Greenpark Energy Ltd

Proposed Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Gas Extraction at Knowl Wall Farm, Staffordshire

Environmental Statement

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Noranne Ellis David Harper

First Floor Norham House 15 Walkergate Berwick-upon-Tweed Northumberland TD15 1DS

Tel: 01289 334590 Fax: 01289 332691 Email [email protected]

Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

STATUS: FINAL

DATE: 6 July 2009

PROJECT MANAGER:

PROJECT REVIEWER:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement

Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 1-1

2. Introduction ...... 2-2

2.1 Background ...... 2-2 2.2 The Need for Further Indigenous Energy Sources ...... 2-2 2.3 The Benefits of Extracting Coal Bed Methane ...... 2-3 2.4 Overview of the proposed development ...... 2-3 2.5 Environmental Impact Assessment...... 2-3 2.6 Environmental Statement Structure ...... 2-4

3. Planning Policy Context ...... 3-1

4. Site Selection, Description and Proposed Development ...... 4-1

4.1 Site Selection ...... 4-1 4.2 Site Description ...... 4-1 4.3 Proposed Development ...... 4-1

5. Landscape and Visual ...... 5-1

5.1 Summary ...... 5-1 5.2 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 5-2 5.4 Methodology ...... 5-2 5.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 5-7 5.6 Impact Assessment ...... 5-12 5.7 Mitigation ...... 5-16 5.8 Statement of Significance ...... 5-17

6. Ecology ...... 6-1

6.1 Summary ...... 6-1 6.2 Introduction ...... 6-2 6.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 6-2 6.4 Methodology ...... 6-2 6.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 6-7 6.6 Impact Assessment ...... 6-12

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement

Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

6.7 Mitigation ...... 6-14 6.8 Statement of Significance ...... 6-15

7. Hydrology ...... 7-1

7.1 Summary ...... 7-1 7.2 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 7-2 7.4 Methodology ...... 7-2 7.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 7-10 7.6 Impact Assessment ...... 7-13 7.7 Mitigation ...... 7-15 7.8 Statement of Significance ...... 7-16

8. Hydrogeology and Land Contamination ...... 8-1

8.1 Summary ...... 8-1 8.2 Introduction ...... 8-1 8.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 8-2 8.4 Methodology ...... 8-2 8.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 8-9 8.6 Impact Assessment ...... 8-15 8.7 Mitigation ...... 8-19 8.8 Statement of Significance ...... 8-20

9. Noise and Vibration ...... 9-1

9.1 Summary ...... 9-1 9.2 Introduction ...... 9-1 9.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 9-2 9.4 Methodology ...... 9-7 9.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 9-7 9.6 Impact Assessment ...... 9-10 9.7 Mitigation ...... 9-14 9.8 Statement of Significance ...... 9-17

10. Transport and Traffic ...... 10-1

10.1 Summary ...... 10-1 10.2 Introduction ...... 10-1 10.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 10-1 10.4 Methodology ...... 10-2 10.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 10-2 10.6 Impact Assessment ...... 10-4 10.7 Mitigation ...... 10-4

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement

Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

10.8 Statement of Significance ...... 10-4

11. Air Quality ...... 11-1

11.1 Summary ...... 11-1 11.2 Introduction ...... 11-1 11.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 11-2 11.4 Methodology ...... 11-5 11.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 11-10 11.6 Impact Assessment ...... 11-12 11.7 Mitigation ...... 11-20 11.8 Statement of Significance ...... 11-21

12. Archaeology/Cultural Heritage ...... 12-1

12.1 Summary ...... 12-1 12.2 Introduction ...... 12-1 12.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 12-1 12.4 Methodology ...... 12-2 12.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 12-9 12.6 Impact Assessment ...... 12-9 12.7 Mitigation ...... 12-10 12.8 Statement of Significance ...... 12-10

13. Socio-Economic Impacts ...... 13-1

13.1 Summary ...... 13-1 13.2 Introduction ...... 13-1 13.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 13-1 13.4 Methodology ...... 13-1 13.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 13-3 13.6 Impact Assessment ...... 13-8 13.7 Mitigation ...... 13-9 13.8 Statement of Significance ...... 13-10

14. Amenity Issues ...... 14-1

14.1 Summary ...... 14-1 14.2 Introduction ...... 14-1 14.3 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance ...... 14-1 14.4 Methodology ...... 14-1 14.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 14-3 14.6 Impact Assessment ...... 14-5 14.7 Mitigation ...... 14-7 14.8 Statement of Significance ...... 14-7

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement

Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

15. Cumulative Impacts ...... 15-1

15.1 Summary ...... 15-1 15.2 Introduction ...... 15-1 15.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines ...... 15-1 15.4 Methodology ...... 15-1 15.5 Baseline Conditions ...... 15-2 15.6 Impact Assessment ...... 15-3 15.7 Mitigation ...... 15-3 15.8 Statement of Significance ...... 15-3

16. Overall Conclusion ...... 16-4

Appendix 1 – List of Abbreviations ...... 16-1 Appendix 2 – Ecology Figures ...... 16-3 Appendix 3 – Hydrology Figures ...... 16-4 Figures ...... 16-5

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement

Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

1. Executive Summary

Greenpark Energy Ltd (Greenpark) was established in 2003 to exploit methane from disused coal mines and generate electricity from it. The main aim of the Company now is to extract methane from unworked coal seams in order to export it directly into the National Gas Distribution Network. The gas captured from unworked coal seams is called Coal Bed Methane or "CBM gas".

Greenpark has identified a site about 3 km south-west of Trentham adjacent to the A519. The site at Knowl Wall farm (‘Knowl Wall farm site') is believed to have the potential to produce CBM gas. It is located within a grass field currently used for various horticultural crops although the proposed site is currently unused.

The proposal is to drill boreholes down to a depth of up to 1400 m in order to test the characteristics of the coal seam for the commercial viability of extracting CBM gas. An initial drilling phase would last 5 weeks with a second lasting no more than12 weeks.

Should the testing of the coal seam prove that CBM gas occurs in sufficient quantities and is of a suitable quality, a CBM gas production hub would be established. A production hub is a site where CBM gas is extracted commercially. It would mainly be underground with an underground pipeline leading to the National Gas Distribution Network. It would last as long as the gas continues to flow which may be up to 15-20 years. Sometimes there is a need to extract water from the gas. If necessary, a pump and low level holding tank for extracted water would be placed within the site and this would be emptied by a tanker on a regular basis.

In order to ensure that this development has as small an environmental footprint as possible, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken. The EIA considered potential effects of the proposed development upon landscape, ecology, hydrology, hydrogeology, noise, traffic, air quality, archaeology and the socio- economic characteristics of the area. It covered potential impacts that might arise from site preparation, drilling, production, capping of the borehole and site restoration. This is particularly relevant considering that the site lies within the Special Landscape Area of Hanchurch Hills, a Green Belt and a Flood Watch Area which encompasses the Stoke-on-Trent and Ashbourne areas.

No significant adverse impacts were identified in the studies relating to landscape, hydrology, hydrogeology, traffic, noise, air quality, archaeology, recreation or tourism. However, a couple of properties to the south-west of the proposed site will see the drilling rig during the few months of operation. The ecology study identified the hedgerow adjacent to the A519 as an 'Important' hedgerow as defined within the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. In order to create access to the site, 23.5 m of this hedgerow would need to be removed. It is therefore suggested that the removed hedgerow be relocated next to the pond adjacent to the site. This would also be extended by new planting to link it to the adjoining woodland and any gaps within the remaining hedgerow adjacent to the A519 would be planted. Additionally, a permanent ditch would be created adjacent to this relocated hedgerow. Special measures would be in place to protect the pond.

The socio-economic assessment identified that the income provided to the owner of the land from this development would be significant. There would also be benefits to local construction contractors and suppliers. The socio-economic impact from this proposed development at Knowl Wall Farm is therefore assessed as significantly beneficial to the local area.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 1-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

Greenpark Energy Ltd (Greenpark) is a private company, formed in 2003 to exploit natural gas from disused coal mines known as Coal Mine Methane or “CMM gas”. More recently, the Company has concentrated on the exploitation of natural gas contained in unworked coal seams, which is known as Coal Bed Methane or “CBM gas”.

Activities to explore for and exploit CMM and CBM gas in the UK can only be carried out by holders of petroleum licences issued under the Petroleum Act 1998 by the UK Government’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). As of 2008, Greenpark holds licences (more recently called Petroleum Exploration and Development Licenses, PEDLs) covering 2,923km2 of onshore mineral rights across the UK. This makes the Company the leading developer in the extraction of CMM and CBM gas.

Greenpark has developed and is operating seven CMM electricity sites in South Yorkshire and Staffordshire which together have a generating capacity of approximately 24MW.

Methane is a natural product arising out of the decay of organic matter. When coal deposits were formed millions of years ago, a proportion of the methane from this decaying matter was absorbed by the coal. In a natural gas reservoir, the gas is held in voids (pockets) within the rock. However, CBM gas is retained on the surface of the coal within the micropore structure much like water is held within a sponge. Such absorption is maintained by the lithostatic pressure (the pressure exerted on the coal by the surrounding rocks) and the hydrostatic pressure (the pressure from water).

Releasing the lithostatic and hydrostatic pressures allows the gas to escape from the coal. The release of significant amounts of methane during mining operations is well known because it is a highly reactive gas and has caused explosions. In such instances, the methane is released from the coal as a result of an uncontrolled relaxation of pressure and fracturing of the strata. CBM gas extraction involves drilling into unworked coal seams and releasing the natural gas in a carefully controlled operation. Whilst natural gas is typically called “methane”, its actual composition also includes smaller amounts of ethane, propane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen. It is therefore also important that the quality of the natural gas is assessed for its suitability for introduction into the National Gas Distribution Network.

2.2 The Need for Further Indigenous Energy Sources

Since 1990, consumption of natural gas in the UK has more than doubled, mainly due to its growing use for electricity generation1. Since 2000, UK gas production has fallen by 11.5% as UK reserves deplete. By 2004, the UK imported 12% of its gas supply2. The Energy White Paper 2007 predicted that the UK would be a net importer of gas for a third or more of its gas supply by 2010 and that by 2020 the UK could be dependent on imported energy for over 80% of its total primary energy needs2.

1 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file19265.pdf 2 Energy White Paper 2007: Our Energy Future - Meeting the Energy Challenge. Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 2-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

In order to ensure that the UK is protected against the interruption of gas supplies as well as potential sudden price rises, the Energy White Paper 2003 stated that the UK should diversify its energy sources. CBM gas is one such source that exists within Britain. Currently, CBM gas is not being exploited in the UK in contrast to the United States where approximately 13% of national gas production comes from such sources.

This development therefore accords with to the Government's aims to diversify and increase indigenous energy sources in the UK.

2.3 The Benefits of Extracting Coal Bed Methane

As outlined above, the development of indigenous energy sources reduces the need for the UK to rely upon expensive and energy-consuming transportation of natural gas from elsewhere in the world. The extraction of CBM gas does not detrimentally affect the physical properties of the coal nor result in any form of surface subsidence. Indeed, the de-gassing of the coal significantly improves safety conditions underground should there be any opportunity to exploit the coal in the future.

Once in the production phase when wells, now called Production Hubs, are extracting CBM gas, there is no need for the facilities to be manned. This means that very little traffic generation is associated with the operation of CBM gas facilities. Production Hubs are also discreet in terms of visibility and have no emissions unlike many other sources of energy exploitation.

In terms of rural development, the project will also contribute to local employment opportunities throughout the development with the need for up to up to 20 jobs during drilling as well as the need for local accommodation for other workers coming into the area. Similarly, the income and investment resulting from the project will have a significant positive impact on the local economy.

2.4 Overview of the proposed development

Greenpark successfully obtained the Abstraction Licence (AL) 010 for the Staffordshire area and the Company is proposing to determine whether it is feasible to commercially extract CBM gas at two sites as shown on Figure 2.1.

Should CBM gas exploitation be found to be viable, a gas gathering pipeline system would be used to connect the sites to deliver the gas into the National Gas Distribution Network.

This is described in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this Environmental Statement.

2.5 Environmental Impact Assessment

The Legislation with Regard to Coal Bed Methane Production

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is legislated for under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. These regulations implement the European EIA Directive (85/337/EEC, as amended by 97/11/EC). The Regulations state that certain classes of development, i.e. those listed in Schedule 1, require an assessment of the environmental impacts of the development to be submitted as a precondition of any planning application; developments listed under Schedule 2 may or may not require an assessment, this being the decision of the Local Planning Authority.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 2-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Specific to CBM gas production, Schedule 1 lists developments requiring an EIA to be undertaken “where 500,000 cubic metres of natural gas were to be produced a day and/or pipelines for the transport of gas have a diameter of more than 800 millimetres and a length of more than 40 km”. Under Schedule 2, an EIA may be required where surface industrial installations for the production of natural gas exceed an area of 0.5 ha. During the drilling phase, the proposed development site would cover an area of approximately 0.8 ha but this would reduce to no more than 0.5 ha during the production phase.

As part of its commitment to the highest environmental standards, the Company has undertaken to submit an EIA in support of each application.

The EIA Process

EIA is a process which identifies the potential environmental effects of a development and then seeks to avoid, reduce or offset these impacts. A series of stages are followed which are outlined below – the stages covered by this report are shown in bold:

• site selection and project initiation; • screening to determine whether an EIA is required; • pre-application discussions; • scoping – consultation on proposed scope and methodology; • environmental baseline studies; • assessment of potential impacts; • where necessary, an outline of appropriate mitigation measures including redesign; • preparation of an Environmental Statement; • submission of a planning application with Environmental Statement to the Local planning Authority; • consideration of the application and environmental information by the Local planning Authority and statutory and other consultees; • decision to refuse or grant consent (with or without conditions); and • implementation and monitoring.

Pre-application discussions have been undertaken with Staffordshire County Council (including the Highways Dept.) and other relevant consultees. Feedback from the discussions has confirmed the scope and methodology used in this ES.

The aim of the EIA is therefore to avoid, reduce or mitigate wherever any potential adverse impacts may arise as a result of this development. The results of the EIA are presented in this ES.

2.6 Environmental Statement Structure

This ES reports on the results of the EIA and assesses the significance of any potential impact of the proposed development for a number of technical topic areas. These technical topic areas are:

• Landscape and Visual; • Ecology; • Hydrology; • Hydrogeology and Land Contamination; • Noise and Vibration; • Transport and Traffic;

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 2-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• Air Quality; • Socio-economic impacts; • Amenity Issues; and • Cumulative Impacts.

The planning policy context is outlined in Chapter 3, with Chapter 4 describing how the sites and this particular site were selected along with details of the proposed development. The results of the individual topic areas are then outlined in Chapters 5 to 14. Cumulative impacts are considered within Chapter 15 and an overall conclusion to the assessment is provided within Chapter 16.

Abbreviations used within this ES are given in Appendix 1.

A Non-Technical Summary also accompanies this ES.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 2-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

3. Planning Policy Context

The planning policy context outlines the planning policies and material considerations relevant to the determination of the proposed development, the full details of which are described within the Planning Statement accompanying the Planning Application.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

Minerals Planning Statements (MPS)

• MPS 1: Planning & Minerals (2006) • MPS 2: Controlling and mitigating the environmental effects of mineral extraction in England (2006)

Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidelines (PPG)

• PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) • PPG2: Green Belts (amended March 2001) • PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) • PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) • PPG 13: Transport (2001) • PPG 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) • PPG 16: Archaeology and Planning (1990) • PPG 23: Planning and Pollution Control (2004) • PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk (2007)

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy

• Policy EN1: Energy Generation • Policy M4: Energy Minerals • Policy QE9: The Water Environment

Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011

• Policy D1: Sustainable Forms of Development • Policy D2: The Design and Environmental Quality of Development • Policy D4: Managing Change in Rural Areas • Policy D5b: Development in the Green Belt • Policy D6: Conserving Agricultural Land • Policy NC1: Protection of the Countryside • Policy NC2: Landscape Protection and Restoration • Policy NC6: Important Semi-Natural Habitats • Policy NC9: Water Resources • Policy NC13: Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands • Policy NC14: Sites of Archaeological Importance • Policy NC15: Sites of National Archaeological Importance • Policy MW1: The Need for Minerals • Policy MW6: Evaluation of Proposals

Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Minerals Local Plan 1994-2006

• Policy 12

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 3-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• Policy 19 • Policy 20 • Policy 21 • Policy 25 • Policy 26 • Policy 30

Stafford Borough Local Plan

• Policy E&D2: Consideration of landscape or town setting • Policy E&D4: Sewage, effluent and surface water • Policy E&D5: Noise Attenuation Requirements • Policy E&D7: Development in the Countryside • Policy E&D8: Loss of High Quality Agricultural Land • Policy E&D10: Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt • Policy E&D23: Development Proposals Affecting Listed Buildings • Policy E&D28: Landscape Conservation • Policy E&D29: Areas of Designated Landscape Value • Policy E&D34: Archaeological Evaluations • Policy E&D35: Historic Parks and Gardens • Policy E&D44: Development Affecting Trees and Hedgerows • Policy E&D45: Protection of Ancient Woodlands • Policy E&D50: Land Drainage and Flooding Considerations • Policy E&D51: Ground Water Resources • Policy E&D53: Protected Water Resources

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

• Planning for Landscape Change Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan (2001).

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 3-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

4. Site Selection, Description and Proposed Development

4.1 Site Selection

The selection of specific drill site locations was determined by a number of factors. These included:

• Local geological conditions (such as depth and dip of the coal seam as well as faulting) as determined by seismic data and information from previous boreholes; • An initial assessment of planning constraints, for example policies contained in Statutory Development Plans etc covering landscape, ecology, hydrology, hydrogeology, archaeology and other issues; • The proximity and sensitivity of nearby residents; • The willingness of the landowner/tenant to accommodate drilling/development on their land; • The suitability of local roads to allow for site access; and • A preliminary assessment of the potential impact on the landscape, ecology, hydrology, archaeology etc.

The identification of the sites has therefore been an iterative process between the various specialists within Greenpark, the landowner, the local community and the planning and highways departments within Staffordshire County Council.

4.2 Site Description

Proposed Site Location

The proposed site is located about 3 km south-west of Trentham and 125 m to the west of the M6 with access to the east of the A519. This is shown in Figure 4.1.

The proposed site boundary and access is shown in Figure 4.2.

Site Land Cover and Land Use

The site is currently a grass field within which there are various horticultural crops. These include an orchard, an area of fruit bushes, an area of daffodils, an area of planted Christmas trees and an area of vegetables. These are used to supply the farm shop.

4.3 Proposed Development

The proposal is to develop a CBM gas project in Staffordshire. The proposed development would last circa 20 years, dependent on positive results from the initial exploration and appraisal phases. During the drilling phase, the proposed development site would cover an area of approximately 0.8 ha which would be reduced to no more than 0.5 ha during the production phase.

4.3.1 Phases of Development

This CBM gas development will be undertaken in four phases:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 4-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

1) Site preparation; 2) Drilling (the exploration and appraisal phase); 3) Production (where CBM gas is extracted commercially); and 4) Capping and restoration.

Site Preparation

Site preparation normally takes around six weeks.

This phase prepares the site for drilling. If the site is situated away from the highway, an access road would be built. Sometimes there may be a need to improve visibility at the junction to the highway. For both the access road and site, preparation involves the removal of the topsoil which is either stored along one side of the track or in a perimeter bund around the site.

A geo-textile would be laid to protect the subsoil and to aid with the stability of the site, and a layer of compacted stone (hardcore) would be laid on top. The hardcore will be sourced locally.

If required, temporary fencing would be positioned around the site to prevent unauthorised access.

As soon as preparation is complete, equipment would be brought on to the site. A typical site contains a drilling rig, cabins for the drilling crew etc, and associated equipment such as water storage tanks, drilling mud screens and tanks, pipes and stores with parking for up to 10 vehicles provided away from the area where the drilling rig would be operated. Fuel for the rig would also be stored on site in accordance with the appropriate oil storage regulations; for example, within double skinned containers.

The proposed layout of the site during the drilling phase is shown in Figure 4.3.

The Drilling Phase

The drilling rig to be used at the site is Rig 28 or equivalent. The following assessments are based on the relevant technical data. Should another rig be used, it would conform to or better these specifications.

During transportation, Rig 28 is 18.90 m long, 3.17 m wide and 4.26 m high. It stands no more than 37m in height during operations. A photograph of Rig 28 is shown in Figure 4.4.

The drilling phase is undertaken in two blocks of time which, together, could last no longer than 17 weeks.

• The first phase would involve drilling a vertical borehole. This would take about 5 weeks and would test the suitability of the coal measures to produce gas. Further testing could take place over an additional 4 weeks but no drilling would be undertaken. • The second phase would involve drilling horizontal boreholes into the coal seams. This phase of drilling could last up to 12 weeks, depending upon the number of boreholes.

The two drilling phases are described in greater detail below.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 4-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Drilling the vertical borehole

The initial drilling of the borehole is to confirm coal depth and thickness, and to obtain cores of coal to be taken away for testing. This takes about 5 weeks. The coal cores are tested in the laboratory to give an initial assessment of the coals’ permeability, porosity and gas reserve. The depth of the borehole can be up to 1400 m.

After this initial drilling, further testing may take place, if considered necessary. The drilling rig is used for testing (not drilling) in situ water and the likely flow rate of gas. Should this further testing take place, the rig is used to inject water into the coal seams (called a Drill Stem Test or DST). Injection pressure, shut in pressure and pressure drop over time are recorded to establish flow rates and permeability. The well may also go through another type of test (called a Swab Test) whereby swab cups are run into the well on a wire line and pulled out at a rate that draws gas and water into the borehole and simulates pumping of the well. These tests can vary in duration between hours and weeks and are also affected by the number of seams chosen to test. It is possible that this may take an additional 4 weeks.

Drilling horizontal boreholes ("laterals")

If the test results indicate that the coal contains CBM gas and that the gas flows readily from the coal, the drilling rig is brought back to the site. The main aim is to drill horizontal boreholes (termed “production laterals") which extend for hundreds of metres (Figure 4.5). It is anticipated that the drilling of the production laterals would be completed within 12 weeks, depending upon the number of boreholes. Drilling would be done with a closed loop drilling system which would use a drilling mud (such as bentonite) thereby preventing any dust production. After drilling is completed, the well is logged, cased and fitted with production equipment prior to the leaving the site.

Typically, CBM wells produce water immediately and then gradually begin to produce gas. As more water is produced the in situ pressure drops in the coal and this pressure drop allows the CBM gas to begin flowing. As more water is produced, more gas begins to flow until peak gas production is achieved. After peak production is reached, the well goes into a typical hydrocarbon decline curve whereby gas and water production both reduce over time. If the coals are not ‘gassy’ or when production drops below an economical rate of recovery, the well would be plugged and the site restored (see the capping and restoration phase details below).

During drilling, safety is of paramount importance. CBM gas wells are usually very low pressure wells which require the removal of water before CBM gas production begins. However, a blow-out preventer is still installed at the top of each borehole. This is a device that seals the well in the event of a rush of gas. Safety meetings are held daily during each shift and also prior to any additional services (i.e. logging the well). In addition, all staff and visitors must follow a strict safety policy, be briefed on specific site safety and wear high visibility protective clothing on site. They are not allowed to carry any equipment on site that might cause an ignition of any fugitive gases (this includes mobile phones).

Production

If the results from the laterals are favourable, the site would become a "Production Hub" and the boreholes would be connected to the National Gas Distribution Network.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 4-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The gas from the well is expected to reach the surface under its own pressure but if that is not sufficient, a suction fan may be used. If the gas is saturated, a condenser would be installed at the site to separate out the water. The gas would pass through the condenser and would then be piped to a compressor station prior to introduction to the National Gas Distribution Network. If necessary, any water produced by the site would be stored in a water tank (approximately 3m in diameter and 1.5 in height) and removed by tanker when required. It may be necessary in some cases to install small pumps to drain water from the boreholes. The Production Hubs will not produce significant amounts of noise.

Similarly, all equipment would be appropriately sized and designed and the site would be screened either by bunding or tree/hedgerow planting.

The site layout plan for this phase is shown in Figure 4.6. A schematic diagram of the Production Hub is shown in Figure 4.7.

Any temporary fencing would be replaced by appropriate timber post and rail fencing. The access would remain and the parking area would be reduced in size. The rest of the site would be restored to the original land use.

Borehole Capping and Site Restoration

If the site does not become a Production Hub, or when all CBM gas from the coal seams has been exhausted, the site would be restored. This means that all equipment would be removed and the boreholes plugged to the safety standards required by the DECC and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as shown in Figure 4.8.

In practice, restoration would take no more than six weeks but due to seasonal considerations (e.g. suitable weather for the pouring of concrete, the handling of soils and sowing of grass seed etc), a maximum restoration period of 18 months is anticipated.

Restoration would be undertaken in accordance with a scheme submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. In essence, it would consist of the removal of the stone and the geo-textile, the subsoil being ripped to alleviate any compaction, the topsoil being replaced and the site returned to a condition suitable for agricultural use. Any damaged field drains would be repaired or replaced following best practice guidelines.

The site would be monitored over a five-year period to ensure that restoration is complete and to identify any requirements for further remedial action.

4.3.2 Grid Connection

CBM gas would be exported via underground pipes from the Production Hub to a compressor station at which it would be compressed to a suitable pressure for introduction into the National Gas Distribution Network.

The size of the underground pipelines would vary; for example, at the extremities of the system, pipes may be as small as 100mm (4 inches) diameter, whilst at the main compressor station the pipe may be as large as 250mm (10 inches) diameter. Such pipes would be laid in the public highway (typically the grass verges or footpaths) rather than across open land in order to reduce the impact on open countryside and individual landowners.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 4-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The proposed route of the pipelines will be designed to ensure that disturbance is kept to a minimum, distances are kept as short as possible, and that there are as few valleys as possible because these could act as water traps which would prevent the free flow of gas.

The proposed compressor station would be designed and located so as to prevent a nuisance from noise and visual intrusion whilst ensuring suitable access to the National Gas Distribution Network and for service vehicles. The compressor station will be subject to a separate planning application and EIA.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 4-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

5. Landscape and Visual

5.1 Summary

The aim of this study was to undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment of the CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm. The objectives were to identify the existing landscape character and visual amenity resource, identify the likely effects of the proposals on the baseline situation, and to finally determine the residual impact of the proposals on landscape character and visual amenity during its operational period.

The site is situated within two designations: the Special Landscape Area of Hanchurch Hills and Green Belt. The assessment has concluded that the development may have a localised and time-limited impact on these designations but no long term impact on the character of the area around the site. The proposals do not conflict with the character in either local or regional terms and have been shown to only have temporary slight adverse/negligible impact on the wider landscape.

The site is well screened by well established woodland to the north-east, hedgerows to the west and farm outbuildings to the south-east. The development would therefore be visually unobtrusive for the majority of its planned lifespan and virtually invisible during the production phase.

The main visual impact is the introduction of a temporary drilling rig standing at a maximum of 37m height during operations. However, the site is visually contained by a high level of vegetation in the surrounding countryside, namely the woodland to the north-east and hedgerows and trees adjacent to the A519. Therefore, many of the surrounding views are limited to upstairs windows rather than ground floor living areas and there view may be views of the lit mast at night. Boundary vegetation also helps to soften and filter views particularly during the summer months.

The proposal may, at worst, have a slight/moderate to moderate adverse impact during the drilling phase when looking from local views or landmarks, with a worse case being restricted to higher ground along Drayton Road adjacent to Hanchurch Hills Plantation at which point only drivers or (more rarely) the occasional pedestrian would be affected. The site may have a negligible to slight/moderate adverse effect on surrounding properties during the few weeks of drilling, though some may experience intermittent views through vegetation with a worst case scenario being a moderate/substantial adverse impact on one property to the south south-west.

Mitigation includes using locally obtained hardcore to prepare the ground surface, to plant up current gaps in the hedgerow and replant the hedgerow removed to allow access.

In summary, the proposed development has been shown to have low residual landscape and visual impacts.

5.2 Introduction

This chapter has considered the landscape and visual effects associated with the introduction of a CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm. This included assessing how the introduction of a drilling rig, associated equipment, new access track, soil bunds etc, might alter the fabric and character of the landscape of the area during the initial drilling phase.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The landscape and visual assessment examined whether there might be an effect upon the landscape character in terms of quality, value and sensitivity as well as any specific potential visual intrusion. This included views from residential properties, highways, public footpaths and other visual receptors as well as any potential impact from lighting.

Key issues included:

• ensuring no transgression of the local planning policies, such as those for areas designated for their landscape value; • assessing impacts on visual receptors; and • ensuring that the development blends into the local landscape.

5.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

As a matter of best practice, this assessment has been undertaken based on the relevant guidance on landscape and visual assessment. This includes:

• Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002) ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ 2nd Edition.

• The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) ‘Landscape Character and Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland’. • Staffordshire Borough Council, Stafford Borough Local Plan – Adopted Version (2001). • Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 1996-2001 – Planning for Landscape Change.

• Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG 2): Green Belts • Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development, February 2005 • Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7): Sustainable Development In Rural Areas

5.4 Methodology

Definition of Study Area

For the purposes of this assessment a study area of 5km radius has been considered although reference will be made to long distance views where appropriate.

Aim and Objectives

The aim of this assessment considered how the CBM gas development might impact upon the:

• landscape character of the area; and • visual intrusiveness.

The landscape appraisal described the baseline landscape resources of the area including the predominant land cover and uses within the area as well as any landscape designations and other policy areas identified on local development plans.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

It also identified how the site sits within the broader landscape, specifically within the local context.

The visual appraisal was more site-specific than the landscape appraisal. It identified viewpoints from within the site as well as towards the site from potentially sensitive receptors in the surrounding area. The number of viewpoints used depends upon the number of locations from which the development may potentially be viewed as well as any potential cumulative impact on the landscape as a result of other developments in the area.

The main objectives were to:

• describe the landscape character areas and types present in the area in order to identify significant landscape features that may be affected by the project; • identify key viewpoints and viewers likely to be affected by the project; • predict the effect of the project on landscape resources and character and on visual amenity; • evaluate the significance of these impacts; and • identify measures that will be taken to mitigate any significant adverse impacts.

Landscape Assessment Methodology

Landscape Sensitivity

The sensitivity of an individual landscape feature reflects factors such as its quality, value, contribution to landscape character and the degree to which the particular element can be replaced. A particular feature may be more sensitive in one location than in another.

The sensitivity of landscape character is an expression of the landscape’s ability to accommodate change of a particular type. It varies depending on the existing land use, pattern and scale of the landscape, the degree of openness, scope for mitigation in keeping with the existing landscape character, condition, value placed on the landscape and any designations that may apply.

In the baseline assessment, a judgement has been made regarding the sensitivity of the landscape character both in a local and regional context. The sensitivity of landscape features and landscape character is described as high, medium or low and is based on the general criteria in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.1 – SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTOR Sensitivity Criteria

High A landscape of strong positive characteristics, maintained in a good condition or one that is particularly valued for its scenic quality. The character of the landscape, existing land use, landscape features, pattern and scale are intolerant of change and offer few opportunities for successful mitigation or landscape enhancement. The landscape may be a good example of a locally scarce landscape type. Nationally designated landscapes. Medium A landscape that exhibits some strong characteristics but may have been slightly degraded or one that is moderately valued despite its alteration. The character of the landscape, land use, pattern and scale offers some opportunities for successful mitigation and landscape enhancement. The landscape may be a poor example of a locally scarce landscape type or a

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

good example of a locally abundant landscape type. Locally designated landscapes. Low A landscape of few positive characteristics, poor condition or one that is not particularly valued for its scenic quality. The character of the landscape, existing land use, pattern and scale are tolerant of change and offer considerable opportunities for successful mitigation and landscape enhancement. The landscape may be a poor example of a locally abundant landscape type.

