Plant will have a moderate adverse impact on residential and open spaces within the ZVI. Industrial areas and supporting highway infrastructure are identified within the ZVI of the proposed Plant. Views from these areas are generally close to middle distance from the Plant and consequently the scale of the proposals is very apparent and the nature of the change is quite strong. Despite this, the low sensitivity of these areas to change means that overall the proposals will only have a slight adverse landscape and visual impact on industrial areas and the supporting highway infrastructure. 3.6.9.2 Overview of Potential Residual Impacts As the assessment of landscape and visual impacts is based on the impact of the proposed Plant as a series of white blocks representing the dimensions of the Plant, there is little scope in the assessment of proposals to provide a positive impact as we cannot factor in high quality architecture and aesthetics into the assessment. Nor can the assessment factor in the use of architecture, colour and materials to reduce the visual impact of the proposals. Mitigation measures described in this report provide the opportunity to minimise the potential adverse landscape and visual impacts for middle to distant views of the proposed Plant where it is not feasible to screen views, and create positive landscape and visual impacts in areas that are in close proximity to the proposals. Overall this will mean the residual impacts of the proposals will be less adverse than the potential impacts identified and in some cases the proposals can have a positive impact. 3.6.9.3 Limitations Assessment of the landscape and visual impact of the proposals has been based on the best information and data that is feasible to obtain at this stage of the development of the proposals. The assessment, however, has been limited by uncertainty in relation to the appearance of the Plant, and by the use of the cooling towers as a visual marker to determine the visual impact of the larger elements of the Plant. The impact of these limitations is that the visibility and appearance of the Plant, and the consequent landscape and visual impact, cannot be precisely determined. Use of the


149

mitigation measures when developing designs for the Plant and its associated landscaping is the most appropriate way of limiting the impact of these limitations of this assessment. 3.7 Transport 3.7.1 Introduction Scott Wilson was appointed by E.ON UK to carry out an assessment of the transport impact of the proposed construction of a new Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows. This section provides a summary of the methodology adopted, establishes the baseline, presents the development proposal and its transport characteristics, quantifies the traffic effects and identifies mitigation measures. Discussions with Sheffield City Council highways department highlighted a number of issues which are set out below and which are considered in this report. The issues for consideration are as follows:

• A description of current conditions • Calculation of peak development flows • Distribution and assignment of construction traffic • Network impact analysis • Assessment of safety and capacity issues at sensitive points within the study area,

and • The formulation of mitigation measures

This chapter considers the traffic impact of the proposed development for the following scenarios:

• Baseline (2009) • Peak of Construction (2010) • Year of Opening (2011)

3.7.2 Proposed Methods of Transport Consideration has been given to the most practical and economic methods of transport during the construction and operation of the new Renewable Energy Plant. Construction of the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant will require the delivery to site of equipment and materials. A limited number of abnormal loads are expected during construction. It is expected that the majority of these will originate from overseas and arrive in the UK by sea, before completing the remainder of the journey to the site by road. Other loads, originating within the UK, will also utilise road transport for delivery to the site. There will be a construction workforce, the size of which will vary throughout the construction period, which will have to travel to the site. Operation of the new Renewable Energy Plant will require the delivery of waste wood and the dispatch of ash. There will also be deliveries of SNCR reagent, water treatment plant additives and other consumable items. Operations and maintenance personnel will also travel to the site.


150

As part of the assessment of haulage options for delivering biomass fuel to the Blackburn Meadows site, an investigation has been carried out of both waterway and rail delivery as an alternative to road. At present, the source of biomass fuel and location of the fuel processing plant, or plants, is not known, but the objective is to source fuel from within a 50mile radius of the Blackburn Meadows site. Freight transport is a significant cost and in general terms the ‘double handling’ of fuel would make the fuel source uneconomic. If the alternative means of transport to road haulage are to be practical and economic it means that both the fuel processing plant and the Blackburn Meadows site need to be directly connected to the rail or waterway system. Use of Waterway for Biomass Fuel Delivery The South Yorkshire Navigation canal runs downstream past the north-eastern part of the Blackburn Meadows site. The full course of the South Yorkshire Navigation runs into Sheffield from the major inland port at Goole. It already carries substantial amounts of freight. However, consultations with British Waterways have revealed that a critical section, for access to Blackburn Meadows, was de-classified as a freight route some 20 years ago. This section begins some 6-7km from Blackburn Meadows. Consultation with British Waterways has revealed that the cost of the remedial works required for re-opening this section of the navigation to freight is un-economic. The large scale dredging operation and the replacement of the existing, traditional locks are the most prohibitive cost elements. The closest existing wharf to Blackburn Meadows is at the steelworks at Rotherham. If fuel were shipped there it would need to be transported to Blackburn Meadows by road. This would be un-economic and offer no significant environmental advantages as there would be no reduction in HGV road traffic local to the proposed development site. Use of Rail Network for Biomass Fuel Delivery Two options were considered. These are the provision of a new rail siding within or immediately adjacent to the proposed Site, or the transhipment through existing rail freight close to Blackburn Meadows. The Blackburn Meadows site adjoins the existing Sheffield to Rotherham freight rail line. It has been confirmed by Network Rail that the track bed of a long-closed section of the railway adjacent to the Site remains in their ownership and could offer the potential for the creation of a dedicated facility linked to the existing freight line. Indicative schemes have been considered, to develop a rail connection to the Network Rail system. These have been reviewed to consider the impact on the proposed site layout, the means of connecting the off-loading facility to the proposed Renewable Energy Plant and the impact on the potential for other developments on the Site. Indicative costs have also been considered. A sizeable area would be required next to the siding for discharging machinery to occupy and operate upon. The land requirement for this platform may reduce the proportion of the Blackburn Meadows site that is required by Environment Agency to be allocated as flood plain. During recent consultations Sheffield Wildlife Trust contended that some of the area proposed for a possible rail freight siding would encroach on an existing otter habitat.


151

Sheffield City Council proposes a scheme for a fixed link route to run across the Blackburn Meadows site. The existing configuration of this scheme compromises options for a rail freight siding. Any conflict between the two proposals would need to be resolved. Whilst the cost of these rail developments is likely to be significant, these costs could be partially subsidised by grants and contributions from external sources. The alternative of using an existing off-site rail freight facility has also been considered. The closest is at the Rotherham Masborough Rail Terminal. Initial discussions indicate that the terminal has the capacity to handle the likely throughput required by the biomass plant. However, any use of an off-site facility will require road transport between that facility and Blackburn Meadows which would be costly and negates the potential local environmental benefits of rail transport. Summary of Waterway and Rail Options for Biomass Fuel Delivery The use of the waterway is rejected. It would be uneconomic to re-engineer the navigation adjacent to the Blackburn Meadows site for freight use. The use of an alternative local wharf at Rotherham would involve double handing of fuel with no significant environmental advantages as there would be no reduction in local HGV traffic. The use of rail and the ability to secure on-site sidings and an off-loading facility also depends on the interaction and potential conflict with the proposed Fixed Link road connection. That scheme and route across the Blackburn Meadows site has yet to be finalised. Some of the area required for a proposed rail freight siding is likely to encroach on the land in the Site allocated as flood plain. Furthermore, consultees have contended that the land required for a new siding may impact on a wildlife habitat within the site. The option to use an off-site freight handling facility is not considered a viable option and, without any reduction in local HGV traffic, offers no significant environmental advantages. The use of rail freight servicing the proposed plant is a potential longer term option. Its use depends on the location of fuel suppliers with sites that are, or can be, rail connected economically and resolving successfully the issues set out above. At this point in time, the road option for biomass fuel delivery is considered to be the viable option for this development. However, the rail option will be kept under review, once the routing of the Fixed Link road connection is firm and land availability for on-site rail sidings and off-loading facilities is known. The use of rail will also depend on the availability of grants to make the option financially viable. For these reasons a detailed assessment of the implications of using road transport for the delivery of biomass fuel, and other materials to be delivered or exported from the site has been undertaken. This assessment has also considered the implications of using road transport during the temporary construction period of the Renewable Energy Plant.


152

3.7.3 Methodology for Assessment of Road Transport The methodology adopted in this section to establish existing and future traffic conditions follows the guidelines set out in the ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’, March 2007, published by the Department for Transport. The assessment of environmental impacts is assessed in line with the ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Traffic’ produced by the Institute of Environmental Assessment. Best practice recommends that a scoping study is prepared in advance of the main assessment so that a dialogue can be established with the local highway authority to identify the main areas of concern and to agree a methodology for the assessment. The main transport policy document prevalent within the study area is the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan, 2006 – 2011 which has been referenced to establish the policy background. 3.7.4 Baseline Conditions The study area is limited to the route between the strategic network and the development site. The Blackburn Meadows site is linked to the M1 at Junction 34 (North) via the A6109 to the Meadowhall Interchange junction, where combined flows of Meadowhall shopping and biomass traffic will turn left before the two streams split at the mini-roundabout. The other main link road is Meadowhall Way which is located south of the site and can by accessed via the M1, Junction 34 (South), or local roads. From here, a single access no-through road serves the site, named Alsing Road. It is currently used by vehicles generated by Yorkshire Water and Meadowhall shopping centre. It is expected that the proposed Renewable Energy Plant would share this right of access with the other organisations using the greater site. Existing traffic volumes on Alsing Road are very low. The road was also observed to be of a sufficient width and design for the safe movement of the anticipated construction and operational biomass traffic. The width of the carriageway is 6.5 metres and the footpaths are 1.5 metres wide. Alsing Road crosses the routes of both the Yellow and Purple lines of the Sheffield Supertram at an uncontrolled level crossing. Signing tells drivers of road vehicles to give way here. The safety record indicates no accidents at the crossing over the past five years. Meadowhall Way is a two-lane dual carriageway road with a good road surface, carrying traffic mainly to Meadowhall shopping centre. Meadowhall Road is a four lane single carriageway, with dual carriageway sections opening out to three lanes in each direction before junctions. The road surface is of a good standard. This busy road carries traffic between the M1 junction 34 and Sheffield City Centre. Sheffield City Council provided traffic flow data for Meadowhall Road and Meadowhall Way. Traffic flow data for Alsing Road was collected by a manual count in April 2007, for the peak hours only. The 5-day average traffic flow data of 2004 received from Sheffield City Council have been grown to estimate the base flows for the assessment years 2008, 2009, and 2010. Growth rates and 24 hours flow (where applicable) were derived applying industry standard methods from the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF) and the Design Manual for Roads and


153

Bridges, respectively. Low band NRTF growth rates were selected, reflecting the congested conditions on the roads in the vicinity of the development. The following growth factors were applied: Growth Factors to Derive Future Year Flows 2004 To: Growth Factor 2009 1.064 2010 1.076 2011 1.089 The flows for the baseline year, 2009, are as follows: Weekday AM Peak Hour – 0800 to 0900 Location 2008 Base Two Way Flow Meadowhall Way 1,278 Meadowhall Road (North) 1,844 Meadowhall Road (South) 1,672 Alsing Road 82 Weekday PM Peak Hour – 1700 to 1800 Location 2009 Base Two Way Flow Meadowhall Way 1,738 Meadowhall Road (North) 2,578 Meadowhall Road (South) 1,824 Alsing Road 46 Weekday 24 Hour Flow Location 2009 Base Two Way Flow Meadowhall Way 18,837 Meadowhall Road (North) 23,058 Meadowhall Road (South) 17,225 Alsing Road - 3.7.5 Committed Development Committed developments have been considered in the study area and Sheffield City Council reported that, at the time of writing, no other proposals of consequence need to be considered. 3.7.6 The Development Proposal The development proposal is to build a new Renewable Energy Plant on the site at Blackburn Meadows. The site has an area of approximately 12.5 hectares (31 acres). For assessment purposes, the build is programmed to start in January 2009 and last for a period of 24 months. The construction and operation of the Renewable Energy Plant will generate car and van traffic associated with the two activities. The site will also generate a volume of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), mainly delivering the construction materials, then the fuel for the Renewable Energy Plant during its operation.


154

The profile of workforce over the construction period of the Renewable Energy Plant has been estimated in consultation with a number of specialist power sector contractors with recent experience of renewable energy plant construction. The information submitted by these contractors has been reviewed by E.ON UK and applied to this particular project. The resulting estimates are regarded as robust. The profile of daily workforce over the 24-month construction period is shown below in Table 3.7.1: Table 3.7.1 Profile of Daily Workforce Throughout Construction Construction Year Construction Month Daily Workforce in The Month

1. January 12 2. February 15 3. March 15 4. April 30 5. May 30 6. June 30 7. July 38 8. August 50 9. September 60 10. October 75 11. November 90

2009

12. December 148 13. January 184 14. February 196 15. March 187 16. April 194 17. May 176 18. June 131 19. July 96 20. August 70 21. September 30 22. October 18 23. November 14

2010

24. December 11 The peak of construction workforce is forecast to occur in Construction Month 14, (February 2010), when on average 196 workers per day are expected on site. 3.7.7 Traffic Generation It is expected that construction workers will be drawn from a daily commutable catchment area where they will either live, or be in temporary accommodation within the Sheffield-Rotherham conurbation or other local towns. It is assumed that workers will arrive at site in cars and vans with an overall occupancy rate of 1.35 per vehicle. This is a figure generally accepted in the construction industry and indeed a figure that has been used and accepted in the assessment of other power station proposals. When this occupancy rate is applied to the workforce, the following daily car generation on a month-by-month basis results: Generation of Vehicles at Peak of Construction


155

Month Total Workers No. of Cars/Vans @1.35 per vehicle 1. 12 9 2. 15 11 3. 15 11 4. 30 22 5. 30 22 6. 30 22 7. 38 28 8. 50 37 9. 60 44 10. 75 56 11. 90 67 12. 148 110 13. 184 136 14. 196 145 15. 187 139 16. 194 144 17. 176 130 18. 131 97 19. 96 71 20. 70 52 21. 30 22 22. 18 13 23. 14 10 24. 11 8 Examination of the table above reveals that the peak daily generation on this basis occurs in Construction Month 14 (February 2010) where 145 cars/vans will be generated. These vehicles will both enter and exit the site during the course of the working day. Working hours on major construction sites tend to be long due to pressures of timescales and available light. Therefore, the arrival and departure of workers vehicles tends to be spread over the peak periods rather than all falling in the traditional network peak hour. It is expected that the following profile of arrivals and departures will occur at the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant construction site:

• Hour beginning 0600 - 11% of daily inbound • Hour beginning 0700 - 28% of daily inbound • Hour beginning 0800 - 50% of daily inbound

• Hour beginning 1600 - 7% of daily outbound • Hour beginning 1700 - 50% of daily outbound • Hour beginning 1800 - 28% of daily outbound

The assignment of traffic to the network is made based on the geographic split of population within a 60-minute drive time of the construction site as detailed below. The assignment of trips to the network is estimated as follows: Assignment of Workers Trips


156

Access Route Catchment Area Percentage of Catchment Route 1 Local roads, then connecting onto Meadowhall Way and Meadowhall Road (S), Alsing Road

Sheffield Conurbation Chesterfield Worksop Mansfield

75%

Route 2 Local roads, then connecting onto Meadowhall Road (N), Alsing Road

Sheffield Conurbation Rotherham Doncaster Barnsley

25%

The assignment of trips to the network for the peak month of construction, taking account the estimated assignment and the time at which traffic is expected to be generated, results in the following two-way flows on the three links of interest: Assignment of Car Trips at Peak of Construction based on 145 Cars

Meadowhall Road (N) 25% of Flow

Meadowhall Road (S) 25% of Flow

Meadowhall Way 50% of Flow

Alsing Road 100% of Flow

Hour Beginning

In Out In Out In Out In Out 00:00 - - - - - - - - 01:00 - - - - - - - - 02:00 - - - - - - - - 03:00 - - - - - - - - 04:00 - - - - - - - - 05:00 - - - - - - - - 06:00 4 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 07:00 10 - 10 - 21 - 41 - 08:00 18 - 18 - 37 1 73 1 09:00 3 - 2 - 5 - 10 - 10:00 - - 1 - 1 - 2 - 11:00 - - - - - 1 - 1 12:00 - - - - 1 - 1 - 13:00 - - - - - 1 - 1 14:00 - - - - 1 - 1 - 15:00 - 1 - - - 1 - 2 16:00 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 10 17:00 - 18 - 18 1 37 1 73 18:00 - 10 - 10 - 21 - 41 19:00 - 4 - 4 - 8 - 16 20:00 - - - - - - - - 21:00 - - - - - - - - 22:00 - - - - - - - - 23:00 - - - - - - - - A number of HGVs will be generated throughout the construction period. The assignment of trips to the network for the peak month of construction taking account of the designated route for HGVs and the time at which traffic is expected to be generated results in the following two-way flows on the three links of interest:


157

Assignment of HGV Trips at Peak of Construction

Meadowhall Road (N) 25% of Flow

Meadowhall Road (S) 25% of Flow

Meadowhall Way 50% of Flow

Alsing Road 100% of Flow

Hour Beginning

In Out In Out In Out In Out 00:00 - - - - - - - - 01:00 - - - - - - - - 02:00 - - - - - - - - 03:00 - - - - - - - - 04:00 - - - - - - - - 05:00 - - - - - - - - 06:00 - - - - - - - - 07:00 - - - - - - - 08:00 - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 09:00 1 1 - - 1 1 2 2 10:00 - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 11:00 1 1 - - 1 1 2 2 12:00 - - - - 1 1 1 1 13:00 - - - - 1 1 1 1 14:00 - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 15:00 1 1 - - 1 1 2 2 16:00 - - 1 1 1 1 2 2 17:00 1 1 - - 1 1 2 2 18:00 - - - - - - - - 19:00 - - - - - - - - 20:00 - - - - - - - - 21:00 - - - - - - - - 22:00 - - - - - - - - 23:00 - - - - - - - - Once operational in 2011, the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant will be operated by 25 staff recruited from the surrounding area, where possible. There is likely to be a three shift work pattern; 06:00-14:00, 14:00-22:00 and 22:00-06:00. No seasonality is expected. It is estimated that up to 200,000 tonnes of waste wood will be delivered to the site per annum. The wood will be sourced from a variety of locations within approximately 50 miles of the site. Based on a 6-day week operation (likely to be Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6pm) with each HGV carrying a payload of 20 tonnes, this equates to 36 HGVs per day arriving at the site. In addition to fuel delivery it is expected that there will be deliveries of operational and maintenance plant and the removal of ash. This will equate to a further 4 HGVs per day.