Magnitude of Landscape Change The magnitude of change to landscape features and character is determined by the nature of the change, its scale and duration. In the impact assessment, a judgement has been made regarding the magnitude of change to landscape features and character during the site preparation, drilling and production phases of the site and at Year 1 and Year 15 after restoration. Magnitude of change is described as high, medium, low or negligible and is based on the general criteria in Table 5.2:

TABLE 5.2 – MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE CHANGE CRITERIA Magnitude of Criteria Change

High Total loss of or severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements of the landscape Introduction of highly unnatural or unattractive features into the landscape which do not fit well with the existing character Major improvement or removal of several notable existing features or characteristics that significantly detract from the existing character Introduction of major new features or elements into the landscape which significantly improve the existing character Medium Partial loss of or damage to key characteristics, features or elements of the landscape Introduction of some unnatural features into the landscape but which may be accommodated without major detriment to the existing character. Moderate improvement or removal of some existing features or characteristics that currently detract from the existing character Introduction of some new features or elements into the landscape which moderately improve the existing character Low Minor loss of or alteration to one or more key characteristics, feature or elements of the landscape Introduction of minor unnatural features into the landscape which do not detract significantly from the existing character Minor improvement or removal of a small existing feature or characteristic that slightly detracts from the existing character Introduction of minor new features or elements into the landscape which slightly improve the existing character Negligible No notable loss or alteration of any key characteristics, features or elements of the landscape No notable new features introduced into the landscape

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Visual Assessment Methodology Zone of Visual Influence The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of a scheme defines the area within which it may be possible to see any part of the proposed development and helps to establish the potential for sensitive visual receptors. The development will not be visible outside the ZVI or will be very difficult to perceive and there will still be locations within the ZVI from which there are no views of the study area due to the local screening effects of vegetation or other features such as fencing. Landscape features, which form visual barriers and restrict views towards parts of the study area, such as landform, settlements and woodland, can then be evaluated and significant barriers identified to refine the baseline visibility of the proposals. Visual detractors and focal points are also identified. Key Viewpoints Due to the likely extent of the ZVI it is often impractical to assess the visual impact on every individual visual receptor affected by a scheme. Representative viewpoints have been used in the assessment to represent different visual receptor groups at various distances and directions from the site. Viewpoints will be illustrated photographically using a 50mm lens SLR camera or digital camera. It should be noted that, in selecting the representative viewpoints for the assessment, there is a strong bias towards identifying the most sensitive visual receptor groups. Viewpoints of low sensitivity have been considered in the assessment but the focus of the study is centred on where impacts are likely to be most significant.

Visual Sensitivity The sensitivity of the receptor groups to the type of development proposed depends on the occupation or activity of the viewer (e.g. resident, footpath user, someone at work) and their viewing expectations. As a general guide residential receptors, tourists, users of public rights of way and people at recognised vantage points are considered to have a higher sensitivity to change in their view than people conducting their daily business (e.g. at their place of work) or travelling through a landscape (excluding people sightseeing).

In the baseline assessment, a judgement has been made regarding the sensitivity of visual receptors and is described as high, medium or low and is based on the general criteria in Table 5.3:

TABLE 5.3 – VISUAL SENSITIVITY CRITERIA Sensitivity Criteria

High Residential properties. Users of Public Rights of Way and local ‘C’ class roads, unclassified lanes, tracks used by non-motorised users. Users of public open space (passive use) Users of recognised vistas and designated viewpoints. Medium Churches and schools. Users of informal viewpoints. Users of outdoor recreational facilities Users of local ‘B’ class roads Users of local and regional tourist routes on ‘A’ class roads Low Users of industrial sites, offices and commercial properties. Users of ‘A’ class roads (except on key tourist trails).

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Users of active recreational and leisure facilities where the focus is on the activity.

Magnitude of Visual Change Visual impacts are caused by the introduction of new elements into the views of a landscape or the removal of elements in the existing view. The magnitude of the visual effect is determined by the nature and scale of the change, its duration, the extent of visibility, the angle of the view and distance, and the perceived contrast or integration of change with the remaining landscape elements and aesthetic character of the view in terms of its form, line, colour, texture and scale.

In the impact assessment, a judgement has been made regarding the magnitude of change to views and visual amenity during the operational phases of the site and at Year 1 and Year 15 after restoration. Magnitude of change is described as high, medium, low or negligible and is based on the general criteria in Table 5.4:

TABLE 5.4 – MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL CHANGE CRITERIA Magnitude of Criteria Change

High A dominant change in the existing view; majority of viewers affected. Medium A noticeable change in the existing view; many viewers affected. Low A barely perceptible change in the existing view; few viewers affected. Negligible No discernible change in the existing view; no viewers affected.

Evaluation of Landscape and Visual Impact Significance The significance of the landscape and visual effects is determined by cross- referencing the sensitivity of the landscape or view with the magnitude of change. In determining the significance of residual effects all mitigation measures are taken into account.

Landscape and visual effects have been recorded as adverse, neutral or beneficial. Where the beneficial elements of the development offset the adverse elements, or where a significant change in the view is either adverse or beneficial, the overall effect has been recorded as neutral. Table 5.5 demonstrates the general relationship between sensitivity and magnitude but is given for illustrative purposes only (i.e. it is not applied mechanically to determine the significance of an effect upon any given receptor). At all times, professional judgement is used to determine the overall significance of effects (informed by judgements made regarding sensitivity and magnitude).

The significance of effects is described as Substantial, Moderate or Slight. Where there is only a negligible impact on either a landscape or visual resource, the assessment records no effect.

TABLE 5.5 – SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE/VISUAL IMPACT Magnitude of Change in Landscape/View Sensitivity of High Medium Low Negligible Landscape/View High Moderate/ Slight/ Substantial No Effect Substantial Moderate Medium Moderate/ Moderate Slight No Effect Substantial Low Slight/Moderate Slight Slight No Effect

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-6 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Residual Effects Best practice in Environmental Impact Assessment requires that the significance of potential effects be assessed, mitigation proposals identified and then the residual effects (with mitigation in place) re-assessed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the mitigation proposed.

LVIA is an iterative process in which landscape and visual mitigation proposals form an integral part of the proposed development. In the LVIA it is therefore inappropriate to assess the effects of the scheme independently without mitigation in place.

The approach taken in this LVIA has been to identify the potential effects of the proposals, to describe the mitigation incorporated into the scheme design, and then to assess the final layout. Therefore there is no separate assessment of the effects of the proposals without mitigation in place.

5.5 Baseline Conditions

Landscape Receptors

The site is set within a gently rolling landscape with strong field patterns dominated by cattle and horse grazing and with field boundaries being predominantly well managed hedgerows and having extensive hedgerow trees. There are fragmented tracts/belts of mixed woodland throughout with more extensive woodland to the east and west. Large farms and residential properties are regularly spaced throughout with Hanchurch to the north and Trentham (a suburb of Stoke-on-Trent) to the north- west being the largest conglomeration of properties. Main transport corridors include the M6, A519, A34 and numerous B roads. Footpaths are in general sparse.

The site is surrounded by well established woodland to the north-east, hedgerows to the west and farm outbuildings to the south-east.

Landscape Character

A Landscape Character Plan of the area around the proposed development is shown in Figure 5.1

Within the 5km study area there are two Joint Character Areas (JCA’s) as published by the Countryside Agency (now Natural England), these are;

Countryside Character Volume 2: North West - JCA 61 Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain. Key Characteristics include;

• Extensive gently rolling plain interrupted by sandstone ridges, the most prominent being the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge. • A unified rural landscape, with strong field patterns, dominated by dairying which merges with more mixed and arable farming to north and south-east. • Mosses, meres and small field ponds are scattered throughout. Subsidence flashes occur to the east of the Cheshire Plain. • Boundaries are predominantly hedgerows, generally well-managed, with abundant hedgerow trees which are mostly oak. Metal railing fences occur locally on estates. • Woodlands are few and restricted to deciduous and mixed woods on the steeper slopes of sandstone ridges, and some of the wetter areas. There are also locally extensive tracts of coniferous woodland. The plentiful hedgerow

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-7 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

trees, particularly in Cheshire give the appearance of a well-wooded landscape. • Large farmsteads regularly spaced throughout with dispersed hamlets and few market towns. • Buildings are predominantly red brick with warm sandstone churches and, in the national park, occasional very distinctive black and white half timbered buildings. • Extractive industries generally small-scale but widespread- sand, gravel, salt, sandstone and peat.

Countryside Character Volume 5: West Midlands - JCA 64 Potteries and Churnet Valley. Key Characteristics include;

• Strongly dissected hills and small plateau, rising up to the Pennines and cut by major river valleys. • Strong contrast between remote uplands, urban areas, sheltered wooded valleys and hillside pastures. • Prominent Millstone Grit and Coal Measures ridges. • Sprawling industrial towns of the Potteries forming a major conurbation. • Extensive former industrial and extractive sites, many now reclaimed, intermixed with settlements and open land. • Open moorland and rough grazing on higher ground. • Rural settlement pattern of sheltered villages on low ground with hamlets, scattered farmsteads and cottages elsewhere. • Brick and sandstone older buildings with tile and slate roofs.

Furthermore, an important piece of work has been undertaken to assess the whole of the Staffordshire landscape, sub-dividing the landscape into areas of similar character, known as Landscape Character Types. The quality of the landscapes has been assessed and this information has been used to prepare Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), titled "Planning for Landscape Change" to help inform the planning process.

Within JCA 61 Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain sits the landscape type Sandstone Hills and Heaths as published by Staffordshire County Council in the aforementioned SPG. Key characteristics include;

• Strongly undulating landform with steep sided valleys. • A well treed landscape of field ponds, stream valleys and meres. • Ancient narrow sunken lanes. • Farms of traditional red brick. • Intensive arable and pasture farming. • Hedged field boundaries. • Hedgerow oaks, broadleaved and conifer woodlands.

Noted incongruous features include;

• Introduction of extensive post and wire fencing. • Field trees. • Modern housing. • Industrial development. • Busy main roads (e.g. M6 and associated structures).

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-8 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

In addition, within the 5km radius, the site is adjacent to (but outside) the following variants on the Sandstone Hills and Heaths Landscape Type;

Sandstone Hills and Heaths: Forest, in which forestry is the visually dominant land- use, and;

Sandstone Hills and Heaths: Parkland, Trentham Park falls within this variant of the general landscape type.

Also falling within the Staffordshire Council SPG and within the 5km study boundary is a small section of the Coalfields Farmlands to the south-east. The southern portion of a character type known as Ancient Redlands also sits within the 5km study boundary. As these are both some distance from the site it is considered that characteristic details are not relevant within this report.

Receptors/Viewpoints within Close Proximity of the Knowl Wall Farm Site

The ZVI (Figure 5.2) indicates the following receptors/viewpoints are within close proximity of the Knowl Wall Farm site and the proposed CBM gas development. Descriptions of viewpoints from these locations are shown in the Table 5.6 below;

TABLE 5.6 – RECEPTOR/VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS Number Description Grid Reference Approximate Type of receptor Distance from and sensitivity the site in metres 1 - Receptor Farm – S of site SJ 853 393 200 Residential/High 2 - Receptor Farm – N of site SJ 849 397 400 Residential/High

3 - Receptor Farm – SE of site SJ 857 388 800 Residential/High 4 - Receptor Residential – SW SJ 851 393 200/250 Residential/High of site 5 - Receptor Residential/Farms SJ 850 389 300 Residential/High – SW of site 6 - Receptor Residential – N of SJ 849 404 950 Residential/High site 7 - Receptor Residential – NW SJ 845 401 1000 Residential/High of site 8 – Viewpoint 1 Drayton Road – SJ 842 400 1000 B Road/Medium NW of site 9 – Viewpoint 2 A519 – E SJ 852 395 75 A Road/Low adjacent to site 10 – Viewpoint 3 Footpath W of SJ 849 390 400 Footpath Knowl Wall Farm

Landscape Designations and Policies

There are a number of landscape designations and policies in the 5km study area indicated by the Stafford Borough Local Plan - Adopted Version (2001). Relevant designations are illustrated on the Landscape Designations Plan, Figure 5.3. Designations and pertinent policies are discussed below.

Policy E and D2 Consideration of Landscape and Townscape Setting states;

‘Proposals for new development will subject to other policies be acceptable where the proposal pays due regard to the existing landscape and/or townscape framework and the individual elements of the landscape. These would include:-

• trees and hedgerows;

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-9 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• skylines and views: • open areas, especially those important to the landscape or which form a setting; • historic features’.

Policy E and D28 Landscape Conservation states;

‘Planning permission will not be granted for development that will have detrimental effect on the landscape unless adequate mitigating measures are undertaken. The impact assessment of new development proposals on the landscape will be based on the following factors;

• physical factors e.g. relief/landform, land use, vegetation, ecological habitats, archaeology, buildings and structures; • visual factors, but also including the other senses; • the significance of the landscape with respect to the historical and cultural associations of the area; • the area's value relative to other areas i.e. nationally rare, regionally rare or typical to an area; • evaluation of the area's character; • the degree of public accessibility to the site and surrounding the site, either directly i.e. by vehicle, bicycle, horse or foot, or indirectly i.e. visual’.

Special Landscape Areas

Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) are areas of landscape quality within the Staffordshire context, and have been defined in the north, north-east and north-west of the Borough. They are areas of open countryside which have a high intrinsic landscape quality arising from a variety of distinctive natural and cultural features and tend to relate to, and include areas of varied relief, areas of nature conservation value, woodland areas and historic parks.

The site at Knowl Wall Farm is wholly enclosed within a SLA and as such is subject to the policies outlined within the Stafford Borough Local Plan – Adopted Version (2001).

Policy E and D29 Areas of Designated Landscape Value states;

‘Planning permission will only be granted for proposals within areas of designated landscape value, (e.g. designated SLAs), where the proposals impact on the landscape is minimal and the proposed landscaping treatment will conserve and enhance the character of the local landscape’.

Green Belt

The site at Knowl Wall Farm is wholly enclosed within the Green Belt and as such is subject to the policies outlined within the Stafford Borough Local Plan – Adopted Version (2001).

Policy E and D10 of the Stafford Borough Local Plan – Development within the Green Belt states;

‘There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Planning permission will be given for development proposals in the Green Belt, only for the purposes of:

• Agriculture or forestry

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-10 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• Cemeteries • Essential facilities for outdoor sports and outdoor recreation • Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings • Limited infill development within existing villages which have a defined residential boundary • Other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.

Very special circumstances will be needed to justify why other forms of development should be given planning permission’.

In addition, Policy E and D7 of the Stafford Borough Local Plan - Development within the Countryside states;

‘The need to protect the countryside for its own sake from unnecessary and incongruous development will be an important consideration in the assessment of proposals for development in the countryside.

Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)/Conservation Areas

Information regarding any TPOs/Conservation Areas in the vicinity of the site was sought from the Arboricultural Officer at Stafford Borough Council. There are no TPOs but the site layout (Figure 4.3) indicates that no trees will need to be felled or modified within the boundaries of the site. There is a Conservation Area of the east of the M6 as indicated on Figure 5.3.

Ancient Woodland

There is Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland located at Kings Wood, Beechcliff Wood, Hargreaves Wood and Harley Thorns (see Figure 5.3).

Designated Parks and Gardens

Trentham Park Grade II listed park and garden is located within 5km of the site to the north-east of the M6 (see Figure 5.3).

Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments

A number of important buildings and sites have been identified within the study area (see Figure 5.3) as detailed below:

Listed Buildings The survey also identified a Grade II Listed Building north-west along Drayton Road.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments Bowl Barrow north of Hargreaves Wood (National Monument No: 22426)

Public Rights of Way

There is a network of Public Rights of Way throughout the study area including footpaths and bridleways. The locations have been identified through Ordnance Survey data and (where possible) verified through the relevant Local Planning Authority. The routes are shown on Figure 5.3.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-11 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

5.6 Impact Assessment

Source of Potential Landscape and Visual Effects

This section provides a brief overview of the key elements of the CBM gas development phases which are considered to be of significance with regard to landscape and visual effects.

Site Preparation Phase

The phase is proposed to take circa 6 weeks with the stripping of topsoil, formation of the access and site development pad. The required infrastructure will also be brought onto site, including site cabins, the drilling rig etc. A schematic diagram site layout is provided within Figure 4.3.

Impact: The impacts directly on the site from this phase can broadly be considered as either short term or longer term. Certain elements of the preparation phase will be retained for the lifetime of the site (assuming it moves to the production phase), namely the access road, and fence and development pad (albeit reduced in size to 0.5ha when in the production phase). The other infrastructure elements introduced during this phase are temporary (maximum 21 weeks with the drilling rig) and therefore will only have a short term impact during this period of high activity. The introduction of the access road will not be significant in the context of the existing tracks and the impact of the development pad, once reduced to the scale proposed in the production phase will also not look out of place in the context of the agricultural setting.

Drilling Phase

The drilling rig to be used at the site is Rig 28 or equivalent. During transportation, Rig 28 is 18.90 m long, 3.17 m wide and 4.26 m high. It stands no more than 37m in height during operations. It will be operational on site for a total period of no more than 21 weeks (if a further 4 weeks of testing is required beyond the 17 weeks drilling).

Impact: The impacts associated with the drilling phase will be temporary only for the duration of the drilling, after which the drilling rig will be removed from site. Due to the significant screening effects of the woodland to the east it is unlikely that this will cause a significant impact during its operation. In addition, the drilling rig is likely to be ‘lost’ within other incongruous features such as the M6, A519 and overhead power cables that criss-cross the landscape. Most of the properties that would see the site will have upper-storey views, especially of the lit mast of the drilling rig at night. However, curtains are likely to be drawn.

Production Phase

Production Hubs will be underground so that in most cases all that will be seen from the surface is an area of hardcore and manhole covers. This area will be surrounded by a timber post and rail fence. It is possible that there may need to be a water tank to collect surplus water extracted with the gas but this will be no more than 1.5 m high.

It is also possible that equipment may be put in place to help extract the gas, in which case a small suction fan will be placed within this area. In addition, it may be necessary in some cases to install small pumps to drain water from the boreholes.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-12 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Impact: The Production Hubs are purposely designed to be visually discrete with most of the equipment located underground with the exception of any water tanks, pumps etc. Despite this, the Production Hubs will introduce a new element within the context of the field for the lifetime of the development (which would be no more than 15-20 years), but in the agricultural setting, not out of place within the location.

Capping and Restoration Phase

The foundations will be removed to a depth of 1m, the boreholes filled with concrete and the site restored to its original appearance. The site will be covered with the original topsoil and reseeded with a grass mix suitable for grazing.

Impact: None, once restored.

Overall Impacts on Landscape Character

The landscape character at the site location will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development. The landscape sensitivity of this area is considered to be medium because it sits within a Special Landscape Area. The magnitude of change is therefore considered to be low. The level of significance of the site compound is considered slight and level of significance of the drilling rig during its operational period is considered to be slight adverse to negligible.

As the same drilling rig would be used at the other Greenpark site (Groundslow Farm, 2.4km south-east of Knowl Wall Farm), it would be used in series and therefore no cumulative impacts would arise.

Visual impacts

The following section considers visual impacts for both the properties considered in close proximity to the CBM gas development and those in the wider context. The properties have been selected based on the ZVI and field observations

These receptor locations are shown on Figure 5.2.

Views from Properties within Close Proximity of the Knowl Wall Farm Site

1. Knowl Wall Farm

Knowl Wall Farm is situated approximately 200m south of the Knowl Wall Farm site and may experience intermittent upper-storey northern views to the site. Lower storeys would be screened by large outbuildings and vegetation.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered low, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be low, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be low therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be slight/moderate adverse.

2. The Toft

The Toft is situated approximately 400m north-west of the Knowl Wall Farm site and is unlikely to experience views of the site being screened by substantial vegetation surrounding the property and by further vegetation along the A519.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-13 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be negligible therefore, the worst level of significance is considered to be negligible.

3. Beech Cliff Farm

Beech Cliff Farm is situated approximately 800m south-east of the Knowl Wall Farm site and will be screened by vegetation along the M6 motorway.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be negligible therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be negligible.

4. Two properties at junction of A519 and Beechcliff Lane

Two properties at junction of A519 and Beechcliff Lane are situated approximately 200m and 250m respectively south-west of the Knowl Wall Farm site.

The property at 200m will have front of house upper-storey and potentially lower-storey oblique views into the site.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered low, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be low, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be medium therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be moderate/substantial adverse.

The property at 250m may have intermittent oblique front of house upper- storey, views through vegetation into the site, particularly during winter months.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be low therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be slight/moderate adverse.

5. Scattered properties to the south and west of Knowl Wall Farm

Scattered properties to the south and west of Knowl Wall Farm the nearest of which is situated approximately 300m north of the Knowl Wall Farm site may experience intermittent winter views through vegetation to the site, in particular during the drilling phase (should this be undertaken during winter). More distant properties in this area are likely to be fully screened by vegetation.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered low, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be low, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be low therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be slight/moderate adverse.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-14 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

6. Kingswoodbank (Drayton Road)

Kingswoodbank (Drayton Road) is situated approximately 950m north of the Knowl Wall Farm site and is screened by boundary vegetation to the property itself and south by an avenue of mature trees leading to The Toft. In addition, woodland adjacent to the site and vegetation along the A519 will further screen the property.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be negligible therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be negligible.

7. Drayton Road Cottages

Drayton Road Cottages are situated approximately 900m north-west of the Knowl Wall Farm site and may experience occasional upper storey intermittent views through vegetation across open farmland of the drilling phase. These views will in general be screened by structures and vegetation around The Toft and the site itself.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered low, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be low, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be low therefore, the level of significance is considered to be slight/moderate adverse.

Static Effects – Assessment of Viewpoints

In addition to considering receptors within the immediate locality of the CBM gas development site, 3 viewpoints were considered throughout the study area representing receptors including settlements, transport routes, recreational routes, visitor destinations; landscape character types and landscape designations; and cover a variety of distances, aspects, elevations and extents.

These viewpoints have been selected based on the ZVI and field observations. The locations of these viewpoints are shown on Figure 5.2.

8. Viewpoint 1: Hanchurch Hills/view from Drayton Road (see Figure 5.4.1)

The viewpoint location on Drayton Road is situated approximately 1000m west-north-west of the Knowl Wall Farm site and is expected to have distant views across open fields at its higher points adjacent to the Hanchurch Hills, in particular the drilling phase.

Sensitivity is considered to be medium. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered low, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be low, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be medium therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be moderate adverse.

9. Viewpoint 2: View of proposed site from A519 (see Figure 5.4.2)

The viewpoint location on the A519 is immediately adjacent to the site looking eastwards towards the Knowl Wall Farm site and is expected to have clear

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-15 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

views through substantial gaps in the hedgerow during preparation, drilling and production phases. However, this would only occur should the viewer look onto the site from a perpendicular aspect.

Sensitivity is considered to be low. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered high, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be high, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be high therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be slight/moderate adverse.

10. Viewpoint 3: Footpath west of Knowl Wall Farm (see Figure 5.4.3)

The location of the viewpoint on the footpath leading from the A519 up to the Hanchurch Hills Plantations is approximately 500m to the south-west of the site. It is at the highest point of the footpath before it enters the forestry. Views are likely to be medium distance and occasional through vegetation such as hedgerows and trees. However, more constant views are likely over vegetation during the drilling phase.

Sensitivity is considered to be high. The magnitude of change from the site compound is considered negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the access track is considered to be negligible, the overall magnitude of change from the drilling rig is considered to be low therefore, the worst case level of significance is considered to be slight/moderate adverse.

5.7 Mitigation

The Knowl Wall farm site is situated to the south-west of a well-established natural woodland which provides a significant level of screening. Further recommendations below for mitigation are mainly to ensure that there is suitable visual screening from the west and south. Further impact is also mitigated by the small scale of the CBM gas development. During each phase specific mitigation is also proposed, as follows:

Site Preparation and Drilling Phase

• Hardcore for the access track and drilling compound will be obtained from a local quarry so that the stone will be in keeping with the local landscape character. • The proposed drilling phase is limited in duration. • Lights attached to the sides of cabins will be directed downwards and into the site and none would be higher than 3.0 m. • Lights within the working platform (at the base of the drilling rig) will be within the working area of the rig and retained within a shielded area. • A further 2-4 mobile light towers will use downward pointing flat glass lanterns at the lowest practical height to ensure that spillage would be minimised. • Any waste will be removed and re-cycled off-site to reduce landscape impact. • Any topsoil storage bunds will be placed along the southern perimeter of the site to assist in screening any receptors. • In order to maintain soil structure and in accordance with best advice, soils should be handled as little as possible, kept as grassed mounds and should be handled appropriately in the correct weather conditions following the latest Defra guidance.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-16 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Production Phase

• Any hedgerow removed will be replanted along the A519. • The majority of the equipment will be located underground, with above- ground equipment suitably designed and limited in height, typically no more than 1.5 m so that they would be hidden by the hedgerows. • A 3 m high soil bund will remain along the south-western perimeter of the site which will be grassed.

Capping and Restoration Phase

• All site equipment will be removed. • The site will be covered with the original topsoil to allow agricultural operations to resume as per the original land use. It will be reseeded with an appropriate grass mix and returned directly to previous land-use. • The access road will be restored to its former condition unless requested otherwise by the landowner. • An Aftercare Programme will be agreed as a condition of any planning permission with the Local Planning Authority. The site will be monitored for five years to ensure that the restoration is successful including any necessary maintenance. • The overall aim of the restoration proposals will be primarily to return the site to its former condition as agricultural land. Every effort will be made during the site preparation, operation and decommissioning to conserve the existing habitat. • Additional vegetative screening such as tree and shrub planting is unlikely to be required. • Any remedial works to trees and shrubs will be carried out in accordance with BS3998; 1989, Recommendations for Tree Work3 if the need is identified.

5.8 Statement of Significance

The impacts on landscape are largely limited to within the immediate locality of the development, principally due to the fact that it is limited in scale. In the wider context it will not alter the landscape character of the area but may have a localised limited (temporary) impact in the short term on the Special Landscape Area of Hanchurch Hills and Green Belt designations.

The primary visual impacts relate to the period of high activity during site preparation and the introduction of the drilling rig. Both phases are temporary with the residual visual impact associated with the production phase (should the site be successful) limited by both the low visual impact design of the site and vegetation screening afforded many of the receptors. In addition, there are a small number of receptors adjacent to the site due to associated topography and screening vegetation within the wider landscape setting.

In conclusion, the CBM gas development at the Knowl Wall Farm site will not have a significant impact on the landscape character or overall visual resource.

1. 3 British Standard BS3998: 1989. Recommendations for Tree Work.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 5-17 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

6. Ecology

6.1 Summary

This chapter assessed the effects of the CBM gas development upon the habitats and species at Knowl Wall Farm in order to ensure that the development would not adversely affect the biodiversity at or adjacent to the site.

The field proposed for development is semi-improved grassland with nursery plantings of bulbs and conifers towards the southern end of the site. An area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland and scattered trees occur external to the site to the north and east; the woodland is separated from the site by an old red brick wall and is not recorded as ‘ancient’. There is a single pond surrounded by bulrush external to the north-east corner of the site.

The closest designated site for nature conservation is a SSSI situated approximately 700m east of the site. The SSSI is ancient woodland but any ecological connection to the proposed site has been broken by the M6. There are no records of protected habitats or species at or adjacent to the site.

There was no evidence of badger at the site or within 30m of the site boundary. No running water exists at the site and therefore no habitat suitable for otter or water vole was identified. However, the woodland edge and scattered trees have been identified as potentially providing suitable bat foraging habitat, with hedgerows on either side of the A519 forming a potential commuting route to the wider area. Whilst there may be minor levels of disturbance to foraging bats during the site preparation and drilling phases, this is not considered to be significant.

The pond and adjacent terrestrial habitats have potential to support great crested newt. A great crested newt survey was therefore undertaken in April and May 2009 and this confirmed that great crested newt is not present. The pond does, however, support smooth newt, common toad and common frog. A protective fence would therefore be installed around the boundary of the site to protect the southern and eastern margins of the pond during the site preparation and drilling phases and a network of perimeter ditches around the site would protect this location from surface water run-off. No materials or vehicles would be stored, or allowed to enter this area.

The boundary hedge between the A519 and the proposed site is assessed as ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations. A 23m section of the hedgerow would be relocated to the east of the pond to allow for site access. Removal would be undertaken outside the breeding bird season or an experienced ornithologist would check for the presence of any nests prior to the onset of works. The hedgerow would be re-established at the end of the drilling phase if the site does not go into production. Should the site be developed into a Production Hub, existing gaps in the hedgerow adjacent to the site would be a filled in using species already within the hedgerow. In addition, the relocated hedgerow would be extended by planting a 35m stretch around the southern and eastern perimeter of the pond and left in perpetuity.

A soil bund which would remain throughout the production phase of this development would be sown with a wildflower mix to benefit to invertebrates and therefore provide further foraging habitat for bats at the site.

By ensuring that suitable mitigation measures are undertaken, the proposed CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm is assessed as not significantly affecting

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

existing ecological interests. The mitigation/enhancement measures proposed would provide a significant positive effect for hedgerow species, amphibians, invertebrates, small mammals (including bats) and birds for many decades.

6.2 Introduction

This chapter assesses the potential impacts on ecology of the proposed CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm. The aim of this assessment is to:

• define the nature conservation interest of the proposed development site as it currently stands, including identifying areas or features within or adjacent to the site that have been designated for their nature conservation interest; • identify the main habitat types across and immediately adjacent to the site and potential usage by protected species; • identify the presence of protected species; • predict any potential impact upon habitats and species; and • identify mitigation measures that might be required to ensure minimal impact upon any ecological receptors.

6.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

The following legislation, regulations and other guidance have been taken into account in this assessment:

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the "Habitats Directive"); • Council directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the "Wild Birds Directive"); • The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009; • Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; • The Protection of Badgers Act 1992; • The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); • The Hedgerows Regulations 1997; • Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; and • Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom by IEEM4.

6.4 Methodology

6.4.1 Desk Study

Nature Conservation Designations

Statutory areas designated for nature conservation were obtained from the Multi- Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website. Locally designated areas for wildlife, such as Sites of Important for Nature Conservation and local Wildlife Sites were obtained from the Staffordshire Ecological Records Centre.

4 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK. IEEM, Winchester.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Existing Ecological Records

Existing records were obtained from the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) online database and by contacting the Staffordshire Ecological Records Centre for information regarding specific taxonomic groups and/or the area.

The NBN database was investigated for the presence of protected species in an area of up to 3 km from the site, depending on the land/habitat cover and the species. For example, the presence of badger in an adjoining woodland would be noted rather than a record in a separate woodland 2-3 km away although the presence of otter in a contiguous watercourse would still be relevant even if several kilometres away because otters are known to travel up to 30-35 km.

Staffordshire Ecological Records Centre (SERC) which collates all species records for the County was contacted for any existing data, in particular for protected areas, habitats and species, to contribute to the baseline information. Their responses are summarised in Table 6.1.

TAB LE 6.1 – CONTACTS FOR EXISTING ECOLOGICAL DATASETS AND THEIR RESPONSES Consultation Consultees and their responses Staffordshire Ecological Records Centre Date: 28 May 2009 Andy Leake replied by e-mail on 16 June 2009: A phone conversation was held with There are: and an e-mail sent Andy Leake, • Three SBI’s, three RIGS and one SSSI; and requesting up-to-date information • Numerous records of reptiles, badger sighting and sett on locally designated areas and locations, bat roosts and sightings, otters, water vole, birds, records of protected habitats and amphibians (excluding great crested newts), invertebrates, species. flora of note and mammals of note.

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) lists 65 priority habitats and 1149 species for conservation action. The UKBAP allows for local biodiversity partnerships to produce more regionally specific priorities.

Therefore, the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan website was consulted to obtain details of the latest habitat and species action plans.

6.4.2 Baseline Surveys

A number of baseline surveys were undertaken to inform this assessment. These were:

• an ‘extended’ phase 1 habitat survey to map the extent of the various habitats at the site; this included checking for invasive non-native species and identifying habitats or features with evidence of, or potential for protected species including badger, bats, reptiles and amphibians; • bats – a habitat suitability survey to identify any suitable bat foraging habitats and/or commuting routes; • breeding birds – a habitat suitability survey to identify any potential breeding habitat; and • great crested newt – survey of suitable water bodies within 500 m.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The nature and extent of the different habitats at the site were mapped using the JNCC 2005 field manual5, and presence of, or potential for protected species established in accordance with the IEA 1995 guidelines6.

Bat Habitat Suitability Assessment

Suitable roost sites are a key habitat requirement. These are often within cavities in man-made structures, such as buildings, bridges and underground structures. Maternity roosts, formed in summer by breeding females, are mainly in houses but males and non-breeders use a variety of crevice types, including hollows in trees, under slates, gaps in masonry and bridges. Winter hibernation sites include hollow trees, caves, crevices in buildings and bridges and old, rubble-filled stone walls.

During their active season (April-October), bats require a reliable source of insect food. Preferred feeding habitats include open woodland, woodland edge, water courses, water bodies, and hedgerows, because these provide shelter for flying insects.

During the survey, a note was made of any potential bat roosting habitats and foraging routes. Where potential for bat roosts might be identified (e.g. trees with loose bark, rot holes, crevices and/or ivy), a follow-up survey would be undertaken by a licensed bat surveyor using an endoscope to verify the existence of any bat roosts, and dusk/dawn survey as necessary. However, this was not considered necessary for this site.

Breeding Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment

Most habitats are used by species of birds afforded some form of statutory protection. The most protected species are those listed on "Annex 1" (Birds Directive) and "Schedule 1" (Wildlife and Countryside Act) which includes nationally rare and threatened species as well as those with a restricted European or UK distribution. Information on such rare and scarce species, as well as their overwintering grounds, is very likely to be held by the organisations consulted.

All other native wild birds are given a degree of general protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, including the active nests of all species. The breeding season for most species extends between March and August although there are some exceptions.

The survey recorded the presence of woodland, scrub, scattered trees and a hedgerow and their extents and connectivity to other similar habitats; the greater the extent and connectivity the greater the potential for use by breeding birds.

Great Crested Newt Survey

Great crested newts favour medium-sized ponds (50-250 m2) for breeding, especially those with a mosaic of dense aquatic vegetation for egg laying and more open, non- vegetated areas where courtship can take place. Extensively vegetated ponds with submerged plants covering about two thirds of the bottom and emergent/floating vegetation covering about one quarter to one half of the surface seem to be optimal.

5 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2005). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: a Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC, Peterborough. 6 Anon (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. Institute of Environmental Assessment. Chapman & Hall.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Breeding ponds may be located within a wide variety of habitats, including open woodland, marshes, reedbeds and grasslands (including grazed pasture). They do not necessarily require permanent ponds.

The survey therefore identified any standing water body at the site or adjacent to the site with a full great crested newt survey being undertaken for the pond external to the north-east perimeter of the site. This was undertaken on: 29-30 April, 6-7 May, 13-14 May and 27-28 May 2009. This included bottle traps, nocturnal torchlight methods and egg searching or hand netting with a pond net, following methods outlined in the English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines.

6.4.3 Assessment Methodology

This assessment methodology has been taken from the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management8.

Assessing the significance of the impact upon the ecological interests involves determining the nature conservation value of features at the site before defining the likely type, degree and scale of impact. However, the zone of influence upon these ecological interests arising from the project varies according to the specific characteristics of each species, and this may be more extensive than the site.

The value of the ecological receptors may be defined according to geographical coverage of the legislation and policies relevant to it. This may be international, national, regional, local or negligible, as shown in Table 6.2.

TABLE 6.2 – APPROACH TO VALUING THE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS AT A SITE Conservation Examples Value International Habitats or species that are in the cited interest of an internationally protected site, such as those designated under the Habitats Directive (Special Areas of Conservation – SACs), the Birds Directive (Special Protection Areas – SPAs) or other international convention (e.g. Ramsar site). Considerable extents of a priority habitat type listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. A regularly occurring, nationally significant population of any internationally important species, e.g. Annex II of the Habitats Directive or a bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. A feature (e.g. habitat or population) which is either unique or sufficiently unusual to be considered as being one of the highest quality examples in an international/national context that the site is likely to be designated as an SAC/ SPA. This includes a regularly occurring bird population meeting criteria for international significance (for birds usually 1% of European population). National Habitats or species that are in the cited interest of a nationally designated site, such as a Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) or a National Nature Reserve (NNR). A feature (e.g. habitat or population) listed in UK legislation, that occurs in sufficient numbers or extent to be considered as being one of the highest quality examples in a national/ regional context, and for which the site could potentially be designated as an SSSI. This includes breeding birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). Presence of UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats or species. Regional Habitats or species that are in the cited interest of a Local Nature Reserve or some local-level designated sites. Bird populations forming part of a regional designation such as a Wildlife Trust Site or Local Authority Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). A feature (e.g. habitat or population) which is either unique or sufficiently unusual to be considered as being of nature conservation value up to a district or county context. This includes bird species where more than 1% of the regional population is subject to special conservation measures, such as Birds of Conservation Concern Red-list7. A population of a species that is listed in a Local BAP because of its rarity in the locality. Local Habitats or species that are in the cited interest of a local-level designated site and may be designated as a non-statutory Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) or the equivalent, e.g. a Local nature reserve, Local Wildlife Site, Ancient Woodland designation. This may include Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats or species. A feature (e.g. habitat or population) that is of nature conservation value in a local context only,

7 Gregory, R.D., Wilkinson, N.I., Noble, D.G., Robinson, J.A., Brown, A.F., Hughes, J., Procter, D., Gibbons, D.W. and Galbraith, C. (2002). The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007. British Birds 95: 410-448. having

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 6.2 – APPROACH TO VALUING THE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS AT A SITE Conservation Examples Value with insufficient value to merit a formal nature conservation designation. Negligible Commonplace feature of little or no habitat/historical significance. Loss of such a feature would not be seen as detrimental to the ecology of the area.

The scale of the impacts (construction, operation and restoration) is determined by assessing how the extent of the habitat might be affected. This is considered in the light of other trends currently affecting the habitat and/or species. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan and the Species of Conservation Concern defined by the British Trust for Ornithology is useful in that habitats and species have been afforded a priority level for protection because of currently unfavourable trends.

Ecologically significant impact (whether positive or negative) can be determined by considering the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem along with the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area.

The integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified.

Therefore, the following questions are considered for each of the ecological receptors valued at international, national, regional or local:

• Will any site/ecosystem processes be removed or changed? • What will be the effect on the nature and extent, structure and function of component habitats? • What will be the effect on the average population size and viability of component species?

This is defined is summarised in Table 6.3.

TABLE 6.3 – DEFINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IMPACT/EFFECT ON VALUED ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS Magnitude Definition Negatively Would cause: significant a) the loss of all or a major proportion of a habitat or numbers of a species' population, or cause sufficient damage to immediately affect long-term viability. or b) major effects on the habitat/population which would have a sufficient effect to alter the nature of the feature in the short-long term and affect its long-term viability. This includes the operation being undertaken at a sensitive time of the year (e.g. breeding season). These would be measured for: • a habitat: as a loss in extent or damage that adversely affects its long-term integrity. • a species population: as a loss in abundance and/or geographical range that adversely affects its long-term integrity. Temporarily Effects that are detectable in the short and medium-term (these terms are specific significant for different habitats for species) but which should not alter the long-term viability of the feature/population. These would be measured for: • a habitat: as a loss in extent or damage with effects in the short and medium- term but should not adversely affect its long-term integrity. • a species population: as a loss in abundance and/or geographical range in the short and medium-term but should not adversely affect its long-term integrity. Negligible Minor effects, either of sufficiently small-scale or of short duration to cause no long- term adverse impact on the integrity of the habitat/ population. Neutral A potential impact that is not expected to affect the habitat/population in any way. Positively Would improve or reverse a negative trend such that for:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-6 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

significant • a habitat: there would be an increase in extent or quality so that its long-term integrity is assured. • a species population: there would be an increase in abundance and/or geographical range such that its long-term integrity is assured.

6.5 Baseline Conditions

This section identifies the site's ecological importance in the international, national, and regional context, describing statutory and non-statutory designated sites, habitat types and the potential presence of protected species and the use of the site by these species.

6.5.1 Nature Conservation Designations

There is one statutory site of nature conservation approximately 700m east of the site, to the east of the M6 and Black Lake. This is King’s and Hargreaves Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is a large area of broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland recorded as ancient woodland. The Natural England website does not give anything more in the site’s citation. Without the M6 there would have been a direct link between the site and the SSSI but the M6 breaks the connectivity of the area.

There are also three locally designated Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs) and three Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological site (RIGS) which are:

• Seven Sisters Ridge (and surrounds) SBI, 600m north – designated for its lowland heath and associated scrub and woodland; • Beechcliff, Swynnerton SBI, 700m south – broadleaved woodland on a steep embankment; • Swynnerton Old Park SBI, 1.1m west – planted Scots pine woodland, lowland heathland, breeding badgers and slow worm; • Kingswood Bank Gravel Pit RIGS, 600m north; • Beech Caves RIGS, 700m south; and • Hanchurch Hills RIGS, 1.5km north-west.

None of these has any obvious ecological link to the proposed site.

6.5.2 Priorities within the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans

UKBAP

Habitats defined as being priority UK habitats that occur within the Tittensor area of Staffordshire include:

• arable field margins; • wood pasture and parkland; • hedgerows; • rivers; • lowland beech and yew; • lowland mixed deciduous woodland; • lowland meadows; and • ponds.

Species listed as priority UK species that may occur in the area because of the type of habitats that exist include:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-7 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• great crested newt; • brown hare, water vole and some species of bats; and • a number of birds including: skylark, common linnet and grey partridge.

Of the 56 species of vascular plants, none of the UK priority species are found within intensively managed grassland although some may be found in arable field margins (such as annual knawel, pheasants eye and cornflower, although these are rare). The majority of the UK priority species are associated with upland, wetland or heathland habitats.

Staffordshire LBAP

The Staffordshire LBAP (website visited in May 2009) lists local priority habitats and local priority species as a result of identifying strategic and/or pan-Staffordshire biodiversity issues. Each priority habitat and priority species therefore has a list of objectives and actions. Local priority habitats that occur in Staffordshire include:

• lowland wood-pasture and parkland; • native woodland; • wet woodland; • arable field margins; • lowland acid grassland; • lowland calcareous grassland; • lowland heathland; • lowland wet grassland; • unimproved neutral grassland; • inland salt marsh; • reedbeds; • rivers and streams; • mosses; and • ponds, lakes and canals.

However, these are local priorities to ensure improvement in the management of these habitats to increase species diversity as opposed to being an inherent protection of the habitat per se.

Similarly, there are a number of species statements taking account of species listed in the UKBAP and European Protected Species. These cover:

• native black poplar, hybrid bilberry, floating water plantain, grass wrack pondweed, pink meadow cap and dyers greenweed; • bog bush-cricket, ground nesting and solitary bees and wasps, small pearl- bordered fritillary, white-faced darter and white clawed crayfish; • Atlantic salmon; • farmland seed-eating birds, grey partridge, snipe, lapwing, barn owl, woodlark, nightjar and skylark; • grass snake; • great crested newt and natterjack toad; and • otter, water vole, noctule bat, pipistrelle bat and brown hare.

6.5.3 The Results of Searching Existing Records

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) has records for grass snake 1km west. There are no other specific records found within 2km of the site.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-8 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

SERC hold records for:

• A pipistrelle species bat roost containing one bat from 1995 approximately 200m south at Knowl Wall Farm; • Two brown long-eared bat and a common pipistrelle bat record at Trentham Lake 1.5km east, large pipistrelle roosts in Trentham 2km north east and noctule and pipstrelle within the 1km grid square in which the site is located; • Otters, water vole and white clawed crayfish within the River Trent approximately 1.8km at its closest; • Numerous sightings and recorded deaths of badgers within the area. The closest sett was recorded approximately 1km east, adjacent to Trentham Lake; • Common frogs at ponds within 2km; • Adder from 1986 within Beechcliff, Swynnerton SBI and slow worm within Swynnerton Old Park SBI; and • A number of birds species within the search area including barn owl, hobby and red kite.

6.5.4 Results of the Field Surveys

The habitat, bat and bird surveys and habitat assessment were undertaken on 20 May 2009; a great crested newt survey was carried out on four separate occasions during April and May 2009. There were no constraints with regard to weather conditions or access to the site/ponds for survey.

The proposed site is within semi-improved grass field managed by mowing.

6.5.5 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results

The phase 1 habitat map shows the habitat types within an approximate 200 m radius from the proposed site (Figure 6.1). In some cases, detailed notes were taken for a habitat type and/or some locations; the locations of where these target notes were taken are indicated by a red encircled number on the phase 1 habitat map, the details of which are outlined in Appendix 2.1. A botanical species list is provided in Appendix 2.2.

A summary of the habitats is outlined below. Where necessary, the target notes are referred to.

Improved Grassland

The site is within a field with no single dominant species but with abundant Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and hairy brome (Bromus ramosus), frequent creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and with other grass and herbaceous species present only occasionally or rarely.

Nursery Planting

The southern part of the site comprised broad cultivated strips of young Christmas tree (Norway spruce, Picea abies) plantation and daffodil bulbs.

Broadleaved Woodland

To the north and east of the site was a small block of semi-natural broadleaved woodland extending eastwards towards the M6 motorway. Tree species include sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), rowan (Sorbus

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-9 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

acuparia), silver birch (Betula pendula), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), alder (Alnus glutinosa), willow (Salix sp.) and beech (Fagus sylvatica). The ground flora was diverse and included bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), male fern (Dryopteris felix-mas), lemon-scented fern (Oreopteris limbosperma), a moss (Polytrichum commune), wood melick (Melica uniflora) and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum).

This woodland is not recorded as "ancient woodland".

Scattered scrub and trees

Surrounding and immediately to the north of the pond was an area of mostly young and semi-mature trees including sycamore and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), with an impoverished ground flora. Of note was a group of five mature pedunculate oaks adjacent to the A519. These were ivy covered with some broken limbs.

Hedgerows

There was a single hedgerow bordering the A519, approximately 1m in height and varying from 0.7m to 2 wide in places with groups of standard trees at approximately 5m intervals. The hedge was cut to a height of 0.7 m in February this year. The dominant species was hawthorn with sycamore, elder (Sambucus nigra), bramble (Rubus spp.), holly (Ilex aquifolium), pedunculate oak and Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia). The hedgerow was identified as having five woody species in any given 30 m stretch and has two associated features described as "important" under the Hedgerows Regulations:

• Less than 10% gaps; and • A parallel hedge within 15 m.

Because it runs alongside a byway open to all traffic, this hedgerow is assessed as being ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations. A completed Hedgerow Regulations assessment sheet is provided as Appendix 2.3.

Pond

A single pond in the northern corner of the site measuring approximately 8m by 5m supported a diverse range of aquatic and marginal plant species. It was surrounded by bulrush (Typha latifolia) and covered, by at least two thirds, of the pond weed Potamogeton spp.

Protected Species (other than bats, birds and amphibians)

No evidence of, or potential for the following species, or species groups, was noted within or adjacent to the site: badger, otter, water vole and reptiles.

Value of the habitats at the site: whilst the majority of habitats within the site (i.e. grassland and nursery plantings) have negligible value, the pond and the boundary hedge are assessed as having local status (as defined in Table 6.3).

6.5.6 Bat Habitat Suitability Assessment Results

There are records of pipistrelle and noctule bats within 1 km of the site from SERC. One pipistrelle roost was recorded in 1995 at Knowl Wall Farm approximately 200 south of the site.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-10 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Roosting Habitat

Oak trees external to the north-west corner of the site have a moderate-high bat roost potential by virtue of the presence of cracks and crevices, and ivy covering. No detailed survey has been undertaken to date to establish if the trees are used as roosting sites because none of these trees will be disturbed. The one tree within the section of hedgerow to be removed is a small Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia) with no features likely to be used by roosting bats.

Foraging Habitat and Commuting Routes

The edge of the woodland, scrub and scattered trees are likely to provide bat foraging habitat and potentially a commuting route linking the woodland to hedgerows along the A519 and to the wider countryside.

Value of the site for bats: bats may roost within oak trees adjacent to the proposed access track and it is likely that they forage along the woodland edge and over the pond and adjacent habitats; potentially also commuting along the site boundaries. The habitats adjacent to the site are therefore regarded as being of local importance for bats (as defined in Table 6.2) although the site itself is of negligible importance.

6.5.7 Breeding Bird Habitat Suitability Assessment

The site itself is contained within the grass field. However, the woodland edge, scrub, scattered trees and boundary hedgerow provide suitable breeding habitat for woodland edge and farmland birds during March-August.

Value of the site for birds: this site therefore is regarded as having negligible status as breeding bird habitat (as defined in Table 6.2) although the woodland and hedgerow habitat adjacent to the site might be regarded as being of local importance.

6.5.8 Great Crested Newt Survey

The pond that occurs on the map about 200 m to the east of the site is unsuitable for great crested newt as it contains no aquatic flora, and is used by heron. No other potential great crested newt habitat occurs at the site or along the track.

A great crested newt survey recorded no great crested newts during April-May 2009, although smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) and small numbers of common frog (Rana temporaria) and common toad (Bufo bufo) tadpoles were observed. The full methodology and results of this survey are provided in Appendix 2.4. (The recommendations within this report have been taken into consideration during the development of this project, in particular that the proposed access track now comes into the site on the southern edge of the pond and that any storage of soil is away from the pond in order to protect the habitat for these amphibian species.)

Value of the site for amphibians: this site is therefore regarded as having negligible status as great crested newt habitat although of intrinsic value for other amphibian species.

6.5.9 Valued Ecological Receptors

Foraging and commuting bats, ponds and hedgerow have been identified as Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) at this site. Their conservation status and value within the study area are summarised in Table 6.4 below. Birds are also included due to

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-11 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

the general protection afforded to them by British legislation, particularly during the breeding season.

TABLE 6.4 – SUMMARY OF THE SPECIES TO BE CONSIDERED DURING THE PLANNING OF OPERATIONS AT THE SITE Ecological Conservation status Value within the Receptor study area (defined in Table 6.2) Foraging and All species of bat are listed in Annexes II and IV of the Local commuting Habitats Directive. They are protected under the Conservation bats (Natural Habitats etc) Amendment (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 from any deliberate or reckless capturing, injuring or killing, disturbance in a structure or place used for shelter or protection, while rearing or otherwise caring for young, or obstructing access to breeding site or resting place etc. A more limited number of bats (Barbastelle, Bechstein's, greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat and soprano pipistrelle) are regarded as priority species and therefore have Species Action Plans within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)8. The Staffordshire LBAP also specifically includes common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus), whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus), Noctule bat (Nyctalus noctula), Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentii), Natterer's bat (Myotis nattereri) and Leisler's bat (Nyctalus leisleri). The 1991 EU Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (under the 1982 Bonn Convention) extends protection to feeding habitat. Breeding birds Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an Negligible offence to wilfully or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst that nest is in use or being built. Pond and The pond is a valued habitat in its own right by virtue of being Local amphibians listed in the Staffordshire LBAP. Smooth newt, common frog and common toad have limited protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Boundary This hedgerow has been assessed as being ‘Important’ under Local hedgerow The Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

6.6 Impact Assessment

In this section, potential impacts that may affect the ecological interests within the survey area are described and assessed to determine whether they are potentially significant. Where applicable, mitigation measures for each of the impacts are described and the residual impact and its significance reported.

This includes the results of the review of existing ecological data (such as those obtained from the National Biodiversity Network and local interest group records) as well as results from the field surveys.

6.6.1 Potential Impacts

Site Preparation and Drilling

Potential effects during site preparation and drilling include the removal of a section of boundary hedge to create the site access track (see Figure 10.1) and noise from

8 www.ukbap.org.uk

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-12 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

the drilling rig which would be operating for 24 hours, seven days a week, and light disturbance at night from the lights on the drilling rig and separate lighting towers.

Together, these phases would last no more than 27 weeks (6 weeks site preparation and a maximum of 21 weeks with the rig onsite). However, the magnitude of impacts depends upon the species and the time of year, for example: removal of a tree used by hibernating bats during the winter months would be more significant than removal at other times of the year; conversely disturbance effects may be worse during the spring/summer and could include impacts upon of nesting by birds and alter the foraging and commuting routes taken by bats.

Production and Restoration

During CBM gas production and restoration, the site will be an area of hardstanding no more than 0.5 ha within which there will be manhole covers allowing access to underground structures, plus in some cases small equipment. There will be no noise or lighting. The area will be surrounded by a timber post and rail fence and a soil bund along the southern perimeter of the site (see Figure 4.6). Restoration will restore the groundcover to semi-improved grassland. No impacts on ecological receptors are anticipated during the production or restoration phases.

Specific Potential Impacts on Ecological Interests at this Site

The potential impacts on the ecological interests during various phases of the project are summarised in Table 6.5.

TAB LE 6.5 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING THE VARIOUS PHASES OF THE PROJECT ON THE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS Ecological Potential effects during site preparation and drilling Significance of the receptor effect (see Table 6.3 for the definition of significance) Foraging The three main impacts that may cause disturbance are loss of Temporarily and foraging habitat (23.5 m of hedgerow), noise and lighting for 24 significant commuting hours, seven days a week during the 17 week drilling phase. bats This may restrict the area of foraging and commuting away from the woodland edge and hedgerow if undertaken during the main active season of May to September inclusive. Breeding 23.5 m of hedgerow would be removed to allow for Temporarily birds construction of site access which may result in disturbance to significant nesting birds if undertaken during the breeding bird season. In addition, noise and lighting for 24 hours, seven days a week during the 17 week drilling phase may affect attempts to nest if undertaken during the breeding bird season of March to August inclusive. Pond and The access road would pass 3 m from the pond; whilst there Temporarily amphibians would be no direct impact, there is a risk of accidental damage significant or disturbance to pond habitats from vehicles and spillage of materials. Boundary The access road construction will require removal of a 23.5 m Negatively hedgerow section of ‘Important’ hedgerow. significant Potential effects during gas production and restoration Significance of the effect Foraging None. Neutral and commuting bats Breeding None. Neutral birds Pond and None. Neutral amphibians Boundary None. Neutral

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-13 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TAB LE 6.5 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING THE VARIOUS PHASES OF THE PROJECT ON THE ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS hedgerow

6.6.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts

This site is one of a number of sites that Greenpark is including within its CBM gas development programme. However, should the planning application be successful, these sites will be developed sequentially so that the drilling rig will start at one site, complete drilling and then move to a second site, and so on. There will, therefore be no cumulative impact from the drilling operations, and with the Production Hubs being mainly underground and of a small area, there will be no cumulative impact from the production phase.

There are no other similar operations in the area. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on ecological interests are predicted to occur.

6.7 Mitigation

In order to ensure that any impact from the development is nullified or reduced, a number of mitigation measures are proposed. These are outlined in Table 6.6.

TAB LE 6.6 – MEASURES TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS Mitigation During Site Preparation And Drilling Significance of the effect (see Table 6.4 for the definition of significance) Foraging Loss of foraging habitat Neutral and Mitigation to restore the boundary hedgerow is described commuting below. bats Noise Plant equipment will be silenced and located at least 5 m from the boundary hedgerows to provide a protection zone for any foraging bats. Lighting Lights will be mounted on lighting towers and their height altered according to the level required so that all lighting will be a directed downwards towards the working area, leaving linear habitats in shadow. Breeding One of two options will be adopted to avoid disturbing nesting Neutral birds birds. These two options are: (a) the removal of areas of hedgerow and scattered trees would be undertaken outside the breeding season (March - August inclusive); or (b) an experienced ornithologist will be appointed to establish the location of any occupied nests on the site or adjacent to the site just before work begins. If no nests are identified, then work will proceed. Should active nests be identified, then these will be cordoned off with a buffer zone of approximately 10-20 m (depending on the species) during site preparation, and this area left undisturbed until chicks have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Pond and Protective fencing will be erected around the pond to maintain Neutral amphibians a 3 m buffer zone during the site preparation and drilling phase. Surface water management plans would be followed for working near water with regard to pollution prevention and control. Boundary The following mitigation measures would be undertaken: Positively hedgerow • The existing hedgerow would be relocated to the east side significant of a pond adjacent to the site. Further planting will extend this hedgerow to a total length of about 35 m extending along the southern and eastern perimeter of the pond (i.e. along the line of the site boundary and access track).

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-14 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TAB LE 6.6 – MEASURES TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS Should the relocation of the existing hedgerow fail, this would be replanted using locally sourced specimens of species that already occur in the existing hedgerow. • Existing gaps will be restored by planting suitable native species (a gap adjacent to the scattered trees is about 4-5 m wide). Mitigation during gas production and restoration Significance of the effect Foraging The new hedgerow would be 75% longer than the hedgerow Positively and removed. It would provide a complete circular route from the significant commuting northern woodland and scattered trees, around the southern bats edge of the pond. A ditch would also be placed along this new hedgerow external to the pond site, which would also increase the biodiversity value in time, particularly with respect to invertebrates and therefore foraging for bats. Breeding The planting of further hedgerow would provide further habitat Positively birds for breeding birds. significant Pond and The planting of hedgerow around the perimeter of the pond Positively amphibians and its associated habitats, and the incorporation of a ditch to significant the east side of the new hedgerow, would provide an area separated from any development and integrate the pond into a semi-natural area, i.e. the woodland to the north. The presence of a ditch will also ensure that the characteristics of the hedgerow attain the standards as required by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. Boundary Not applicable. Neutral hedgerow

Further enhancement would take the form of the creation of wildflower grassland during the production phase on the southern bund formed from topsoil from the site. The topsoil is clay-loam in character and can be poorly drained; an appropriate seed mix which is able to withstand occasional waterlogged conditions would be: Emorsgate ‘EM4 – Meadow Mixture for Clay Soils’ which comprises a diverse mixture of grassland and wildflower species including: yarrow (Achillea millefolium), common knapweed (Centurea nigra) Lady’s bedstraw (Galium verum), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) and birds foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus).

The bunds would require a single cut in late summer after flowering, with arisings removed to prevent a build-up of vegetation and elevation of nutrient levels. When the bund is removed to restore topsoil at the end of the production phase, this seed will continue to remain at the site as a part of the field.

6.8 Statement of Significance

This chapter has assessed the likely significance of effects of the CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm on habitats and species. There were no ecological resources valued as being of international, national or regional importance. However, the site was evaluated as being of local importance for foraging and commuting bats, containing a pond used by breeding amphibians and the boundary hedgerow containing at least 5 woody species in any given 30 m stretch.

Mitigation measures include ensuring that all plant and equipment is fitted with silencers, a 5 m stand off from the boundary hedgerows to provide a protection zone for any foraging bats, as well as lights mounted on lighting towers and directed downwards.

The pond will be protected from accidental damage from spillage through the use of surface water management plans or disturbance through erection of temporary

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-15 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

fencing, and working methods will adhere to standard protocols for pollution prevention and control.

Relocation of hedgerow will be undertaken outside of the breeding bird season or following an inspection by an experienced ornithologist to check for the presence/absence of nests. New hedgerow planting would be undertaken to fill existing gaps in the hedge to improve its structural and species diversity as well as a new hedgerow around the pond and associated habitats.

A further enhancement would be to include a wild flower seed mix to cover the soil bund remaining throughout any production phase.

By undertaking appropriate mitigation measures and biodiversity enhancements, the effect of this CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm is assessed as not significantly affecting existing ecological interests but enhancing the biodiversity value for the future.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 6-16 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

7. Hydrology

7.1 Summary

This chapter assessed the effects of the CBM gas development upon hydrological conditions and drainage within the Knowl Wall Farm site and its catchment area.

The aim of the chapter was to address the following issues:

• current risk of flooding; • effects of CBM gas development on surface water storage and conveyance; and, • stormwater design proposals for the site.

The site is currently a grass field and a review of the Environment Agency flood map indicated that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has a ‘low probability’ of flood risk, i.e. a less than 1 in 1000 chance of flooding in any one year.

The rate of runoff from the site to the receiving Motorway drainage system would be attenuated by a network of perimeter ditches and v-shaped channel and limited to similar rates of maximum discharge as to that which took place before the site was developed (using an estimated greenfield runoff rate) by connection to the sites’ existing main drainage pipe.

Other than recommendations to mitigate the short term potential for pollution of surface water due to the temporary use of fuels, excavators, sanitation facilities and ground conditions encountered, the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is considered neutral because there are no appreciable effects identified, either positive or negative, on the environmental attributes identified in this chapter.

As the CBM gas development has no significant impacts on surface water related objectives for the study area, it is concluded that the proposal has an insignificant impact on identified valuable attributes within the site and its catchment area.

7.2 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to address the following issues:

• current risk of flooding; • effects of CBM gas development on surface water storage and conveyance; and, • stormwater design proposals for the site.

Therefore, the key objectives of this chapter are to determine:

• the probability of a flood occurring and the severity of any impact; • stormwater design constraints imposed by the catchment area; and, • the proposed design for stormwater storage including detailed design of drainage components i.e. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and pipe network.

The general principle behind the use of SUDS for any site is to comply with the following objectives:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• runoff volumes should be minimised; • runoff rates should be minimised; • the stormwater effluent is treated appropriately before discharge from the site bearing in mind the requirements of the receiving watercourse; • groundwater must be protected.

In addition, it is desirable to maximise the amenity potential and ecological benefits where there is an opportunity to provide this.

The various SUDS components should not be treated as individual options, but should be seen as providing a set of drainage features (a treatment train) which are appropriate at various scales. It is always desirable to have a mixture of SUDS components across the site to take opportunity of their respective benefits9.

7.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

This chapter has been produced with reference to the following legislation, polices and guidance:

• The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (WFD), and Controlled Waters (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003; • Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) Crown Copyright 2006. Development and Flood Risk. PPS25 provides guidance on the importance of management and reduction of flood risk; • Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures – A Consultation Paper; • Defra/Environment Agency, 2005. R&D Technical Report W5-074/A/TR/1 Revision D; • Environment Agency. Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Guidance Note 1; • Environment Agency, 2009. Development less than 1 hectare in Flood Zone 1 - surface water drainage information; • http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31656.aspx; • http://stafford.addresscafe.com/stafford_floodrisk.aspx • Environment Agency. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). An introduction; • Department of Transport, 2003. The Water Environment Sub-Objective; • Halcrow Group Ltd, 2008. Stafford Borough Council. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local Development Network, Level 1, Volume 1; and, • http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/HelpPages.pdf

7.4 Methodology

Fieldwork

A site walkover was undertaken on the 20th May 2009 to determine hydrological conditions and site drainage with regards to the following:

• conveyance of surface water runoff; • treatment of surface water runoff; and, • control of surface water runoff using storage.

9 http://www.uksuds.com/information/SUDS_Guidance_Extended_Version_02.pdf

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Desk Study

General information regarding Flood Zones within the site and its catchment area was obtained from the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Map. Reference was also made to the Stafford Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for locally specific guidance and information.

General information used to calculate stormwater storage volumes for the CBM gas development was obtained from the EA R&D Technical Report W5-074/A.

Lastly, the EA was consulted concerning water features, their attributes and indicators of quality within the site and its catchment area (Table 7.1).

TABLE 7.1 – WATER FEATURES, THEIR ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Feature Attribute/Service Indicator of Possible Measure quality • River Water Supply Use for water Location and number of supply (potable, abstraction points

industrial or • Volume of water agricultural) abstracted • Use of water (potable most important) • Chemical water Existing chemical GQA quality grade (A/B=good, C/D=fair, and E=poor, F=bad) • Likelihood of a change in grade arising (+ve or -ve) • Transport and Presence of Location and number of dilution of waste surface water discharge points products discharge points • Volume of effluent discharged • Contribution of Proportion of flow made up discharges to by effluent at different total river flow times of the year • Biodiversity Biological water Existing chemical GQA quality grade (A/B=good, C/D=fair, and E=poor, F=bad) • Likelihood of a change in grade arising (+ve or -ve) • Fisheries quality EC Fishery designation (Salmonid, Cyprinid or undesignated) • Recreation Riverside access Presence of route and importance (i.e. is it a nation or strategic route, such as the Thames Path) • Use of river for Presence of facilities and recreation clubs for using the river environment • Use for angling (number of clubs / membership)

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.1 – WATER FEATURES, THEIR ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Feature Attribute/Service Indicator of Possible Measure quality • Value to Value of the uses Value to local economy economy of the river (e.g. (e.g. employment, relative commercial property prices, cost of fishing, alternatives, etc.) abstractions, discharges, navigation, leisure and riverside development land) • Conveyance of Presence of Number and size of flow and material watercourses watercourses • Existing flood risk

• Floodplain Conveyance of Presence of Number and size of flood flows floodplain watercourses • Existing flood risk • Flood flow routes Location / importance of flood flow routes • Groundwater Water Supply Use for water Location and number of abstraction points supply (potable, industrial or • Volume of water agricultural) abstracted • Use of water (potable most important) • Groundwater Location and grade of vulnerability source protection zone • Classification of aquifer vulnerability • Transport and Presence of Location and number of dilution of waste discharge points discharge points products • Volume of effluent discharged • Value to Value of the uses Value to local economy economy of the (e.g. employment, cost of groundwater (e.g. alternatives, etc.) abstractions and discharges) • Conveyance of Flow routes Location and importance of flood flows flow routes • Groundwater Changes in levels and levels recharge • Sea and Water Supply Use for water Location and number of Estuaries supply abstraction points • Volume of water abstracted • Transport and Presence of Location and number of dilution of waste discharge points discharge points products • Volume of effluent discharged

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.1 – WATER FEATURES, THEIR ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Feature Attribute/Service Indicator of Possible Measure quality • Biodiversity Water quality Chemical and biological quality (data availability will be variable) • Fisheries quality Results of surveys etc (numbers / biomass of species and individuals) • Invertebrate Results of surveys etc populations (numbers / biomass of species and individuals) • Recreation Bathing beaches Compliance with EC water bathing standards • Other recreation Presence of facilities and uses clubs • Use for angling (number of clubs / membership) • Value to Value of the uses Value to local economy economy of the (e.g. employment, relative sea/estuary (e.g. property prices, cost of commercial alternatives, etc.) fishing, abstractions, discharges, navigation, leisure and waterside development land) • Stillwaters Biodiversity Fisheries quality Results of surveys etc (Lakes and (numbers / biomass of Ponds) species and individuals) • Results of surveys etc Invertebrate populations (numbers / biomass of species and individuals) Recreation Use of stillwater • Presence of facilities and for recreation clubs for using lake/pond • Use for angling (number of clubs / membership)

Analysis

If the CBM gas development is less than 1 ha, located in an area where the risk of flooding from rivers or the sea is classified as low by the EA i.e. Flood Zone 1, and not considered a critical drainage area by the Local Planning Authority or the EA, the main flood risk issue to consider is the management of surface water run-off. Drainage from new development must not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere.