158

3.7.8 Traffic Impact Two specific issues of transport impact need to be examined to fully assess the development. Firstly, road capacity by comparing forecast base plus development flows against design capacity to ensure that the network can accommodate the combined level of traffic. Secondly, the percentage increases in traffic flow at the peak of construction to assess the scale of impact. Two scenarios have been identified for analysis comprising 2010, which represents the peak generation during construction of the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant, and 2011, which represents the year of opening of the proposed Plant. Base flows for 2010 and 2011 are identified below and have been calculated by applying the NRTF growth factors identified above to the 2008 base flows, also identified above. The forecast two-way flows compared to the design flows for each link on the designated route are compared below for the peak month of construction: Design Capacity Check: 2010 AM Peak Hour

Link TA79/99 Design Flow

Forecast 2010 Base plus Development

Within Capacity?

Meadowhall Way 3,200 1333 YES Meadowhall Road (North) 3,050 1884 YES Meadowhall Road (South) 2,100 1712 YES Alsing Road 1,110 161 YES Design Capacity Check: 2010 PM Peak Hour

Link TA79/99 Design Flow

Forecast 2010 Base plus Development

Within Capacity?

Meadowhall Way 3,200 1799 YES Meadowhall Road (North) 3,050 2629 YES Meadowhall Road (South) 2,100 1864 YES Alsing Road 1,110 125 YES This analysis demonstrates that all links are forecast to operate below their design threshold. Due to the very low flows which result once the Renewable Energy Plant is operational in 2011 (calculated to be 4 HGVs in each of the peak hours), a design capacity check for the 2011 year of opening is deemed to be unnecessary. Such very low flows in the peak hours, with an absence of any car flows at all in the two busiest hours, result from the three-shift working pattern planned for the Plant’s operation. The percentage impact that development flows add to base levels is used as a guide as to the general significance of a development. Daily variation in flow on the highway network can be anything up to 10% and this threshold is adopted as the threshold of materiality where an impact of below 10% would not be perceptible. A threshold of 5% is adopted in congested urban networks. The following tables identify the percentage impact that the development proposal adds to base flow at the peak of construction:


159

Percentage Impact: 2010 Weekday AM Peak - 0800 to 0900 Peak Construction Month (February 2010) Location Base Flow Blackburn Meadows

Construction Traffic

% Impact

Meadowhall Way 1,293 40 3.09% Meadowhall Road (North) 1,866 18 0.96%

Meadowhall Road (South) 1,692 20 1.18%

Alsing Road 83 78 93.9% Percentage Impact: 2010 Weekday PM Peak - 1700 to 1800

Peak Construction Month (February 2010) Location Base Flow Blackburn Meadows


% Impact



Alsing Road 47 78 108.0% Percentage Impact: 2010 Weekday 24 Hour

Peak Construction Month (February 2010) Location Base Flow Blackburn Meadows


% Impact



Alsing Road - - - The percentage impacts are greatest in the peak hours where development flows are concentrated and on the links with the lowest base flows. For example, Alsing Road has a relatively low base flow due to the limited number of end users it serves. Conversely, the large increase in flow will be more perceptible where the base flows are currently low.


160

3.7.9 Analysis of Sensitive Environmental Receptors From the detailed investigation of the study area, a number of potentially sensitive receptors and issues have been identified: Location Justification M1, Junction 34 (N) and Meadowhall Road (N)

The proposal has a small impact on Junction 34 (N) of the M1. This is a strategic road and the Highways Agency has an interest in the impact on local air quality of any development close to the Strategic Road Network.

Local road network surrounding the development proposal

Road links and junctions adjacent to the development proposal form part of the wider urban network that experience high levels of flow particularly in peak hours. The proposed development will add to peak hour flows.

Sheffield Supertram Level Crossing

The sole site access, Alsing Road, crosses a working tram line at an uncontrolled level crossing. The crossing has been observed in operation and there may be a potential safety issue with it once the development is under construction.

Potential Conflict with Meadowhall Shopping Traffic

The potential for conflict exists between construction traffic from the proposal with shopping traffic for the Meadowhall Centre.

M1 Motorway, Junction 34 (N) and Meadowhall Road (N) Junction 34 (N) of the M1 is a part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and therefore a responsibility of the Highways Agency (HA). The HA are particularly interested in the air quality impacts of developments close to the SRN. The Agency will have to be satisfied that the traffic resulting from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant will not result in local air quality being worsened or safety thresholds for concentrations of emissions being exceeded see section 3.1 – Air Quality. Local road network surrounding the development proposal Road links and junctions on the road network surrounding the proposal are already suffering from congestion during peak periods. They are likely to become more congested during the peaks in the years after the construction of the development as a result of the proliferation of development generally. Government policy encourages developers and employers to take measures to manage the level of travel generated by their activities. Sheffield Supertram Level Crossing On the sole site access, Alsing Road, there is a level crossing for the Sheffield Super Tram Yellow and Purple lines services. The highest frequency of the tram service is ten minutes. There are give way signs warning both the road motorised and non-motorised modes about oncoming trams. Given the signing, there may still be a potential safety issue that needs to be addressed if that signing alone is an insufficient warning to oncoming traffic and pedestrians about the tram traffic crossing their path.


161

Potential Conflict with Meadowhall Shopping Traffic Construction and operational traffic for the Renewable Energy Plant proposal will mix with general traffic on the A6109 to the Meadowhall Interchange junction. Here both Meadowhall Shopping Centre and Renewable Energy Plant traffic will turn left before these two streams of traffic split at the mini roundabout. There may be a potential for the Meadowhall Centre traffic to conflict with the construction traffic from the proposed development. Mitigation is not considered to be required here as the routes for the Renewable Energy Plant construction traffic and Meadowhall Shopping Centre traffic do coincide in places but the peak times of the flows do not. The peak flows for the Meadowhall bound traffic will occur at the weekends and late night shopping scheduled during the week. The peak of the flow for construction and operational traffic has been shown in this statement to occur at different times. There is therefore an insufficient overlap in the flows for a conflict of traffic to be a relevant concern. 3.7.10 Monitoring and Mitigation Measures Monitoring is proposed alongside a number of mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the development. These are briefly discussed below: M1, Junction 34 (N) Air Quality Modelling The sponsors of the Renewable Energy Plant, E.ON UK, have commissioned Sheffield City Council to model local air quality concentrations at Junction 34 (N) of the M1 to determine what the concentrations currently are, and how they will change during construction and operation. The results from the modelling exercise will be forwarded to the Highways Agency. See section 3.1 – Air Quality. Provision of improved warning system at the tramline level crossing On the grounds of road traffic alone there is presently an insufficient level to warrant an improved warning implementation at the level crossing. During the construction of the Renewable Energy Plant, the safety of the current system is likely to become an issue. It is therefore recommended that options for an improved warning system be investigated for the crossing to mitigate this issue. For example, this might take the form of signal control for road vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians being implemented on the crossing. The form of these improvements will be discussed and agreed with the appropriate agencies.


162

3.7.11 Conclusions The proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant represents a relatively large construction project and as such will employ a large number of people during construction and generate a large number of vehicle movements. The most appropriate method of transport during the construction and operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant is by using the existing road network. The study of alternative transport options for delivery of biomass fuel has shown that the use of waterway transport is not viable. Rail transport for biomass fuel is not viable at present but could be a potential longer term option. The principal transport impact of the Blackburn Meadows proposal occurs during the construction phase and particularly at the peak of construction in February 2010 when it is estimated that approximately 196 workers will be present on site. When the Renewable Energy Plant is opened and becomes operational, the number of vehicle trips will be very low and the main incidence of those trips will fall outside of the peaks due to the proposed working shift patterns. Analysis has shown that the level of traffic generation at the peak of construction can be accommodated by the network and adds relatively little in percentage terms to AM Peak, PM Peak and 24 Hour flows to three of the four key links studied. The fourth link is the sole access road to the development itself. It is therefore bound to show a significant percentage increase in traffic, as pre-development flows are very low. Mitigation measures have been identified to maximise highway safety and minimise the traffic and environmental impact of construction. There are no longer-term impacts once the development is operational.


163

3.8 Noise 3.8.1 Introduction An important element of environmental quality is the audibility of industrial noise and other noise sources within a local community. The unit of noise measurement most commonly used is the overall 'A'-weighted sound pressure level in decibels, denoted dBA. This unit provides a simple measure of the subjective human response to noise at various frequencies and has been found to provide the best overall correlation with the human response to various types of noise. The system of measurement is logarithmic rather than linear so that an increase or decrease of 10dBA corresponds to a ten-fold increase or decrease in sound energy but only to an approximate doubling in perceived loudness. It is generally recognised that a change of 3dBA is the smallest increase which is clearly noticeable, and that a 1dBA increase would be on the limit of discernibility. 3.8.2 Environmental Noise Overview In general measured noise levels close to a residential community are not steady, but are highly variable due to changes in traffic flow and the ebb and flow of domestic, commercial and industrial activity throughout the day and night. Typically, a diurnal noise pattern occurs with the lowest noise levels being reached during the night-time period. To cope with this variability environmental noise levels are usually measured as an LA90 dB level, where the LA90 means the level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period, and are measured separately during day, evening and night-time periods. The LA90 night-time level is thus expected to be close to the minimum measured noise level and is used to define the background noise level, as in British Standard BS4142. In distinction the noise produced by industrial processes and its capacity to be audible is not set by the minimum noise level produced, but by the 'energy average' level, known as the LAeq or equivalent noise level. British Standard BS4142 relates the propensity for noise complaints to the difference between the pre-existing background noise level, measured as an LA90, and the noise produced by the new source, measured as a LAeq noise level. 3.8.3 Assessment Approach The methods contained in British Standard BS4142 (1997) to assess the noise arising from new installations have been considered for this assessment. The British Standard shows that the most important factor is the amount by which a new noise, exceeds the background noise level and that an exceedance of the background level by 10dBA, or higher, indicates that complaints are likely. An exceedance of approximately 5dBA is of 'marginal significance'. At differences below 5dBA there is a diminishing likelihood that complaints will occur. When the new noise level falls below the existing background level complaints become significantly less probable and at 10dBA below the background level complaints are positively unlikely. Noise surveys have been undertaken at residential dwellings, or at positions representative of residential dwellings, and on the edge of communities which surround the proposed development. Noise measurements were only undertaken in conditions of low wind speed, i.e. less than 3m/s, to ensure that there was no interference from aerodynamic noise and refraction effects. Particular emphasis was placed on night-time measurements, when ambient noise levels are considerably lower. This procedure results in the determination of the lowest background/ambient noise levels that are likely to occur and therefore facilitates a robust assessment.


164

To assess the significance of changes to environmental noise levels the Joint Institute of Acoustics and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s draft guidance on the Assessment of Environmental Noise suggests the following significance criteria.

Table 3.8.1 – Environmental Noise Significance Criteria

Noise level change dBA Effect

0 None 0.1 to 2.9 Slight 3.0 to 4.9 Moderate 5.0 to 9.9 Substantial >10 Severe

As the noise climate in the vicinity of the Plant is already affected by traffic and industrial noise, it is E.ON's intention that the continuous operational noise from the new Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant should only give rise to “none” or the low range of “slight” effect based upon the criterion given in this table. 3.8.4 Environmental Noise Climate Measurements The key residential receptors for noise from the proposed Renewable Energy Plant have been identified. These are typically the nearest properties in a variety of directions and can be considered to be representative of the communities in the area surrounding the proposed Plant. The location of the measurement positions are shown in Figure 3.8.1 and listed in Table. 3.8.2.

Table 3.8.2 – Details of Residential Receptors

Code Position Grid Reference (Eastings,Northings)Approx

Distance and Direction from Plant Centre /m (Approx)

BMB1 Meadowhall Road 439960 392520 910 (NNE)

BMB2 Meadow Bank Road 440670 392430 1170 (NE)

BMB3 Ferrars Road 440290 391370 520 (ESE)

BMB4 Meadow Bank Road 439540 392020 500 (NW)

BMB5 Sheffield Road 440150 391260 470 (SE)


165

The area to the west of the proposed site comprises of predominantly either industrial or retail premises and hence no measurements were made in this direction. As the assessment considers the key residential receptors to the NE and NW of the site it can be argued that the impact at other residential locations in other directions from the site will be correspondingly less. Note: There are commercial/industrial premises located closer to the proposed Plant however it is anticipated that the impact of the environmental noise will not be significant, due to the proximity of the motorway, local roads and the industry’s own processes.

3.8.4.1 Description of Key Receptors • Meadowhall Road, Position BMB1 This position is approximately 910m NNE of proposed Plant centre and representative of the noise climate at the fringe of the Richmond Park estate. The surrounding properties are elevated relative to the Blackburn Meadows site, therefore there is clear line of sight across to the proposed site. Measurements were made on the roadside footpath approximately 20-30m south of the last house • Meadow Bank Road, Position BMB2 This position is approximately 1170m NE of proposed Plant centre and is representative of the noise climate at properties within the Jordan area. Measurements were made on the roadside footpath near to Shrewsbury terrace. • Ferrars Road, Position BMB3 This position is approximately 525m SW of proposed Plant centre and is representative of the properties on the north edge of this residential area. Measurements were made at the junction of Ferrars Road and Sheffield road. • Meadow Bank Road, Position BMB4 This position is approximately 500m NW of proposed Plant centre and is representative of the small number of residential properties within this cul-de-sac. The nearby properties are elevated relative to the Blackburn Meadows site therefore there is clear line of sight across to the proposed site. Measurements were made on the footpath close to the most easterly house. • Sheffield Road, Position BMB5 This position is approximately 470m SE of proposed Plant centre and is representative of the rear of the terraced properties on Dundas Road which back onto Sheffield Road. The measurements were made within the mosque car park, approximately 6m from the back garden wall.