For critical drainage areas less than 1 ha the following list sets out information that should be submitted as a FRA for developments covered by FRA Guidance Note 1:

Plans

• A location plan that includes geographical features, street names and identifies the catchment, watercourses or other bodies of water in the vicinity; and,

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• A plan of the site showing: i. existing site; ii. development proposals; and iii. identification of any structures (e.g. embankments), which may influence local flood flow overland or in any watercourses (e.g. culverts) present on the site.

Surveys

• Site levels - both existing and proposed. Reference to Ordnance Datum may be required where details of the context of the site to its surroundings are needed.

Assessments

• Proposals for surface water management that aims to not increase, and where practicable reduce the rate of runoff from the site as a result of the development (in accordance with the sustainable drainage principles, as outlined above, and the Local Planning Authority’s published SFRA); • Information about the surface water disposal measures already in place and their state of maintenance; • An assessment of the volume of water run-off likely to be generated from the proposed development; • Allowance in design for how the increased frequency and intensity of rainfall that is predicted as a result of climate change will affect the proposal; • Information about other potential sources of flooding, if any, that may affect the site e.g. streams, surface water run-off, sewers, groundwater, reservoirs, canals and other artificial sources or any combination of these; including details on how these sources of flooding will be managed safely within the development proposal; and, • Confirmation as to whether Environment Agency consent is needed for any aspect of the work, and whether this has been applied for or not.

Assessment of Significance

Table 7.2 provides guidance on the magnitude criteria for potential impacts, with some examples. The magnitude of the potential impact is completely independent of the value of the attribute affected and therefore gives no indication of significance when considered alone.

TABLE 7.2 – CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IMPACT MAGNITUDE Magnitude Criteria Example • Major Results in loss of attribute loss of EC designated Salmonid fishery • change in GQA grade of river reach • compromise employment source • loss of flood storage/increased flood risk • pollution of potable source of abstraction • Moderate Results in impact on loss in productivity of a fishery • contribution of a significant integrity of attribute or loss of part of attribute proportion of the effluent in the receiving river, but insufficient to change its GQA grade

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-6 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.2 – CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IMPACT MAGNITUDE Magnitude Criteria Example • reduction in the economic value of the feature • Minor Results in minor impact on measurable changes in attribute, attribute but of limited size and/or proportion • Negligible Results in an impact on discharges to watercourse but no significant loss in quality, fishery attribute but of insufficient magnitude to affect the productivity or biodiversity use/integrity • no significant impact on the economic value of the feature • no increase in flood risk

Table 7.3 provides guidance for estimating the importance of an attribute based on criteria such as quality, scale, rarity and substitutability.

TABLE 7.3 – GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES Importance Criteria Example Very High attribute with a high quality Aquifer providing potable water to a large and rarity, regional or population EC designated Salmonid national scale and limited fishery potential for substitution

High attribute with a high quality GQA Grade A reach of river aquifer and rarity, local scale and providing potable water to a small limited potential for population EC designated Cyprinid fishery substitution, attribute with a

medium quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution

Medium Attribute with a medium GQA Grade B / C reach or river Aquifer quality and rarity, local scale providing abstraction water for agricultural and limited potential for or industrial use substitution, attribute with a

low quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution

Low attribute with a low quality Floodplain with limited existing and rarity, local scale and development limited potential for

substitution

The significance of a potential impact is estimated by its magnitude (Table 7.2) and the importance (Table 7.3) of the affected attribute. Table 7.4 provides guidance for determining the significance of a potential impact based on its magnitude and the importance of the attribute.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-7 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.4 – CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Importance of attribute Magnitude of Impact Very High High Medium Low

Major Very Highly Significant Low Significant Significant Significance

Moderate Highly Significant Low Insignificant Significant Significance

Minor Significant Low Insignificant Insignificant Significance

Negligible Low Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Significance

Where the predicted potential impact is highly uncertain as a result of lack of information or insufficient design details, this should be considered as part of the appraisal. If a more significant, but less probable impact is identified, then this may warrant a higher classification to take account of the potential for a more significant impact. Uncertainty will require the use of best judgement by the appraiser, based on the relative probability of the possible outcomes and their significance.

Appraisal of the Potential Impacts of the Proposal on Valuable Attributes

Some indicative criteria are presented below to assist in appraisal. The qualitative comments box in Table 7.5 should be used to provide further information on the basis for reaching the assessment score for that option.

• Significant Positive Contribution - where the proposal may result in a positive impact on the water environment, because it either:

− supports the water relevant objectives which apply to the study area; or − has mixed positive and negative impacts, but the positive impacts are much more significant than the negative impacts (this requires judgement and should be justified in the qualitative comments box);

• Significant Negative Contribution - where the proposal may result in a negative impact on the water environment, because it either:

− contradicts the relevant objectives which apply to the study area; or − has mixed positive and negative impacts, but the negative impacts are much more significant than the positive impacts (this requires judgement and should be justified in the qualitative comments box);

• Mixed Contribution - this score should be used where the project has positive and negative impacts, which cannot be considered insignificant, but which do not clearly indicate that the overall impact will be significantly positive or negative; and,

• Insignificant Contribution - where the project has no significant impacts on water related objectives for the study area.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-8 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.5 – WATER ENVIRONMENT – DEFINITIONS OF OVERALL ASSESSMENT SCORES Score Comment Large Beneficial Impact It is extremely unlikely that the proposed CBM gas development would fit into this category. However a proposal could have a large positive impact if it is predicted that it would result in a very or highly significant improvement to a water attribute(s), with insignificant adverse impacts on other water attributes.

Moderate Beneficial Where the proposed CBM gas development provides an Impact opportunity to enhance the water environment, because it results in predicted: • significant improvements for at least one water attribute, with insignificant adverse impacts on other attributes;

• very or highly significant improvements, but with some adverse impacts of a much lower significance.

The predicted improvements achieved by the proposal should greatly outweigh any potential negative impacts.

Slight Beneficial Impact Where the proposed CBM gas development provides an opportunity to enhance the water environment, because it provides improvements in water attributes which are of greater significance than the adverse effects.

Neutral Where the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is neutral, because:

• it has no appreciable effect, either positive or negative, on the identified attributes;

• the proposal would result in a combination of effects, some positive and some negative, which balance to give an overall neutral impact. In most cases these will be slight or moderate positive and negative impacts. It may be possible to balance impacts of greater significance, however, in these cases great care will be required to ensure that the impacts are comparable in terms of their potential environmental impacts and the perception of these impacts.

Slight Adverse Impacts Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a degradation of the water environment, because the predicted adverse impacts are of greater significance than the predicted improvements.

Moderate Adverse Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a Impacts degradation of the water environment, because it results in predicted:

• significant adverse impacts on at least one attribute, with insignificant predicted improvements to other attributes;

• very or highly significant adverse impacts, but with some improvements which are of a much lower significance and are insufficient positive impacts to offset the negative impacts of the proposal.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-9 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.5 – WATER ENVIRONMENT – DEFINITIONS OF OVERALL ASSESSMENT SCORES Score Comment Large Adverse Impact Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a degradation of the water environment, because it results in predicted:

• highly significant adverse impacts on a water attribute;

• significant adverse impacts on several water attributes.

Very Large Adverse Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a Impact degradation of the water environment because it results in predicted:

• very significant adverse impacts on at least one water attribute;

• highly significant adverse impacts on several water attributes.

7.5 Baseline Conditions

Fieldwork

The site is currently a grass field. A two metre high brick wall bounds the north- eastern perimeter of the site and a one metre high wire fence with wooden posts separates the south-eastern boundary of the site from an orchard planted with young fruit trees, many of which are under 3 m height. Soft ground was identified at this boundary and surface water was noted immediately offsite in the orchard.

A constructed wetland is located adjacent to the north-western corner of the site and the sites’ main drainage pipe is understood to run at an angle close to the brick wall. ‘Main 14 ft’ was painted on the wall adjoining the site and a one metre deep excavation was identified 150m south-east of the boundary of the site – within the footprint of an electricity pylon. Surface water in this excavation was noted to trickle to the south-east toward the receiving M6 Motorway drainage system. Debris next to the excavation indicated that this outfall is from the main drainage pipe and that this pipe takes the form of a 150mm diameter socketed 'salt-glaze' clayware sewer pipe.

The nearest watercourse is the River Trent approximately 2km east of the boundary of the site.

Desk Study

A summary of the potential sources of flooding and a review of the potential risk posed by each source at the site is presented in Table 7.6.

TABLE 7.6 – POTENTIAL RISK POSED BY FLOODING SOURCES Potential Flood Risk at proposed CBM Potential Source Data Source gas development site Flooding from rivers with a 1% (1 in 100) or No greater chance of EA happening each year

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-10 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 7.6 – POTENTIAL RISK POSED BY FLOODING SOURCES Potential Flood Risk at proposed CBM Potential Source Data Source gas development site Flooding from the sea with a 0.5% (1 in 200) or greater No EA chance of happening each year Extreme flooding with a 0.1% (1 in 1000) or No greater chance of EA happening each year Flooding from land No See Analysis below

Flooding from No See Desk Study below groundwater Flooding from sewers No See Analysis below Flooding from reservoirs, canals and No See Analysis below other artificial sources

General information used to calculate stormwater storage volumes for the CBM gas development is presented in Appendix 3. A conservative approach was adopted when determining the rain acceptance potential of soil at the site i.e. soil type 4. According to the WRAP classification scheme10 these soils have low winter rain acceptance potential.

Additional measures of attribute quality obtained from the EA for the site and its catchment area were:

• There are 2 EA observation boreholes approximately 3km south of the site at 109 and 126 mAOD. Measurements recorded the water level to be 29 and 54 mbgl respectively. Due to the heterogeneous nature of most aquifers, the water level and aquifer hydraulic properties at the site may be very different from those observed south-west of the site; • North Staffs Environment Management Team have no records of substantial pollution incidents, discharge consents, environmental permits (current or historic) or registered exemptions or remediation/contaminated land issues (Within 1km of the centre of the search area); • Severn Trent Water operate an A1 listed activity (under EPR formally PPC) at Strongford sewage treatment works (ref WP3033LQ). There is no likely affect on the proposal. The Permit was issued in October 2007, there were no previous PPC/EPR permissions at this location prior to this date; and, • The only angling interests in that area is on Black Lake SJ85605039490. This is owned by Mrs Prestwood, Knowl Wall Farm, Beech, Staffs. It is leased by Fenton Private Angling Club which has about 100 members. Fish species include pike, carp, rudd & rainbow trout.

Analysis

Current risk of flooding

A review of the EA’s flood map indicated that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has a ‘low probability’ of flood risk, i.e. a less than 1 in 1000 chance of

10 D.B. Boorman, J.M. Hollist & A. Lilly, 1995. Report No. 126, Hydrology of soil types: a hydrologically-based classification of the soils of the United Kingdom

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-11 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

flooding in any one year.

Sensitivity testing of the Flood Map produced by the Environment Agency, using the 20 per cent from 2025 to 2115 allowance for peak flows, suggests that changes in the extent of inundation are negligible in well-defined floodplains, but can be dramatic in very flat areas. However, changes in the depth of flooding under the same allowance will reduce the return period of a given flood. This means that a site currently located within a lower risk zone (e.g. Zone 2 in Table D.1, Annex D) could in future be re-classified as lying within a higher risk zone (e.g. Zone 3). This in turn could have implications for the type of development that is appropriate according to its vulnerability to flooding (see Table D.2, Annex D). It will therefore be important that developers, their advisors and local authorities refer to the current Flood Map and the SFRA when preparing and considering proposals11.

According to Table D.3 Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone ‘Compatibility’ in PPS25, essential infrastructure as classified in Table D.2 Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification would be appropriate in both Zone 1 and Zone 2.

SFRA information was viewed on Stafford Borough Council’s online mapping page12. This identified the site to be located in a Flood Watch Area encompassing the Stoke on Trent and Ashbourne Area including Newcastle under Lyme, Leek and Stone.

All Water Companies have a statutory obligation to maintain a register of properties/areas which are at risk of flooding from the public sewerage system, and this is shown on the DG5 Flood Register. This includes records of flooding from foul sewers, combined sewers and surface water sewers which are deemed to be public and therefore maintained by the Water Company. Flooding from land drainage, highway drainage, rivers/watercourses and private sewers is not recorded within the register.

Within the Stafford Borough Council area there are 17 postcode areas identified as at risk of flooding from artificial drainage systems and surface water runoff. The site is located in one of these areas (ST4 8). The Environment Agency has asked that, should development take place in these areas, further work should be carried out to investigate the nature and scale of the risk posed, so that mitigation can be put in place and the areas can be targeted through appropriate policies for reducing flood risk.

There are three canals located within Stafford Borough Council: the Shropshire Union Canal which runs across the south-west of the Borough, the Trent and Mersey Canal which cuts across the northeast of the Borough and the Staffordshire and Worcester Canal which runs through Stafford. It is important, that any development proposed adjacent to a canal be investigated on an individual basis regarding flooding issues and should be considered as part of any FRA. The proposed CBM gas development is approximately 3km west of the Trent and Mersey Canal.

Reservoirs with an impounded volume in excess of 25,000 cubic metres (measured above natural ground level) are governed by the Reservoirs Act 1975 and are listed on a register held by the Environment Agency. Due to high standards of inspection and maintenance required by legislation, normally flood risk from registered reservoirs is moderately low. The proposed CBM gas development is approximately 0.15km and 1km west of 2 bodies of water in Stafford Borough Council identified by

11 Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) Crown Copyright 2006. Development and Flood Risk 12 http://stafford.addresscafe.com/stafford_floodrisk.aspx

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-12 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

the Environment Agency as falling under the Reservoirs Act 1975 i.e. Black Lake, Knowle Wall Farm and Trentham Gardens Lake respectively. However, both these water bodies are located at the other side of the M6 Motorway. 24 Existing surface water storage and conveyance

Information collected during the desk study indicated that the site is an area where the Local Planning Authority has identified drainage problems through a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

A location plan that includes geographical features, street names and shows the watercourses or other bodies of water in the vicinity is provided in Figure 4.2.

Site levels - existing and proposed - referenced to Ordnance Datum are provided in Figure 7.1.

Proposed design for stormwater storage

The main flood risk and water quality issue to consider is the management of surface water run-off. Drainage from the development must not increase flood risk either on- site or elsewhere and must not result in potentially unacceptable risks either on-site or elsewhere.

The rate of runoff from the site to the receiving Motorway drainage system would be attenuated by a network of perimeter ditches and a v-shaped channel and limited to similar rates of maximum discharge as to that which took place before the site was developed (Greenfield runoff rate) by connection to the sites’ existing main drainage pipe.

Preliminary sizing of existing stormwater storage volumes has been undertaken with reference to EA R&D Technical Report W5-074/A.

Worksheets ASV1 to ASV4 in EA R&D Technical Report W5-074/A have been used to estimate stormwater Attenuation Storage Volumes. Three values are determined which represent the 1 year, 30 year and 100 year storage requirements together with their respective limits of peak discharge to the receiving water. Worksheets TV and LTV EA R&D Technical Report W5-074/A have been used to Long Term and Treatment Storage Volume requirements respectively (Appendix 3).

Based on a 100 yr peak discharge rate of runoff per unit area of 7.56 l/s/ha for the site, initial sizing of Attenuation Storage Volume indicates a storage requirement of 173 m3 for the site and 9 m3 for the access road.

A plan showing the existing site, development proposals and any structures (e.g. embankments), which may influence local flood flow overland or in any watercourses (e.g. culverts) present on the site is shown in Figure 7.2.

7.6 Impact Assessment

Surface Water Drainage

Site Preparation Phase

When calculating stormwater Attenuation Storage Volumes a conservative approach was adopted when determining the rain acceptance potential of soil at the site i.e. soil type 4. Cranfield University’s 1:250,000, simplified soil dataset for England and

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-13 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Wales13 also indicates that the soil in this location is slightly acid loamy and clayey with impeded drainage. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

Drilling Phase

Compacted hardcore over a geotextile separator would be used to form the surface of the CBM gas development. This would allow some surface water to drain through to the underlying soils but an increase in surface run-off is expected. This additional volume of runoff would be attenuated by the proposed network of perimeter ditches. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

The runoff rate would be minimised to that which took place before the site was developed (Greenfield runoff rate) by the perimeter ditches, v-shaped channel and the main drainage pipe as detailed above. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is also considered neutral.

Production Phase

During the production phase the site compound would remain largely as for the drilling phase, only smaller (0.5 ha), with localised concrete chambers. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is again considered neutral.

Capping and Restoration Phase

There would be no residual impacts following capping and restoration of the surrounding landscape as boreholes would be decommissioned in agreement with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Mines (HMI) and the site would be restored to its original condition with original field drainage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Surface Water Quality

Site Preparation Phase

During the site preparation phase, the potential for pollution of surface water may exist depending on spillage/leakage of fuel, hydraulic fluid from excavators and ground conditions encountered. However, the nearest surface drainage feature is the sites’ main drainage pipe and the nearest surface water feature is the River Trent approximately 2km east of the boundary of the site. Nevertheless, the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

Drilling Phase

During the drilling phase, the potential for pollution of the surface water drainage system may exist in the short term due to the spillage/leakage of fuel and spillage of foul water should temporary sanitation facilities be emptied in an unsatisfactory manner. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

13 http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-14 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Production Phase

During the production phase, there is the potential for pollution of the surface water drainage system from the storage and transfer of groundwater abstracted from the gas bearing strata which may be of poor quality compared to local surface waters. However appropriate storage and transport of this groundwater offsite by tanker would limit leakage or spillage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Capping and Restoration Phase

There would be no residual impacts following capping and restoration of the surrounding landscape as boreholes would be decommissioned in agreement with HMI and the site would be restored to its original condition with original field drainage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is also considered neutral.

The potential for pollution of groundwater may exist from spillage or leakage of foul water should temporary sanitation facilities be emptied in an unsatisfactory manner. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

7.7 Mitigation

Where adverse effects have been identified, practical and cost-effective mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

Surface Water Drainage

Site Preparation Phase

This phase would be limited in duration to around six weeks, reducing the potential risk of increased flooding by intense rainfall at a time when the existing drainage may be disrupted, leading to increased volumes of surface runoff. By the end of this phase, proposed site drainage would be in place.

Surface Water Quality

Site Preparation Phase

Spillage and Emergency Procedures would be followed in the event of a pollution incident. The plan would include the provision of appropriate emergency response equipment on-site and staff training in emergency procedures. The Pollution Prevention Guideline, Number 21 – ‘Pollution incident response planning’ would be integrated into any emergency procedures.

Drilling Phase

In accordance with the EA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines, all fuel and chemical storage tanks on site shall have a bunded containment of a minimum of 110% tank capacity. There would be no drainage point from the bunded containment area; tamperproof taps and valves would be installed and all empty containers or drums would be stored within a containment area prior to their removal or disposal from the site.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-15 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Spillage and Emergency Procedures would be followed in the event of a pollution incident. The plan would include the provision of appropriate emergency response equipment on-site and staff training in emergency procedures. The Pollution Prevention Guideline, Number 21 – ‘Pollution incident response planning’ would be integrated into any emergency procedures.

Sewage from temporary sanitation facilities would be stored in sealed tanks and emptied at regular intervals by licensed service providers.

Capping and Restoration Phase

Sewage from temporary sanitation facilities would be stored in sealed tanks and emptied at regular intervals by licensed service providers.

7.8 Statement of Significance

The assessment considered the impact of the CBM gas development on the hydrology of the Knowl Wall Farm site and its catchment area.

Other than recommendations to mitigate the short term potential for pollution of surface water due to the temporary use of fuels, excavators, sanitation facilities and ground conditions encountered, the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is considered neutral because there are no appreciable effects identified, either positive or negative, on the environmental attributes identified in this chapter.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 7-16 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

8. Hydrogeology and Land Contamination

8.1 Summary

This chapter assessed the effects of the CBM gas development upon hydrogeological conditions and future site use within the Knowl Wall Farm site and its catchment area.

The aim of this chapter was to address the following issues:

• risk of pollution to groundwater • risk of over abstraction of groundwater; and, • potentially unacceptable risks to future site users.

The site is currently a grass field and is situated on the Wildmoor Sandstone Formation, which is designated a Major Aquifer by the Environment Agency (EA). This aquifer is overlain by slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage and separated from the Coal Measures by strata of the Barren Measures.

A private water supply (dolphin springs) is located 300m south-west of the centre of the site and abstraction points seen on the map provided by the Environment Agency show abstraction licence referenced 03/28/01/0233. This licence is located at Toft Farm, Henchurch, is for General Agriculture (spray irrigation purposes) and licensed quantities are: 37000m³/year; 600m³/day.

There are 2 EA observation boreholes approximately 3km south of the site at 109 and 126 mAOD. Measurements record the water level to be 29 and 54 mbgl respectively. Due to the heterogeneous nature of most aquifers, the water level and aquifer hydraulic properties at the site may be very different from those observed south of the site.

Coal seams in direct contact with thick, highly permeable aquifers would not release CBM gas due to hydrostatic pressure exerted. However, the prevalence of faulting and the lateral impersistence of sandstones in the Coal Measures affect the interconnectivity of aquifers and can significantly reduce yields. Furthermore, Coal Measures mudstones are normally highly impermeable and fractures will tend to seal due to the natural swelling properties of clay minerals.

Other than recommendations to mitigate the short term potential for pollution of groundwater, ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of organic substances and inhalation of radon by future site users, the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is considered neutral because there are no appreciable effects identified, either positive or negative, on the environmental attributes identified in this chapter.

As the CBM gas development has no significant impacts on groundwater and future site use related objectives for the study area, it is concluded the proposal has an insignificant impact on identified valuable attributes within the site and its catchment area.

8.2 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to address the following issues:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• risk of pollution to groundwater • risk of over abstraction of groundwater; and, • potentially unacceptable risks to future site users.

Therefore, the key objective of this chapter is to determine:

• the significance of any potential impact based on its magnitude and the importance of the receptors’ attributes.

8.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

This chapter has been produced with reference to the following legislation, polices and guidance:

• The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (WFD), and Controlled Waters (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003; • Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995; • The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations, 2006 (SI 1380/2006), The Stationary Office Limited; • Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23). Planning and Pollution Control. PPS23 is intended to complement the pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000; • Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10). Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. PPS10 sets out the Government's policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the national waste management plan for the UK; • DEFRA, 2008, Guidance on the Legal Definition of Contaminated Land; • DEFRA, Circular 1/2006, Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land; • DEFRA, 2004 Model Procedures for Management of Land Contamination (CLR11); • British Standard, Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of practice, BS10175:2001; • Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures – A Consultation Paper; • Department of Transport, 2003. The Water Environment Sub-Objective; • Environment Agency 2008, managing all our water needs. Abstracting water, A guide to getting your license; • Environment Agency, 2007, water abstraction getting the balance right. Staffordshire and Trent Valley Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy; • CIRIA C665, 2007. Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings; • http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/; and, • http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733 769641

8.4 Methodology

Fieldwork

A site walkover was undertaken on the 20th May 2009 to determine current land use, setting and site condition.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Desk Study

Specific environmental information regarding the history and condition of the site and its catchment area was obtained from Stafford Borough Council’s Environmental Protection Department.

Reference was also made to the Staffordshire and Trent Valley Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) for locally specific guidance and information.

Lastly, the EA was consulted concerning water features, their attributes and indicators of quality within the site and its catchment area (Table 8.1)

TABLE 8.1 – WATER FEATURES, THEIR ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Feature Attribute/Service Indicator of Possible Measure quality • River Water Supply Use for water Location and number of supply (potable, abstraction points

industrial or • Volume of water agricultural) abstracted • Use of water (potable most important) • Chemical water Existing chemical GQA quality grade (A/B=good, C/D=fair, and E=poor, F=bad) • Likelihood of a change in grade arising (+ve or -ve) • Transport and Presence of Location and number of dilution of waste surface water discharge points products discharge points • Volume of effluent discharged • Contribution of Proportion of flow made up discharges to by effluent at different total river flow times of the year • Biodiversity Biological water Existing chemical GQA quality grade (A/B=good, C/D=fair, and E=poor, F=bad) • Likelihood of a change in grade arising (+ve or -ve) • Fisheries quality EC Fishery designation (Salmonid, Cyprinid or undesignated) • Recreation Riverside access Presence of route and importance (i.e. is it a nation or strategic route, such as the Thames Path) • Use of river for Presence of facilities and recreation clubs for using the river environment • Use for angling (number of clubs / membership)

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.1 – WATER FEATURES, THEIR ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Feature Attribute/Service Indicator of Possible Measure quality • Value to Value of the uses Value to local economy economy of the river (e.g. (e.g. employment, relative commercial property prices, cost of fishing, alternatives, etc.) abstractions, discharges, navigation, leisure and riverside development land) • Conveyance of Presence of Number and size of flow and material watercourses watercourses • Existing flood risk

• Floodplain Conveyance of Presence of Number and size of flood flows floodplain watercourses • Existing flood risk • Flood flow routes Location / importance of flood flow routes • Groundwater Water Supply Use for water Location and number of abstraction points supply (potable, industrial or • Volume of water agricultural) abstracted • Use of water (potable most important) • Groundwater Location and grade of vulnerability source protection zone • Classification of aquifer vulnerability • Transport and Presence of Location and number of dilution of waste discharge points discharge points products • Volume of effluent discharged • Value to Value of the uses Value to local economy economy of the (e.g. employment, cost of groundwater (e.g. alternatives, etc.) abstractions and discharges) • Conveyance of Flow routes Location and importance of flood flows flow routes • Groundwater Changes in levels and levels recharge • Sea and Water Supply Use for water Location and number of Estuaries supply abstraction points • Volume of water abstracted • Transport and Presence of Location and number of dilution of waste discharge points discharge points products • Volume of effluent discharged

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.1 – WATER FEATURES, THEIR ATTRIBUTES AND INDICATORS OF QUALITY Feature Attribute/Service Indicator of Possible Measure quality • Biodiversity Water quality Chemical and biological quality (data availability will be variable) • Fisheries quality Results of surveys etc (numbers / biomass of species and individuals) • Invertebrate Results of surveys etc populations (numbers / biomass of species and individuals) • Recreation Bathing beaches Compliance with EC water bathing standards • Other recreation Presence of facilities and uses clubs • Use for angling (number of clubs / membership) • Value to Value of the uses Value to local economy economy of the (e.g. employment, relative sea/estuary (e.g. property prices, cost of commercial alternatives, etc.) fishing, abstractions, discharges, navigation, leisure and waterside development land) • Stillwaters Biodiversity Fisheries quality Results of surveys etc (Lakes and (numbers / biomass of Ponds) species and individuals) • Results of surveys etc Invertebrate populations (numbers / biomass of species and individuals) • Recreation Use of stillwater Presence of facilities and for recreation clubs for using lake/pond • Use for angling (number of clubs / membership)

Analysis

The potential for pollution of groundwater, over abstraction of groundwater and unacceptable risks to future site users has initially been assessed against the framework for qualitative risk assessment provided in CIRIA publication C665. ‘The method requires an assessment of:

• the magnitude of the probability or likelihood of risk occur (Table 8.1)’; and, • ‘the magnitude of the potential consequence or severity of the risk occurring (Table 8.2)’.

The combination of the two factors is determined using Table 8.3 and the resulting level of risk is described in Table 8.4. The evaluation can be applied to each of the scenarios identified in the risk model and the overall risk assessed. Justification should be provided for all the inputs so that regulators can easily check the model’.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Assessment of Significance

Table 8.2 provides guidance on the magnitude criteria for potential impacts, with some examples. The magnitude of the potential impact is completely independent of the value of the attribute affected and therefore gives no indication of significance when considered alone.

TABLE 8.2 – CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IMPACT MAGNITUDE Magnitude Criteria Example • Major Results in loss of attribute loss of EC designated Salmonid fishery • change in GQA grade of river reach • compromise employment source • loss of flood storage/increased flood risk • pollution of potable source of abstraction • Moderate Results in impact on loss in productivity of a fishery • contribution of a significant integrity of attribute or loss of part of attribute proportion of the effluent in the receiving river, but insufficient to change its GQA grade • reduction in the economic value of the feature • Minor Results in minor impact on measurable changes in attribute, attribute but of limited size and/or proportion • Negligible Results in an impact on discharges to watercourse but no significant loss in quality, fishery attribute but of insufficient magnitude to affect the productivity or biodiversity use/integrity • no significant impact on the economic value of the feature • no increase in flood risk

Table 8.3 provides guidance for estimating the importance of an attribute based on criteria such as quality, scale, rarity and substitutability.

TABLE 8.3 – GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES Importance Criteria Example Very High attribute with a high quality Aquifer providing potable water to a large and rarity, regional or population EC designated Salmonid national scale and limited fishery potential for substitution

High attribute with a high quality GQA Grade A reach of river aquifer and rarity, local scale and providing potable water to a small limited potential for population EC designated Cyprinid fishery substitution, attribute with a

medium quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-6 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.3 – GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES Importance Criteria Example Medium Attribute with a medium GQA Grade B / C reach or river Aquifer quality and rarity, local scale providing abstraction water for agricultural and limited potential for or industrial use substitution, attribute with a

low quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution

Low attribute with a low quality Floodplain with limited existing and rarity, local scale and development limited potential for

substitution

The significance of a potential impact is estimated by its magnitude (Table 8.2) and the importance (Table 8.3) of the affected attribute. Table 8.4 provides guidance for determining the significance of a potential impact based on its magnitude and the importance of the attribute.

TABLE 8.4 – CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Importance of attribute Magnitude of Impact Very High High Medium Low

Major Very Highly Significant Low Significant Significant Significance

Moderate Highly Significant Low Insignificant Significant Significance

Minor Significant Low Insignificant Insignificant Significance

Negligible Low Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Significance

Where the predicted potential impact is highly uncertain as a result of lack of information or insufficient design details, this should be considered as part of the appraisal. If a more significant, but less probable impact is identified, then this may warrant a higher classification to take account of the potential for a more significant impact. Uncertainty will require the use of best judgement by the appraiser, based on the relative probability of the possible outcomes and their significance.

Appraisal of the Potential Impacts of the Proposal on Valuable Attributes

Some indicative criteria are presented below to assist in appraisal. The qualitative comments box in Table 8.5 should be used to provide further information on the basis for reaching the assessment score for that option.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-7 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• Significant Positive Contribution - where the proposal may result in a positive impact on the water environment, because it either:

− supports the water relevant objectives which apply to the study area; or − has mixed positive and negative impacts, but the positive impacts are much more significant than the negative impacts (this requires judgement and should be justified in the qualitative comments box);

• Significant Negative Contribution - where the proposal may result in a negative impact on the water environment, because it either:

− contradicts the relevant objectives which apply to the study area; or − has mixed positive and negative impacts, but the negative impacts are much more significant than the positive impacts (this requires judgement and should be justified in the qualitative comments box);

• Mixed Contribution - this score should be used where the project has positive and negative impacts, which cannot be considered insignificant, but which do not clearly indicate that the overall impact will be significantly positive or negative; and,

• Insignificant Contribution - where the project has no significant impacts on water related objectives for the study area.

TABLE 8.5 – WATER ENVIRONMENT – DEFINITIONS OF OVERALL ASSESSMENT SCORES Score Comment Large Beneficial Impact It is extremely unlikely that the proposed CBM gas development would fit into this category. However a proposal could have a large positive impact if it is predicted that it would result in a very or highly significant improvement to a water attribute(s), with insignificant adverse impacts on other water attributes.

Moderate Beneficial Where the proposed CBM gas development provides an Impact opportunity to enhance the water environment, because it results in predicted: • significant improvements for at least one water attribute, with insignificant adverse impacts on other attributes;

• very or highly significant improvements, but with some adverse impacts of a much lower significance.

The predicted improvements achieved by the proposal should greatly outweigh any potential negative impacts.