166

3.8.4.2 Measurement Methodology Surveys were conducted at the residential monitoring locations by visiting each measurement location in turn. Since it is known that the daytime and early evening noise climate at the majority of the residential measurement positions is dominated by contributions from traffic on the motorway and local road network the noise surveys concentrated on characterising the overnight noise climates. From a noise perspective, night-time is normally 23:00 to 07:00, however in recognition of the dominance of the traffic noise from the motorway, the measurement surveys concentrated on the middle of the night (typically 01:00 to 04:00) when traffic flow was a minimum. Where appropriate and possible, the measurement procedures outlined in BS4142(1997) were followed. The microphone height was set at 1.2–1.5 m and a foam windshield was used on all occasions. The microphone was positioned at a distance remote from any major reflecting surface. Precision measuring equipment (sound level meters) was used meeting the requirements of BS EN 60804 Class 1, and/or BS EN 60651 Class 1. As all of the surveys were made overnight measurement samples were 5 minutes in duration and in all cases the measurements were made with ‘fast’ meter response and ‘A’ weighting. Where considered appropriate measurements were paused for local traffic movements to ensure that the LA90 was as representative of the underlying background as possible. All noise measurement equipment used is maintained in calibration by regular certification by a laboratory accredited to UK standards. Each set of measurements was preceded and followed by a calibration check using the sound level meter’s acoustic calibrator. Details of the equipment used in the surveys and their respective calibration certificates are given in Table 3.8.3.

Table 3.8.3 - Details of Noise Measurement Equipment

Description Item Model Serial Number

Last Calibration Date

Acoustic Calibrator

B&K Calibrator 4231 1883787 September 2006

Sound Level Meter NA-27 00121711

Microphone UC-53A 102413

RION NA-27

Preamplifier NH-20 05399

September 2006

As meteorologically conditions can have effects on noise generation and acoustic propagation, wind speed, wind direction and general weather conditions were noted during each of the surveys.


167

3.8.4.3 Current Noise Climate Measurement surveys were completed on two separate occasions, 4th and 11th October 2007 and the results and observations are given in Tables 3.8.4 and 3.8.5 below.

Table 3.8.4 – Noise survey results – 4th October 2007

Code Description Time

LAeq dB

LA10 dB

LA90 dB

Description

01:44 48.8 50.1 47.2

BMB1 Meadow Hall Road 02:55 50.4 52.2 48.7

M1 noise very dominant, High Frequency noise from sewerage work plus nearby recycling centre

02:10 58.6 60.0 45.2BMB2

Meadow Bank Road 03:14 47.0 49.6 44.3

M1 noise very dominant, Noise from sewerage work

01:29 61.5 58.0 50.5BMB3 Ferrars Road 02:37 60.0 57.9 51.7

Noise from local industry. M1 noise is dominant L90 source

01:56 56.7 59.9 50.1BMB4

Meadow Bank Road 03:04 56.1 58.9 52.3

M1 noise dominant, Local Cars affected LA10 and LAeq

02:28 57.7 58.2 47.403:28 58.8 60.3 53.1

BMB5 Sheffield Road 03:35 58.6 60.1 51.3

M1 traffic noise dominant. Minor noise from sewerage works. Some Local traffic

Meteorological Conditions

Wind Direction from West, Calm/very Light breeze (1m/s), Clear skys

General Comments None

Table 3.8.5 – Noise survey results – 11th October 2007

Code Description Time LAeq dB

LA10 dB

LA90 dB

Description

01:42 51.6 53.1 50.002:43 52.6 54.3 50.7

BMB1 Meadow Hall Road 03:38 53.6 55.4 52.1

M1 noise very dominant, High Frequency noise from sewerage work

01:03 62.9 65.3 44.502:05 45.8 47.3 42.8

BMB2 Meadow Bank Road 03:04 47.3 48.7 45.9

M1 noise very dominant, Noise from sewerage work

01:18 64.4 66.1 50.702:18 55.3 55.3 47.7

BMB3 Ferrars Road 03:16 62.2 62.6 50.4

Noise from local industry. M1 noise is dominant L90 source

00:52 56.8 58.9 53.201:52 55.0 57.6 50.3

BMB4 Meadow Bank Road 02:53 54.6 57.0 49.9

M1 noise dominant, Local Cars affected LA10 and LAeq

01:27 57.5 58.7 46.802:29 52.5 49.8 44.5

BMB5 Sheffield Road 03:24 55.1 54.7 48.8

M1 traffic noise dominant. Minor noise from sewerage works. Some Local traffic

Meteorological Conditions

Wind Direction from SW, Calm/very light winds, Clear skys

Additional Comments None


168

3.8.5 Noise Survey Results

Table 3.8.6 – Summary of Minimum LA90 and LAeq levels and Mean LA90 measured overnight 4th and 11th October 2007

Code Description

Minimum LAeq dB

Minimum LA90 dB

Mean LA90 dB

BMB1 Meadow Hall Road 48.8 47.2 49.7 BMB2 Meadow Bank Road 45.8 42.8 44.5 BMB3 Ferrars Road 55.3 47.7 50.2 BMB4 Meadow Bank Road 54.6 49.9 51.2 BMB5 Sheffield Road 52.5 44.5 48.7

3.8.6 Environmental Noise from the Renewable Energy Plant The proposed Renewable Energy Plant will each comprise of the following items • Steam turbine and associated generator • Induced (ID) and Forced Draft (FD) fans • High pressure steam lines, valves and vents • Combustion, Boiler and Fuel Handling plant • Transformers • Fuel conveyors • Mobile Fuel handling plant Under normal operation the noise signature from the Plant will typically consist of steady and continuous noise from the turbo-machinery, boiler, transformer, cooling water system, flue gas clean-up plant and auxiliary equipment. There will also be some intermittent noise, principally from steam emission during Plant start-up and fuel handling activities. The majority of the noisier plant items will be contained within dedicated plant buildings and hence their noise emissions will be substantially attenuated. At this stage of the development, the design of the Renewable Energy Plant is not precisely determined therefore it has not been possible to develop a comprehensive noise model of all the noise sources associated with the operation of the Plant. However, E.ON has experience of a similar renewable energy plant at Lockerbie, Scotland. Based on knowledge of the noise sources on the Lockerbie plant a basic noise model for Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant has been developed. Using this information it is estimated that the noise level associated with the steady continuous operation of the Renewable Energy Plant can be controlled to a level equivalent to 39dBA at 400m from the nominal Plant centre using appropriate noise control techniques. For the purpose of calculating the likely noise levels at the key residential receptors it has been assumed that the noise radiates out over a hemispherical surface but undergoes no additional attenuation. Ordinarily this would be considered to be a conservative assumption as it ignores any effect associated with atmospheric absorption, ground and barrier screening effects which would typically result in additional attenuation and lower levels. However, the topography of the land surrounding the Plant is such that there is clear line-of-sight from some of the receptors down onto the site of the proposed Plant therefore effects such as normal ground attenuation and plant screening effects are unlikely to apply.


169

3.8.7 Environmental Noise Level due to the Renewable Energy Plant The overall steady continuous noise level associated with the future operation of the Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant at the key residential receptors is estimated to be as follows:

Table 3.8.7 - Estimated Noise Levels from Renewable Energy Plant

Code Location Specific Overnight Level from Renewable Energy Plant LAeq dB

BMB1 Meadowhall Road 31.9 BMB2 Meadow Bank Road 29.7 BMB3 Ferrars Road 36.7 BMB4 Meadow Bank Road 37.1 BMB5 Sheffield Road 37.6

The impact of the additional continuous noise from the operation of the Renewable Energy Plant is assessed by comparing the rated specific noise level from the Plant to the pre-existing night-time background LA90. Furthermore an indication of the significance of the change can be gained by considering the change that the additional noise will cause in the noise climate. A summary of the predicted Plant noise levels compared to the existing noise climate are given in Table 3.8.8 below.

Table 3.8.8 – Effect of Environmental noise from Renewable Energy Plant

Specific Overnight Level from Renewable Energy Plant LAeq

Difference between Rated Noise Level from Plant and existing MINIMUM Night-time LA90

Difference between Rated Noise Level from Plant and existing MEAN Night-time LA90

Future Increase in LAeq noise level relative to 2007 level

Code Location

dB dB dB dB BMB1 Meadowhall

Road

31.9 -15.3 -17.9 0.1

BMB2 Meadow Bank Road

29.7 -13.1 -14.9 0.1

BMB3 Ferrars Road 36.7 -11.0 -13.5 0.1

BMB4 Meadow Bank Road

37.1 -12.8 -14.1 0.1

BMB5 Sheffield Road 37.6 -6.9 -11.1 0.1


170

From a BS4142 assessment perspective the difference between the rated noise level from the Renewable Energy Plant and the quietest overnight background is between -7 and -15 dB and even less when the mean LA90 is considered. As BS4142 rates the likelihood of complaint as “positively unlikely” for difference of -10 dB the likelihood of complaint from the overwhelming number of residential properties falls into this category. With regard to the significance of the additional noise from the Renewable Energy Plant compared to the current noise climate, the future overnight noise level is predicted to increase by only 0.1dB. Strictly speaking this is categorised as a ‘slight’ impact when assessed with the criteria given in Table 3.8.1., however it is obviously close to a 0dB increase that would be categorised as ‘none’. 3.8.7.1 World Health Organisation Guidelines When considering future noise from the proposed Plant it is also appropriate to consider the guidance provided by the World Health Organisation regarding the levels of noise that will give rise to sleep disturbance. The WHO guidance indicates that measurable effect on sleep can occur for free-field noise levels around 42 dB LAeq. As can be seen from the survey results all the residential locations considered have LAeq levels in excess of this guideline and sleep disturbance due to existing traffic noise might be expected. The continuous steady noise associated with the operation of the Renewable Power will add to the noise climate, but the expected increase overall will be on the limit of discernability and no additional disturbance is anticipated. 3.8.8 Proposed Environmental Noise Criteria (ENC) It is E.ON’s overriding commitment that the environmental noise from the Renewable Energy Plant will have no more than a “slight” impact on the local community and that the rated specific noise level will be substantially below the overnight background noise level. To support this it is proposed that the following Environmental Noise Criteria limits for operational noise from Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant should be adopted at the residential properties.

Table 3.8.9 – Environmental Noise Criterion at Residential Properties

Code Location Environmental Noise Criterion# LAeq dB

BMB1 Meadowhall Road 32

BMB2 Meadow Bank Road 30

BMB3 Ferrars Road 37

BMB4 Meadow Bank Road 37

BMB5 Sheffield Road 38

# rounded to the nearest whole number


171

In circumstances such as these, where the community noise climate is elevated the specific noise level is predicted to be below the night time LA90 by a substantial margin, it is appropriate to define an operational Plant Noise Criterion in terms of a noise limit at a specified fixed distance that is consistent with the receptor noise limits being met. In the case of a plant of this physical size a noise limit at 200m would be appropriate and by simple extrapolation should be set at 45 dB LAeq to have confident that the noise levels at the residential receptors are met. However it should be recognised that the M1 traffic is already responsible for LAeq noise levels in the region of mid 40’s dB across the Blackburn Meadows site therefore definitive compliance with this noise limit may be difficult to demonstrate directly by measurement. Notwithstanding this potential issue, a noise limit of 45 dB LAeq at 200m from the Plant and environmental noise programme limits at the key residential receptors shall be adopted for the steady operational noise from the Plant. These design criteria will be adopted for the normal continuous operation of the Plant and will form part of the performance guarantees that the supplier of the Renewable Energy Plant will be contractually required to meet. This noise limit shall apply to all routine operational modes of the new Plant, the only exception being emergency conditions. Further discussion of intermittent operation is undertaken later in Section 3.8.9. BS4142 and PPG24 both identify that the likelihood of public complaint is greater if the industrial noise has a distinctive character, i.e. it is tonal, intermittent or impulsive. In recognition of this E.ON will require the supplier of the Renewable Energy Plant to guarantee that the Plant noise at residential properties will not contain any tonal or impulsive characteristics that would cause the noise to be adjudged distinctive and hence liable to rated 5dB higher in a BS4142 assessment. 3.8.9 Non-Continuous Noise Emissions 3.8.9.1 Fuel Handling It is E.ON’s intention that the Renewable Energy Plant will burn fuel that has been processed off-site and this will be delivered to site by HGVs and it is anticipated that a couple of deliveries will arrive each hour throughout the day and evening. These activities are not considered to represent a significant impact. Observations made during the overnight surveys suggest that there are already significant movement of HGVs on the A road network and that un-loading activity during the evening will be minor compared to the existing activity. Notwithstanding this the plant supplier will be required to employ best available techniques in the design of the fuel storage and handling plant. This will typically take the form of minimisation of fuel handling noise through process design, use of high attenuation materials for building structures and vibration isolation of fuel handling plant from buildings. 3.8.9.2 Construction Noise At this stage in the Environmental Impact Assessment it is not possible to state definitively what the noise impact from the construction of the proposed Plant would be at residential positions and it is anticipated that it would be managed under the Control of Pollution Act Section 61 Prior Consent process. Notwithstanding this, a minimum initial requirement to


172

control noise during the construction phase of the project will be placed upon the EPC contractor with the noise limits as detailed in the table below.

Table 3.8.10 - Construction noise limits, LAeq dB at the nearest residential premises

Day(s) HOURS NOISE LIMIT LAeq dB 0700-1900 (Day) 65

1900-2200 (Evening) 60

Monday to Friday

2200-0700 (Night) ENC* 0730-1730 (Day) 65 Saturday 1730-0730 ENC*

Sunday 0000-2400 ENC* * Operational noise limit which is consistent with overall noise from site being within the Environmental Noise Criterion

The above requirements will be written into the contracts of those undertaking construction. From the experience of other projects and construction sites, E.ON is confident of the contractors' ability to achieve the above noise levels by exercising a degree of control over site activities and by attention to the recommendations set out in BS5228 Parts 1, 2, and 4. Only during infrequent periods of construction work when work on site clearance, levelling and foundations is carried out, is it likely that noise levels would approach the above criteria. During later phases, particularly when installation work is being carried out inside buildings, it would be likely that noise levels would be considerably lower. In general the noise level outside the nearest residence would not be expected to exceed a level of 60 LAeq dB during normal construction activity. There will be some need for piling for the main Plant structures but the local impact of piling will be minimised by limiting the hours of working, as for other construction work, and by utilising augured piling where possible. So far as is practicable piling noise will be contained within the noise limits specified for construction in Table 3.8.10. 3.8.10 Traffic Noise For the purposes of assessing the significance of effects associated with increases in traffic volumes and/or HGV composition as a result of the development, the following criteria have been used.

Table 3.8.11 – Traffic Noise Significance Criteria

Magnitude Variation in Road Traffic Noise Level (dB)

Significance

> +10.0 Significant Adverse +5.0 to +9.9 Moderate Adverse +3.0 to +4.9 Minor Adverse -2.9 to +2.9 Neutral > -3.0 Positive

A comprehensive traffic flow study has been undertaken as part of this EIA and has identified the times during construction and operation when HGV/Car movements will be at peak.