Slight Beneficial Impact Where the proposed CBM gas development provides an opportunity to enhance the water environment, because it provides improvements in water attributes which are of greater significance than the adverse effects.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-8 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.5 – WATER ENVIRONMENT – DEFINITIONS OF OVERALL ASSESSMENT SCORES Score Comment Neutral Where the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is neutral, because:

• it has no appreciable effect, either positive or negative, on the identified attributes;

• the proposal would result in a combination of effects, some positive and some negative, which balance to give an overall neutral impact. In most cases these will be slight or moderate positive and negative impacts. It may be possible to balance impacts of greater significance, however, in these cases great care will be required to ensure that the impacts are comparable in terms of their potential environmental impacts and the perception of these impacts.

Slight Adverse Impacts Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a degradation of the water environment, because the predicted adverse impacts are of greater significance than the predicted improvements.

Moderate Adverse Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a Impacts degradation of the water environment, because it results in predicted:

• significant adverse impacts on at least one attribute, with insignificant predicted improvements to other attributes;

• very or highly significant adverse impacts, but with some improvements which are of a much lower significance and are insufficient positive impacts to offset the negative impacts of the proposal.

Large Adverse Impact Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a degradation of the water environment, because it results in predicted:

• highly significant adverse impacts on a water attribute;

• significant adverse impacts on several water attributes.

Very Large Adverse Where the proposed CBM gas development may result in a Impact degradation of the water environment because it results in predicted:

• very significant adverse impacts on at least one water attribute;

• highly significant adverse impacts on several water attributes.

8.5 Baseline Conditions

Fieldwork

The site is currently a grass field. A two metre high brick wall bounds the north- eastern perimeter of the site and a one metre high wire fence with wooden posts separates the south-eastern boundary of the site from an orchard planted with young

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-9 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

fruit trees, many of which are under 3 m height. Soft ground was identified at this boundary and surface water was noted immediately offsite in the orchard.

A constructed wetland is located adjacent to the north-western corner of the site and the sites’ main drainage pipe is understood to run at an angle close to the brick wall. ‘Main 14 ft’ was painted on the wall adjoining the site and a one metre deep excavation was identified 150m south-east of the boundary of the site – within the footprint of an electricity pylon. Surface water in this excavation was noted to trickle to the south-east toward the receiving M6 Motorway drainage system. Debris next to the excavation indicated that this outfall is from the main drainage pipe and that this pipe takes the form of a 150mm diameter socketed 'salt-glaze' clayware sewer pipe.

The nearest watercourse is the River Trent approximately 2km east of the boundary of the site.

Desk Study

A summary of information sources gathered on the history and condition of the site and its catchment area from an environmental point of view is presented in Table 8.6.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-10 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.6 – SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SOURCES Topic Possible Measures of Attribute Quality Data Source Slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded http://www.landis.org.uk/ Soil drainage. soilscapes/ The geology of Stafford Borough consists predominantly of sedimentary rocks and is represented by three major geological periods. The oldest rocks are from the Carboniferous period, followed by rocks from the Permian and finally the younger Triassic rocks. The Carboniferous rock sequences make up approximately 82% of the geology in the Borough, with the River Sow catchment draining a predominantly Carboniferous landscape. The Sow also drains the chalk escarpment of Cannock Chase (to the south-east of the Borough) which is highly permeable in nature. This, coupled with the moderately permeable Carboniferous landscape EA, Staffordshire and of the Sow catchment contributes to a slower Trent Valley runoff response to rainfall. The remainder of the Catchment Abstraction underlying geology within the Borough consists of Management Strategy Mercia Mudstones, argillaceous clay-like rocks, & British Geological sandstones and conglomerates. The Mercia Survey (BGS). 1994. Mudstones have high clay content and are less Stoke on Trent. permeable in comparison to the Carboniferous England and Wales landscape of the Sow catchment. Bedrock and Sheet 123, Solid and

superficial geology Drift Geology. 1:50 Drift deposits of Till are found at the south- 000. (Keyworth, western and eastern extents of the Borough. Till Nottingham: British is sediment that is deposited by glaciers and Geological Survey) & made up of clay, detritus that is indicative of the British Coal underlying argillaceous clay-rich rocks. Alluvium Corporation July 1992 and river terrace deposits of clay, silt and sand Strawberry Fields are also found within the Borough along the Borehole (385281, courses of the Meece Brook, River Sow and River 339530). Trent.

The BGS Map confirmed the presence of Till, Lower Triassic Sandstones and Coal Measures of Carboniferous Age. A fault is located approximately adjacent to the western boundary of Knowl Wall Farm, with the site located on the downthrown side.

Geophysical Logs were used in the interpretation of Strawberry Fields Borehole data as the hole was uncored. Strata of the Barren Measures conformably overlie the Coal Measures between approximately 91mbgl and 339mbgl.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-11 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.6 – SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SOURCES Topic Possible Measures of Attribute Quality Data Source According to the relevant published British Geological Survey (BGS) Map 123 Stoke Sheet (Solid and Drift), 1:50 000 Scale, the site is shown to be underlain by the Wildmoor Sandstone Formation, which is designated a Major Aquifer by the Environment Agency.

There are 2 EA observation boreholes approximately 3km south of the site at 109 and 126 mAOD. Measurements recorded the water level to be 29 and 54 mbgl respectively. Due to the heterogeneous nature of most aquifers, the water level and aquifer hydraulic properties at the site may be very different from those observed south-west of the site.

EA & Map 8 of the Groundwater flow in this area is likely to be Staffordshire and towards a tertiary river shown approximately Hydrogeology Trent Valley 200m East, at Black Lake. Catchment Abstraction

Management Strategy The Triassic Sherwood Sandstone aquifer forms the only major aquifer within the Staffordshire Trent Valley CAMS catchment. The aquifer is heavily licensed in many places, particularly for public water supply.

The site is located in the Tittensor Groundwater Management Unit (GWMU).

The water resource availability status of this GWMU is ‘over abstracted’.

‘The strategy for this GWMU is to remain closed to further abstraction. This means that for new licences there is no water available for abstraction from these GWMUs’. Proposed compacted hardcore indicates surface Hydrological Regime Figure 7.2 run-off can be expected. The site is located within the Upper and Lower EA & Map 4 of the Trent Water Resource Management Unit Staffordshire and Surface Hydrology (WRMU). This CAMS document states that the Trent Valley water resource availability status of this WRMU is Catchment Abstraction ‘no water available at low flows’. Management Strategy Groundwater abstraction points seen on the map provided by the Environment Agency (Figure 8.1) show abstraction licence referenced 03/28/01/0233. This licence is located at Toft Public Water Farm, Henchurch and is for General Agriculture – Supplies EA spray irrigation purposes.

Licensed quantities are: 37000m³/year; 600m³/day.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-12 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.6 – SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SOURCES Topic Possible Measures of Attribute Quality Data Source A spring is located 300m south-west of the centre of the site.

In 1991 the farm applied for permission for a borehole.

In 1994 the private water supply to the farm and associated buildings was found to be bacterially contaminated.

The site and nearby residences continue to be Private Water Stafford Borough supplied from a private water supply. Supplies Council Environmental Health Department With regard to the properties served by the private water supply (dolphin springs) they are as follows:

Knowle Wall Farm 8532 3928 Nursery Cottage 8526 3935 Spring Cottage 8517 3926 Glenrose 8516 3925 Beech Cliffe Farm 8578 3884 The Bungalow, Beech Cliffe Farm. 8585 3875 Groundwater abstraction points seen on the map provided by the Environment Agency (Figure 8.1) show abstraction licence referenced Industrial and 03/28/01/0233. This licence is located at Toft Agricultural Farm, Henchurch and is for General Agriculture – EA Abstractions spray irrigation purposes.

Licensed quantities are: 37000m³/year; 600m³/day. North Staffs Environment Management Team have no records of:

Discharges EA • Discharge consents

(Within 1km of the centre of the search area). Our site inspector comments as follows:

A PPC site appears to be approximately 1.5Km from the proposal. Severn Trent Water operate an A1 listed activity (under EPR formally PPC) at Strongford sewage treatment works (ref WP3033LQ). There is no likely affect on the Wastewater proposal. Infrastructure EA

The Permit was issued in October 2007, there were no previous PPC/EPR permissions at this location prior to this date.

The EA does not have any records of any previous authorisations or permits in the area.

Water Quality – - Surface Water EA

The Environment Agency monitors water quality Water Quality – at the Agricultural abstraction mentioned above. EA Groundwater The water quality results were taken on the 24/09/2008 at 13:10. The only angling interests in that area is on Black Lake SJ85605039490. This is owned by Mrs Fisheries and Prestwood, Knowl Wall Farm, Beech, Staffs. It is EA Recreation leased by Fenton Private Angling Club which has about 100 members. Fish species include Pike, Carp, Rudd & Rainbow Trout.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-13 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 8.6 – SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SOURCES Topic Possible Measures of Attribute Quality Data Source There is historical map evidence that some of the uses of the site may have included intensive agricultural activities such as poultry farming.

The areas around Beech are affected by Radon (See Analysis below).

North Staffs Environment Management Team Stafford Borough Land Contamination have no records of: Council Environmental Health Department & EA • Substantiated pollution incidents • Environmental permits (current or historic) or registered exemptions • Remediation or contaminated land issues

(Within 1km of the centre of the search area).

Analysis

The potential for pollution of groundwater could result from spillage/leakage of fuel, hydraulic fluid and foul water (should temporary sanitation facilities be emptied in an unsatisfactory manner), ground conditions encountered and creation of hydraulic fractures and cross aquifer contamination during borehole construction. There is also the potential for pollution of groundwater from spillage/leakage of groundwater dewatered from the Coal Measures strata which may be of poor quality compared to local surface waters.

The potential for over abstraction of groundwater could result from water influx during borehole drilling, hydrogeological factors (the response of the system to the abstraction and the importance of that resource to associated surface waters or wetlands) and other factors (e.g. the rate of abstraction or the proximity of other users).

The potential for unacceptable risks to future site users – if present – could result from ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of organic substances and ground gases due to the use of fuels and the potential release of CBM gas.

Radon information was viewed on the Indicative Atlas of Radon in England and Wales14. Interrogation of Map 13 indicated that the site is located in a 1-3% band 1km square that contains affected areas as defined by the Health Protection Agency (HPA). The HPA recommends that people in Affected Areas should test their homes for radon15. Preparation of an Impact Assessment and - where appropriate - Risk Mitigation Measures is required to further clarify risk.

Risk of Pollution to Groundwater – Moderate Risk

In the absence of information regarding mitigation measures and attributes of receptors potentially at risk, pollution of a sensitive water resource is considered likely. Preparation of an Impact Assessment and - where appropriate - Risk Mitigation Measures is, however, required to further clarify risk.

14 J C H Miles, J D Appleton, D M Rees, B M R Green, K A M Adlam and A H Myers, 2007. HPA-RPD-033. Indicative Atlas of Radon in England and Wales (ISBN 978-0-85951-608-2). 15 http://www.ukradon.org/article.php?key=radonaffected

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-14 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Risk of Over Abstraction of Groundwater – Moderate Risk

In the absence of information regarding the mitigation measures and attributes of receptors potentially at risk, it is considered that there is a low likelihood of over abstraction of groundwater. Preparation of an Impact Assessment and - where appropriate - Risk Mitigation Measures is, however, required to further clarify risk.

Risk to Future Site Users – Moderate Risk

In the absence of information regarding the mitigation measures and attributes of receptors potentially at risk, it is considered that there is a low likelihood of short term (acute) risk or longer term chronic risk to human health. Preparation of an Impact Assessment and - where appropriate - Risk Mitigation Measures is, however, required to further clarify risk.

8.6 Impact Assessment

Risk of Pollution

Site Preparation Phase

During the site preparation phase, the potential for pollution of groundwater may exist depending on spillage/leakage of fuel, hydraulic fluid from excavators and ground conditions encountered. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

Drilling Phase

The potential for pollution of groundwater may exist depending on spillage/leakage of fuel and spillage of foul water should temporary sanitation facilities be emptied in an unsatisfactory manner. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

The boreholes are designed to be drilled from the surface to the Coal Measures before being steered to run horizontally through target gas bearing strata. Coring may be undertaken at depth to provide information about the characteristics of the various strata.

Excessive pressure must be avoided during drilling to prevent the creation of hydraulic fractures in the geological formations encountered, which would cause lost circulation fluid. For example, there is the potential for hydraulic fractures in the Triassic Sherwood Sandstone aquifer unless the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid is monitored and adjusted to always stay within the limits imposed by the drilling situation.

The boreholes would be drilled using a circulation fluid that gives hydrostatic pressures in balance with the anticipated formation pressures, mitigating short term pollution of groundwater. Hydrostatic pressure is calculated from mud weight and true vertical depth. Mud weight is the mass per unit volume of a drilling fluid, synonymous with mud density. Mud weight controls hydrostatic pressure in a wellbore. The weight of the mud also prevents collapse of casing and the openhole. Mud weight (density) test procedures using a mud balance have been standardised and published by the American Petroleum Institute (API). The true vertical depth is the vertical depth of the wellbore independent of its path. In the case of a vertical well, measured depth is the same as true vertical depth. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered slight adverse.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-15 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The boreholes would be cased with conductor pipe which would be cemented from the surface and this prevents the sides of the hole from collapsing into the wellbore. The borehole would then be cased throughout to avoid longer term pollution and cross aquifer contamination of groundwater and again this would be cemented to the surface.

The boreholes would finally be lined with casing and cemented above the shallowest coal bed and all CBM horizontal casing would be constructed of HMI approved plastic.

The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Production Phase

The site compound would now be smaller (0.5 ha), with localised concrete chambers.

There is the potential for pollution of groundwater from the spillage and leakage of groundwater abstracted from the gas bearing strata which may be of poor quality compared to local surface waters. However appropriate storage and transport of this groundwater offsite by tanker would limit leakage or spillage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Capping and Restoration Phase

There would be no residual impacts following capping and restoration of the surrounding landscape as boreholes would be decommissioned in agreement with HMI and the site would be restored to its original condition with original field drainage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of CBM gas development is also considered neutral.

The potential for pollution of groundwater may exist from spillage or leakage of foul water should temporary sanitation facilities be emptied in an unsatisfactory manner. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

Risk of Over Abstraction of Groundwater

Site Preparation Phase

During the site preparation phase, the potential for over abstraction of groundwater does not exist. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Drilling Phase

The boreholes are designed to be drilled from the surface to the Coal Measures before being steered to run horizontally through target gas bearing strata. Coring may be undertaken at depth to provide information about the characteristics of the various strata.

Sufficient hydrostatic pressure (mud weight) is necessary to prevent water influx during drilling. As described above, boreholes would be drilled using a circulation fluid that gives hydrostatic pressures in balance with the anticipated geological formation pressures. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-16 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The boreholes would be cased with conductor pipe which would be cemented from the surface and this prevents the sides of the hole from collapsing into the wellbore. During drilling the borehole would be fitted with a Blowout Preventer to control any fluid loss. The borehole would then be cased throughout to avoid water influx and again this would be cemented to the surface.

Finally, the boreholes would finally be lined with casing and cemented above the shallowest coal bed and all CBM horizontal casing would be constructed of HMI approved plastic. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Production Phase

The site compound would be smaller (0.5 ha), with localised concrete chambers.

A useful definition of over-abstraction can be found in SEPA’s Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland16. ‘Over-abstraction of groundwater is where abstraction leads to saltwater or other intrusion in to an aquifer, detrimental impacts to ecosystems which are dependent on groundwater or where abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource’. ‘The impact of abstraction will be dependent on hydrogeological factors (the response of the system to the abstraction and the importance of that resource to associated surface waters or wetlands) and other factors (e.g. the rate of abstraction or the proximity of other users). For a given abstraction, certain environments will be more susceptible than others’.

The site is underlain by the Wildmoor Sandstone Formation, which is designated a Major Aquifer by the Environment Agency, however, separation between the Coal Measures and the major aquifer exists i.e. strata of the Barren Measures.

In order to encourage CBM gas to flow to a well, pumping is carried out to reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the coal seam. CBM gas desorbs from the coal as the pressure is lowered and gas production increases. Coal seams in direct contact with thick, highly permeable aquifers would not release CBM gas due to hydrostatic pressure exerted. However, the prevalence of faulting and the lateral impersistence of sandstones in the Coal Measures affect the interconnectivity of aquifers and can significantly reduce yields17. Furthermore, Coal Measures mudstones are normally highly impermeable and fractures will tend to seal due to the natural swelling properties of clay minerals. There will be exceptions to this, such as very hard shales that have low percentages of swelling clay minerals (mainly illite and montmorillonite), but this reasonably uncommon18. Non-potable water is anticipated in the gas bearing strata.

Lastly, Greenpark operates a database management system for each development which identifies regulatory requirements and impacts of borehole dewatering as they arise.

The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

16 SEPA2003. Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland, Environmental Policy Number 19. 17 In: Brenchley, P.J.; Rawson, P.F., (eds.) The geology of England and Wales. London, England, Geological Society of London, 173-223. 18 Taylor R K 1988, Coal Measures Mudrocks: Composition, Classification and Weathering Processes, Qtly Jnl Eng Geology Vol 21, The Geological Society pp 85-89.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-17 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Capping and Restoration Phase

There would be no residual impacts following capping and restoration of the surrounding landscape as boreholes would be decommissioned in agreement with HMI and the site would be restored to its original condition with original field drainage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Risk to Future Site Users

Site Preparation Phase

The site preparation phase involves the removal of the topsoil which is often stored in a bund around the site and the laying of geo-textile and compacted stone. The cabins for the drilling crew are then brought onto the site.

The site is located in a 1-3% band 1km square that contains affected areas as defined by the HPA. In principle, radon may be prevented from accumulating in premises with particularly high influx of fresh air, but a measurement is still required unless a risk assessment can show that the radon level at a particular location is necessarily low at all times when it is occupied. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered slight adverse.

Drilling Phase

During the drilling phase there is the potential for ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of organic substances. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development could be considered slight adverse.

The boreholes are designed to be drilled from the surface to the Coal Measures before being steered to run horizontally through target gas bearing strata. It is proposed to case boreholes throughout. Coring may be undertaken at depth to provide information about the characteristics of the various strata.

The boreholes would be cased with conductor pipe which would be cemented from the surface and this prevents the sides of the hole from collapsing into the wellbore. During drilling the borehole would be fitted with a Blowout Preventer to control any gas or fluid loss. The borehole would then be cased throughout and again this would be cemented to the surface. The Blowout Preventer would be connected to the casing to act as a diverter following cementing.

Finally, the boreholes would finally be lined with casing and cemented above the shallowest coal bed and all CBM horizontal casing would be constructed of HMI approved plastic. The net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Production Phase

The site compound would be smaller (0.5 ha), with localised concrete chambers.

The site is located in a 1-3% band 1km square that contains affected areas as defined by the HPA. In principle, radon may be prevented from accumulating in premises with particularly high influx of fresh air, but a measurement is still required unless a risk assessment can show that the radon level at a particular location is necessarily low at all times when it is occupied. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered slight adverse.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-18 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Capping and Restoration Phase

There would be no residual impacts following capping and restoration of the surrounding landscape as boreholes would be decommissioned in agreement with HMI and the site would be restored to its original condition with original field drainage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

8.7 Mitigation

Where adverse effects are identified, practical and cost-effective mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

Risk of Pollution

Site Preparation Phase

Spillage and Emergency Procedures would be followed in the event of a pollution incident. The plan would include the provision of appropriate emergency response equipment on-site and staff training in emergency procedures. The Pollution Prevention Guideline, Number 21 – ‘Pollution incident response planning’ would be integrated into any emergency procedures.

Drilling Phase

In accordance with EA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines, all fuel and chemical storage tanks on site shall have a bunded containment of a minimum of 110% tank capacity. There would be no drainage point from the bunded containment area; tamperproof taps and valves would be installed and all empty containers or drums would be stored within a containment area prior to their removal or disposal from the site.

Spillage and Emergency Procedures would be followed in the event of a pollution incident. The plan would include the provision of appropriate emergency response equipment on-site and staff training in emergency procedures. The Pollution Prevention Guideline, Number 21 – ‘Pollution incident response planning’ would be integrated into any emergency procedures.

Sewage from temporary sanitation facilities would be stored in sealed tanks and emptied at regular intervals by licensed service providers.

Lost circulation material would be kept on the site to seal off any loss zone, which is generally a fractured or high-permeability section.

Capping and Restoration Phase

Sewage from temporary sanitation facilities would be stored in sealed tanks and emptied at regular intervals by licensed service providers.

Risk to Future Site Users

Site Preparation Phase

To ensure the drilling crew are not put at risk from radon in spaces where gas would be able to build up, cabins for drilling crew would be installed above ground on structures.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-19 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Drilling Phase

Spillage and Emergency Procedures would be followed in the event of a pollution incident. The plan would include the provision of appropriate emergency response equipment on-site and staff training in emergency procedures. The Pollution Prevention Guideline, Number 21 – ‘Pollution incident response planning’ would be integrated into any emergency procedures.

Production Phase

Employers are required by the Management of Health and Safety Regulations at Work 1999, to assess risks from radon in workplaces in Affected Areas, and this usually requires a measurement of gas concentrations. The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 require action to protect employees if the average radon gas concentration exceeds 400 Bq m-3 (becquerels per cubic metre of air).

The HPA runs a routine radon monitoring service for employers. This includes processing, a written report of the results and brief advice. Measurements are normally conducted over three months and monitors sent to the employer by post with instructions for placement. Monitors are then posted back for processing and reporting.

To ensure personnel are not put at risk from radon in spaces where gas may build up, concrete chambers would be installed with monitors on construction and posted back to the HPA for processing and reporting once the appropriate duration has elapsed.

8.8 Statement of Significance

The assessment considered the impact of the CBM gas development on the hydrogeology and future site use of the Knowl Wall Farm site and its catchment area.

Other than recommendations to mitigate the short term potential for pollution of groundwater and ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of organic substances by future site users, the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is considered neutral because there are no appreciable effects identified, either positive or negative, on the environmental attributes identified in this chapter.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 8-20 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

9. Noise and Vibration

9.1 Summary

This chapter assessed the impact and significance on nearby noise sensitive receptors of noise generated by the proposed CBM gas development at nearby noise sensitive receptors.

Vibration is not considered within the assessment as the drilling methods employed during the drilling phase ensure that no vibration occurs.

A baseline noise survey was conducted to establish the existing ambient noise climate at noise sensitive receptors around the proposed CBM site and calculations undertaken to establish the impact of the development. It has been concluded that noise from the site preparation and capping and restoration phases of the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on nearby sensitive receptors.

No significant noise will be produced during the production phase of the development and as such it is expected that there will be no effect on nearby sensitive receptors during this phase.

With regard to the drilling phase of the development it has been found that noise levels during the night meet the ‘good’ internal sleeping conditions criterion of BS8233 within two of the three residential locations assessed. Night-time noise levels within the residence at Knowl Wall Farm itself may exceed guidance provided on sleeping conditions. However, comparison with monitored data suggests this is already the case due to the proximity of the M6 motorway.

This noise impact assessment has concluded that the proposed CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm is unlikely to have a significant effect on nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

9.2 Introduction

This chapter identifies the noise impacts associated with the proposed CBM development at Knowl Wall Farm. The main receptors that have the potential to be affected by noise from the site are considered to be the residential properties at Knowl Wall Farm, The Toft and a standalone property situated on the A519 to the south of the development.

Broadly the assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the site has involved the following:

• identification of appropriate standards and guidance for use in the assessment of noise impacts; • collection of daytime and night time background noise level data in order to determine the existing baseline noise climate at potentially sensitive properties within the vicinity of the site; • quantitative/qualitative prediction and assessment of noise levels at potentially sensitive local receptors during the site preparation and capping and restoration phases of the development; and • quantitative/qualitative prediction and assessment of noise levels at potentially sensitive local receptors during the drilling operations associated with the drilling and production phases of the development.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The future development is not expected to generate any significant levels of vehicle movements within either the Drilling or Production Phases of the development. Therefore there has been no assessment of traffic noise.

No future developments have been identified in the surrounding areas that are likely to generate significant levels of noise at the three identified receptor locations. There has therefore been no assessment of the cumulative impact of noise completed.

9.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

A detailed review of the development plan documents and planning context in relation to the development proposals is provided in Chapter 3.

This section summarises those policies that are directly relevant to this assessment.

National Policy & Legislation

National planning advice concerning noise arising from development is presented in Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise (PPG24). PPG24 provides advice to local authorities on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. It also advises that impact assessments should be conducted for noisy development (paragraph 22).

Section 21 of Annex 3 of PPG24 refers to the use of BS5228 as the appropriate assessment methodology when examining construction noise.

Sections 19 and 20 of Annex 3 of PPG24 recommend using guidance contained in BS4142 to assess the likelihood of complaints with regards to noise arising from industrial developments. Whilst BS4142 is appropriate when assessing sources of an industrial nature in commercial premises, for example; the noise from air- conditioning plant, it is only intended for assessing the noise from fixed installations.

Relevant Guidance Applicable to the Assessment

As a matter of best practice, this assessment has been undertaken based upon the relevant guidance on noise and vibration applicable to such developments. The guidance referenced includes:

• British Standard 4142 ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas’, 1997 (BS4142). • British Standard 5228: Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites [Part 1: 2009] (BS5228). • British Standard 7445: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise, 2003 (BS7445). • British Standard 8233: Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice, 1999 (BS8233).

These guidance and methodology documents are discussed in the following sections.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Site Preparation and Restoration Phases

BS5228

In December 2008 the five parts of BS5228 (‘Construction Noise and Vibration’) were withdrawn and BS5228 parts 1 and 2: 2009 were published. The new BS5228 does not have any significant material changes when compared to the previous version, however, it does now include the updated construction plant source noise level data published by Defra and provides examples of construction noise limits in Annex E to Part 1 of the Standard. The Standard continues to provide best practice with regards to minimising the adverse effects of construction noise and vibration.

The statutory instrument which specifically relates to the control of noise and vibration from construction sites by means of imposition of conditions and by the development of agreed working procedures is the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoPA).

Section 60 and 61 of the CoPA gives local authorities in Scotland, England and Wales special powers for controlling noise arising from construction and demolition works on any building or civil engineering site. S60 refers to the control of noise on construction sites. It provides legislation by which local authorities can control noise from construction sites to prevent noise disturbance occurring. In addition, it recommends that guidance provided by BS5228 be implemented to ensure compliance with S60. S61 refers to prior consent for work on construction sites. It provides a method by which a contractor can apply for consent to undertake construction works in advance.

When determining a planning application, it is very rare for construction impacts to be a material consideration. It will be a combination of best practice (considerate working) by the prime construction contractor and adherence to working hours, etc imposed by the local authority via appropriate planning conditions that will ensure that disruption due to construction works will be minimised.

Within the scope of this assessment noise generated during the Site Preparation and Restoration Phases of the CBM development have been assumed to be akin to the noise generated during general construction operations.

Part 1 of BS5228, Code of practice for basic information and procedures for noise control, gives recommendations for basic methods of noise control relating to construction and open sites where work activities/ operations generate significant noise. It includes sections on: legislative background; community relations; training; occupational noise effects; neighbourhood nuisance; project supervision; and control of noise. Annexes include: a list of EC and UK legislation; noise sources, remedies and their effectiveness (mitigation options); guide to sound level data on site equipment and site activities (source terms that are used for modelling); estimating noise from sites (calculation procedures which form the basis of the modelling packages); and noise monitoring.

It is noted, that the guidance of BS5228 Part 1 does not extend to providing an absolute noise criteria, although example significance criteria have been included in Annexe E of the recently issued 2009 version of the standard. The document also states the key factors that must be considered, these include:

a) Site location; b) Existing ambient noise levels; c) Duration of site operations;

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

d) Hours of work; e) Attitude of the site operator; f) Noise characteristics;

The assessment of whether changes in noise levels due to construction constitute significant effects, will be dependent on the absolute levels of ambient and construction noise, as well as the magnitude, duration, time of occurrence and frequency of the noise change.

BS5228 contains two example methods of determining the significance of construction noise. Method 1 ‘The ABC Method’ examines absolute levels based on various threshold categories and is detailed in the table below:

TABLE 9.1 - EXAMPLE THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT AT DWELLINGS Assessment category and threshold Threshold value, in decibels (dB) value period A) B) C) (LAeq) Category A Category B Category C

Night-time (23.00-07.00) 45 50 55 Evening and weekends D) 55 60 65 Daytime (07.00-19.00) and Saturdays 65 70 75 (07.00-13.00)

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

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

NOTE 3 - Applied to residential receptors only.

A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are less than these values. B) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are the same as category A values. C) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are higher than category A values. D) 19.00-23.00 weekdays, 13.00-23.00 Saturdays and 07.00-23.00 Sundays

Method 2 refers to a ‘5 dB(A) Change’ and states that construction noise is deemed to be significant if the total noise level exceeds the preconstruction ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, subject to lower cut off values of 65 dB, 55 dB and 45 dB for daytime, evening and night-time respectively.

It is common practice to attempt to minimise construction noise impacts through environmental controls defined in either an Environmental Management Plan or a Code of Construction Practice.

Drilling and Production Phases

BS4142

Within the scope of this assessment the Drilling and Production Phases of the CBM facility have been assumed to be the Operational phase of the development. PPG24 cites the use of British Standard BS4142 to assess noise from operational industrial and commercial developments and to determine their affects on people residing nearby.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The method is based upon a comparison between the Rating Level of the noise from the specific source being considered and the background noise level (measured as an LA90), in the absence of the specific source. The noise level from the specific source is increased by 5dB(A), if the source has any distinctive characteristics (tones or impulses such as whines, hums or bangs), or if it is irregular enough to attract attention and becomes known as the rating level.

Within the scope of the Standard if the Rating Level of the noise exceeds the background noise by 10dB(A) or more, complaints are "likely to occur". An increase of 5dB(A) is deemed to be of "marginal significance" whilst a difference of minus 10dB(A) or more indicates that "complaints are unlikely to result".

These descriptions are summarised within Table 9.2 below:

TAB LE 9.2 - B S4142 SIGNIFICANCE CRITE R IA BS4142 Assessment Level, dB(A) (Rating Level relative BS4142 Semantic (as described in the Standard) to Background Level) "If the rating level is more than 10dB below the measured < -10 background level then this is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely" No BS description but the more negative the difference, the less the -10 to +5 likelihood of complaints "A difference of around +5dB is considered by the standard to be of +5 marginal significance" No BS description but the more positive the difference, the greater +5 to +10 the likelihood of complaints "A difference of around 10dB or more indicates that complaints are > +10 likely"

In situations where both the LA90 background noise level and the Rating Level of the facility under investigation are considered to be "low" (less than 30dB(A) and less than 35dB(A) respectively), the standard states that the rating method of BS4142 is not applicable. In these circumstances, it is standard practice to assess the noise effect by considering sleep disturbance criteria and other aspects such as noise change.

BS8233

BS8233 is the current guidance with respect to acceptable noise levels within buildings utilised by humans. The standard defines design criteria for “good” and “reasonable” conditions within certain habitable rooms for new or altered dwellings. The design criteria can be applied to existing dwellings.

Table 9.3 shows a summary of the levels recommended in BS8233 for rooms used for resting and sleeping within residential settings.

TAB LE 9.3: INDOOR AMB IE NT NOIS E LEVELS AS RECOMMENDED IN B S8233

Criterion Typical Situation Designed Range, LAeq,T (dB) Good Reasonable Reasonable resting/ Living Rooms 30 40 sleeping conditions Bedrooms 30 35

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

World Health Organisation (WHO)

‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ was published on behalf of the WHO but the authors alone were responsible for the views expressed. In the 2000 guidelines, it is considered that the sleep disturbance criteria should be taken as internal noise levels of 30dB LAeq and 45dB LAmax or external levels of 45dB LAeq and 60dB LAmax.

For daytime levels, the 2000 WHO document states that "To protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound level from steady, continuous noise should not exceed 55 dB LAeq on balconies, terraces, and outdoor living areas. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq. Where it is practical and feasible, the lower outdoor sound level should be considered the maximum desirable sound level for new development."

Consultation

Discussions were held with R. Peers of the Environmental Health Team at Staffordshire County Council during May 2009. The main content of the discussions was the proposing of suitable monitoring locations and durations, and the assessment approach to be used. Mr Peers confirmed that scope of the surveys and proposed methodology was acceptable including a reduction in survey duration due to site safety issues.

Summary of Assessment Criteria

Site Preparation and Restoration Phases

Noise associated with the Site Preparation and Restoration phases of the CBM development will be short lived compared to the Drilling phase and particularly the Production phase. It is deemed more appropriate to deal with short duration construction noise by the use of control measures that can be put into place in order to adequately control noise in line with the requirements of BS5228. These measures can be implemented by means of a suitably worded planning condition to ensure that disruption due to these works is minimised.

To ensure that construction noise does not have a significant impact on nearby receptors one of the two example methods described in BS5228 will be utilised. There is relatively little difference between the two methodologies, however, method 2 is more straightforward and will allow a clear, simple assessment of the significance of construction noise to be completed.

Drilling and Production Phases

Using BS4142, a significant noise impact will be deemed to occur if:

• The Rating Level should exceed the Background Level (LA90) by greater than + 10dB(A) during the daytime period; • Noise Levels inside residential properties are more than 35dB LAeq at night.

As the noisy phase of development (drilling) only lasts for 17 weeks, using the BS4142 methodology alone for assessing impact may be overly stringent, especially as BS4142 is designed to assess noise from fixed installations. Therefore where necessary the impact of noise will also be examined in terms of noise change. Table 9.2 gives a suggested semantic scale rating based on various research into noise

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-6 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

change associated with new developments. Similar criteria can be found in the design manual for roads and bridges (DMRB) Part7 HA213/08 (Table 3.1).

TABLE 9.4 - SEMANTIC SCALE FOR DESCRIBING NOISE CHANGE

Predicted Change In Noise Semantic Scale Rating

Decrease of 3dB or more Minor to Major Decrease

Decrease of less than 3dB Not Significant

Increase of less than 3dB Not Significant

Increase of 3 - 5dB Minor Increase

Increase of 6 - 10dB Moderate Increase

Increase of 10dB or more Major Increase

In this case it will be assumed that an increase in noise level (in terms of LAeq) of 3 dB or more is significant.

9.4 Methodology

Noise measurements were completed at the identified noise sensitive receptors deemed to represent worst case locations. Details of these receptors are contained in Section 9.5 of this report. During the daytime 2 no. one hour measurement periods were completed at each receptor and during the night 3 no. five minute measurements of the existing noise climate were completed at one of the locations. Locations 2 & 3 were excluded from the night-time measurements due to a request by the police regarding security incidences in the area (both Greenpark and the Local Authority were contacted and permission for a change in the original methodology was given by the Local Environmental Health Officer). Measurements were made in terms of A-weighted LAeq and LA90. Full information regarding the survey methodology is detailed in Section 9.5.

The proposed CBM development was then modelled using SoundPLAN 6.5 software based on layout data for the site provided by Greenpark. The computer model was then used to predict noise levels incident on the identified receptors during the various phases of the development. The results of the prediction exercise were then assessed against the standards and legislative documents detailed in Section 9.3 so as to determine whether the development may cause a ‘significant’ effect.

9.5 Baseline Conditions

Introduction

A site visit was undertaken on the 1st and 2nd June 2009 in order to carry out a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the prevailing noise conditions on and in the vicinity of the proposed development site. It was considered that the key source of noise audible at the locations around site was that of traffic on the M6 and occasional local traffic noise along with occasional animal and vehicle noise from the surrounding farm land.

The following properties have been selected for assessment purposes and are superimposed on top of OS mapping information within Figure 9.1:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-7 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

1) Residential Property at Knowl Wall Farm. NGR: 385323,339323

2) Residential Property at The Toft. NGR: 385046,339727

3) Residential Property on the A519, to the south of the site. NGR: 385029,339079

Baseline Noise Monitoring

Three receptors were confirmed as being the potentially most affected during the site visit, inspection of site mapping and consultation with Staffordshire County Council.

Noise monitoring surveys were undertaken in order to define baseline noise level conditions at the above receptors. Daytime and night-time ambient noise monitoring surveys were undertaken between the 1st and 2nd June 2009 as presented in Table 9.5 and identified on Figure 9.1.

Due to safety issues, night-time measurements at Knowl Wall Farm (Location 1) had to be cut short and measurements near The Toft and the residence on the A519 (Locations 2 & 3) could not be assessed during the night. Night-time noise levels were estimated using a combination of daytime measurements from locations 2 & 3 and night time measured levels from Location 1. Night-time background levels at Locations 2 & 3 were predicted by subtracting the difference in daytime and night- time levels at Location 1 from the daytime measurements at Locations 2 & 3.

TAB LE 9.5 : NOISE MONITOR ING LOCATIONS Measurement Potential Loc. No. Location Existing Key Noise Sources Receptors Description

SLM was located Daytime – Dominant noise source is M6 and Isolated within the site occasional local traffic along surrounding 1 residential boundary of Knowl roads. property Wall Farm Night-time – Dominant noise source is M6

Daytime – Dominant noise source is M6 and SLM was located at Isolated occasional local traffic along surrounding the boundary of the 2 residential roads. residence known as property Night-time – Survey not carried out due to The Toft security issues.

Daytime – Dominant noise source is M6 and SLM was located Isolated occasional local traffic along surrounding directly adjacent to 3 Residential roads. the residence Property Night-time – Survey not carried out due to situated on the A519 security issues.

Table 9.6 below provides details of the timings and durations of the noise surveys.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-8 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 9.6 - NOISE MONITORING TIMINGS AND LOCATIONS Daytime and Night-time Loc No. Date Time

st nd 15:57 – 17:57 1 1 / 2 June 2009 01:20 – 01:35 st 13:38 – 15:38 2 1 June 2009 N/A nd 10:06 – 12:06 3 2 June 2009 N/A

Monitoring Protocol

The daytime surveys at all locations comprised of 2No, one-hour measurements. During the night-time, 15 minutes of noise level data was measured at Location 1. No night time measurements were collected at Locations 2 and 3 due to security issues. Measured night-time data was divided into separate five-minute periods.

The instrumentation used during the noise surveys was a 01dB Blue Solo Real Time Sound Analyser (Serial No. 10513). The instrumentation was calibrated before and after each survey and no significant deviations in calibration level were noted. UKAS instrumentation calibration documentation is available upon request.

The instruments were configured with a ‘fast’ time constant and a dynamic range of 20-120dB. The microphone was mounted in a free field position on a tripod at a height of 1.5m above ground level and a minimum of 3.5m from any reflecting surface. The meter was set to measure concurrent LAeq and LA90 parameters.

Weather conditions were periodically noted by the field engineer during the survey periods as detailed below:

Daytime Period – 1st June 2009: The weather was noted to be sunny with no cloud cover. Temperatures were 24°C with little wind (≤ 1 m/s). There was no rain during the monitoring period and road conditions were dry.

Daytime Period – 2nd June 2009: The weather was noted to be sunny with no cloud cover. Temperatures were at 16°C with no wind (0 m/s). There was no rain during the monitoring period and road conditions were dry.

Night-time period – 2nd June 2009: Weather during the night period was noted as fine and dry with dry road conditions. Temperatures of 13°C were recorded with wind speeds being under 5m/s.

Measured Noise Level Data

A summary of the daytime and night-time survey results are presented within Table 9.7 and Table 9.8 below.

TABLE 9.7 – SUMMARY OF MEASURED DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS Measured Noise Level (dB)

Loc No. Time LAeq LA90

1 15:57 – 16:57 70.4 63.2 1 16:57 – 17:57 71.3 63.4 2 13:38 – 14:48 69.4 60.0 2 14:38 – 15:48 68.9 60.6 3 10:06 – 11:06 55.3 49.8

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-9 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

3 11:06 – 12:06 56.4 50.6

TABLE 9.8 – SUMMARY OF MEASURED NIGHT-TIME NOISE LEVELS Measured Noise Level (dB)

Loc No. Time LAeq LA90

1 01:19 – 01:24 60.8 54.5 1 01:24 – 01:29 56.5 53.9 1 01:29 – 01:34 55.1 52.0 2 N/A N/A 50.0* 3 N/A N/A 40.0* *Note – Calculated figures from Location 1 data (see Section 9.5 above).

9.6 Impact Assessment

Within the scope of the works proposed on site, there are considered to be four main operational phases. These are defined below and are explained in detail in Section 2 of this EIA:

1. Site preparation – approximately 6 weeks; 2. Drilling – no more than 17 weeks; 3. Production – including development and production up to 20 years ; and 4. Capping and restoration – approximately 6 weeks over an eighteen month period (season and weather dependent).

For the purposes of the assessment, phases 1 and 4 above are considered to generate broadly similar noise levels and utilise similar plant compliments.

Site Preparation and Restoration Phases

Specific information relating to the exact plant and equipment expected to be used within this phase of the development is not available but data relating to familiar plant has been used. Greenpark has supplied RPS with the expected plant that may be used during this phase of the development based upon similar Greenpark sites. This information is summarised within Table 9.9 below.

TABLE 9.9 – CONSTRUCTION PLANT SOURCE NOISE LEVELS Description SWL (sound power level) Tracked Excavator 108 Dozer 109 Vibratory Roller (50 kW) 106 Lorry Mounted Concrete Pump 109 Diesel Generator 102 Tracked Crane (25t) 110 25tn Dump Truck 110 Delivery Lorries 105.5

Due to the transient nature of construction operations it is difficult to accurately predict potential noise impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors during the construction phase. Resulting noise levels at a receptor location will vary considerably dependent upon the activities that are being undertaken at the time and the associated plant utilised, the less noise-generating plant utilised, the lesser the impact would be. However, indicative construction noise calculations have been undertaken based on noise levels detailed within Table 9.8 above and the following construction scenario as shown below:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-10 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• Tracked excavator working in centre of site - 100% of the time • Dozer working in centre of site - 100% of the time • Vibratory roller (50kW) working in centre of site - 100% of the time

The results of the indicative calculations are presented within Table 9.10 below. In all modelling, soft ground conditions have been assumed. In addition, noise levels have been calculated at ground and first floor level and highest (worst-case) noise level used in the assessment. It should be noted that, with all equipment operating for 100% of the time, the following prediction can be viewed as a worst-case scenario:

TABLE 9.10 - PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DURING SITE PREPARATION AND RESTORATION Predicted noise Assessment Location (in dB LAeq, 1hr)

Knowl Wall Farm 57.6

The Toft 49.3

A519 Residence 44.4

When assessed using the example significance criteria (Method 2) detailed in Part 1 of BS5228, assuming construction operations are only likely to occur during the daytime period (0700 – 1900 hours weekdays and 0700-1300 hours Saturdays), it can be seen that the predicted construction noise level does not exceed the 65dB LAeq cut-off value. As such, when assessed using the example criteria detailed in BS5228, it has been found that construction noise is unlikely to have a significant effect on nearby receptors.

Drilling and Production Phases

Within the scope of drilling and production phases of the development, it is considered that the main noise source on site will be the drilling rig. However, it is noted that the drilling rig will only operate within the drilling phase (approximately 17 weeks) to establish the underground boreholes. Once these are established, the drilling rig will cease operation and the site is expected to generate virtually no noise at all, consisting only of a buried wellhead, water separators and a water collection tank and is unlikely to have any impact on nearby receptors. Therefore, this section of the assessment will focus on noise generated on the site during the drilling phase of the proposed CBM gas development.

The drilling rig would operate at a relatively constant output during both the daytime and night-time periods. Therefore, an assessment has been undertaken against both the measured daytime and night-time baseline noise levels.

Proposed Drilling Rig

It has been assumed that BDF drilling Rig 28 would be used. Measured noise data from this rig used on a former Greenpark CBM gas site has been used throughout this predictive exercise.

A noise assessment was undertaken of a Drilling Rig 28 on the 3rd December 2008. A number of measurements were made on site so as to enable the sound power level (SWL) of dominant noise sources to be quantified. Table 9.11 details the resultant SWL for the drilling rig and associated plant. The table also contains the assumed source heights (based on observations made on site) that have been used to create the acoustic model.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-11 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 9.11 : SUMMARY OF DRILLING RIG 28 SOURCE SOUND POWER LEVELS Equipment Type Source Height Source Sound Power (Metres) Level in dB(A) Shale Shaker 1.5 99 Drilling Rig 3.0 103 Generator 1.0 82 Pump Engine 1.5 94 Triplex Mud Pump 0.5 97 Centrifuge 3.0 101

External Noise Assessment

The prediction of noise associated with the Drilling Rig has been undertaken using SoundPLAN 6.5. The SoundPLAN software implements the calculation methodology of ISO9613 parts 1 and 2.

Table 9.12 below presents the predicted noise levels at each of the detailed locations based on plant SWLs, assumed source heights and the topography of the surrounding area. It has been assumed that all plant and equipment is continuously running. Based on elevation drawings supplied by Greenpark, a 3m soil bund was modelled around the west and south boundary of the drilling site. As a result, some screening effects will have been taken into account. In all calculations, soft ground conditions have been assumed:

TABLE 9.12 - PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS FROM DRILLING RIG

Predicted noise level in dB LAeq, 1hr Location

Knowl Wall Farm 46.6

The Toft 42.8

A519 Residence 33.5

Table 9.13 below presents the results of a BS4142 assessment undertaken based upon the above predicted data and the background noise levels established within the scope of this chapter. The average measured hourly LA90 noise level during the day and five-minute LA90 during the night have been used in the assessments.

TABLE 9.13 - BS4142 ASSESSMENT OF DRILLING RIG 28 Knowl Wall Farm The Toft A519 Residence Predicted Specific Noise Level in 46.6 42.8 33.5 dB LAeq Corrected Rating Level (Tonal 51.6 47.8 38.5 penalty) Assessment period Day Night Day Night Day Night Measured / Predicted Background 63.3 53.4 60.4 50.0 50.1 40.0 Noise Level in dB LA90 of locality Rating Level - Background -12 -2 -12 -2 -11 -1

The following table details the predicted noise change at the receptor locations based on the existing measured ambient noise level and the predicted specific noise level. Noise change has only been examined during the daytime for external areas. Night-time noise levels have been assessed internally and are examined later in this assessment.

TABLE 9.14 - PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS FROM DRILLING RIG 28 – NOISE CHANGE

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-12 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Location Existing Predicted Existing Ambient + Predicted Ambient Noise Specific Noise Predicted Specific Noise Change Level in dB LAeq Level in dB LAeq Noise Level in dB in dB LAeq

Knowl Wall Farm 63.3 46.6 63.4 0

The Toft 60.4 42.8 60.5 0

A519 Residence 50.1 33.5 50.2 0

Daytime Period

External Noise

During the daytime period at Knowl Wall Farm, the BS4142 assessment has concluded that noise from the proposed CBM site will be 12dB below existing background levels. BS4142 rates this result as a positive indication that complaints are unlikely.

At The Toft, the Rating Level has been predicted at 12dB below background levels which leads to a conclusion that ‘complaints are unlikely’ when assessed in accordance with BS4142.

At the residence off the A519, the Rating Level has been predicted at 11dB below background levels which leads to a conclusion that ‘complaints would be unlikely’ when assessed in accordance with BS4142.

At all sensitive receivers, it can be seen that, when assessed with respect to ‘noise change’, no change in level is predicted and specific noise levels are significantly below ambient levels.

Night-time Period

External Noise

During the overnight period the predicted ‘Rating – Background Levels’ are shown to be -2dB at Knowl Wall Farm. This is considered by the guidance of BS4142 to be of less than ‘marginal significance’.

The BS4142 assessment at The Toft during the night has revealed a ‘rating – background level’ of -2dB. This is considered by the guidance of BS4142 to be of less than ‘marginal significance’.

Noise levels assessed at the residence off the A519 during the night have shown a BS4142 result of -1dB. This also indicates that noise levels from the development are of less than ‘marginal significance’.

At night, considering the relatively short duration of the drilling works, the primary aim is to protect residents from sleep disturbance and therefore it is considered more appropriate to assess the impact of the site during the overnight period against internal noise criteria.

At night, sleep disturbance is a precursor to complaints and, if it can be demonstrated that internal noise levels are acceptable then, there is a far lower likelihood of complaints occurring. This approach has been adopted before on previous

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-13 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

assessments especially when there are temporary impacts, such as those predicted to occur with the CBM development.

Internal Noise

Within any façade of a residential building, typically, the glazed portion would be the acoustically weak element. The sound insulation of typical window units is contained within BS8233 and summarised within Table 9.15 below.

TABLE 9.15 - BS8233 SOUND REDUCTION OF TYPICAL WINDOWS Description Weighted Sound Reduction Index RW (dB) Partially Open Window 10 – 15 (assumed as 13) Single Glazed Window (4 mm) 22 – 30 (assumed as 26) Thermal Insulating Unit (6 – 12 – 6 mm) 30 – 33 (assumed as 32)

Using the façade attenuation data and based upon the predicted external specific noise levels presented within Table 9.12, expected internal noise levels have been estimated for the drilling operations. This assessment method does not take into account both the level of absorption within the receiving room and its geometry. However, in the absence of further data, the results provide indicative internal noise levels. The results of the assessment are detailed in Table 9.16.

TABLE 9.16 - BS8233 SOUND REDUCTION OF TYPICAL WINDOWS Estimated internal noise levels in dB(A)

Receptor Location Predicted LAeq Open Window Single Glazed Double Glazed

Knowl Wall Farm 46.6 33.6 20.6 14.6

The Toft 42.8 29.8 16.8 10.8

A519 Residence 33.5 20.5 7.5 1.5

The results of the assessment indicate that, during the night-time period, the BS8233 “reasonable” and “good” sleeping conditions criteria of 35dB and 30dB LAeq,8hr are easily met at all considered residences of Knowl Wall Farm, The Toft and the residence off the A519.

Noise levels generated by plant associated with the CBM site are fairly constant with no increased or ‘impulsive’ elements expected. It is therefore believed that the internal 45dB LAmax criterion, for ‘reasonable’ conditions at night in BS8233 will be complied with.

9.7 Mitigation

Site Preparation and Restoration Phases

During the site preparation and restoration phases it has been predicted that noise generated by the CBM gas site is unlikely to have a significant impact. However, it is recommended that the following ‘Best Practicable Means’ be employed where possible to minimise construction impacts, including, for example:

Plant and Equipment

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-14 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• modern, silenced and well-maintained plant should be used at all times, conforming to standards set out in EU Directives; • equipment including vehicles should be shut down when not in use; • engine compartments should be closed when equipment is in use and the resonance of body panels and cover plates should be reduced by the addition of suitable dampening materials. Any rattling noise should be addressed by the tightening of loose parts or the addition of resilient materials; • semi-static equipment is to be sited and orientated as far as is reasonably practicable away from noise-sensitive receptors and to have localised screening if deemed necessary; • generators and water pumps required for 24-hour operation should be silenced or screened as appropriate; • crane spindles, pulley wheels, telescopic sections and moving parts of working platforms should be adequately lubricated in order to prevent undue screeching and squealing.

Methods of Working

• burning equipment should be used in preference to cold cutting where possible; • large concrete pours (for which an extension of working hours may be necessary) should commence as early as possible so that the activities can be completed within normal working hours as far as possible.

Management of Works Programme

• wherever practicable, noisy works, which are audible at the site boundary, should be undertaken during normal daytime hours, e.g. between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday and between 0900 and 1300 on Saturdays; • routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, fill, personnel etc. are to be carefully considered in order to minimise the overall noise impact generated by these movements; • personnel should be instructed on measures to reduce noise and vibration as part of their site induction training; • shouting and raised voices should be kept to a minimum except in cases where warnings of danger must be given; • use of radios should be prohibited except where two-way radios are required for reasons of safety etc.

The preparation of an Environmental Management Plan for reference throughout the construction phase would also assist in identifying potential impacts and provide specific mitigation measures where considered necessary.

Drilling and Production Phases

Drilling Phase

It has been demonstrated that noise levels generated by the CBM plant will meet ‘good’ sleeping criterion during the night inside the identified sensitive residential receptors with the exception of Knowl Wall Farm. However, at Knowl Wall Farm existing ambient noise levels would lead to internal noise levels exceeding the resting conditions criteria of BS8233. In addition the BS4142 assessment in this location lead to a conclusion that any increase would be of less than ‘marginal significance’.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-15 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

During the daytime, it has been concluded that noise from the proposed CBM site is of ‘marginal significance’ at the three identified sensitive receptor locations. When assessed in terms of noise change, it has been concluded that significant effects at the receptors are unlikely. As it has been predicted that noise generated by the proposed CBM site will not have a significant effect on nearby noise-sensitive receptors, it is not believed any major mitigation works will be required during the drilling phase.

Production Phase

During the production phase, it is expected that virtually no noise will be generated by the site and, as such, there will be no requirement for any mitigation measures.

Verification of Noise Model

Noise levels predicted throughout this report are based on sound pressure levels measured for Drilling Rig 28 at a former Greenpark site in Cumbria with measurements taken in close proximity to the noise sources. Due to noise from other nearby sources, it is possible that a number of these measurements can be viewed as worst-case. In order to verify the prediction methods, the Cumbrian site was modelled using the same methodology as described in this chapter. Predicted noise levels were then compared to actual noise measurements made on site at the Cumbrian site. The following table details the predicted noise and measured noise levels at a location 120m from the Cumbrian site with clear line of sight to the noise generating plant and equipment.

Table 9.17 – MODEL VERIFICATION NOISE LEVELS EMPIRICAL DATA FROM A CUMBRIAN REFERENCE SITE Predicted Noise Level at 120m Measured Noise Level at 120m Measured Noise Level at in dB LAeq in dB LAeq 120m in dB LA90

51.0 48.8 45.7

The measured noise levels were also affected by intermittent noise from a nearby road. Noise from Drilling Rig 28 and associated plant is virtually constant and therefore the LA90 is likely to be a better representation of noise from the rig at the measurement location. This would therefore indicate that the modelling procedure was over estimating noise by up to 5dB at more distant receivers.

Based on the worst-case noise model, it has been shown in this assessment that drilling phase noise levels are unlikely to have a significant effect on nearby receptors. In addition, based on the findings of the model verification process, the effects are likely to be further reduced due to the reductions in noise level.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-16 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

9.8 Statement of Significance

This noise assessment chapter has considered the impact of the preparation, drilling, production and restoration phases of the CBM gas development on noise-sensitive receptors at the Knowl Wall Farm site. Noise levels generated by the development have been predicted and compared to the guidance contained in PPG24, BS4142, BS5228 and BS8233.

It has been concluded that noise generated by the site preparation and restoration phases of the CBM development will not have a significant effect on nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Virtually no noise will be produced during the production phase of the development and, as such, it is expected that there will be no impact on nearby sensitive receptors during this phase. Regarding the drilling phase, noise levels generated by the site during the night are unlikely to have a significant effect on the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Noise levels generated by this phase of the proposed CBM development during the day have also been found not to have a significant effect on nearby receptors.

It has therefore been concluded that noise generated during all four phases of the development will not have a significant effect at nearby noise-sensitive receptors around the Knowl Wall Farm site.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 9-17 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

10. Transport and Traffic

10.1 Summary

This chapter considered the traffic impact effects of the CBM development on the local road network resulting from the Knowl Wall site. The access arrangements arising from the construction and operation of the CBM development have also been considered in full.

The key stages in the life of the plant are: site preparation, drilling, production and capping/restoration. These have each been considered in turn with respect to the impact on traffic, transport and highways.

The site is currently open pasture and will be accessed via a new gated entrance off the A519. The A519 runs north-south past the site and meets the A5185 and to the north and the A51 to the south.

A section of 23.5 m of existing hedgerow will need to be removed to allow access and a length of 70 m would be retained below a height of 1.05 m to achieve adequate visibility splays from the site access.

Traffic activity will vary through the principal stages of the project, being at its greatest during the site preparation phase. Even at this stage, the generated traffic will be about 40 HGV deliveries a day for a maximum of ten days and is comparable to that experienced during agricultural harvest.

The drilling phase will require the delivery and removal of the drilling rig, transported on a vehicle no larger than an FTA Design Articulated Vehicle (1998). The site access arrangements have been designed to accommodate this design vehicle, the impact of this vehicle and all other site traffic will not be significant.

10.2 Introduction

With each new development there is a risk that the increase in traffic to the site may adversely affect the general traffic in the area. There is also the need to ensure that the proposal includes, for example, adequate accommodation for the increase in traffic to the site, junction capacity and parking for site staff. This chapter aims to describe the access arrangements, quantify and assess the level of traffic generated by the site and set out the materiality of impacts and any mitigation which may be required.

The key issues include ensuring:

• There will be no adverse impact on traffic in the area; • There is suitable access to accommodate an increase in an change in the type of traffic as a result of this development; • There is adequate site access visibility; and • There is adequate car parking and turning facilities for site staff.

The local Highway Authority for the site is Staffordshire County Council.

10.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

This chapter has been prepared with consideration of the following documentation:

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 10-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• Guidance on Transport Assessment (DfT, 2007); and • TD42/95 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

10.4 Methodology

A desk study was performed to quantify the number of vehicle trips generated by each phase of operations and a design for the site access has been produced in accordance with operational requirements.

The significance of any impact due to traffic generated by the site has been assessed by examining both magnitude and activity duration of vehicles generated by each phase of the CBM development.

10.5 Baseline Conditions

Accessibility

The road network in the vicinity of the site is generally of a rural nature. Access to the site will be via a new gated entrance off the A519. The A519 runs north-south past the site and meets the A5185 and to the north and the A51 to the south. The A519 has a derestricted speed limit as it passes the site entrance and was subject to light traffic flows during a site visit at approximately mid-day.

The surrounding road network is generally of a rural nature. In the immediate area, the carriageway is kerbed with centre line markings, soft verges and no footways or street lighting.

Access to the strategic road network is gained via the A519 and then A5185 to the north and the A51 to the south. It understood that there are no outstanding issues relating to transport regarding the proposed development.

Access to the site will be directly through a new access point. The width of the entrance has been defined by the turning movements required to accommodate the rig delivery vehicle and has been informed by the undertaking of swept path analysis for the drilling rig vehicle.

Given the rural nature of the site and minimal vehicle traffic, it is deemed that there is adequate visibility in both directions to safely accommodate the movement of all vehicles.

Areas will be constructed near the main site area to allow adequate space for commercial vehicle parking and turning.

A drawing of the site access arrangements is shown in Figure 10.1.

The Operation

The development will be divided into four distinct phases, as set out below:

a. Site Preparation; b. Drilling; c. Production; and d. Capping and Site Restoration.

Below, the traffic implications of each of the key stages are considered.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 10-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Site Preparation

The site will require a hardstanding area and access capable of withstanding the loads associated with the borehole drilling equipment.

Hard core and other equipment would be delivered on 20 tonne HGVs generating up to 40 trips per day for approximately 10 days. This 10 day period represents the most intensive usage of the site access.

Site preparation would involve the use of a dumper truck, tracked excavator and a vibrating roller. Between 8 and 10 members of staff will be required on site during this phase, which will last in the region of 6 weeks.

Drilling Phase

Initial drilling will be carried in order to provide coal cores for assessment. It will take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 5 weeks. During the drilling period, the site will accommodate a generator, compressor, pumps, mud tanks, water tanks, fuel for the drilling rig and temporary site cabins.

The rigs used are delivered to the site in their component parts, none of which constitute an abnormal load requiring assessment. During the period of drilling there will be a limited number of occasional visits by commercial vehicles and deliveries of water and removal of dirty water by road tankers.

The safe operation of the site access has been assessed by the use of swept path analysis, as shown in Figure 10.1.

There would be a limited number of visits by commercial vehicles and water tankers to remove excess water from the drilling process.

Between 6 and 12 people would be on site at any given time.

Production Phase

Following completion of drilling, the drilling rig and other associated equipment will be removed from the site. If the initial tests show positive results then the site will become a full production site and the wells connected.

Construction of the production hub will involve the installation of surface equipment, typically buried wellheads and possibly water separators and a water collection tank. The actual production site will consist of a landscaped area and manhole covers surrounded by a fence. A fan, generator, condenser and water tank may be required to extract water from the gas.

The operation of the production hub will generate minimal road traffic. A small number of cars/light vans will visit the site to undertake maintenance, whilst a tanker will visit to remove waste water. The frequency of these visits will depend on how much water is produced and could vary between daily and weekly.

Capping and Site Restoration

The site would be restored once all gas has been extracted. The aim is to ensure that the site is restored to the prior use using the topsoil that had been retained on site. This will take about 6 weeks over an 18 month period.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 10-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

The restoration process will commence by filling boreholes and 'cellars' with concrete. The hardcore will then be removed using 20 tonne HGVs over a period of approximately 30 days before covering the site with the topsoil already at the site.

The access point leading to the site will remain.

10.6 Impact Assessment

Due to the length of the vehicle used for the transportation of the drilling rig, swept path analysis has been undertaken to ensure the site access provides a safe and operationally effective design.

Localised widening in the vicinity of the access will not be required to accommodate the drilling rig vehicle turning into or out of the site.

The most intensive use of the site access will occur during the site preparation phase resulting from the delivery of construction materials and site equipment. This would generate up to 40 HGV deliveries a day for a maximum of 10 days. For the remainder of the time, the site will generate a very low level of traffic for limited periods.

This level of traffic generation is not deemed significant given the temporary nature. It is considered that the traffic increase associated with the delivery of construction materials at the site access is comparable to that experienced at an agricultural access during harvesting periods.

10.7 Mitigation

Given the limited impact of the number of trips generated by the proposed operation, it is considered that there is no material impact upon the road network.

During the construction phase, sweepers will be deployed if necessary to prevent mud from the site spreading onto the road network.

The visibility lines from the proposed site access are to be maintained and will require localised removal of hedgerow and trimming back of vegetation.

10.8 Statement of Significance

The potential traffic impacts of the proposed CBM development at Knowl Wall have been considered. The operation will encompass a number of distinct phases, each of which will generate varying levels of traffic.

Traffic generated will be at its greatest during the site preparation phase. However, even at this stage the generated traffic will be modest and the impact on the road network will not be significant.

The drilling phase will require the delivery and removal of a mobile drilling rig, transported on a vehicle no larger than an FTA Articulated Vehicle. The impact of the rig delivery vehicle and all other site traffic will not be significant.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 10-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

11. Air Quality

11.1 Summary

This chapter assessed the effects of the CBM gas development on air quality during the phases of: site preparation, drilling, production and restoration. The assessment of effects of nuisance dust has been undertaken using a qualitative risk-based approach, whereas the effects of suspended dust (particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter of less than 10μm, PM10) have been assessed semi- quantitatively.

Existing (baseline) levels of dust vary locally. Data from the National Air Quality Information Archive (NAQIA) indicates that concentrations of PM10 at the site are currently well below the AQS annual-mean objective of 40μg.m-3.

The impacts from nuisance dust are deemed to be negligible during all phases of the development. The concentrations of PM10 are predicted to remain below the AQS annual-mean objective during all phases of the development: mitigation measures are not therefore considered necessary but have nevertheless been recommended as part of Greenpark’s commitment to the highest environmental standards.

Although small quantities of CBM gas could in theory be released fugitively between the testing and production phases Greenpark intends to move directly from testing into production, and therefore, the net overall effect on emissions of greenhouse gases is likely to be insignificant.

11.2 Introduction

This chapter assesses the likely effects on air quality of the proposed CBM gas development.

The releases with potential for effects are:

• dust, associated with the different phases (preparation, drilling, production, and restoration); • CBM gas, potentially emitted during any hiatus between the drilling phase and the production phase; and • traffic emissions from vehicle movements associated with the development.

There are no guidelines specifically relating to the assessment of impacts on air quality from CBM gas developments, therefore in the absence of guidelines, this assessment has been based upon guidelines for mineral workings. Extracting CBM gas uses a closed-system drilling method from which fugitive dust emissions are unlikely. Minerals assessment guidance therefore overestimates emissions, but nevertheless provides a useful framework within which to undertake this assessment.

Dust is a generic term used to describe particulate matter (PM) up to 75 μm in diameter. It is classified further by size, into fine particles up to 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5), a coarser fraction including particles up to 10 μm in diameter (PM10) and particles greater than 10 μm in diameter (termed nuisance dust). This chapter has assessed by a qualitative method the nuisance dust effects for separate phases of the development. The PM10 effects have been assessed semi-quantitatively for these separate development phases.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-1 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Should there be a hiatus between the drilling and production phases, then there is the potential for emissions of CBM gas. The major constituent of CBM gas, methane, is a greenhouse gas; Greenpark would seek to minimise any such emissions and a smooth transition from the drilling phase to the production phase, with a minimum of delay, would further minimise fugitive releases. A qualitative assessment of emissions of CBM gas during the exploration and appraisal phase has been undertaken.

At all stages of the CBM gas development, vehicles are used to transport equipment and materials. This air quality assessment focuses on the key traffic-related pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and a qualitative assessment has been made of the likely effects of this pollutant.

11.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

European Legislation

Current Directives

The European Union Framework Directive 1996/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management came into force in November 1996 and had to be implemented by Member States, including the UK, by May 1998. The Directive aims to protect human health and the environment by avoiding, reducing or preventing harmful concentrations of air pollutants. As a Framework Directive it requires the European Commission (EC) to propose and set “Daughter” Directives prescribing air quality limit values and alert thresholds together with guidance on monitoring and measurement of individual pollutants.

New Directive

In the late 1990s, the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) programme was established with a view to drawing together the air quality directives into a new single directive. On 21 September 2005, the EC adopted the Thematic Strategy on Air Quality proposed under the CAFE programme.