173

As all vehicles will travel East/West along Alsing Road which is remote from residential receptors, the impact from the movements on residential receptors will be minimal. On Meadowhall Way the maximum percentage change in hourly flows due to traffic associated with the Construction/Operation of the development will be around 3% which is calculated to give rise to a noise level increase of 0.1dB, which is of neutral significance. 3.8.11 Operational Vibration There is no foreseeable disturbance in public or residential areas due to ground vibration resulting from the operation of the proposed Plant. E.ON has experience of operating power plant that contains steam turbines and other rotating plant which are considerably larger in size than those proposed for the Renewable Energy Plant without causing adverse vibration effects in the area. The vibration levels from the new Plant will be controlled by applying good engineering practice so that noise emission is minimised and the efficient operation and life of the Plant is not affected. 3.8.12 Noise Complaint Management E.ON’s power plants operate Environmental Management Systems which satisfy the requirements of ISO14001. As part of these systems there are specified procedure for logging and responding to public complaint regarding noise and acting to prevent reoccurrence. The Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant will have its own specific Environmental Management System to cover the specific issues associate with the biomass combustion process. Therefore, in the event of public complaint regarding noise during the construction and operational phases the management of the Plant will take appropriate action, where possible, to prevent reoccurrence. Moreover the noise from the Plant shall be permitted by the Environment Agency under the Pollution Prevention Control regulations. 3.8.13 Mitigation & Quality Control In order to satisfy the Environmental Noise Criterion and minimise the noise emissions from the new Plant, E.ON UK will require the EPC contractor to guarantee that the steady noise from the Plant will satisfy the ENC and that this will be achieved by incorporating the following mitigation measures into its design and layout, where necessary and appropriate: • Majority of Plant to be contained within the main unit Plant buildings • Generator transformers: low noise design • Pumps and fans: Low noise design • Outdoor auxiliaries to be encapsulated within acoustical enclosures • Ventilation fans: installation of silencers E.ON's specification to the EPC contractor will require that quality assurance procedures be implemented during design, construction, commissioning and operation. These procedures will require the audit of noise specifications placed upon manufacturers and will include guaranteed operational noise limits consistent with operational requirements and the maintenance of local amenity. These operational requirements will be accomplished by testing the manufacturer's ability to meet these specifications, by assessing the compatibility of these specifications with the off-site criteria and by testing the performance of delivered


174

plant. Particular attention will be paid to confirming that the Plant design satisfies the off-site limits so that it will not contribute significantly to the residential noise climate. Measurements of site clearance and construction noise will be made to ensure compliance with the specifications and remedial action will be carried out if necessary. During the commissioning process noise level measurements will be made to ensure compliance with the specifications and remedial action will be carried out if possible and necessary. Surveys of noise levels outside the site will be undertaken during operation to enable the Plant to be assessed against the Environmental Noise Criterion. Further surveys will be undertaken as necessary. 3.8.14 Summary An environmental noise impact assessment for the proposed Renewable Energy Plant has been completed. The assessment has focussed on key residential receptors which are representative of the residential community surrounding the Blackburn Meadows site. The local residential areas are already subject to substantial contributions from traffic on the M1 and local A road network plus a lesser contribution from existing industry. Under these circumstances it would be inappropriate for noise from any future development to elevate the ambient noise climate substantially further. It is E.ON’s intention that the continuous operation noise associated with the Plant will give rise to no more that a “slight” effect on the community and noise level criteria have been derived which are consist with this requirement. As the Renewable Energy Plant is expected to operate continuously 24 hours a day the most rigorous approach is to concentrate the noise impact assessment on over-night periods. Adopting this approach ensures that the “worst-case” impact is quantified and that it will be less at all other times of the day. The noise level criteria proposed for the Plant range from 11 dB below to 18 dB below the respective mean overnight background LA90 noise levels. From a BS4142 assessment perspective, that complaint would be positively unlikely. Noise criterion at a fixed distance from the Plant will be adopted which is consistent with achieving these Environmental Noise Criteria and the plant supplier shall be required to guarantee they will be met. Compliance with the fixed distance and residential operational noise criteria shall be tested and demonstrated following the commissioning of the Plant. Furthermore the plant supplier will be required to demonstrate at the design phase of the project that appropriate noise control measures will be employed to ensure that the overall noise level from the Plant will meet the environmental noise limits. The supplier will be required to guarantee that the noise signature from the Plant does not contain any tonal or impulsive character that could potentially be annoying to local residents.


175

3.8.15 References BS 4142: 1997. Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. BS EN 60805 Specification for integrating-averaging sound level meters. BS EN 60651 Specification for sound level meters. BS 5228 Noise control on construction and open sites. Parts 1-4. Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. Department of Transport. Planning Policy Guidance PPG 24. Planning and Noise. Joint Institute of Acoustics and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s draft guidance on the Assessment of Environmental Noise, April 2002 ISO 9613/2: Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General Method of Calculation


176

3.9 Socio-Economic Effects 3.9.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to briefly describe the employment structure within Sheffield, Rotherham and wider Yorkshire & Humber region. The Local and Regional employment will be considered alongside the likely impacts on the local, national and international community arising from the development and construction of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. 3.9.2 Economy In 2006, the Yorkshire Forward Regional Development Agency, the body charged with improving the Yorkshire and Humber economy, published a regional economic strategy for the area. The Yorkshire and Humber’s economic vision set out in the strategy is for the region ‘to be a great place to live, work and do business, that fully benefits from a prosperous and sustainable economy’. Yorkshire Forward plan on achieving this through three basic aims: • Realising the potential of all the region’s people • Growing existing and new businesses • Protecting, enhancing and utilising its environment Areas where proposed new Plant will help fulfil the goals of the regional economic strategy: • The region seeks high quality, sustainable growth that will maximise long term benefits to

businesses, people and to the environment The proposed development is consistent with the Regional Economic Strategy, the Regional Spatial Strategy and local planning framework. This is considered further in Section 1.3. In particular the proposals will: • Contribute toward sustainable economic development, adding to regional energy

infrastructure and developing the renewable industry in the region; • Contribute towards the achievement of renewable energy generation targets; • Bring about regeneration and employment growth in South Yorkshire; and • Facilitate the environmental improvement of the MI corridor. 3.9.3 Employment The office of National Statistics publishes yearly reports of unemployment data for the UK. For the period January – December 2006, the unemployment rate for Rotherham stood at 6.2 % (Official Labour Market Statistics, 2007a) and for the same period the unemployment rate for Sheffield stood at 7.1% (Official Labour Market Statistics, 2007b). This compares with an unemployment rate of 5.5% for the Yorkshire and Humber region and a national rate of 5.4% for the same period (ONS, 2007). The local unemployment figures for Sheffield and Rotherham are significantly higher than the national average; the regional average also falls slightly higher than the national figure.


177

If the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant is developed it will create long-term local jobs and also generate temporary employment, using local labour, during construction where feasible. The estimated construction workforce expected during the construction period, based on data sourced from construction companies with previous experience of renewable plant construction, is depicted in figure 3.9.1 below:

Indicative Construction Workforce

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Jun-09

Jul-09

Aug-09

Sep-09

Oct-09

Nov-09

Dec-09

Jan-10

Feb-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Nov-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Month

Num

ber

Total Site Workforce

Figure 1.9.1: Estimated Employment Created During Construction Once operational it is expected that the Plant will require 20 full-time staff with a further 20 full-time equivalent contract staff providing routine and annual maintenance activities. Additional staff may be appointed to supervise fuel deliveries and undertake routine checks and housekeeping duties local to the Plant. There is also likely to be a number of indirect jobs created in the provision of biomass infrastructure. 3.9.4 Social Issues It’s recognised that the proposed project has the ability to impact on the local community and society in general at a local, national and global level. The health and environmental impacts which are an issue of concern within society at all levels are given consideration during the Environmental Impact Assessment process and discussed within this environmental statement. Baseline conditions are outlined, effects at a local, national and international level are considered, the significance of impacts assessed and plans to mitigate against significant impacts formulated where necessary. This document is a public document and will be made available online as well as physical copies being made available for viewing at agreed locations within the local community. This will allow the local community to judge the acceptability of the proposed development on themselves, their local community and society in general. Research in the field of Renewable Energy Plant development has shown that due to anticipated adverse impacts at the local level, local communities are less likely to reinforce the government's good intentions to reduce the effects of greenhouse gases (Sinclair & Löfstedt, 2001). This problem can be seen as a conflict between national needs and local interests, as siting issues can become increasingly contentious when the development decisions are based on policies and ideas from the top (Jackson & Löfstedt, 1998)


178

Since the general public is the ultimate recipient of the economic benefits and environmental impacts of the proposed development, E.ON has attempted to involve the public as part of the decision-making process. E.ON has and intends to continue to incorporate proper community consultation and participation in the project planning and decision-making process for the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. E.ON has hired a competent planning consultant to assist in carrying out public consultation and through these consultants have completed / intend to complete the following tasks. • Pre-application consultation which involved the planning case officer for the proposed

development agreeing an approach to community consultation. • Attendance at the following local interest groups:

o Darnel Ward Area Panel o East Area Strategy Group o Tinsley Forum

• Notification of proposed development application via leaflet drop to its neighbours. • Public Exhibitions providing information on the proposed Renewable Energy Plant, its

location, processes and expected impacts and the planning process; with an opportunity for questions and answers about the project with engineers who are working on the development. These public exhibitions were at the following locations held on:

o Friday 19 Oct 2007 – 10am to 1pm and 5pm to 7.30pm – Tinsley Green

Children’s Centre. o Monday 22 Oct 2007 – 1pm to 6pm – E.ON Marquee on ‘The Moor’, Sheffield

City Centre. o Tuesday 23 Oct 2007 – 10am to 7pm – Upper Atrium Marks & Spencer,

Meadowhall Shopping Centre. • Have set up the following lines of communication for keeping the community informed of

progress and plans for the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant:

o A webpage with information on the project at: www.eon-uk.com/newbiomass/blackburnmeadows

o A free phone information line: 08000 096119 o An email enquiry address: [email protected]

The issues arsing during public consultation will be considered and E.ON will ensure the design, construction and operation of the proposed Plant and its residual impacts on local residents are reduce to a practical acceptable minimum. The responses from public consultation have been considered, full details of our response can be found in the Statement of Community Involvement. One issue that was raised early during public consultation is the fact that the cooling towers, due to be demolished, have had a unique place and impact within the region and local community for many years. E.ON have thus offered to give Sheffield City Council a substantial sum of money to be used to support an art project in recognition of the impact the loss of the cooling towers will have on the area. E.ON, Sheffield City Council and local partners will work together on the project in order to hopefully create a permanent piece of art that Sheffield can be proud of.


179

3.9.5 Conclusions The proposed new Renewable Energy Plant is expected to have a significant positive impact on the economy and employment structure at a local and regional level through the creation of a number of temporary and long-term jobs during its construction and operation. It is proposed that workers will be employed from the locale where practicable, which means the economic and employment benefits resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed new Renewable Energy Plant will be spread across the Yorkshire and Humber region. It’s expected that there will be a significant beneficial impact in terms of meeting local, regional and national goals of protection against the threat of climate change through offsetting a significant amount of carbon dioxide each year. Full community consultation has and will continue to take place in order to ensure the concerns of the local communities are considered, issues of concern are identified and dealt with in such a way so that the design, construction and operation of the proposed Plant and it’s residual impacts on local residents are reduced to a practical acceptable minimum and any opportunities to support the local area are identified and where practicable utilised. 3.9.6 References Official Labour Market Statistics, 2007a. Labour Market Profile Rotherham. National Statistics: London. Available at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038432026/report.aspx Official Labour Market Statistics, 2007b. Labour Market Profile Sheffield. National Statistics: London. Available at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038432027/report.aspx ONS (Office for National Statistics), 2007. Labour Market: Employment. Office for National Statistics: London. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12 Sinclair P, Löfstedt R.E., The influence of trust in a biomass application: the case study of Sutton, UK. Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001), pp. 177–184. Jackson T, Löfstedt R. Renewable energy sources: A background paper for the royal commission on environmental pollution. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, 1998.

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038432026/report.aspx

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/2038432027/report.aspx

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12


180

3.10 Cultural Heritage 3.10.1 Introduction This archaeological desk-based assessment was commissioned by E-ON in connection with the proposed development and construction of a new biomass fired Renewable Energy Plant. The development site is that of a former power station, known as Blackburn Meadows, situated at NGR 4398 3916. It lies immediately to the east of the M1 motorway, on the north bank of the River Don, 6km north-east of Sheffield city centre, refer to Figure 3.10.1. This desk-based assessment of the development was prepared by Trent & Peak Archaeology (University of Nottingham) in July, 2007. Sources consulted are presented in section 3.10.3, an account of the archaeology and history of the development of the site in section 3.10.4, an assessment of the archaeological potential of the site in section 3.10.5, an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on potential archaeological remains in section 3.10.6 and recommendations for further work in section 3.10.7. 3.10.2 Definition of Study Area The desk-based assessment uses data relating to a 3x3km-square centred on the site, refer to Figure 3.10.3, for air photographs and Figure 3.10.2 for a 1km radius of the site centre for Historical Environment Records. Other records were searched for under place names. 3.10.3 Sources of Information This section describes briefly the sources consulted; the search criteria used, and where selectivity in inspecting sources was necessary provides the reasoning behind the selections made. A detailed list of sources identified and consulted, and specific justifications for selectivity is given in Appendix F. 3.10.3.1 South Yorkshire Historic Environment Records (HERs) The Historic Environment Records (HER) referred to in this report area recorded in the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service database of known archaeological sites. Full HER data was requested for a 1km radius around the proposed development site. Louisa Matthews provided the relevant information. A summary listing is provided in Appendix F1 and entries are mapped in Figure 3.10.2. 3.10.3.2 National Monuments Records Database The on-line English Heritage database of archaeological sites (comprising over 400,000 records) was consulted, but there are no sites listed within the study area, which have not been located in more detail in other sources used here.


181

3.10.3.3 Sheffield Archives: Unpublished Cartographic and Documentary Data Maps listed under the parishes of Tinsley and Wincobank in the map index and under maps and plans in the place index were viewed but none were relevant as they proved to show land outside the development site. Maps relating to Sheffield in general, including enclosure maps were also viewed, but likewise the content lay outside the required area and none were considered relevant. A map of the canals and railways communicating with Sheffield and Leeds was viewed but showed no useful information. Documents listed as relating to the River Don in the place index were viewed, including a plan of the wharf, warehouse and other buildings and ground at Tinsley belonging to the River Don, and plans of the Don Navigation along with various navigation acts. These did not contain any information regarding the development site. 3.10.3.4 Sheffield Local Studies Library, Surrey Street, Sheffield Ordnance Survey maps up to 1955 were seen and copies taken. No other detailed maps were listed in the map index. The place index provided extracts from printed sources relating to Blackburn Meadows. All cards were followed to the source publication. Sources for Wincobank and Tinsley were also similarly examined for information relevant to the survey. 3.10.3.5 Published Sources, including the Journal Transactions of the Hunter

Archaeological Society The published index to the Transactions of the Hunter Archaeological Society was consulted and supplied additional details of some of the archaeological features listed in the HER, but no further finds relevant to the development site were identified. References in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal were also pursued but added nothing to the information already obtained from the HERs. 3.10.3.6 Sheffield Museum Records Sheffield Museum was contacted to establish whether artefacts from the development site are contained in the catalogued collections. However the museum was under redevelopment at the time of writing and the collection unavailable. We were advised that any finds would be listed in the HER. 3.10.3.7 Records of Former Construction on the Site There were no records of former construction on the development site held by E.ON. The only available information comes from Ordnance Survey mapping and air-photographs.


182

3.10.3.8 Air Photography Records including Cover Search at NMR Air photographs frequently provide evidence of archaeological sites. The chief national collection is held at the National Air Photographs Collection at the National Monuments Record (NMR) at Swindon. Of these, the ‘specialist’ oblique photographs have been taken by aerial archaeologists who have searched for and photographed archaeological or potential archaeological features. Vertical air photographs have generally been taken from the mid 20th century onwards usually for non-archaeological purposes, and only by chance are they taken at the most archaeologically productive time of year (mid summer). They can however occasionally show archaeological features. The military obliques were taken for military purposes and rarely contain archaeological features. A cover search of photographs held in the NMR was made for a 3x3km area centred on the development site, south-west corner 438 390 and north-east corner 441 393, see Figure 3.10.3. There were no specialist oblique photographs within the site itself although four were situated close to the western boundary (NMR nos. SK3991/1, 3991/2, 3991/4 and 3991/19, the first three dating to April 1989 and the last to January 2000). The recent date of the photographs shows that they were taken long after the site had been fully built-up, when any useful archaeological information had been covered. They were probably taken to show the two cooling towers, and it may be safely presumed that they would not be useful for the purposes of this desk-based assessment. They have not been inspected. The above observations suggest that there is only a remote possibility of the verticals and military obliques showing archaeological features and so inspection of these at the HER in Swindon was not carried out as it was not considered likely to produce any further information. 3.10.3.9 Nottingham University Library, University Park, Nottingham Domesday Book, Yorkshire, was consulted. 3.10.3.10 Site Inspection The development site was inspected by G. Kinsley on 25th July 2007. The main wide part of the site was largely open, and cleared of buildings with the exception of the two cooling towers, a small range of buildings in the north-west corner and the sub-station in the centre. A wooded area obscured the south-east edge of this area. The narrow eastern end of the site comprised a narrow strip of river-bank, see Figure 3.10.1. Aside from the standing structures, the site is generally flat and featureless, consistent with the alluvial geology. The areas inspected had clearly contained buildings or areas of hard external surfacing. The river bank is also flat and featureless. Nothing of archaeological significance was identified. 3.10.3.11 Ground Investigations The site stands on alluvium of the river Don, with rising ground of the Coal Measures to north and south (Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) sheet 100, 1974). A ground investigation report by Soil Mechanics dated 10th July 2007 (preliminary / draft) records twenty-five trial pits and four boreholes, see Figure 3.10.1 inset and following table). There was a general sequence of (1) made-ground overburden (0.3-2.4m in thickness) over (2, where preserved) firm brown / orange slightly / very sandy clay, over (3) mudstone and


183

sandstone gravel / boulders. 2 is presumably to be equated with the alluvial sediments of the River Don, and 3 the solid Coal Measures formation which underlies it.