The main aims of the Strategy are to address the following:

• the need for an holistic approach to preventing air pollution; • the evidence that particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 μm, PM2.5, are potentially more hazardous than larger particles. The current limit values are for particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 μm, PM10; and • the current limit value based system requires Member States to reduce levels of pollutants in a relatively small number of highly localised ‘hot-spots’ rather than a general reduction in exposure. Effort and investment may be misplaced if pollutant levels are reduced in locations where the sources of pollution do not give rise to significant health or environmental concerns.

A new EU Directive 2008/50/EC, replacing all previous directives delivers the aims of the Strategy. The new Directive is to be implemented by Member States by June 2010. The new Directive makes provision for the:

• withdrawal of the Stage 2 2010 PM10 indicative limit values and the opportunity to apply for an extension to the existing target dates for achievement of the limit values;

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-2 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• introduction of a ‘national exposure reduction target’ to the average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations measured at urban background locations throughout the territory of a Member State by up to 20% between 2010 and 2020 with the actual reduction dependent on the initial concentration; • introduction of an ‘exposure concentration obligation’ based on the average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations measured at urban background locations throughout the territory of a Member State of 20 μg.m-3 to be met by 2015; -3 • introduction of a target value for annual mean PM2.5 of 25 μg.m to be met by 1 January 2010; and -3 • introduction of a Stage 1 limit value for annual mean PM2.5 of 25 μg.m to be met by 1 January 2015 and an indicative Stage 2 limit value of 20 μg.m-3 to be met by 1 January 2020.

National Legislation

Air Quality Standards Regulations

The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007 implement limit values prescribed by relevant EU Directives and Daughter Directives within England.

The UK Air Quality Strategy (AQS)19 was originally published in January 2000 and described the Government’s strategy for improving air quality in the UK. One of the key aspects of the strategy was the setting of air quality objectives for eight pollutants, namely benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulates and sulphur dioxide. The Government announced tighter objectives for particulates, benzene and carbon monoxide and a new objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in an Addendum to the AQS published in February 200320. The Addendum included new provisional objectives for particulates in addition to existing objectives within the 2000 Strategy.

The current UK AQS21was published in July 2007 and updates the original strategy to set out new objectives for local authorities in undertaking their local air quality management duties. The provisional objectives for PM10 are removed from the current AQS. However objectives in the current AQS are in some cases more onerous than the limit values set out within the relevant EU Directives, Daughter Directives and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007. In addition, objectives have been established for a wider range of pollutants. This discrepancy between the limit values and objectives may be resolved when negotiations for the proposed Directive are complete.

It is expected that local air quality management in the UK will be assessed and controlled under the AQS for the foreseeable future. For this reason it is appropriate to use the objective levels specified under the current UK AQS for the purposes of an air quality assessment of this type. The objectives set out in the current UK AQS that are relevant to this assessment, are summarised in TABLE 11.1.

19 Defra (2000). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Working Together for Clean Air 20 Defra, (2003A). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Addendum. 21 Defra (2007). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Working Together for Clean Air

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-3 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 11.1: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT AIR QUALITY CRITERIA

Not to be Averaging Pollutant Objectives exceeded more Target Date Period than 24 hour 200 μg.m-3 18 times pcy 31.12.2005 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 40 μg.m-3 - 31.12.2005

-3 Particulate 24 hour 50 μg.m 35 times pcy 31.12.2004 Matter (PM10) Annual 40 μg.m-3 - 31.12.2004 Target reduction of 15% Between 2010 Annual at urban background and 2020 Particulate locations Matter (PM2.5) Annual 25 μg.m-3 2020

Notes: pcy - per calendar year

National Policy Guidance on Air Quality

Policy Guidance Local Air Quality Management LAQM.PG(09) is issued by the Secretary of State under Section 88(1) of the Environment Act 1995. It is designed to help local authorities with their local air quality management duties. The guidance requires that local authorities integrate air quality considerations into the planning process at the earliest possible stage. As a result, the land use planning system is integral to improving air quality.

The guidance applies to all local authorities in England both with and without AQMAs. This common approach to air quality will provide benefits such as raising the profile of air quality in transport planning, and increasing communication across local authority departments.

Planning Policy Statement 23 - Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) offers guidance to local authorities on the relationship between controls over development under planning law, and under pollution control legislation. PPS23 states that there are UK air quality standards for certain air pollutants that have been initiated by European Directives.

PPS23 replaces Planning Policy Guidance 23 (PPG23) and is intended to complement the pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 which replaced the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000 in April 2008. It updates the existing guidance and takes into account the AQS, the system of LAQM under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 and climate change. PPS23 sets out those circumstances where air quality may be a material issue for planning applications and provides guidance to planning authorities on making these decisions. It states that air quality is likely to be particularly important where:

• the development is proposed inside, or adjacent to, an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) as designated under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995; • the development could in itself result in the designation of an AQMA; and/or • to grant planning permission would conflict with, or render unworkable, elements of a local authority’s air quality action plan.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-4 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

PPS23 advises that not all planning applications for developments inside or adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if developments would result in a deterioration of local air quality. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), transport authorities and pollution control authorities are encouraged to explore the possibility of securing mitigation measures that would allow the proposal to proceed. All applications should be supported by such information as is necessary to allow a full consideration of the impact of the proposal on the air quality of the area.

Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England (MPS2)

MPS2 provides the principles to be followed in considering the environmental effects of surface mineral workings22. Annex 1 of MPS2 provides guidance on dust specifically and recommends that an air quality assessment covering dust (which it terms a Dust Assessment Study) is submitted by the developer to inform the planning decision for all new and extended mineral workings. MPS2 states that industries involving similar processes (aggregates recycling, construction and waste disposal, etc.) should take into account relevant elements of this statement in planning their own development proposals, in the expectation that they will be applied by the planning authorities.

MPS2 advises that the Dust Assessment Study may use a quantitative approach (e.g. computer dispersion modelling) or qualitative approach, depending on the type and scale of working and proximity of sensitive land uses in surrounding areas such as schools and residential areas.

The Dust Assessment Study should consider the levels of dust that could be deposited on surfaces potentially leading to a nuisance impact. Additionally, if there are residential properties (or other sensitive uses) within 1000 m of the actual source of emission (e.g. haul roads, crushers, stockpiles, etc.) on the minerals workings, then an assessment should be made of levels of dust particles suspended in the air (PM10 ) that can potentially have effects on human health.

11.4 Methodology

Dust Assessment Methodology

Behaviour of Dusts and their Effects

Dusts can contain a wide range of particles of different sizes. The size of a particle influences the aerodynamic and gravitational effects that determine the distance it travels and how long it stays suspended in the air before it settles out onto a surface. The impacts of dust decrease with distance from the source, due to the dispersion and dilution. Information on the dispersion of dust provided in LAQM.TG(09)23,MPS222 and DOE guidance24 suggests that:

a) the downwind distance travelled by dust from the source, and within which deposition continually occurs, is generally less than 250 m:

• large dust particles (>30 µm, which make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from mineral workings) will largely deposit within 100 m of sources. Under average wind conditions (winds of mean speed

22 ODPM (2005). Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England 23 Defra (2009). Local Air Quality Management – Technical Guidance TG(09) 24 Department of the Environment (1996). The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-5 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

between 2 and 6 m s-1) these particles, which comprise around 95% of total dust emissions, deposit within 60-90 m of the source; and • intermediate-sized particles (10-30 µm) do not normally travel beyond 500 m from the source. Under normal meteorological conditions these medium-sized particles will generally travel up to 100-250 m from the source and only occasionally, when winds are stronger, will they travel beyond this.

b) the dust particles that normally travel beyond 250 m are generally less than 10 µm diameter. These PM10 particles make up only a small proportion of the dust emitted from most mineral workings and it is expected that this will also be the case for the proposed scheme. The PM10 fraction falls out of the atmosphere very slowly and may travel 1000 m or more suspended in the air before being deposited. Over this distance, concentrations of the particles suspended in the air decrease rapidly with distance from the source due to dispersion and dilution.

This distinction between suspended dust and deposited dust is important, as it determines the adverse effects that can potentially occur:

• PM10 particles, whilst suspended in the atmosphere, are small enough to be inhaled and therefore potentially have health impacts; and

• Nuisance dust particles (larger than 10 µm diameter) can soil surfaces (e.g. a car, window sill, laundry) causing the perception of nuisance.

Nuisance Dust Deposition Assessment Methodology

Dust may be suspended in the atmosphere from:

• operations that actively generate airborne dust, such as site preparation, excavation, transportation and processing operations; and • wind blow, whereby dust is lifted from rest by the wind to become airborne.

The suspended dust will eventually be deposited onto surfaces. The level and distribution of nuisance dust deposition will vary according to factors such as the type, duration and location of dust-generating activity, weather conditions, the effectiveness of dust suppression measures and sheltering features such as topography, purpose-made screening and bunds and tree cover. The risk of there being an adverse effect depends on whether the particular meteorological conditions that could transport dust to the receptors occur at the same time as the dust- generating activities.

The downwind distance travelled by dust, and within which deposition continually occurs, is generally less than 250 m. Although dust can travel up to 500 m for sites with significant dust sources and with unfavourable meteorological conditions, concerns about dust are most likely to be experienced near to dust sources, generally within 100 m, depending on site characteristics and in the absence of appropriate mitigation.

Sensitive receptors around the application site are considered to be at higher risk from nuisance dust effects if:

• the sensitive receptors are located close to the emissions sources on site; and • the sensitive receptors are located downwind of the sources with regards to the prevailing wind direction for the area.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-6 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

For nuisance dust, a qualitative risk-based approach has been used in this study to assess potential dust impact on local sensitive receptors, taking account of the prevailing wind direction in the area, operations (scale of working, duration, phasing and timing), and proximity of the CBM gas development.

Sensitive Receptors for Nuisance Dust

The impact at a particular receptor will depend on how much dust there is (dust exposure) and the inherent sensitivity of the receptor. Receptors are the users of the adjacent land, and they may vary in their sensitivity to dust as shown in Table 11.2.

TABLE 11.2 – EXAMPLES OF DUST SENSITIVE FACILITIES (MPS2, after Ireland M, 1992) High Sensitivity Medium Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Hospitals & clinics Residential areas Farms Retirement homes Schools Light & heavy industry Hi-tech industries Food retailers Outdoor storage Painting & furnishing Glasshouses & nurseries Food processing Horticultural land Offices

This dust assessment study identifies as sensitive receptors those High and Medium sensitivity examples shown above, that are located within the 500 m distance of the site and over which the large (>30 µm) and intermediate-sized particles (10-30 µm) are likely to deposit.

Significance Criteria for Deposited Particulates (Nuisance Dust)

The potential effect of dust arising from the different development phases is principally one of the risk of causing nuisance to the local community. Dust nuisance is usually experienced as a result of dust deposition upon, and soiling of, clean surfaces such as window sills, cars or laundry.

Currently no UK statutory standards or limits exist which are appropriate for the assessment of deposited dust and its tendency for causing nuisance. Similarly, no official air quality criterion has been set at a European or World Health Organisation (WHO) level and a range of yardstick criteria from 133 to 350 mg.m-2.day-1 are found in the literature28. MPS2 comments that none of the various guidelines are sufficiently well established to be recommended for adoption for nuisance dust; therefore, this study uses a risk-based qualitative assessment of the likely risk of impacts from nuisance dust.

Suspended Dust (PM10) Assessment Methodology

Semi-quantitative assessments have been carried out on the effects of PM10 on local air quality during the different development phases. The assessments have been made by comparison with the annual-average PM10 Air Quality Strategy objective, because the published data on expected contributions from minerals sites are given in annual-average form. The assessments take into account the Government guidance provided in MPS2 and give consideration to Government guidance (LAQM.TG03)25 and (TG(09))23 on the assessment of local air quality. For the drilling phase, the approach involves the following key elements:

• establishing the existing background PM10 concentration through a review of available air quality monitoring data for the area, National Air Quality Information Archive (NAQIA) estimates for the location and consideration of

25 Defra (2003). Local Air Quality Management – Technical Guidance TG(03)

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-7 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Stafford Borough Council Air Quality Review and Assessment (R&A) documents; • estimating the expected process contribution (PC) of PM10 from the exploration and appraisal activities, obtained by combining published US AP42 emission factors26 with H1 dispersion factors 27; • estimating the total predicted environmental concentration (PEC) by summing PC and the background PM10 concentration; and • comparing the PEC with the annual mean Air Quality Strategy objective for PM10.

For the other phases of development (i.e. site preparation, production and restoration) semi-quantitative assessments were carried out using a similar approach, except that the expected process contribution (PC) of PM10 was obtained from published sources of information on fugitive dusts from construction, stockpiles and quarries23,28 such sources can add up to approximately 5 μg.m-3 to the annual- mean background PM10 concentration at locations within 200 m of the source, 2 μg.m-3 at locations between 200 m and 400 m from the source and 1 μg.m-3 at locations between 400 m and 1,000 m from the source.

However, it should be stressed that CBM gas developments are much smaller in scale and involve much less dust-generating activity than the open cast coal sites on which the PM10 guidance in MPS2 is based. Furthermore, the assessment assumes that the activity will contribute over the whole of a one-year period, whereas in practice activities can be over much shorter durations. The above potential contributions to annual-mean concentrations should therefore be regarded very much as worst-case upper estimates.

Although the application site is located in the same general area as other proposed CBM gas development sites, no cumulative effects are expected to occur as the work at each site will be undertaken sequentially.

Sensitive Receptors for Suspended Particulates (PM10)

For assessment of PM10 the sensitive receptors to be considered are those where the public is regularly present and likely to be exposed over the averaging period of the objective. LAQM.TG(09) provides examples of where the air quality objectives should and should not apply: for the AQS annual-average PM10 objective, this includes residential properties, schools, hospitals and libraries.

Significance Criteria for Suspended Particulates (PM10)

A number of approaches can be used to determine whether the predicted air quality effects of a development are significant. However, there remains no universally recognised definition of what constitutes ‘significant’.

Guidance is available from a range of regulatory authorities and advisory bodies on how best to determine and present the significance of effects within an air quality assessment. It is generally considered good practice that, where possible, an assessment should communicate effects both numerically and descriptively.

26 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors – Emissions Factors and AP42 27 Environment Agency (2008). H1 Environmental Risk Assessment – Part 2 28 Environment Agency (2004). Technical Guidance Document (Monitoring) M17, Monitoring of Particulate Matter in Ambient air around Waste Facilities

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-8 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

As well as the semi-quantitative numerical comparison of predicted PM10 levels with the AQS annual-mean objective, this dust assessment study expresses descriptively the predicted PM10 effects. In order to ensure that the descriptions of effects used within this report are clear, consistent and in accordance with recent guidance, definitions have been adopted from the National Society for Clean Air (NSCA) document Development Control: Planning for Air Quality29. Table 11.3 provides magnitude descriptors used for predicted contributions from the development as a percentage of the AQS objective.

TABLE 11.3 – MAGNITUDE DESCRIPTORS Magnitude Descriptor Predicted Contribution as % of AQS

Very large Increase/decrease > 25% Large Increase/decrease 15 - 25% Medium Increase/decrease 10 - 15% Small Increase/decrease 5 - 10% Very Small Increase/decrease 1-5% Extremely Small Increase/decrease < 1% AQS = Air Quality Strategy Objective

The magnitude descriptor identified must then be considered in the context of existing air quality conditions within the study area in order for the significance of the impact to be determined. The most important aspects to consider are how much existing concentrations are above or below the relevant AQS objective and whether existing receptors are within an Air Quality Management Area. Table 11.4 provides descriptors for the significance of air quality effects based on the magnitude descriptors described above. The NSCA recognises that professional judgement is required in the interpretation of air quality assessment significance.

TABLE 11.4 – DESCRIPTORS FOR EFFECT SIGNIFICANCE WHEN THERE IS AN INCREASE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT Absolute Magnitude Descriptor Concentrations Extremely Very in Relation to Small Medium Large Very Large Small Small Standard Above Very Very standard Slight Slight Substantial Substantial substantial substantial without adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse scheme Below standard Very Very Slight Moderate Substantial Substantial without substantial substantial adverse adverse adverse adverse scheme, above adverse adverse with scheme Below standard with Slight Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial Negligible scheme, but adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse not well below Well below Slight Slight Slight Moderate standard with Negligible Negligible adverse adverse adverse adverse scheme Notes: The NSCA descriptors have been used as a framework for this assessment; however, professional judgment is required to determine the significance of any change. ‘Standard’ = AQS objective or limit value ‘Well below standard’ = <75% of the standard level Adopted from NSCA guidance

29 NSCA (2006). Development Control: Planning for Air Quality

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-9 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

Vehicle Emissions Assessment Methodology

At all stages of the CBM gas development vehicles are used to transport equipment and materials. The key pollutants from road traffic associated with local air quality and health impacts are NO2 and particulates. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from motor vehicle exhausts comprise nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO). The NO oxidises in the atmosphere to form NO2. NOx can affect sensitive vegetation directly and contribute to regional acid deposition. In addition to these pollutants, motor vehicles also emit carbon monoxide (CO), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, un-burnt hydrocarbons and various greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2). However, this air quality assessment focuses on the key traffic-related pollutant NO2 and a qualitative assessment has been made of the likely effects of NO2 resulting from vehicles movements associated with the development. This assessment has considered the likely significance of effects from vehicular emissions based on the expected scale, quantity and duration of vehicle movements as well as the proximity of receptors.

11.5 Baseline Conditions

Overview

Information on background air quality in the UK is usually available from two public sources:

• each local authority has published the results of its Review and Assessment (R&A) of air quality, with reference to local monitoring and modelling studies, providing a description of air quality at both kerbside and non-kerbside locations; and • the NAQIA includes projections of background (non-kerbside) concentrations for objective years up to 2010 for each 1 km grid square in the UK.

This information can be supplemented with reference to historical monitoring campaigns undertaken in the study area, by undertaking a site-specific monitoring campaign and by using typical background dust deposition rates from published sources.

Baseline Nuisance Dust Deposition Levels

UK Background Monitoring Data

The existing dust levels can be quantified from site-specific monitoring data or estimated baseline data. No site-specific baseline monitoring studies have been carried out for this site.

Although dust deposition rates – the main traditional means of assessing nuisance – are no longer routinely measured across the UK, monitoring was carried out nationally for a number of years. From these data, typical deposition rates for a variety of locations have been characterised and these are summarised below in Table 11.5.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-10 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

TABLE 11.5 – TYPICAL DUST DEPOSITION RATES IN THE UK30 Measurement Location Mean Dust Deposition (mg.m-2.day-1) Open country 39 Outskirts of towns 59 Industrial areas 127

The study area fits into the “open country” category, and hence the background mean dust deposition rate can be expected to be in the region of 39 mg.m-2.day-1.

Baseline Air Quality (PM10 and NO2 )

Local Authority Review and Assessment

A review and assessment of air quality in Stafford Borough concluded that the AQS objectives were likely to be met, and there was no need to progress to detailed assessment or declare an AQMA. Traffic is the main source of air pollution in the Borough, and around some busy road junctions monitoring has been introduced to identify deterioration in air quality31.

Background Monitoring Data

Monitoring at urban background locations is not influenced by local emission sources and concentrations are, therefore, broadly representative of residential areas within towns and cities. Urban background monitoring results are therefore considered to be an appropriate source of data for describing baseline air quality.

Stafford Borough Council (SBC) does not measure NO2 or PM10 in an urban background location using a continuous monitor. However, SBC measures NO2 in urban background locations using diffusion tubes. The results of diffusion tube monitoring at two urban background locations close to the site are detailed in Table 11.6.

-3 TABLE 11.6 – ANNUAL-MEAN NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (μg.m ) MEASURED BY DIFFUSION TUBES Site Name Approx Distance (km) to Site 2006 2007 2008 1 2.3 23 24 27 2 2.0 24 20 27

The diffusion tubes at sites 1 and 2 measured concentrations of NO2 in the range of 20 to 27 μg.m-3 between 2006 and 2008.

NAQIA Estimated and Projected Data

The National Air Quality Information Archive (NAQIA) provides estimates of pollutant concentrations across the UK at a resolution of 1 km2 for each year until 2020.

The proposed development site is within grid square 384500, 339500. The NAQIA data for this grid square are presented in Table 11.8.

30 Building Research Establishment (BRE) (2003). Guidance on Controlling Dust from Demolition and Construction 31 Stafford Borough Council. Local Air Quality Review and Assessment Documents.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-11 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

-3 TABLE 11.7 – NAQIA PM10 , NOx AND NO2 CONCENTRATION (μg.m ) ESTIMATES Year 2006 Annual mean NOx 19.7 Annual mean NO2 15.6 Annual mean PM10 15.2 Source: Air Quality Archive

Discussion of PM10 and NO2 Background Data

The requirement for this assessment is to set the background concentrations of PM10 and NO2 at conservative, but realistic levels.

For PM10, the only data available are the NAQIA mapped background concentrations. Therefore the NAQIA data has been used to set the PM10 baseline for the assessment.

For NO2 the urban background diffusion-tube sites measured higher concentrations than the concentration provided in the NAQIA. The diffusion tube at site 2 is closest to the development and has therefore been used to set a conservative, but realistic, NO2 baseline for the assessment.

The predicted opening year of the assessment is 2009. The 2009 NAQIA data for the grid square of the development along with diffusion tube data for 2007/2008, (projected to 2009 using the projection factors in TG(09)23), have been used as estimates of background concentrations for the assessment. The background concentrations used in the assessment are detailed below in Table 11.9.

-3 -3 TABLE 11.9 – CONCENTRATIONS (μg.m ) OF PM10 AND NO2 USED IN THE ASSESSMENT (μg.m ) Data Source Pollutant 2009 Site 2 – Diffusion Tube NO2 26.0 NAQIA PM10 14.4

11.6 Impact Assessment

Overview

The assessments of effects of nuisance dust during the different phases of the development have been undertaken using a qualitative risk-based approach. The effects of PM10 have been assessed semi-quantitatively. Assessment of emissions of CBM gas during the testing and production phase has been undertaken qualitatively.

Site Preparation Impacts

Preparation of the site will involve:

• removal of topsoil; • construction of soil bunds; • geo-textile and stone layer laid on the ground to protect subsoil; • provision of cabins for workers; • building of access roads; • provision of parking spaces; and

The activities that may cause fugitive dust emissions are as follows:

• removal of top soil and (if necessary) sub soil;

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-12 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• movement of vehicles, both on and off site; and • handling of loose construction materials.

Assessment of Traffic Pollution Effects

Movement of vehicles will result in emissions of combustion-related pollutants, including NO2. The operation of these vehicles will be on a relatively small scale and will be temporary (6 weeks) and very localised (predominantly within the site area of approximately 0.8 ha). The results of the baseline assessment show that for NO2 the existing baseline annual-mean concentration of 26.0 μg.m-3 within the district is well -3 below the relevant AQS objective of 40 μg.m . The additional contributions of NO2 from construction-related vehicle movements are considered to be negligible and not likely to have any significant adverse effect on air quality as defined by NSCA guidance. As subsequent phases of the development involve similar or fewer vehicle movements, effects of NO2 resulting from traffic movements are not considered further in this assessment.

Assessment of Nuisance Dust Effects

The level and distribution of nuisance dust emissions will vary according to factors such as the type of dust, duration and location of dust-generating activity, weather conditions and the effectiveness of suppression measures.

The windrose in Figure 11.1 illustrates that the prevailing wind is from the south.

The sensitive receptors that are within 500 m of the application site boundary are illustrated in Figure 11.2 and listed in Table 11.10. Any receptors within 100 m would be at greatest risk of nuisance, as this is the distance over which the majority of large dust particles will deposit. One sensitive receptor, Knowl Wall Farm is within this distance.

TABLE 11.10 – SENSITIVE RECEPTORS – NUISANCE DUST Distance from Source (m) Receptors Direction to Source <100 m Knowl Wall Farm N 100 m to 250 m Glen Rose NE The Toft SE Cliff Cottage N 250 m to 500 m Cottage A NE Beechcliffe Poultry Farm NNW

Receptors located between 100 m and 250 m are at lesser risk of nuisance dust impacts. One Receptor, Glen Rose, is within this distance.

Receptors beyond 250 m of the site are unlikely to experience significant nuisance effects from deposition as nuisance dusts generally only travel beyond this distance (and up to 500 m) under occasional meteorological conditions with strong winds.

There are four receptors between 250 m and 500 m from the source. If not mitigated, the main effect of any nuisance dust emissions would be slight soiling of surfaces, such as windows, cars and laundry. Any such effects arising from the site preparation phase would be temporary and localised. However, the scheme will incorporate mitigation measures based on ‘good housekeeping’ site practices and these will greatly reduce emissions of nuisance dusts. The following measures will be enforced on-site as part of the scheme to control dust emissions:

• soil bund across the south-western and south-eastern edges of the site; and

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-13 Greenpark Energy Ltd July 2009

• hard surfacing of access roads.

These measures are expected to be sufficient to control nuisance dust to a level where no nuisance effects would be expected.

Cumulative effects from nuisance dust are not expected to occur: firstly, because none of the receptors listed in Table 11.10 has any other proposed CBM gas development within the radius of 500 m in which nuisance dust can be expected to deposit (this is illustrated clearly in Figure 11.2); and secondly, because work at each site will be undertaken sequentially.

Assessment of (PM10) Effects

The assessments have been made by comparison with the annual-average PM10 Air Quality Strategy objective, because the published data on expected contributions from minerals sites is given in annual-average form.

The conservative but realistic estimate of the annual-mean background concentration -3 of PM10 is 14.4 μg.m . The construction and site preparation works could potentially -3 represent worst-case up to 5 μg.m to background PM10 at receptors within 200 m of the source, up to 2 μg.m-3 between 200 m and 400 m from the source, and up to 1 μg.m-3 at receptors between 400 m and 1000 m from the source. These distances are shown as concentric circles around the application site in Figure 11.3. The sensitive receptors falling into each distance category are shown in Table 11.11.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-14 Greenpark Energy Ltd

TABLE 11.11 – ASSESSMENT OF PM10 EFFECTS ASSUMING THE SITE TO BE AN OPENCAST COAL SITE -3 Distance from Source (m) Receptors PC (μg.m ) PC + Background PC Magnitude of Significance PM10 (% AQS objective) Change <200 m Knowl Wall Farm 5 19.4 12.5 Medium Slight Adverse 200 m to 400 m Glen Rose 2 16.4 5.0 Small Slight Adverse The Toft 2 16.4 5.0 Small Slight Adverse Beechcliffe 2 16.4 5.0 Small Slight Adverse Poultry Farm 400 m to 1000 m Cliff Cottage 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible Cottage A 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible Cottage B 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible The Old Coach 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible House Harley Thorn 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible Farm Keepers Cottage 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible Harley Thorn 1 15.4 2.5 Very Small Negligible Cottages

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-15

Greenpark Energy Ltd

On this basis site preparation activities (if they extended over the course of a full year) at the application site would contribute a PC of up to an additional 5 μg.m-3 onto -3 the annual-mean background PM10 concentration of 14.4 μg.m at Knowl Wall Farm, up to 2 μg.m-3 at three receptors (The Toft, Glen Rose and Beechcliffe Poultry Farm) and up to 1 μg.m-3 at the other receptors (see Table 11.11). The magnitude of the change in PM10 concentration at Knowl Wall Farm would be defined as a “medium” increase (12.5% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “slight adverse” using the NSCA criteria. The change in PM10 concentration at The Toft, Glen Rose and Beechcliffe Poultry Farm, would be defined as a “small” increase (5.0% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “slight adverse” using the NSCA criteria. At the other receptors the change in PM10 concentration would be defined as a “very small” increase (2.5% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “negligible” using the NSCA criteria.

However, it must be recognised that this is a very pessimistic, worst-case assessment that takes no account of the prevailing wind direction in relation to these receptors and assumes that the activities contribute to PM10 over the whole year. Furthermore, it should be stressed that CBM gas developments are much smaller in scale (0.8 ha) and involve much less dust-generating activity than the open cast coal sites on which the PM10 guidance in MPS2 is based. Even then, the PM10 concentrations at all receptors remain below the AQS objective value. In practice this phase is expected to last for 6 weeks only and the impacts can be expected to be considerably less.

Impacts of Drilling Phase

The assessment of this phase has been made assuming that four boreholes are drilled over a 12-week period. Drilling may potentially lead to fugitive dust emissions. A blow-out preventer will be installed on the well-head to prevent CBM gas escape.

Assessment of Nuisance Dust Effects

Sensitive receptors located within 500 m of the application site boundary are listed in Table 11.10 and depicted in Figure 11.2. Any receptors within 100 m would be at greatest risk of nuisance, as this is the distance over which the majority of large dust particles will deposit. One receptor Know Wall Farm is within this distance.

Receptors located between 100 m and 250 m are at lesser risk of nuisance dust impacts. One receptor, Glen Rose, is within this distance.

Receptors beyond 250 m of the site are unlikely to experience significant nuisance effects from deposition as nuisance dusts generally only travel beyond this distance (and up to 500 m) under occasional meteorological conditions with strong winds.

Receptors located between 250 m and 500 m from the site have a low likelihood of experiencing nuisance effects. Four receptors are between 250 m and 500 m from the site. If not mitigated, the main effect of any nuisance dust emissions would be slight soiling of surfaces, such as windows, cars and laundry. In addition to the mitigation measures put in place during the site preparation phase, specific measures put in place during the drilling phase minimise the potential for nuisance dust effects, namely:

• the drilling rig sits over a borehole size with a blowout preventer upon the top, which prevents any gas and therefore any emissions from the borehole; and • the borehole is drilled using a rotary or other appropriate drill bit. Drilling ‘mud’ is pumped down the borehole to cool and lubricate the drill bit. It also

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-16

Greenpark Energy Ltd

flushes the rock cuttings back to the surface where they are separated from the ‘mud’ by vibrating screens.

These measures are expected to be sufficient to control nuisance dust to a level where no nuisance effects would be expected.

Assessment of PM10 Effects

Using the AP42 drilling emission factor and the Environment Agency H1 screening calculation it was estimated that the drilling (if extended over a period of a full year) could potentially add a process contribution of up to 0.17 μg.m-3 to the existing -3 annual-mean PM10 baseline concentration of 14.4 μg.m at the nearby receptors. For the purposes of this assessment ‘nearby’ is classified as within 1 km of the source. This 0.17 μg.m-3 increase (0.56% as a percentage of the AQS objective) -3 results in an environmental PM10 concentration of 14.6 μg.m at the receptors listed in Table 11.11. Using the NSCA criteria shown in Table 11.5, the magnitude of the change in PM10 at the majority of receptors is described as “extremely small” and the significance of the effect is described as “negligible”.

However, it must be recognised that this is a very pessimistic, worst-case assessment that takes no account of the prevailing wind direction in relation to these receptors and assumes that the activities contribute to PM10 over the whole year. Even then, the PM10 concentrations at all receptors remain below the AQS objective value. In practice this phase is expected to last for no more than 17 weeks and the impacts can be expected to be considerably less.

Impacts of Production Phase

If testing shows that it is viable to progress to the production stage, additional infrastructure will be required. A pipeline will be built to gather the gas from the operational wells and transport it to the gas distribution network. Any water produced would be taken off site in tankers (the number of tankers utilised is not expected to be significant in terms of the impact on air quality).

The activities that could cause fugitive dust emissions are as follows:

• removal of soils for pipe laying; • movement of vehicles, both on and off site; and • handling of loose construction materials.

Assessment of Nuisance Dust Effects

Sensitive receptors located within 500 m of the application site boundary are listed in Table 11.10 and depicted in Figure 11.2. Any receptors within 100 m would be at greatest risk of nuisance, as this is the distance over which the majority of large dust particles will deposit. One receptor, Knowl Wall Farm, is within this distance.

Receptors located between 100 m and 250 m are at lesser risk of nuisance dust impacts. One receptor, Glen Rose is within this distance.

Receptors beyond 250 m of the site are unlikely to experience significant nuisance effects from deposition as nuisance dusts generally only travel beyond this distance (and up to 500 m) under occasional meteorological conditions with strong winds.

Receptors located between 250 m and 500 m of the site have a low likelihood of experiencing nuisance effects. Four receptors are within 250 m and 500 m of the

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-17

Greenpark Energy Ltd

site. If not mitigated, the main effect of any nuisance dust emissions would be slight soiling of surfaces, such as windows, cars and laundry. The measures put in place during the site preparation phase (hard surfacing of access road and seeding the permanent soil bund) would remain in place during the production phase. These measures are expected to be sufficient to control nuisance dust to a level where no nuisance effects would be expected.