Borehole / test-pit no.

thickness of made ground overburden (m)

BH1A 0.4 BH2 0.5 BH3 2.0 BH4B 1.0 TP01 1.3 TP02 >1.4 TP03 >1.8 TP04 0.6 TP05 0.15 TP06 1.9 TP07 0.3 TP07A 0.25 TP08 1.5 TP09 0.9 TP10 0.5 TP11 0.4 TP12 >1.3 TP13 0.4 TP14 1.0 TP16 0.5 TP17 0.3 TP18 1.1 TP19 0.2 TP20 >1.2 TP21 2.4 TP22 0.5 TP23 >1.3 TP24 0.4 TP25 0.4

Should plans for further ground investigations be proposed on the remainder of the site, then any new borehole and trial pit data will be reviewed to establish if there is archaeological significance and whether further investigation is required. 3.10.4 The Archaeology and History of the Development Site 3.10.4.1 Palaeochannels The development site is located on the alluvium of the river Don. There is therefore a significant possibility that palaeochannels (infilled former courses of the river) may exist or have existed within the site. These can be up to several metres in depth and any which might exist on the site could therefore have survived the surface disturbance from the power station construction. They can provide a completely airless environment leading to enhanced preservation of organic material (e.g. wood, including river-related structures such as bridges and boats) and botanical and faunal data providing evidence of past environments. Such deposits can be of great significance and value.


184

However, no evidence was found in the ground investigations of any such features, which lowers the risk of any having survived in between the pits and boreholes; however, the rest of the site remains uninvestigated in this way, and the possibility of the existence of palaeochannels cannot be entirely ruled out. The Bronze Age canoe (HER 0835) found on the east side of the river, 500m from the development site may well indicate just such a feature. 3.10.4.2 Prehistory Within a 1km radius of the development site, HER finds include a Mesolithic arrowhead (HER 0801), a Neolithic mace head (HER 0846) and a Bronze Age canoe (HER 0835) radiocarbon-dated to 3450 +-150B.P. (around 1500 B.C; Fig. 2). They are most likely to have been deposited after accident or loss and are insufficient evidence to suggest anything more significant than human presence in the vicinity of the development site. However, there is evidence for prehistoric human occupation in the surrounding area. The Transactions of the Hunter Archaeological Society record that before 1795 Bronze Age burial mounds and an Iron Age enclosure were situated on Wincobank Hill, which lies approximately 1.5km to the west of the development site. The Roman Ridge, a set of linear earthworks run for approximately ten miles on the north side of the River Don, passing 500m north-west of the development site (Fig. 4). However, excavations have not provided any firm dating evidence and there are those who believe the ridge has a post-Roman date, linking it to other similar ridges in Britain such as Offa’s dyke (Boldrini, 1999, p.26-8). The Don Valley was occupied by the Iron Age Brigantes tribe and it is possible that the Iron Age enclosure, still visible today and known as Wincobank Hill-fort was established by Venutius, king of the Brigantes (Wilson 1966, 5). 3.10.4.3 Roman There is considerable evidence for Roman presence in the area of the development site, although no finds have been made on the site itself, see Figure 3.10.2. Finds on the Roman Ridge include the Blackburn coin hoard (HER 0802): thirty coins dating to the first and second centuries A.D., found in 1891, which although unreliable due to imprecise recording, do strengthen the case for a Roman, or pre-Roman date. A Roman bracelet was found close to the Ridge (HER 3371) and other Roman coins were found on the Tinsley viaduct and in the nearby parish of Rotherham (HER 3231/4447), all within a 1km radius of the development site. The nearest Roman fort is at Templeborough, just south of the River Don and approximately 1.5km from the development site; part of a cordon of garrisons built to control the Brigantes tribe to the north. This was established in 54 A.D. by the Cohors IIII Gallorum Equites (4th cohort of the Gauls). Outside the fort at Templeborough, a Roman settlement was developed at Brinsworth. It is believed that at least two Roman roads passed through Blackburn, one on a route following that of the modern Shiregreen Lane and onto Southay, approximately 3km from the development site, and another from Castleford (Roman Lagentium) to the crossing of the River Don at Bridgehouses. This road forded the Blackburn brook at the bottom of Grange Lane, some 2km from the development site (Wilson 1996, 6).


185

3.10.4.4 Anglo-Saxon No finds of Anglo-Saxon date have been found in the vicinity but the Roman Ridge (see above) has been compared to similar ridges in Britain, such as Offa’s Dyke and Wat’s Dyke, and as such may have been built to define or defend the southern frontier of the British Kingdom of Elmet at a time when raiders or settlers from the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia to the south, were penetrating the Don valley (Boldrini, 1999, p.27) It is significant to note that the name of the nearby River Sheaf, from which Sheffield derives its name, means “boundary river” and may also have formed part of the boundary of Elmet (Ekwall 1960, 414). 3.10.4.5 Medieval and Early Post-Medieval No evidence for medieval occupation has been recorded on the development site, though a shard of “glazed ware” was found 1km north-west of the development site (HER 1109). Lands within the manor of Kimberworth were given to the monks of Kirkstead Abbey, Lincolnshire in 1161 for making their houses and orchards, two forges for smelting iron and two for forging it, and permission to dig ore sufficient for the two furnaces. These monks are the first recorded iron workers in South Yorkshire, mining ore on the hillsides of the Blackburn Valley. The exact location is unknown but is believed to be close to the short-lived 12th-century hermitage of St John The Baptist on the eastern side of Grange Lane, approximately 3km from the development site. It is unlikely that any remains relating to this activity extend into the development site (Wilson 1996, 10-11). The Ordnance Survey map of 1854 and Jeffery’s 1775 map of Sheffield provide the earliest comprehensive mapping of significant settlements in the vicinity of the development site (Fig. 4). Of these, Tinsley, Brinsworth, Kimberworth, Attercliffe, Ecclesfield and Sheffield are mentioned as being in the Strafforth Wapentake in the Domesday Book, which indicates origins prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066. Others may be later but their absence from the Domesday record may be no more significant than that they were included unnamed in entries for other places. Tinsley is described as having 10 acres of meadow, woodland pasture one league long, eight furlongs wide and a mill. 3.10.4.6 Post-Medieval It is not clear exactly when fork making became an established trade in the Blackburn valley, but it is recorded that in 1787 William Goddard of Blackburn Moor and a man called Tingle at Shiregreen were manufacturing forks. Further records show that by 1825 there were fifteen fork-making families at Blackburn Wheel. The dam around which the fork-making set-up centred, with a mill cottage at ‘Blackbourne Common’ was situated by a farmhouse that still remains today as the Royal Oak public house, approximately 1.5 km from the development site. On the Blackburn brook in 1775 there was also a mill at Butterthwaite, two dams at Grange Lane and at the confluence of the Blackburn Brook and the River Don, Blackburn Forge, all physical evidence of which has now gone, although its former position can be seen on the Ordnance Survey 6in map of 1854, refer to Figure 3.10.4. In 1854 the South Yorkshire Railway built a line up the Blackburn Valley and paved the way for the first factories in the area, including the Yorkshire Engine Company and the Meadow Hall Iron Works. Many small houses were built to accommodate the large workforce needed.


186

The factories brought about the decline of the fork-making industry at Blackburn Wheel; it was recorded in 1891 that ‘the manufacture of forks at Blackburn, once in a thriving state, is now almost extinct’ (Wilson, 1981, p.46). Maps relating to this period show the development site as meadowland ‘liable to flooding’, until the rising population in the Blackburn Valley produced problems with sewage which had previously been drained directly into the local rivers. In 1886, on the site of low lying water meadows where the Blackburn Brook meets the River Don, immediately adjacent to the development site, lime precipitation tanks and coke filters were constructed to partially treat sewage before it entered the River Don, refer to Figure 3.10.6. 3.10.4.7 20th Century The Sheffield Corporation acquired the site of the sewage works in 1905, since when the Blackburn Meadows Sewage Works has been redesigned several times. Today some of the old filter beds have been incorporated into a nature reserve. The development site remained open meadow, refer to Figure 3.10.5, until, in 1921, Sheffield City Council chose it for the construction of an electricity generating power station. This was primarily to support the steel industry in the lower Don Valley. Two cooling towers were added in 1937-8 as the station expanded in order to meet the increasing demand for power. The power station was demolished in the 1970’s, but because of the difficulty in demolishing the cooling towers so close to the M1 motorway, these remain. The HER monument report describes the towers, known as the Tinsley Cooling Towers, as rare surviving remains of pre-nationalisation large scale electricity generation, and possibly the only pre-1950 hyperbolic cooling towers surviving nationally. They were designed by L.G. Mouchell and Partners, who also designed the first hyperbolic cooling towers in the country. They are made of reinforced concrete with projecting bands encircling them and larger perforations in the form of diamonds and vertical slits above the bands. When in use the power station generated electricity with coal-fired boilers, which created steam to turn electric generators. This process needed a railway system to transport coal, a coal handling plant, a boiler complex, turbine and generating halls, as well as the switchgear for connecting the Plant to the electricity grid; none of these features survive today but can be seen on the earlier Ordnance Survey maps, refer to Figure 3.10.6. It was recommended in 1994 that the cooling towers should be Grade II listed because of the interest of their form and decorative features and because of their prominence in the landscape. However, following an assessment by English Heritage in 2006, it was decided that being merely a fragment of a larger complex and surviving as little more than an outer shell, coupled with clear evidence of deterioration and a shell thickness thinner than that considered safe today, the towers did not meet the criteria for either listing or scheduling. With the opening of the M1 motorway in 1968 Blackburn village was largely destroyed with many buildings being demolished. The motorway also replaced the old Anglo-Saxon boundary, the Blackburn Brook, as the boundary between Sheffield and Rotherham (Wilson, 1981, p.73).


187

3.10.4.8 The River Don Mercantile navigation has been well established on the River Don since at least the twelfth century with the transfer of goods to and from Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield taking place. However, despite petition from merchants to the parliament of Henry IV, serious attempts to improve the navigation of the river did not start until the end of the seventeenth century. The main initiative seems to have come from Rotherham Council in 1697 but due to opposition from those with interests in the navigation on the River Idle, no action took place until 1722 when a survey of the river was commissioned. Finally, in 1726 a bill was passed which gave the Company of Cutlers, as undertakers of the scheme, the power to make the Don navigable for boats of up to 20 tonnes, and to cut, deepen and widen the river. As a result, by 1751, boats were able to navigate as far as Tinsley Bottom Locks. The wharfs situated here were associated with the earliest phase of the rolling mills that developed as a result of the improved navigation. By 1847 the Don Navigation was legally amalgamated with the South Yorkshire, Doncaster and Goole Railway but the navigation was quickly allowed to fall into neglect with investments being concentrated on the railways. The section of the River Don adjacent to the development site sits beyond the navigational alterations of the river and appears to be the natural course of the river. 3.10.5 Archaeological Potential 3.10.5.1 Archaeological Remains Although a number of archaeological sites and finds of various periods are recorded in the vicinity of the development site, there is no direct evidence of significant archaeological remains within the site and it is likely to have been uninhabited floodplain until is development as the Blackburn Meadows Sewage Farm and Blackburn Meadows Power Station from the late 19th century. This does not rule out the possibility of unidentified archaeological features existing within the site, in particular, palaeochannels could exist. These can provide a sustained completely airless environment since deposition, leading to enhanced preservation of ancient organic material (e.g. wood, including river-related structures such as bridges and boats) and botanical and faunal data providing evidence of past environments. Such deposits can be of great significance, but it must be stressed that there is no direct evidence of any such features existing within the development site. 3.10.5.2 Survival No records of the power station construction are held by the client. Ordnance Survey mapping and air photographs are the only records of recent site development which have been traced. From Figure 3.10.5 and Figure 3.10.6, it is immediately apparent that no part of the site, except the narrow riverbank strip, has remained free of substantial structures. The ground investigations show disturbance varying between 0.3-2.4m in depth. Any surface archaeological features which may exist will therefore have been truncated if not destroyed, and only deep features, such as palaeochannels are likely to survive.


188

3.10.6 Impact of Development The ground plan is not yet finalized, although the north corner of the main area is under particular consideration at present. There is no known focus of significant archaeological remains on the site, although palaeochannels are unlikely to have escaped detection in the area of the ground investigations. It must also be expected that damage from former structures is extensive. 3.10.7 Recommendations for Further Work In the area of potential preservation, if any ground disturbance becomes necessary, a suitable scheme of archaeological investigation will be devised to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and carried out prior to or in conjunction with the construction. Its scope would depend upon the nature of the works proposed.


189

3.11 Geology and Contaminated Land 3.11.1 Introduction This section, produced by Mott MacDonald with additional input from E.ON Engineering, considers the impacts of the scheme with regard to sensitive geological features and contamination risks. The assessment draws on a range of information including desk based sources and ground investigation data acquired by E.ON during project development. This section, ground investigation and forthcoming risk assessment and remediation strategy are being produced specifically in response to comments on the scoping report made by Sheffield City Council. The Council provided the following comment: “[A] land contamination survey will need to include an intrusive phase 1 (sic) and phase 2 ground contamination assessment and should include a remediation strategy. It should consider the impact on watercourses and water quality” 3.11.2 Methodology and Evaluation Criteria

Geological Assessment

Data on site geology and ground conditions has been drawn from published geological information from the British Geological Society (BGS), and two ground investigations undertaken by Soil Mechanics (July 2007)i and Norwest Holst (October 2007 to February 2008).

The Soil Mechanics ground investigation was designed primarily to collect geotechnical information for the purpose of preliminary Plant design. The Norwest Holst investigation was designed to obtain information on the contamination status of the entire site. The latter investigation was procured in response to recommendations made by Sheffield City Council in a formal environmental scoping opinion for the scheme.

Contamination Assessment

The contamination data collected from the Norwest Holst investigation is due to undergo a quantitative risk assessment as part of the remediation strategy for the site. This process is not yet complete. Consequently a preliminary summary of findings is presented here with recommendations for further assessment provided in the mitigation section.

Human health risks are assessed in accordance with the CLEA Framework developed by the Environment Agency and DEFRA. Risks to all other contamination receptors have been assessed qualitatively in accordance with CIRIA C552 criteriaii.

3.11.3 Baseline Conditions This section considers the site setting, geology, site history, and current status of the site and site vicinity with respect to potentially contaminative activities.


190

Site Setting The Site is currently derelict following the decommissioning of Blackburn Meadows coal fired power station in the mid 1980’s. There are operating electricity sub-stations to the south and along the northern boundary of the Site. The Site is predominantly hardstanding but large areas have been colonised by vegetation. Foundations of former buildings remain on the Site. There is an access road from the north-west which leads to the electrical substations, and electricity pylons are present within the substation compounds to the north. The Site is generally flat at an approximate elevation of 30-31m AOD.

The site is bordered to the south-east by the River Don, an easterly flowing watercourse. The area to the east and north of the site is occupied by a sewage works operated by Yorkshire Water. To the west is the Tinsley Viaduct, a two tiered structure carrying motorway traffic on the M1 and the A631.

Previous Use The earliest historical plans available date from 1854, when the subject site was part of a wider area of open agricultural land, with the River Don lying to the south and east (the entire area to the north and west is labelled as ‘liable to floods’) and the Sheffield and Rotherham railway approximately 400m to the north (running roughly south-west to north-east). By 1892, Sheffield Sewage Works, comprising various tanks or beds had been built to the north of the site. A railway line had been built to the west and south, including ‘Tinsley Curve’ adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. The site itself was still undeveloped but greater detail in the maps reveals footpaths and a possible small embankment running across the site. The general area continued to develop with both industrial and residential buildings. The first development on the site is shown on the 1922 – 1923 plan, when an ‘Electric Power Station’ was on site, comprising one large building (possible two adjoining buildings) in the centre of the site and other unmarked secondary buildings. Rail tracks and turntables run off the main railway and the sidings servicing the sewage works to the north. The 1934 – 1935 plan shows another large building to the west of the first, including several chimneys. Water coolers and a cooling tower have been built on the northern side of the site, and a crane is marked. By 1938, two circular buildings, possibly the cooling towers have been built on the far western end, and some small railway lines now cross the site. There is little significant change to the site until 1985 – 1988 when most of the site structures have gone, save the building/compound in the centre of the site and the cooling towers on the western end. Other than the Meadowhall centre being built in the mid-1990s, there is little significant change to the site or its surroundings until the most recent map, dated 2007. There is some information suggesting that the eastern end of the site was occupied by a lagoon of some sort, since backfilled with demolition rubble. The Envirocheck report records landfills to the north, beyond the sewage works; to the east, on the other side of the River Don, and to the south between the railway and canal. Current Site Status The current status of the site has been ascertained from observations made during the ground investigation and site walkover surveys.


191

A surface survey was undertaken by Shield Environmental in October 2007 to ascertain the presence of asbestos fragments. Surface fragments are considered to be “minor and sporadic” across the site. However evidence of asbestos fibres has been found in isolated areas of demolition rubble and within the former coal fired power station turbine hall area. Evidence of hydrocarbon contamination was also found in made ground beneath the northern part of the former turbine hall, beneath the former cooling tower along the northern boundary, and in isolated areas of demolition spoil in the east of the site. Japanese knotweed has been identified as growing in an area of former pump houses in the south-eastern corner of the site. Surface Water Drainage The nearest water course to the site is the River Don, approximately 30m south of the site boundary, beyond the railway line. Rainfall Long-term average rainfall recorded at the Sheffield station for 1971 – 2000 was 824.7mm/a (data from Met office website). The site lies within a zone 3 area – categorised as flooding from Rivers or sea without defences. Please refer to section 3.4 – Flood Risk for more information. Surface Water Abstractions Details of surface water abstractions were obtained from the Envirocheck Report obtained for the site. There are seven surface water abstractions within 1km of the site of which only one is not listed as licence revoked or lapsed, that is Aurora Forgings Limited, 593m west of the site for cooling. Surface Water Discharge Consents There are 38 consents listed within the Envirocheck Report as being within 1km of the site. Of the eight permits listed within 500m of the site, all relate to the Sewage Disposal Works and storm overflow into the River Don. Surface Water Quality Water quality data for the River Don for the nearest sampling points to the site were as follows: GQA Grade: River Quality B (2000, 282m from site) River Quality Biology Sampling Points

• Sheffield and South Yorkshire reach (308m southeast from site): 1990, 1995, 2000 – 2005, all ‘Grade E - Poor’

• Blackburn Brook to Sheffield and South Yo (414m southwest from site): 1990, 1995, 2000 – 2005, all ‘Grade E - Poor’

• Blackburn Meadows to Chapel Flat Dyke (919m northeast from site): 1990 ‘Grade F – Bad’, 1995, 2000 – 2005 ‘Grade E - Poor’

• Sheffield and South to Blackburn Meadows (919m northeast from site): 1990, 1995, 2000 – 2005, all ‘Grade E - Poor’

• Chapel Flat Dyke to Sheffield and South Yorkshire (981m east from site): 1990 ‘Grade F – Bad’, 1995, 2000 – 2005 ‘Grade E - Poor’


192

River Quality Chemistry Sampling Points

• Sheffield and South to Blackburn Meadows (260m southeast from site): 1990, 1993 – 1999 ‘Grade C – Fairly Good’, 2000 – 2002 ‘Grade B – Good’, 2003 – 2004 ‘Grade C – Fairly Good’, 2005 ‘Grade B – Good’

• Car Brook to Blackburn Brook (690m southwest of the site): 1990 ‘Grade D – fair’, 1993 – 1998 ‘Grade C – Fairly Good’, 1999 – 2001 ‘Grade B – Good’, 2002 – 2004 ‘Grade C - fairly good’, 2005 ‘Grade B – good’

Blackburn Brook (515m west of the site) also has River Quality chemistry sampling Point results available:

• 1990, 1993 – 1995 ‘Grade C – Fairly Good’, 1996 – 1997 ‘Grade D – fair’, 1998 – 2002 ‘Grade C – Fairly Good’, 2003 -2005 ‘Grade D – fair’.

Ground Conditions The information published by the British Geological Survey indicates that the site is underlain by superficial deposits comprising alluvium, overlying Pennine Lower Coal Measures (Upper Carboniferous in age). The Coal Authority report for the site states that there were workings in three seams between 260m and 590m below ground level (bgl), but they were last worked in 1942, and ground movement from this should have ceased by now. Given the site history, it is expected that there would be Made Ground present across the site, either as fill from the construction or from the subsequent demolition. Data from an investigation in 1968 (as reported in the 1992 Soil Mechanics Limited report, and the more recent Desktop Study by Power Technology in 2007) found the following ground conditions: Stratum Description Thickness Made Ground Ash, gravel and clinker with or without

sandy clay 1.20m – 1.65m

Alluvium Soft to stiff brown mottled grey sandy silty CLAY Medium dense to dense grey brown medium and coarse subangular GRAVEL with some cobble and occasional traces of clay and coal fragments.

0.00m – 2.50m 2.50m – 5.90m

Bedrock Interbedded weak to medium strong grey thinly bedded fine grained SANDSTONE with occasional vertical joints and thinly bedded weak to medium strong grey silty MUDSTONE with rare thin bands of coal.

At least 14.00m proven

Thin coal seams were recorded in borehole records available in the Desktop Survey; mostly between 0.10m and 0.45m thick, with one seam 1.30m thick, at depths of between 12.14m and 49.20m bgl. The recent Preliminary Ground Investigation comprised twenty-five trial pits and four cable-percussion boreholes, and a phased geo-physical investigation. The focus of the investigation was on the area of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant, roughly in the centre


193

of the site. The strata observed were similar to those of the 1968 investigation, confirming the BGS information. Stratum Typical depth

encountered (mbgl)

Typical Thickness (m)

Description

Made Ground - Concrete

Ground level 0.00 – 1.30m (minimum)

Concrete foundations of varying thickness, quality and reinforcement. Base of concrete not proven in one trial pit – at least 1.30m thick

Made Ground Ground level 0.20m - >2.40m

Two types: • Black gravelly sand with

gravels consisting of subangular fine to coarse ash, brick and clinker.

• Grey black very sandy gravel, comprising large blocky concrete, with fine to coarse clinker, ash, steel and wire.

Cohesive Alluvial Drift

0.20m – 2.00m 1.00 – 2.50 Firm brown sandy CLAY becoming gleyed grey with depth.

Granular Alluvial Drift

1.00m – 3.00m >1.50m Grey-brown orange very sandy GRAVEL of subangular to rounded fine to coarse sandstone and mudstone becoming coarser with depth.

6.30m – 7.00m >1.50m Two types: • Stiff grey and black very

gravelly CLAY with gravel comprising angular to subangular fine to coarse mudstone.

• Grey back clayey GRAVEL comprising angular to subangular fine to coarse carbonaceous mudstone.

Lower Westphalian Coal Measures

7.50m – 8.50m Not proven Probable carbonaceous mudstone – no recovery

Summary The Site is underlain by made ground, typically consisting of ashy gravels of brick and concrete, to a depth of between 0.2 and 2.8mbgl. Made ground is thinnest in the area of the former coal stock area and thickest in the east of the site where demolition rubble for the former power station has been placed over former settling ponds dating from the former sewage works. Concrete is thickest beneath the former boiler and turbine hall located to the


194

west of the site. Thicknesses of approximately 1.7 – 1.9m have been encountered in former boiler chimney bases. The made ground is underlain by alluvium to a typical depth of 6 – 7.5mbgl. This consists of an upper clay unit and an underlying sand and gravel unit which tends to be water bearing. The solid geology comprises mudstones, siltstones and sandstones of the Pennine Middle Coal Measures Formation of the Westphalian. The Middle Coal Measures comprise the Haughton Marine Beds and includes the Barnsley or Top Hard Coal seam and Swallow Wood seam. Licensed Waste Management Facilities Landfill sites could present potentially significant sources of contamination if located in the vicinity of the site. Local Authority Landfills and Landfill Boundaries listed in an Envirocheck Report (Landmark Information Group, 2007)5 within 1000m of the Site are listed in Error! Reference source not found. below. Error! Reference source not found.below summarises registered Landfill Sites within 1000m of the Site.

Table 3.11.4: Local Authority Landfills and Landfill Boundaries within 1000m of the Site

Distance and Direction from Site

License Holder License Status

Notes

Local Authority Recorded Landfill Site 247m north west

Not recorded Open Construction, Demolition, Industrial and Excavation Waste

291m east Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

Not recorded Not recorded

333m north Not recorded Open Non hazardous, industrial, demolition, construction.

398m north east

Not recorded Open Demolition, Excavation

506m north west

Not recorded Open Construction, Demolition, Excavation Waste

868m north east

Not recorded Not recorded Domestic

Landfill Boundary 27m east Yorkshire Water

Services Ltd Active Household, Commercial and Industrial

Waste Landfills 231m north west

Trimbrim Limited Active Landfills taking Non-biodegradable Wastes, (not construction)

508m north west

Waste Recycling Group

Active Household, Commercial and Industrial Waste Landfills

530m north J White (TDE) Co Ltd/Rother Boiler Co Ltd

Inactive Landfills taking Non-biodegradable Wastes, (not construction)

Table 3.11.5: Registered Landfills within 1000m of the Site

5 Landmark Information Group (2007): Envirocheck Report on Blackburn Meadows, Report ref. 240957


195


License Holder

Authorised Waste Prohibited Waste Status

87m west Rotherham M.B.C

Non hazardous demolition waste.

Not defined Cancelled

319m north west

Trimbrim Limited

Construction, demolition, inert/non hazardous excavation waste, soil, sub soil.

Biodegradable wastes, combustible wastes.

Partially Revoked

370m north

J White (T D E) Ltd

Demolition and excavation waste.

Asbestos, liquid slurry in drum containers.

Cancelled

370m north

The Slag Reduction Co Ltd

Construction and demolition wastes.

Liquids and slurries in containers over 4 1 Cap.

Cancelled

516m north east

Rother Boiler Co Ltd

Industrial non hazardous, inert, non flammable.

Liquids and slurries in containers over 4 1 Cap.

Cancelled

579m north west

Ronald Hull Junior Ltd

Excavation wastes/soil/sub soil, solid non hazardous, construction and demolition waste.

Biodegradable wastes. Cancelled

604m north

J White (T D E) Ltd

Construction and demolition wastes, excavation wastes, soil, sub soil.

Biodegradable wastes, combustible wastes, hazardous wastes, Liquids and slurries in containers over 4 L Cap.

Closed

607m north

Rother Boiler Co Ltd

Industrial non hazardous waste

Liquids and slurries in containers over 4 L Cap.

Under Review

615m north


Bonded asbestos waste, commercial and industrial non hazardous waste, dewatered gullies sweepings, excavation waste, soil, sub soil, fats waxes and greases, foundry sand, fume extractor dust/sludge, industrial non hazardous, non flammable wastes, non hazardous construction/demolition wastes, paint waste, plastics, rubber, sewage sludge, soaps and detergents, waste treated timbers.

Liquids and slurries in containers over 4 L Cap.

Cancelled

615m north

Firth Vickers Foundry

Commercial waste, ferrous scrap, industrial non hazardous waste, metal scrap, slag.

Liquids and slurries in containers over 4 1itre capacity.

Superseded


196


License Holder


685m north

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

Liquid and sludge excluding water treatment, press cake/ash, sewage sludge stabilised by anaerobic Dig. Silt from sewage construction, spoil from construction work, temporary storage of construction/demolition waste.

Not recorded Not recorded

702m north

Goldthorpe Metals Ltd

Construction and demolition wastes, excavated natural materials, foundry sand, industrial/commercial non hazardous/non flammable wastes.

Asbestos, biodegradable/putrescible wastes, liquid or sludge in drums > 4 litres, liquids of slurries in containers over 41 Cap.

Cancelled

752m north

Caird Environmental Ltd

Extensive list including Asbestos, car scrap, dry cell batteries, Epoxy resins, oil/water mixtures, paints, pharmaceutical wastes, Phenol-Formaldehyde resins, polyester resins, polymeric material, polyurethane, contaminated water.

Liquids and slurries in containers >4 litre capacity

Operational

752m north


Extensive list including bonded asbestos waste, dewatered gully sweepings, fume extractor sludge, paint waste solids, plastic manufacture scrap, sewage sludge and soaps and detergents.

Liquids and slurries in containers >4 litre capacity, effluent treatment plant sludge, latex sludge, non hazardous industrial sludge.

Superseded

752m north

Alick Watson Ltd

Commercial waste, industrial non hazardous waste, soil and sub soil.

Asbestos cement products, Liquids and slurries in containers >4 litre capacity.

Superseded

785m north east

JJ Habershon

Construction and demolition wastes, industrial non hazardous inert, non flammable wastes. Storage only of acid treatment sludge.

Not recorded Cancelled

825m south

Sheffield Tippers Ltd

Construction and demolition wastes, household and commercial wastes, industrial non hazardous

Asbestos cement products, Liquids and slurries in containers >4 litre capacity.

Cancelled


197


License Holder


wastes. Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites Integrated Pollution Control and Pollution Prevention Controls authorise site installations capable of polluting air, water or land. These authorisations can therefore indicate the presence of potentially contaminative activities in the vicinity of the Site. There are seven Integrated Pollution Control licensed installations recorded in the Envirocheck Report within 100m of the Site associated with the Blackburn Meadows sewage treatment works on Alsing Road. Six authorisations have been superseded and the seventh has been revoked. Ten Integrated Pollution Prevention Control licenses are held within 500m of the site for the following activities: • Landfilling, Incineration of non-hazardous waste, miscellaneous waste disposal licenses

and combustion by Yorkshire Water; • General metal processes: 2no. licenses held by Darwins Holdings Ltd; • Unspecified part B processes at Trefoil Steel Co and Atomising Systems ltd Hydrogeology Groundwater Vulnerability The groundwater vulnerability plan indicates the entire site to be a Minor Aquifer, with soils of unclassified (and therefore assumed high) leaching potential. Groundwater Units Groundwater strikes were recorded in the trial pits between 1.00m and 3.00mbgl (see Table 3.11.3 below), often at the boundary between the alluvial clay and the underlying alluvial gravels. Levels in many pits rose on deeper excavation, reaching 0.5m – 1.00m bgl within 20 minutes. Many of the trial pits were terminated due to the infill of water. These results suggest that the groundwater within the gravels may be confined. No subsequent monitoring results are available. There may be deeper groundwater within the sandstones of the Lower Coal Measures, but the occurrence of mudstone (weathered to clay with lithorelicts) at the top of the bedrock will prevent downward migration.

Table 3.11.3 Record of Water Strikes Borehole/Trial Pit

Water Strikes (mbgl)

Unit Observations

BH1A 1.50 Alluvium (cohesive) Rose to 0.60m after 20


198

mins. Fast inflow. 1.20 Top of granular Alluvium Rose to 0.70m after 20

mins. Fast inflow. Sealed at 3.00m by casing.

BH2

3.80 Alluvium (granular, beneath a cohesive band)

Rose to 1.00m after 20 mins. Fast inflow.

2.00 Top of granular Alluvium Rose to 0.50m after 20 mins. Fast inflow. Sealed at 3.50m by casing.

BH3


Rose to 3.50m after 20 mins. Fast inflow.

BH4B 3.00 Alluvium (granular, beneath a cohesive band)

Rose to 2.00m after 20 mins.

TP01 1.30 Made Ground - TP02 1.30 Made Ground - TP03 1.40 Made Ground - TP04 2.60 Alluvium (granular,

beneath a cohesive band) -

0.15 Alluvium (cohesive) Seepage TP05 1.80 Alluvium (granular,


TP06 4.00 Alluvium (granular, beneath a cohesive band)

-

0.20 Made Ground Seepage TP07 2.60 Alluvium (granular,


TP7A 0.00 Made Ground Inflow from surface TP08 1.50 Alluvium (granular,



Seepage TP09






-

TP12 - - None observed TP13 1.90 Alluvium (cohesive) Rose to 0.80m after 20

mins. Fast inflow. TP14 1.60 Alluvium (granular,

beneath a cohesive band) Rose to 0.80m after 20 mins. Sudden inflow

0.50 Alluvium (cohesive) Seepage TP16 2.50 Alluvium (granular,

beneath a cohesive band) Rose to 1.60m after 20 mins

0.80 Alluvium (cohesive) Seepage TP17 1.20 Alluvium (cohesive) Rose to 0.70m after 20

mins. Fast inflow 1.10 Alluvium (cohesive) Seepage TP18 3.10 Alluvium (granular,

beneath a cohesive band) Rose to 2.50m after 20 mins




199

TP20 0.50 Made Ground - TP21 - - None observed TP22 1.00 Alluvium (cohesive) Seepage TP23 - - None observed TP24 - - None observed TP25 2.10 Alluvium (granular,


Groundwater levels and Flows Information from water strikes during drilling is not well suited to determining the direction of groundwater flow as it does not necessarily represent the equilibrium water level at a particular location. The groundwater flow in the shallow drift deposits is likely to be towards the River Don. Groundwater Abstractions There are no source protection zones within 1km of the site. One groundwater abstraction is listed within 1km of the site – for the Edgar Allen Foundry (987m southwest from site) for cooling, but is listed as ‘Coal Measures Licence Lapsed’ Summary If contaminated, the groundwater can act as a pathway for contamination flows into nearby watercourses, or present a risk to groundwater abstractors. The granular alluvial deposits comprise largely continuous minor aquifer. Groundwater is also anticipated in more permeable sandstones in the Middle Coal Measures. There are no current licences for abstraction of groundwater from these formations in the vicinity of the scheme. Standpipes have been installed at 14 locations to assess the flow direction of groundwater beneath the site. It is possible that the flow is periodically towards the River Don, although current observations suggest that groundwater flow patterns are highly variable over time. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in the vicinity of the site designated for the protection of sensitive geological features. 3.11.4 Contaminated Land Contaminated land is defined and regulated under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Contaminated Land Regulations 2000. It is likely that the requirements of this legislation will be addressed through Town and Country Planning reserved matters. UK legislation requires that contaminated land is defined as land which in the opinion of the Regulator represents a significant possibility of significant harm to receptors likely to be present on or off the site. As such, the designation of contaminated land is risk based, and depends upon the site’s suitability for use. Some uses are likely to be less sensitive to contamination than others. For instance a commercial site occupied by adults may present lower risks to human receptors than a residential site occupied by children. A key element of an environmental risk assessment is the development of a conceptual model that describes the environmental features of the Site together with the expected


200

interaction of potential contamination sources with the environment. This is done by undertaking a Source – Pathway – Receptor analysis of the Site: • Sources (S) are potential or known contaminant sources e.g. a former land use; • Pathways (P) are environmental systems through which a contaminant could migrate e.g.

air, groundwater; • Receptors (R) are sensitive environmental receptors that could be adversely affected by

a contaminant. E.g., Site occupiers, groundwater resources. Where a source, relevant pathway and receptor are present, a pollutant linkage is considered to exist whereby there is a circumstance through which environmental harm could occur and a potential environmental liability may exist. The source-pathway-receptor linkage assessment is illustrated in drawing no. 240957/MID/005 (Figure 3.11.1). The linkage elements are described below: On Site Contamination Sources S1: Made Ground: waste associated with former land uses. This includes contamination from the coal fired power station and the railway lines that occupied the Site. Typical contaminants associated with Power Stations are summarised below from CLR 8 (Environment Agency 2002)6 Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Vanadium, Zinc, Arsenic, Selenium, Asbestos, Sulphate, Sulphide, Oil/Fuel Hydrocarbons, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl’s. S2: PCB’s associated with Electrical Sub Stations S3: Acid mine leachate and gas from coal measures Off Site Contamination Sources S4: Landfill and Waste handling industries within 100m of the Site boundary S5: Disused railway land in south-western area of the Site S6: Sewage Works on northern boundary of Site S7: Former steel industry within 100m of the Site Potential Contamination Pathways The following contamination pathways have been identified on Site: P1: Horizontal and Vertical migration of leachate through the potentially permeable soils, variably permeable geological formations and former power station services. P2: Human Uptake Pathways (derived from the CLEA model for Commercial/Industrial land uses): • Ingestion of soil • Ingestion of indoor dust • Dermal contact with soil • Contact with indoor dust • Inhalation of vapours outside • Inhalation of vapours inside • P3: Vertical and lateral migration of volatile vapours and ground gas.

6 Environment Agency & DEFRA (2002): “Potential Contaminants for the Assessment of Land”, CLR8


201

• P4: Plant root uptake Environmental Receptors The following environmental receptors have been identified on Site. • R1: Groundwater residing in variably permeable Alluvial Gravels • R2: Surface water at the River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal • R3: Buildings/Structures • R4: Flora and Fauna Human Receptors The following human receptors have been identified on Site. • R5: Construction and Maintenance Workers • R6: End users Risk Assessment Process For each potential pollutant linkage identified in the conceptual model, the potential risk can be evaluated, based on the following principle: Overall contamination risk = Probability of event occurring x Consequence of event occurring The consequence of an event occurring has been classified into the following categories: • Severe • Medium • Mild • Minor The probability of an event occurring has been classified into the following categories: • High Likelihood • Likely • Low Likelihood • Unlikely This relationship can be represented graphically as a matrix (Table 1.11.6): Table 1.11.6: Overall Contamination Risk Matrix

Consequence Severe Medium Mild Minor

High likelihood

Very high risk High risk Moderate risk Low risk

Likely High risk Moderate risk Moderate risk Low risk Low likelihood Moderate risk Moderate risk Low risk Very low risk

Prob

abili

ty

Unlikely Low risk Low risk Very low risk Very low risk The risk assessment process is based on guidance provided in CIRIA C552 (2001) Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A Guide to Good Practice Error! Bookmark not defined.. Further information including definitions of descriptive terms used in the risk assessment process is included in the following section.


i Soil Mechanics (2007): Blackburn Meadows: Factual report of Ground Investigation, September 2007 ii Construction Industry Research and information Association (2001): Contaminated Land Risk Assessment - A Guide to Good Practice CIRIA Report C552, CIRIA, London.


203

Site Risk Assessment A risk assessment of the Site based on the criteria above is summarised in Table 3.11.7 below. Table 3.11.7: Contamination Risk Assessment

Source Receptor Pathway Consequence Probability Risk Category Comments R1:

roundwater esiding in

variably permeable

and

Gr

AlluviumGravels

P1: Horizontal and Vertical migration of leachate through the potentially permeable soils and services

Medium Likely Moderate Risk Previous ground investigations at the Site have shown that the alluvium and gravels are water bearing. The Middle Coal Measures form a minor aquifer, and the soil leaching potential is assumed to be high. Coupled with the high levels of contamination that may be present locally, the risk to groundwater is considered moderate.

R2: Surface ater at the

River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley Canal

w


Medium Likely Moderate Risk The river and canal may be in continuity with the groundwater, and therefore the risk to surface water is also be considered to be moderate. Former drainage infrastructure and cooling water corridors may present preferential pathways for contamination. Further risks may be posed by acid mine drainage.

S1: Made Ground: waste associated with former land uses. S2: PCB’s associated with Electrical Sub Stations S3: Acid mine leachate and gas from coal measures S4: Landfill and Waste handling industries within 100m of the Site boundary S5: Disused railway land on in southern area of site

R3: Buildings/Structures


Medium Low Likelihood

Moderate Risk The underlying Middle Coal Measures may exhibit elevated sulphate levels which could result in corrosion of buried concrete structures.

nmental Statement Proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows

204

Source Receptor Pathway Consequence Probability Risk Category Comments R4: Flora and Fauna

P4: Plant root uptake

Medium Low Likelihood

Moderate Risk The presence of metals and volatile contaminants may have a detrimental effect on local river ecology and the shrubs to the south of the Site. However, the future development on the Site is unlikely to involve green areas, and therefore the risk is considered moderate.

R5: Construction and Maintenance Workers

P2: Human Uptake Pathways P3: Vertical migration of volatile vapours and ground gas

Severe Likely High Risk Due to former land uses on the Site, and high potential for exposure to contamination, the risk to construction workers who do not use the appropriate PPE is likely to be significant. Following redevelopment, final end users may become exposed to contaminants, particularly in landscaped areas. Occupants may also be exposed to ground gasses.

Low Risk

S6: Sewage Works on northern boundary of Site S7: Former steel industry within 100m of the Site

R6: End users

P2: Human Uptake Pathways P3: Vertical migration of volatile vapours and ground gas

Medium Unlikely

Enviro


205

Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment A preliminary quantitative assessment of human health risks has been carried out based on existing contamination data (excluding asbestos) collected during the first phase of the Norwest Holst ground investigation on the site and the data acquired by Soil Mechanics in July 2007. In accordance with Environment Agency and DEFRA guidelines, the solid contamination data has been assessed against thresholds derived under the UK Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) framework. These are the Soil Guideline Values (SGVs), and, where these are not available, the Mott MacDonald Soil Screening Values (SSVs) derived using the CLEA UK model using Environment Agency approved input parameters where possible. A table summarising the soil contamination data included in the assessment is shown in Figure 3.11.8. Two exceedances were noted for lead and light hydrocarbons7 in the northern part of the former power station turbine hall, and in the area of the former cooling tower in the central part of the northern site boundary. Statistical assessment using the US958 suggests that levels of hydrocarbons and lead are unlikely to pose a risk to human health if the site is taken as a whole. Human health risks from Asbestos are at present undergoing further assessment by an appropriately qualified specialist. Geological Impacts The site is not designated for its geological importance. However there is evidence that the area is underlain by coal seams from the Middle Coal Measures, and that some of the seams may have been worked previously by deep mining methods. Redevelopment may provide the opportunity to work the shallow coal prior to construction of the biomass plant. However collapsed ground over former shallow workings and voids, if present, could represent a settlement risk for new structures. Mine workings and coal measures can also be a source of methane and acid mine drainage. Summary of Geological and Land Contamination Impacts The assessment has shown that the principle risks on the site relate to contamination. Sensitive contamination receptors are considered to be controlled waters (in particular the River Don) and human health. All contamination risks will require further assessment in order to determine the requirement for contamination remediation on site. The site is not designated for it geological features. However, the area is known to be underlain by coal measures, and coal seams have been encountered in a recent ground investigation. The potential presence of former mine workings may result in risks of subsidence or settlement over highly fractured collapsed ground, gas emissions and acid mine waters. Nonetheless the presence of un-worked seams may present an opportunity for further coal extraction prior to redevelopment of the site. 3.11.5 Mitigation Measures Prior to the specification of remedial measures, the qualitative risk assessment presented above requires refinement using data collected during the contamination investigation undertaken by Norwest Holst. Best practice is defined by the Environment Agency document

7 Aliphatic total petroleum hydrocarbons: carbon chain length >C8 - 10 8 US95: The upper 95%ile of the contamination dataset across the site.


206

CLR11: “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination”9. In accordance with this guidance the following risk assessment recommendations are made: • Asbestos contamination risks should be assessed by an appropriately certified UKAS

accredited surveyor; • The risks from contaminated groundwater and leachates should be assessed

quantitatively in accordance with the revised P20 Remedial Targets Methodology10 • The qualitative risk assessment for ecological receptors should be reviewed and revised

as necessary following an appraisal of contamination data collected on the site. A remediation strategy should be produced to address those significant risks identified in the risk assessment. At present there is insufficient data to determine the precise remedial measures that will be required. However the following general recommendations are made: • Remediation methods should where possible reduce the requirement of off-site disposal

of contaminated material to landfill. • All remedial proposals should be produced in liaison with the Environment Agency and

Sheffield City Council to ensure regulatory compliance; • Re-use of material in earthworks should be performed in accordance with waste

management license legislation and / or license exemptions. Re-use of hazardous material may not be possible without pre-treatment.

It is recommended that a Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) is produced by the Contractor. The SEMP will set out the precautionary and reasonable steps to prevent the pollution of controlled waters by addressing the methods below and ensuring they are adopted into the works. Furthermore, the works should be monitored by a suitably qualified Site Environmental Engineer (SEE). The SEE will be responsible for identifying and approving all methods of pollution control. The key pollution controls that need to be covered by the SEMP include: • No polluting material, or polluting construction or demolition material or refuse, should be

permanently deposited anywhere other than appropriate licensed waste disposal sites. Such material must be temporarily deposited in steel containers, or removed directly to wagons;

• No rainwater contaminated with silt or soil from disturbed ground during construction

work should be permitted to drain directly to controlled waters without sufficient settlement;

• No foul drainage or contaminated surface water run-off should be discharged into any

borehole, soakaway, foul sewer, or water space; • All surface water drainage from impermeable areas, new or temporary road ways, and

hardstandings for vehicles comprised in the development, should be passed through an

9 Environment Agency & DEFRA (2004): “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination”: CLR11 10 Environment Agency and DEFRA (1996): “Remedial Targets Methodology: Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land Contamination”


207

oil interceptor or other urban drainage device and constructed to a specification suitable for the site being drained, before being discharge to foul sewer;

• The prior approval of the manner of construction of any storage facilities for oils, fuels or

chemicals should be obtained from the local planning authority, before the development is commenced. Furthermore, the SEMP shall detail safe handling and storage procedures for fuel and other potentially polluting material. Fuel storage should be stored within bunded double lined tanks with a bund capacity of 110%. The fuel should also be stored above the required flood level to prevent ingress of water into the bund.

• No drainage or surface water run off or any other run off or drainage should be

discharged by any means into controlled waters, and the developer and his consultants and contractors should at all times comply with any requirements of the Environment Agency and Local Authority.

The plan should also address safety, health and environmental incidents which could reasonably be foreseen to occur during the project, including: • Spillage of materials (liquid and solids) on the public highway; • The breaching of a pipe containing contaminated liquid; • The breaching of a tank containing contaminated liquid; • Accidental discharge of contaminated liquid to drains and water courses; • The occurrence of elevated dust and/or noise levels and odours outside of the site

boundary; • Damage to services (including the effects of a loss of power); • Flooding. In addition, the SEMP will detail the Contractor’s methods for complying with the requirements of the Waste Management Strategy. Further ground investigation is being carried out to assess the site geology in order to evaluate the condition of shallow coal seams.


208

Table 3.11.8 Summary of Solid Contamination Data11 Contaminant

Minimum Value (mg/kg)

Maximum Value (mg/kg)

Mean (mg/kg)

US95 (mg/kg)

Commercial/ Industrial Land Use Threshold (mg/kg)

Exceedences of Threshold

TPH Aliphatics >EC5-6 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.40 No TPH Aliphatics >EC6-8 0.01 0.6 0.0 0.0 155.0 No TPH Aliphatics >EC8-10 0.01 63.5 1.24 2.77 31.90 Yes: TP6 (3.2mbgl) TPH Aliphatics >EC10-12 0.01 368.0 5.6 14.4 31400.0 No TPH Aliphatics >EC12-16 0.10 448.0 16.1 27.0 31400.0 No TPH Aliphatics >EC16-21 0.10 1150.0 36.3 66.5 626000.0 No TPH Aromatics >EC8-10 0.01 9.3 0.2 0.5 49.80 No TPH Aromatics >EC10-12 0.01 13.8 0.4 0.7 263.0 No TPH Aromatics >EC12-16 0.10 376.0 13.1 22.4 12600.0 No TPH Aromatics >EC16-21 0.10 656.0 22.0 37.9 9390.0 No TPH Aromatics >EC21-35 0.10 740.0 86.5 110.9 9390.0 No Benzene 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.06 No Xylenes 0.01 0.5 0.0 0.0 174.0 No 9H-Fluorene 0.01 1.9 0.2 0.3 62800.0 No Anthracene 0.01 7.0 0.3 0.5 62800.0 No Benz(a)anthracene 0.01 14.0 0.6 0.9 923.0 No Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.02 14.0 0.7 1.1 785.0 No Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.01 6.9 0.4 0.5 47000.0 No Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.025 7.90 0.33 0.52 785.0 No Benzo(a)pyrene 0.012 13.00 0.51 0.83 36.90 No Chrysene 0.01 14.00 0.68 1.03 7850 No dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.008 2.00 0.09 0.14 78.50 No Fluoranthene 0.025 37.00 1.34 2.25 7850.0 No Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 0.011 6.30 0.29 0.46 7850.0 No Naphthalene 0.013 28.00 2.88 3.83 95.70 No Phenanthrene 0.021 20.00 1.31 1.83 62800.0 No Pyrene 0.022 30.00 1.15 1.89 78500.0 No Acenaphthene 0.014 1.30 0.10 0.20 78500.0 No 11 Collected during phase 1 of the Norwest Holst Ground Investigation (2007) and the Soil Mechanics Ground Investigation (2007)


209

Contaminant

Minimum Value (mg/kg)


Mean (mg/kg)

US95 (mg/kg)



Acenaphthylene 0.005 2.80 0.29 0.40 7850.0 No 1 2 Dichloroethane 0.011 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 No 111 Trichloroethane 0.007 0.01 0.01 0.01 284.0 No Tetrachloroethanes 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 118.0 No Tetrachloroethene 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 30.0 No Carbon Tetrachloride 0.014 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.35 No Trichloroethene 0.009 0.01 0.01 0.01 3.35 No Vinyl Chloride 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 No Vanadium 6.3 120 31.12 35.9 5500.0 No Copper 7 910 80.2 105.3 55600.0 No Zinc 40 690 167.3 195.4 577000.0 No PCB28 0.001 0.050 0.010 0.014 18.5

nmental Statement Proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows

210

Contaminant Minimum

Value (mg/kg)


Mean (mg/kg)

US95 (mg/kg)



Arsenic 3 139.9

24.1

29.8

500 No

Cadmium 0.3 18 1.1 1.6 1400 No Chromium 5.2 180

35.4

41.9

5000 No

Inorganic Mercury 0.6 15 1.0

1.4

480 No

Nickel 4.1 300 48.40

57.59

5000 No

Selenium 0.6

4.5

2.9

3.0

8000 No

Lead 14 1200 119.9

154.5

750 Yes: TP107 (0.6mbgl)

Toluene 5 28 9.8

10.4

150 (1% SOM) to 680 (5% SOM)

No

Ethylbenzene <1 <1 <1 <1 No 48000

Enviro


Contamination Qualitative Risk Assessment Criteria The following Contaminated Land Risk Assessment methodology is based on CIRIA C552 (2001) Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – ‘A Guide to Good Practice’, in order to quantify potential risk via risk estimation and risk evaluation, which can be adopted at the Phase I stage. This will then determine an overall risk category which can be used to identify likely actions. This methodology uses qualitative descriptors and therefore is a qualitative approach. The methodology requires the classification of: • the magnitude of the consequence (severity) of a risk occurring, and • the magnitude of the probability (likelihood) of a risk occurring. The potential consequences of contamination risks occurring at this Site are classified in accordance with Table 3.11.8 below, which is adapted from the CIRIA guidance. Table 3.11.8: Classification of Consequence Classification Definition of Consequence Severe Short-term (acute) risks to human health.

Short-term risk of pollution of sensitive water resource or ecosystem. Catastrophic damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure, including off-site soils.

Medium Medium/long-term (chronic) risks to human health. Medium/long-term risk of pollution of sensitive water resource or ecosystem. Significant damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure (on or off-site). Contamination of off-site soils.

Mild Easily preventable, permanent health effects on humans. Pollution of non-sensitive water resources. Localised damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure (on or off-site).

Minor Easily preventable, non-permanent health effects on humans, or no effects. Minor, low-level and localised contamination of on-site soils. Easily repairable damage to crops/buildings/property/infrastructure.

The probability of contamination risks occurring at this Site will be classified in accordance with Table 3.11.9 below which is also adapted from the CIRIA guidance. Note that for each category, it is assumed that a pollution linkage exists. Where a pollution linkage does not exist, the likelihood is zero, as is the risk. Table 3.11.9: Classification of Probability Classification Definition of Probability High Likelihood Circumstances are such that an event appears very likely in the

short-term or almost inevitable in the long-term; or there is already evidence that such an event has occurred.

Likely Circumstances are such that such an event is not inevitable, but is possible in the short-term and is likely over the long-term.

Low Likelihood Circumstances are such that it is by no means certain that an event would occur even over a longer period, and it is less likely in

211


212

the short-term. Unlikely Circumstances are such that it is improbable that an event would

occur even in the very long-term. For each possible pollution linkage (source-pathway-receptor) identified, the potential risk can be evaluated. Based upon this, CIRIA C552 presents definitions of the risk categories, together with the investigatory and remedial actions that are likely to be necessary in each case, as in Table 3.11.10. These risk categories apply to each pollutant linkage, not simply to each hazard or receptor. Table 3.11.10: Definition of Risk Categories and Likely Actions Required Risk Category

Definition and likely actions required

Very high Severe harm to a defined receptor is very likely, or has already occurred. The risk is likely to result in a substantial liability. Urgent investigation (if not already undertaken) is likely to be required. Urgent remediation is likely to be required.

High Harm to a defined receptor is likely. The risk, if realised, may result in a substantial liability. Urgent investigation (if not already undertaken) is likely to be required. Remediation is likely to be required in the long term, possibly sooner.

Moderate Harm to a defined receptor is possible, but severe harm is unlikely. Investigation is likely to be required to clarify the level of potential liability and risk. Some remediation may be required in the longer term.

Low Harm to a defined receptor is possible, but is likely to be mild at worst. Liabilities could theoretically arise, but are unlikely. Further investigation is not required at this stage. Remediation is unlikely to be required.

Very low Harm to a defined receptor is unlikely, and would be minor at worst. No liabilities are likely to arise. Further investigation is not required at this stage. Remediation is very unlikely to be required.

3.11.6 Reference

• Soil Mechanics (2007): Blackburn Meadows: Factual report of Ground Investigation, September 2007

• Construction Industry Research and information Association (2001): Contaminated Land Risk Assessment - A Guide to Good Practice CIRIA Report C552, CIRIA, London.

• Landmark Information Group (2007): Envirocheck Report on Blackburn Meadows, Report ref. 240957

• Environment Agency & DEFRA (2002): “Potential Contaminants for the Assessment of Land”, CLR8

• Environment Agency & DEFRA (2004): “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination”: CLR11

• Environment Agency and DEFRA (1996): “Remedial Targets Methodology: Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Land Contamination”


213

4 Health and Safety E.ON is committed to ensuring the health and safety of all its employees, and other people who may be affected by its activities. This commitment arises from many Acts of Parliament, including: • The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and associated regulations • The Factories Act 1961 • The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 • The Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 • The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 • The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 Under the Construction (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations, management plans will be developed for all contractual phases of the proposed Blackburn Meadows Renewable Energy Plant project including the design, construction and commissioning of the Plant. A CDM Co-ordinator will be appointed during the specification of the Plant for the period up to the placement of the design and construction contracts, and the Principal Contractor’s role and CDM Co-ordinator’s role will then be undertaken by one of the appointed main contractors. The contractors will be required to design the Plant to incorporate health and safety features to ensure that E.ON’s commitments are met. Procedures produced by the contractors will interface with E.ON’s safety rules. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will be kept informed of developments and consulted as appropriate. Other regulations to be adhered to include, but are not limited to, the following: • The Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations • The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations • Fire Precautions Act 1971


214

5 Glossary Anthropogenic: man made or caused by human activity dB (decibel): Used here to represent the sound pressure level, P, expressed as twenty times the logarithm of the ratio of this pressure to a reference pressure, P0, 2.0*10-5 N/m2. Thus dB = 20*Log10(P/P0) dB(A): As above except that the measured sound is first subject to a frequency weighting, known as the 'A' weighting, which is designed to compensate for the varying sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequency Epifauna: animals living on the surface of other plants and animals, but not living parasitically LA90,T The A-weighted sound level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period of duration T. LA10,T The A-weighted sound level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period of duration T. LAeq,T The equivalent steady dB(A) sound level containing the same acoustic energy as the actual, measured, fluctuating level. m2 : square metre m3 : cubic metre mgl-1 : milligramme per litre ms-1 : velocity in metres per second m3s-1 : cubic metres per second μgm-3 : micro grammes per cubic metre Percentile: A value in the range of a set of data which separates the data which separates the range into two groups so that a given percentage lies below this value Plume: Trail of hot gases from the chimney ppm: parts per million ppt: parts per thousand PWL: The sound power level (PWL) is defined as the acoustic power relative to a sound power of 10-12 watts and is given by the expression: PWL = 10 x log10 (Acoustic power in watts x 1012 ) Ruderal: Plants associated with human dwellings and waste ground. Turbidity: being turbid, stirred up, muddiness


215

6 Figures The Site and the Project (Chapter 2) 2.1.1 E.ON UK’s Total Landholding and Proposed Planning Application Area 2.1.2 Proposed Area for the new Renewable Energy Plant 2.1.3 Indicative Plant Layout 2.1.4 Dimensions of main buildings and structures for indicative Plant Layout 2.1.5 View of a similar biomass fired Renewable Energy Plant at Lockerbie,

Scotland 2.1.6 Simplified diagram of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant Air Quality (Chapter 3, Section 1) 3.1.1 Location of automatic continuous air quality monitors in the vicinity of the

proposed Renewable Energy Plant at Blackburn Meadows. Proposed Plant location marked with purple cross.

3.1.2 Long-term (annual mean) NO2 concentrations due to operation of the

proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Based upon 2003 meteorological data from Waddington. Contours plotted at 0.05, 0.01, 0.15, 0.25, 0.40 and 0.50μgm-3. Proposed stack location marked with purple cross.

3.1.3 Short-term (99.79th percentile of hourly means) NO2 concentrations due to

operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Based on 2002 meteorological data from Waddington. Contours plotted at 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, 10.0 and 12.0μgm-3. Proposed stack location marked with purple cross.

3.1.4 Long-term (annual mean) NO2 concentrations due to operation of the

proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Based on 2004 meteorological data from Church Fenton. Contours plotted at 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.40μgm-

3.Proposed stack location marked with purple cross. 3.1.5 Short-term (99.79th percentile of hourly means) NO2 concentrations due to

operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Based on 2003 meteorological data from Church Fenton. Contours plotted at 3.0, 5.0, 8.0 and 11.0μgm-3. Proposed stack location marked with purple cross.

3.1.6 Long-term (annual mean) SO2 concentrations due to operation of the

proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Based on 2003 meteorological data from Waddington. Contours plotted at 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.09, 0.13 and 0.17μgm-3. Proposed stack location marked with purple cross.

3.1.7 Short-term (99.9th percentile of 15-minute means) SO2 concentrations due to

operation of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Based on 2003 meteorological data from Church Fenton. Contours plotted at 2.0, 7.0, 10.0 and 15.0μgm-3. Proposed stack location marked with purple cross.


216

3.1.8 Locations of SSSIs within 10km of the proposed Renewable Energy Plant. Circle marks 10km radius centred on proposed stack location (marked with purple cross). Only one site (Moss Valley Meadows) has been designated with features sensitive to Plant impacts.

3.1(0) Sheffield Air Quality Management Area Map 3.1(A) 2009 Predicted (Before Construction) Annual Average NO2 3.1(B) 2009 Predicted (Before Construction) Annual Average PM10 3.1(C) 2009 Predicted (During Construction) Annual Average NO2 3.1(D) 2009 Predicted (During Construction) Annual Average PM10 3.1(E) 2009 Predicted Traffic Impact (During Construction) Annual Average NO2 3.1(F) 2009 Predicted Construction Traffic (During Construction) Annual PM10 3.1(G) 2011 Predicted Baseline (Without Development) Average Annual NO2 3.1(H) 2011 Predicted Baseline (Without Development) Average Annual PM10 3.1(I) 2011 Predicted (With Development) Average Annual NO2 Impact 3.1(J) 2011 Predicted (With Development) Average Annual PM10 Impact 3.1(K) 2011 Predicted Operation Phase Average Annual NO2 3.1(L) 2011 Predicted Operation Phase Average Annual PM10 Water Quality (Chapter 3, Section 2) 3.2.1: SUDs Features Suitable for Blackburn Meadows 3.2.2: Outline Drainage Proposal and Landscape Masterplan Ecology (Chapter 3, Section 5) 3.5.1: Phase 1 Habitat Map Landscape and Visual (Chapter 3, Section 6) 3.6.1 Visual Assessment Viewing Areas 3.6.2 Area 1: Immediately surrounding the Site 3.6.3 Area 2: Rotherham West / Area 3: Tinsley and Brimsworth 3.6.4 Area 4: Junction 34 M1 3.6.5 Area 5: Wincobank and Shiregreen


217

3.6.6 Area 6: Upper Don Valley / Area 7: Rotherham Central 3.6.7 Area 8: Sheffield East 3.6.8 Key Views and Limited Views 3.6.9 Photomontage of Key View A: View from M1 3.6.10 Photomontage of Key View B: View from Tinsley 3.6.11 Photomontage of Key View C: View from Transpennine Trail 3.6.12 Photomontage of Key View D: View from Templeborough 3.6.13 Photomontage of Key View E: View from Low Wincobank 3.6.14 Photomontage of Key View F: View from High Wincobank 3.6.15 Photomontage of Key View G: View from Don Valley / Meadowhall 3.6.16 Photomontage of Key View H: View from Jordan 3.6.17 Photomontage of Key View I: View from Kimberworth 3.6.18 Photomontage of key view J: View from Bessmer Way 3.6.19 Photomontage of Key View K: View from Moorgate 3.6.20 Photomontage of Key View L: View from Concorde Park 3.6.20(2) Photmontage of Key View L: View from Concorde Park 3.6.21 Proposed Masterplan and Plant Elevations Noise (Chapter 3, Section 8) 3.8.1 Map showing noise survey measurement positions 3.8.2 Calibration certificates of equipment used in the various noise survey

measurements Cultural Heritage (Chapter 3, Section 10) 3.10.1 Site Location Plan (top: grid is 1km) and distribution of ground investigation

points (numbered) and tree cover (hatched) (bottom) 3.10.2 Locations of HER records within 1km of the development site (including brief

description) and beyond (numbers only) 3.10.3 Distribution of air photography within 3x3km search area (blue = specialist

obliques, red = verticals, green = military obliques)


218

3.10.4 Development site and environs showing historic settlement and main landscape features, based upon Ordnance Survey 6in map of 1854, with additions

3.10.5 Ordnance survey map of 1905 showing development site boundary (red) 3.10.6 Ordnance survey map of 1934 showing development site boundary, with inset

showing site layout prior to demolition in 1970 Geology and Contaminated Land (Chapter 3, Section 11) 3.11.1 Drawing no. 240957/MID/005: The source-pathway-receptor linkage

assessment

E.ON UK plc

Registered office Westwood Business Park Westwood Way Coventry CV4 8LG

Company No. 04899318

e.on-uk.com

11721_BLACKBURN BIOMASS BC_AW 12/3/08 14:59 Page 1