Assessment of PM10 Effects

The production activities (if they extended over the course of a full year) at the application site may contribute a PC of up to an additional 5 μg.m-3 onto the annual- -3 mean background PM10 concentration of 14.4 μg.m at Knowl Wall Farm, up to 2 μg.m-3 at three receptors (The Toft, Glen Rose and Beechcliffe Poultry Farm) and up to 1 μg.m-3 at the other receptors (see Table 11.11). The magnitude of the change in PM10 concentration at Knowl Wall Farm would be defined as a “medium” increase (12.5% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “slight adverse” using the NSCA criteria. The change in PM10 concentration at The Toft, Glen Rose and Beechcliffe Poultry Farm, would be defined as a “small” increase (5.0% of the AQS objective) in PM10 and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “slight adverse” using the NSCA criteria. At the other receptors the change in PM10 concentration would be defined as a “very small” increase (2.5% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “negligible” using the NSCA criteria.

However, it must be recognised that this is a very pessimistic, worst-case assessment that takes no account of the prevailing wind direction in relation to these receptors, nor the limited duration of the phase to convert the site to a production site. Furthermore, it should be stressed that CBM gas developments are much smaller in scale (reduced to 0.5 ha at the production phase) and involve much less dust-generating activity than the open cast coal sites on which the PM10 guidance in MPS2 is based. Even then, the PM10 concentrations at all receptors remain below the AQS objective value. In practice, the impacts can be expected to be considerably less.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CBM gas is a generic term for the naturally occurring gas found in coal seams, formed by geological or biological processes. CBM gas is likely to be composed primarily of methane, with the remainder comprising of small quantities of ethane, propane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Compared with the use of coal as a fuel, CBM gas is clean with low emissions of sulphur, particulates and nitrogen.

The amount of CBM gas that is likely to be released between the drilling and production phases is expected to be dependent upon how quickly Production Hubs are built. If there is a small transition time, then the volume of fugitive CBM gas released into the atmosphere will be minimal. Subject to the granting of planning permission, the scheme is able to move straight from testing to production if viability is demonstrated, thus further minimising releases of CBM gas.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-18

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Impacts of Restoration

Once production has finished, or if the gas yield is not viable the site will be decommissioned and restored. Restoration will involve, “plugging” the wellhead, removal of the geo-textile and stone layer and removal of foundations to a depth of 1.0 m prior to replacement of topsoil. The activities that may cause fugitive dust emissions are movement of vehicles, both on and off-site; and handling of loose construction materials.

Assessment of Nuisance Dust Effects

Sensitive receptors located within 500 m of the application site boundary are listed in Table 11.11 and depicted in Figure 11.2. The receptors that are within 500 m of the application site boundary are illustrated in Figure 11.2. Any receptors within 100 m would be at greatest risk of nuisance, as this is the distance over which the majority of large dust particles will deposit. One receptor, Knowl Wall Farm, is within this distance.

Receptors located between 100 m and 250 m are at lesser risk of nuisance dust impacts. One receptor, Glen Rose, is within this distance.

Receptors located between 250 m and 500 m of the site have a low likelihood of experiencing nuisance effects. Four receptors are within 250 m and 500 m of the site.

During the restoration phase the soil bund and geo-textile liner will be removed. This could enhance the risk of receptors being exposed to dusts. If not mitigated, the main effect of any nuisance dust emissions would be slight soiling of surfaces, such as window cills, cars and laundry. However, the scheme will incorporate mitigation measures based on ‘good housekeeping’ site practices and these will greatly reduce emissions of nuisance dusts. These measures are expected to be sufficient to control nuisance dust to a level where no significant effects would be expected.

Receptors beyond 250 m of the site are unlikely to experience significant nuisance effects from deposition as nuisance dusts generally only travel beyond this distance (and up to 500 m) under occasional meteorological conditions with strong winds.

Assessment of PM10 Effects

Restoration activities at the application site could contribute a PC of up to an -3 additional 5 μg.m onto the annual-mean background PM10 concentration of 14.4 μg.m-3 at Knowl Wall Farm, up to 2 μg.m-3 at three receptors (The Toft, Glen Rose and Beechcliffe Poultry Farm) and up to 1 μg.m-3 at the other receptors (see Table 11.11). The magnitude of the change in PM10 concentration at Knowl Wall Farm would be defined as a “medium” increase (12.5% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “slight adverse” using the NSCA criteria. The change in PM10 concentration at The Toft, Glen Rose and Beechcliffe Poultry Farm, would be defined as a “small” increase (5.0% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “slight adverse” using the NSCA criteria. At the other receptors the change in PM10 concentration would be defined as a “very small” increase (2.5% of the AQS objective) and the significance of the effect on air quality would be defined as “negligible” using the NSCA criteria.

However, it must be recognised that this is a very pessimistic, worst-case assessment that takes no account of the prevailing wind direction in relation to these receptors. Furthermore, it should be stressed that CBM gas developments are much

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-19

Greenpark Energy Ltd

smaller in scale and involve much less dust-generating activity than the open cast coal sites on which the PM10 guidance in MPS2 is based. Even then, the PM10 concentrations at all receptors remain below the AQS objective value. In practice, the impacts can be expected to be considerably less associated only with the short timescale required to do the preparatory ground works required to initiate restoration.

11.7 Mitigation

The main potential effect from nuisance dust emissions, would be the soiling of surfaces, particularly window sills, cars and laundry. For this site, there is a low likelihood of any such effects arising, which would in any case be temporary and localised. Notwithstanding this, the scheme would incorporate mitigation measures based on ‘good housekeeping’ site practices (such as water bowsers, upward pointing vehicle exhausts etc) and other measures that will greatly reduce emissions of nuisance dusts: these are expected to be sufficient to control nuisance dust to a level where no nuisance effects would be expected and further mitigation is not, therefore, considered necessary.

For suspended dust (PM10), under pessimistic, worst-case assumptions, all receptors would experience either medium or small increases and slight adverse impacts, or very small increases and negligible effects. However, this very pessimistic, worst- case assessment takes no account of the prevailing wind direction in relation to these receptors. Even then, the PM10 concentrations at all receptors remain below the AQS objective value and, in practice, the impacts can be expected to be considerably less. Notwithstanding this, the following measures would be implemented to mitigate the impacts to a level where the effects would not be considered significant.

Site Preparation and Construction Phase

• Hardcore surfacing of access roads. • Construction of a soil bund around the south-west and south-east boundaries of the site. The arrangement of the soil bunds is likely to be particularly effective considering the prevailing wind in the area is from the south. • Plan site layout – machinery and dust causing activities should be located away from sensitive receptors. • All vehicles should switch off engines – no idling vehicles. • No site runoff of water/mud.

Drilling Phase

• Retention of the soil bund across the south-west and south-east boundaries of the site. • Ability to monitor for and detect gases; gas monitoring while drilling may be required. • Minimise dust generating activities. • Use water as dust suppressant where applicable. Fractures of methane that run through coal beds are usually filled with water. This water, if not saline, may be used as a dust suppressant.

Production Phase

• Eventual seepage would contribute to the emission of methane and CO2. Consequently, maximal capture and use of CBM gas as energy resource is considered mitigation measures for methane emissions.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-20

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Restoration Phase

• Plan site layout – machinery and dust causing activities should be located away from sensitive receptors. • All vehicles should switch off engines – no idling vehicles. • No site runoff of water/mud.

11.8 Statement of Significance

The main potential effect from nuisance dust is the risk of soiling of surfaces, particularly window sills, cars and laundry. For this site, there is a low likelihood of these effects arising, which would in any case be temporary and localised. This assessment has shown that no significant nuisance dust effects are expected for any phases of the development and further mitigation is not, therefore, considered necessary.

For suspended dust (PM10), under pessimistic, worst-case assumptions, all receptors would experience either very small increases and negligible effects, or small/medium increases and slight adverse impacts. However, this very pessimistic, worst-case assessment takes no account of the prevailing wind direction in relation to these receptors. Furthermore, it should be stressed that CBM gas developments are much smaller in scale and involve much less dust-generating activity than the open cast coal sites on which the PM10 guidance in MPS2 is based. Even then, the PM10 concentrations at all receptors remain below the AQS objective value and, in practice, the impacts can be expected to be considerably less. Mitigation measures have been recommended that will control impacts to a level where no significant effects would be expected.

Although small quantities of CBM gas could be released fugitively between the drilling and production phases, the net overall effect on emissions of greenhouse gases is likely to be insignificant because Greenpark intends to move directly from drilling into production.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 11-21

Greenpark Energy Ltd

12. Archaeology/Cultural Heritage

12.1 Summary

This chapter assessed the likely effect of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource. In the first instance a rapid archaeological assessment was undertaken. This indicated that there is no recorded evidence for early activity within the proposed development area, that there is low potential for the proposed development area to contain archaeological remains and that the proposed development will have no effect on any statutorily protected or registered cultural heritage receptor, or setting. There is no evidence for the proposed development area to contain remains of national importance, or of sufficient importance to warrant preservation in situ of archaeological remains.

Given the low archaeological potential of the proposed development area and its lack of impact on any other cultural heritage receptors, the effect of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource would not be significant and no mitigation is proposed.

12.2 Introduction

An assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource has been undertaken. The key concern throughout the work is the potential for a feature of cultural heritage to be affected by the development.

The aim of this cultural heritage assessment is to consider the likelihood of the proposed development site containing archaeological remains and to provide an indication of what further work, if any, would be required with regard to archaeology at the site. This has been achieved through the following objectives:

• to identify statutorily protected cultural heritage remains including Scheduled Ancient Monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas and designed landscapes; • to identify any non statutorily protected remains including archaeological sites; • to make an assessment of the relative importance of these remains; and • to make an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on the identified remains.

12.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

Legislation

• Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessments, Institute of Field Archaeologists (October 2008) Listed buildings are protected under the provisions 54(i) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1971), as amended by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990) which empowers the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to maintain a list of built structures of historic or architectural significance. • Scheduled Ancient Monuments are protected through the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979), which had been updated in the National Heritage Act (1983). Scheduled Monuments are maintained on a list held by the Secretary of State for DCMS. Any alterations or works to a Scheduled

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-1

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Monument (including archaeological investigation) requires Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC). • The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 include guidelines to protect hedgerows that have been assessed as 'important' in terms of criteria that include historical elements. Developments that would require the removal of any part of an 'important' hedgerow require consent from the Local Planning Authority for that removal.

Guidance

• PPG16 Planning Policy Guidance: Archaeology and Planning (1990), provides advice to planning authorities regarding the protection of archaeology within the planning process. The guidance makes clear that prospective developers should make provision for the archaeological appraisal of a site when assessing a site’s development potential (Section 2B, paragraph 18a, 1990).

• PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) deals with Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, World Heritage Sites, Historic Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields and the wider historic landscape.

Professional Standards

• Institute of Field Archaeologists Code of Conduct 2002; and • Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessments, Institute of Field Archaeologists (October 2008)

12.4 Methodology

The primary information resource was the Historic Environment Record, supplemented by relevant published documentary and cartographic material, as appropriate. Information on Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens etc was obtained from English Heritage. The assessment has determined how likely it is that any archaeological/cultural heritage feature may occur at the site, what it is and its historical importance/relevance to the area.

• The assessment has been based on a preliminary, office-based, assessment of the likelihood of the proposed development site to contain archaeological remains and to provide an indication of what, if any, further work would be required with regard to archaeology. • The primary information resource was the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), supplemented by relevant published documentary and cartographic material, as appropriate. • Information on Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens etc. was obtained from English Heritage. • It was not proposed at this stage to carry out a site visit or a record office visit • A brief report on the results of the assessment was prepared. This outlined the method, briefly described the archaeological and historical background and assessed the likelihood of the proposed development area to contain archaeological remains and their relative importance. • The report provided an indication of the need for and, if appropriate outline of the scope of further work, both desk and field based.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-2

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) – Archaeological Remains

There are no national government guidelines for evaluating the importance or significance (and hence the 'value' of cultural heritage resources). For archaeological remains, English Heritage has proposed a series of recommended (i.e. non-statutory) criteria for use in the determination of national importance when scheduling ancient monuments, and these are expressed in Annex 4 of Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16). The criteria include period, rarity, documentation, group value, survival / condition, fragility / vulnerability, diversity and potential, and can be used as a basis for the assessment of the importance of historic remains and archaeological sites. However the annex also states that 'these criteria should not be regarded as definitive …… rather they are indicators which contribute to a wider judgement based on the individual circumstances of a case'.

The criteria described above could be used as a basis for the assessment of the importance of archaeological remains of less than national significance. However the categories of regional and district / local importance are less clearly established than that of national, and implicitly relate to local, district and regional priorities which themselves will be varied within and between regions. Local, district and regional research agenda may be available, and local or structure plans may also help.

Clearly a high degree of professional judgement is necessary, guided by acknowledged standards, designations and priorities. It is also important to understand that buried archaeological remains may not be well-understood at the time of assessment, and can therefore be of uncertain value.

The most recent guidance from any national agency regarding cultural heritage and Environmental Impact Assessment is from the Highways Agency, and is expressed in Guidance Note 208/07 (August 2007) that now forms part of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB, Volume II, section 3, part 2). Guidance Note 208/07 provides the following table as a guide for assessing the value of archaeological resources:

TABLE 12.1: FACTORS FOR ASSESSING THE VALUE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSETS Very High • World Heritage Sites • Assets of acknowledged international importance • Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives

High • Scheduled Monuments • Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance • Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives

Medium • Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objective

Low • Undesignated assets of local importance • Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations • Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives

Negligible • Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest Unknown • The importance of the resource cannot be ascertained

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-3

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) - Historic Buildings

For historic buildings, assessment of importance is usually based on the designations used in the Listed Building process. However, where historic buildings are not listed or where the listing grade may be in need of updating, professional judgement will be required.

The criteria used in establishing the value of historic buildings within the listing procedure include architectural interest, historic interest, close historic association (with nationally important people or events), and group value. Age and rarity are also taken into account; in general (where surviving in original or near-original condition) all buildings of pre-1700 date are listed, most of 1700-1840 date are listed, those of 1840-1914 date are more selectively listed, and thereafter even more selectively. Specific criteria have been developed for buildings of 20th century date.

At a local level, buildings may be valued for their association with local events and people or for their role in the community.

Guidance Note 208/07 provides the following table as a guide for evaluating the value of historic buildings:

TABLE 12.2 - GUIDE FOR ESTABLISHING THE VALUE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS Very High • Standing buildings inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites • Other buildings of recognised international importance

High • Scheduled Monuments with standing remains • Grade I and II* Listed buildings • Other listed buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical association not adequately reflected in the listing grade • Conservation Areas containing very important buildings • Undesignated structures of clear national importance

Medium • Grade II Listed Buildings • Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical association • Conservation Areas containing important buildings • Historic Townscape or built-up areas with historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures)

Low • ‘Locally listed’ buildings • Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association • Historic Townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures)

Negligible • Buildings of no architectural or historic note; buildings of an intrusive character

Unknown • Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance

Assessment of Resource Importance (Value) - Historic Landscape

The sub-topic of Historic Landscape is recognised as having significant overlaps with other topics such as Landscape and Townscape, and a multi-disciplinary approach to assessment is required. This is partially to avoid double-counting, and also to avoid duplication of effort. There are also significant overlaps with the other Cultural

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-4

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Heritage sub-topics; Archaeological Remains and Historic Buildings. The elements that are considered within those two sub-topics can make significant contributions to the historic landscape, and this latter subtopic should concentrate on the overall historic landscape character and its value rather than the individual elements within it.

All landscapes have some level of historic significance, as all of the present appearance of the urban and rural parts of England is the result of human or human- influenced activities overlain on the physical parameters of climate, geography and geology.

There are number of designations that can apply to historic landscapes, including World Heritage Sites (inscribed for their historic landscape value), Registered Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest, Registered Historic Battlefields, and Conservation Areas. Some local plans include locally designated Historic Landscape Areas, and Historic Parks and Gardens (or similar).

A model has been produced by the Council for British Archaeology whereby the historic landscape can be divided up into units that are scaled, from smallest to largest, as follows:

• Elements - individual features such as earthworks, structures, hedges, woods etc • Parcels - elements combined to produce, for example farmsteads or fields • Components - larger agglomerations of parcels, such as dispersed settlements or straight-sided field systems • Types - distinctive and repeated combinations of components defining generic historic landscapes such as ancient woodlands or parliamentary enclosure • Zones - characteristic combinations of types, such as Anciently Enclosed Land or Moorland and Rough Grazing • Sub-regions - distinguished on the basis of their unique combination of interrelated components, types and zones • Regions - areas sharing an overall consistency over large geographical tracts

The model described above can be used as the principal part of the overall assessment usually known as Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC). However, although HLC has been undertaken for much of England, there is no significant guidance or advice regarding the attribution of significance or value to identified historic landscape units.

Guidance Note 208/07 provides the following table as a guide for evaluating the value of historic landscape units:

TABLE 12.3 - GUIDE FOR EVALUATING HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER UNITS Very High • World Heritage Sites inscribed for their historic landscape qualities • Historic landscape of international sensitivity, whether designated or not • Extremely well-preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s)

High • Designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest • Undesignated landscapes of outstanding interest • Undesignated landscapes of high quality and importance, and of demonstrable national sensitivity • Well-preserved historic landscapes exhibiting exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s)

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-5

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Medium • Designated special historic landscapes • Undesignated historic landscapes that would justify special historic landscape designation, landscapes of regional sensitivity • Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s)

Low • Robust undesignated historic landscapes • Historic landscapes with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups, but with limited sensitivity • Historic landscapes whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations • Robust historic landscapes

Negligible • Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest

Assessment of Impact Magnitude - Archaeological Remains

The magnitude of impact is assessed without regard to the value of the resource. In terms of the judgement of the magnitude of impact, this is based on the principle (established in PPG16) that preservation of the resource is preferred, and that total physical loss of the resource is the least preferred.

It is not always possible to assess the physical impact in terms of percentage loss, and therefore it can be important in such cases to try to assess the capacity of the resource to retain its character following any impact. Similarly, impacts on the setting of archaeological remains may also be more difficult to assess as they do not involve physical loss of the resource and may actually be reversible.

Additional methodology regarding the assessment of effects on settings is provided below.

Impact scales are defined thus: Major: Change to most or all key archaeological elements, such that the resource is totally altered.

Comprehensive changes to setting.

Moderate: Changes to many key archaeological elements, such that the resource is clearly modified.

Considerable changes to setting.

Minor: Changes to key archaeological elements, such that the asset is slightly altered.

Slight changes to setting.

Negligible: Very minor changes to elements or setting.

No change: No change.

Assessment of Impact Magnitude - Historic Buildings

The magnitude of impact is assessed without regard to the value of the resource, so the total destruction of an insignificant building has the same degree of impact as the total loss of a high value building. In terms of the judgement of the magnitude of

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-6

Greenpark Energy Ltd

impact, this is based on the principle that preservation of the resource and its setting is preferred, and that total physical loss of the resource is the least preferred.

Impacts on the setting of historic buildings may include vibration, noise and lighting issues as well as visual impacts, and may be reversible. Additional methodology regarding the assessment of effects on settings is provided below.

Impact scales are defined thus:

Major: Change to key historic building elements, such that the resource is totally altered.

Total change to the setting.

Moderate: Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified.

Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified.

Minor: Changes to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different.

Change to setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably changed.

Negligible: Slight changes to historic buildings elements or setting that hardly affect it

No change: No change to fabric or setting

Assessment of Impact Magnitude - Historic Landscape

Historic landscapes cannot be destroyed or damaged but impacts on them can change their character. Impacts should be assessed using evaluated historic landscape character units, not the elements/parcels/components that contribute towards the character (see above). There may be impacts on the setting of identified units, especially with regard to designated historic landscapes. Additional methodology regarding the assessment of effects on settings is provided below.

Impact scales are defined thus:

Major: Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit.

Moderate: Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; visual change to many key aspects of the historic landscape; noticeable differences in noise or sound quality; considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-7

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Minor: Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic landscape; limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight changes to use or access; resulting in limited changes to historic landscape character.

Negligible: Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; virtually unchanged visual effects; very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character.

No change: No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes arising from amenity or community factors Significance of Effects

The significance of effects is a combination of the value of the resource or asset and the magnitude of impact on that resource or asset. Effects can be adverse or beneficial. Beneficial effects are those that mitigate existing impacts and help to restore or enhance heritage assets, therefore allowing for greater understanding and appreciation. In line with Guidance Note 208/07 the following matrix is used for all three sub-topics.

TABLE 12.4 - CULTURAL HERITAGE: SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS MATRIX VALUE / SENSITIVITY Very High Neutral Slight Moderate/ Large or Very Large Large Very Large High Neutral Slight Moderate/ Moderate/ Large/Very Slight Large Large Medium Neutral Neutral/ Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/ Large Low Neutral Neutral/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Slight/ Slight Moderate Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/ Neutral/ Slight Slight Slight No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT

Where the matrix provides a split in the significance of effects, e.g. Moderate/Slight, the assessor will exercise professional judgement in determining which of the levels of significance is more appropriate.

Moderate or greater effects are considered to be significant.

Settings

The issues surrounding the identification of the 'setting' of cultural heritage features, and the nature and magnitude of impacts and consequently effects on such 'settings', have been subject to much recent debate within the historic environment profession. Legislation and guidance makes reference to the desirability of preserving or not adversely affecting 'settings', but the term has never really been clearly defined.

The Institute for Archaeologists has recently established a working party to address this issue. In the meantime Colcutt’s (1999) definition of setting, as summarised in Lambrick (2008, below) is used as follows:

• Intrinsic visual interest and listing visual qualities

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-8

Greenpark Energy Ltd

• Topographic setting, identifying visual relationships to topography and natural features that can be linked with the function of the site or the reason for placement of the site in the landscape

• Landuse setting, identifying whether the landuse is sympathetic to the site’s intellectual understanding

Group setting including both contemporary and diachronic groupings or patterning, listing other sites, above or below ground, that could assist with creating a network of relationships. This should acknowledge any spatial element

12.5 Baseline Conditions

There is evidence for prehistoric activity, in the form of two ring ditches (HER numbers 04706 and 04707), perhaps representing prehistoric barrows, which have been recorded from aerial photography located 550m and 300 m respectively to the north-east of the Site.

The Site lies at some distance from the known Roman road network and there is little evidence for Roman activity in the area.

The place name of the nearby settlement of Tittensor first appears in the Domesday Book of 1086.

Swynnerton Old Park is probably a medieval deerpark. It is recorded approximately 2 km to the west of the Site (HER number 50163). It is shown on the first edition Ordnance Survey six inch to the mile map of 1891 (Staffs sheet 23NE) as an area of woodland.

The post medieval period seems to have seen depopulation in the wider area. The recorded medieval settlement at Groundslow, some 2 km to the south-east of the Site, was recorded as having 18 inhabitants in 1803, but was almost entirely removed between 1819 and 1832 (HER 00591). The HER notes that there is now no sign of a deserted village in this location.

The main A519 road follows the line of the Newcastle to Eccleshall turnpike road in the vicinity of the Site. A tollhouse, built in 1825 survives, albeit in altered form. The building is of brick with a tile roof. The building is unlisted. Approximately 450 m to the south-west of the Site, at NGR SJ 851384, a stone bridge supports the main A519 road. This structure represents a further feature of the turnpike road. The bridge is a listed building, listed at Grade II.

Trentham Gardens, located some on the east side of the M6 motorway, some 300 m east of the Site is a landscaped park and garden of the mid 18th century. The site is a Registered Park and Garden, recorded at Grade II* on the English Heritage Register. Associated with the Trentham estate are Drayton Road Cottages, a pair of brick and stone cottages, with clay pan tile roofs, dating to c. 1860 and in the vernacular revival style. The buildings are listed at Grade II.

The site is a field used for various horticultural crops.

12.6 Impact Assessment

There is no evidence for below ground archaeology within the Site that would be affected by the CBM development and the impact is assessed as nil.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-9

Greenpark Energy Ltd

During the drilling phase, the drilling rig may be visible from the Grade II listed bridge at NGR SJ 851 384, located some 450 m south-west of the Site. It is possible that the drilling rig would be visible from small parts of Trentham Gardens.

There would be no direct impacts on any cultural heritage feature. There may be an impact on the setting of a listed building. This impact would be temporary (lasting no more than 21 weeks) and reversible. The impact while occurring would be no more than slight adverse.

The table below shows predicted impacts by CBM development phase

TABLE 12.1 - IMPACTS BY CBM DEVELOPMENT PHASE Phase Impact

Phase 1: Site preparation Nil

Phase 2: Drilling (exploration and appraisal) Slight adverse

Phase 3: Production (where CBM gas is extracted commercially) Nil

Phase 4: Capping and restoration Nil

12.7 Mitigation

No specific mitigation is proposed. However, it is noted that, although the drilling rig would be a relatively tall structure, measuring some 37 m in height maximum. The drilling of the boreholes and laterals would be completed within 17 weeks.

12.8 Statement of Significance

The cultural heritage assessment has considered the impact of the CBM development on the Site.

There is no evidence for below ground archaeology within the proposed CBM development area and no adverse effect is anticipated. There are several listed buildings and a Registered Park and Garden in the area and a minor adverse effect is predicted on their setting during the drilling phase.

No specific mitigation is required or proposed, although it is noted that drilling of the boreholes/laterals will be completed within 17 weeks and that the production site would be virtually silent and visually discreet.

In conclusion, the CBM development would have no significant effect on the Site

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 12-10

Greenpark Energy Ltd

13. Socio-Economic Impacts

13.1 Summary

This socio-economic assessment considered the various impacts of the proposed CBM gas development upon employment, financial investment and tourism at the Knowl Wall Farm site and the wider area.

The proposed development should lead to additional spend of wages into the local economy and opportunities for local accommodation providers and other local services to construction workers who do not live locally. This is considered to be a significant positive effect. Furthermore, the proposed development offers potential opportunities for local people to be employed. This in turn may also generate additional expenditure in the local economy. This is considered to be a positive effect. Consequently, the overall socio-economic impact from the proposed development at the Knowl Wall Farm site is assessed as positive and significant to the local area.

The minimal loss of earnings from agriculture on the proposed site is outweighed by the income provided to the landowner. This is a positive effect associated with the development although not considered significant.

Due to the scale of the development and lack of tourist attractions in the immediate vicinity of the site, the effect on tourism is considered negligible.

13.2 Introduction

This chapter assesses the potential economic and social effects that may arise as a result of the site preparation, drilling, production, and restoration activities of the proposed CBM gas development at the Knowl Wall Farm site.

13.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

There is no specific legislation that relates to this chapter. However, the following guidelines have informed this assessment:

• Tyldesley, D. & Associates (2005). A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment. Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and Others Involved in the EIA Process in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage, Perth.

13.4 Methodology

Data Gathering

Information was obtained from the following sources:

• Advantage West Midlands http://www.advantagewm.co.uk/

• Countryside Commission (1998). Countryside Character Volume 2: North West. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/character/area s/northwest.aspx

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-1

Greenpark Energy Ltd

• Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2007 http://www.communities.gov.uk/

• Enjoy England www.enjoyengland.com

• Enjoy Staffordshire www.enjoystaffordshire.com

• Stafford Borough Council http://www.staffordbc.gov.uk

• Stafford Tourism bureau website www.visitstafford.org/

• The Heart of England Tourism http://www.visittheheart.co.uk

• The Office for National Statistics, neighbourhood statistics website www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

• Visit Britain www.tourismtrade.org.uk

Scope of Study

This chapter examined the effects of the development associated with the following issues:

• effects on employment and the economy; • effects on financial investment; and • effects on tourism.

Assessment Methodology

There is no prescribed methodology or standard guidance for this aspect of an EIA. The method adopted is therefore one of determining the existing circumstances (the baseline) through desk based analysis. The potential effects of the proposed CBM gas development on this baseline were then assessed using knowledge gained from professional experience to assess the significance of the potential effects.

Evaluation Criteria and Assessment of Significance

Two criteria were used in the evaluation of the significance of the predicted effects of the proposed CBM gas development:

• the type of effect (i.e. positive, negative, neutral or unknown); and • the magnitude of the effect - based upon the size of the proposed development and the number of people and/or businesses likely to be affected.

In terms of employment, predicted effects would be:

• “significantly beneficial” where a new business is created as a result of the proposed development; • “significant” where a new local employment opportunity is created,

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-2

Greenpark Energy Ltd

• “adverse” where there is a reduction in the local workforce; or • “neutral” where the overall number and quality of local beneficial and adverse impacts are the same.

In terms of financial investment, predicted effects would be:

• “significantly positive” where new income is received which will contribute to the raising and diversification of local farm income and/or where there is an increase in expenditure in businesses in the local area; • “significantly negative” where there is a decrease in local farm income and/or local expenditure in businesses in the local area; or • “neutral” where there is no net increase in farm income and/or expenditure in local businesses.

In terms of tourism, predicted effects would be:

• “significantly positive” where the proposed development attracts visitors to the local area; • “significantly negative” where the proposed development deters visitors to the local area; or • “neutral” where there is no net change in visitors to the local area.

The impact on tourism may potentially have wider effects on the local economy and employment.

13.5 Baseline Conditions

Population

The proposed site falls within the ward of Swynnerton which lies within Stafford Local Authority. According to the 2001 Census, Swynnerton has a total population of 4,233. This consisted of 2,081 males and 2,152 females.

According to the 2001 Census, Swynnerton has a population density of 1.16 persons per hectare. Under the Office of National Statistics definition of rural areas of England and Wales, Swynnerton is described as ‘rural less sparse’.

Employment and Economic Activity

Table 13.1 highlights the age structure of Swynnerton and places this in the context of Stafford, the West Midlands and England. The population of Swynnerton has a slightly older age profile than that of Stafford, the West Midlands and England. Compared to the West Midland Region there are significantly fewer people aged 20- 34 and more people aged 50+ in Swynnerton. 13% of Swynnerton’s population is 20-34 compared to 20% for the West Midlands and England. Similarly 39% of Swynnerton’s population is aged 50+ compared to 33% for England as a whole.

TABLE 13.1 – AGE STRUCTURE Age Group Swynnerton Stafford West Midlands England 0-15 19% 18% 21% 20% 16-19 4% 5% 5% 5% 20-34 13% 18% 20% 20% 35-49 24% 22% 21% 21% 50-59 17% 15% 13% 13% 60-64 7% 6% 5% 5% 65-74 9% 9% 9% 8% 75 and over 7% 8% 7% 8%

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-3

Greenpark Energy Ltd

TABLE 13.1 – AGE STRUCTURE Age Group Swynnerton Stafford West Midlands England Total 4,232 120,670 5,267,308 49,138,831 Source: The Office for National Statistics, 2001 Census

Table 13.2 shows the economic activity of all persons aged 16-74 years in Swynnerton, Stafford, the West Midlands and England in the 2001 Census.

TABLE 13.2 – ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF PERSONS AGED 16-74 YEARS Swynnerton Stafford West Midlands England Employees 12% 13% 12% 12% Part-time

Employees Full-time 41% 43% 40% 41% Self-employed 11% 9% 7% 8% Unemployed 2% 3% 4% 3% Full time 3% 3% 2% 3% students Economically Active Economically Total economically 69% 69% 66% 67% active

Retired 17% 15% 14% 14% Student 3% 4% 5% 5% Looking after 5% 5% 7% 7% home/family Permanently 4% 4% 6% 5% sick/disabled Other 2% 2% 3% 3% Total

Economically Inactive Economically economically 31% 31% 34% 33% inactive

All people 3,159 88, 991 3,780,784 35,532,091 aged 16-74 Source: The Office for National Statistics, 2001 Census

The economic activity of all people aged 16-74 in Swynnerton in the 2001 Census was 69%, above both the West Midlands at 66% and England at 67%. The percentage of Swynnerton’s persons aged 16-74 in employment (employee or self employed) was 65%, again above the West Midland’s rate at 60% and England at 61%. Self employment is more important in Swynnerton than nationally, with 11% of people in Swynnerton being self employed compared to 8% for England. There are also higher levels of retirement in Swynnerton than nationally, with 17% of people of working age population being retired compared to 14% nationally.

Table 13.3 shows the industries of employment of all persons aged 16-74 in employment in the 2001 Census.

TABLE 13.3 – INDUSTRY OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALL PERSONS AGED 16-74 IN EMPLOYMENT (EXCLUDING FULL TIME STUDENTS) Swynnerton Stafford West Midlands England Agriculture, hunting 3 2 2 1 and forestry Fishing 0 0 0 0 Mining and 0 0 0 0 quarrying Manufacturing 17 16 21 15 Electricity, gas and 1 1 1 1 water supply Construction 6 6 7 7 Wholesale and 16 16 17 17 retail trade, repairs

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-4

Greenpark Energy Ltd

TABLE 13.3 – INDUSTRY OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALL PERSONS AGED 16-74 IN EMPLOYMENT (EXCLUDING FULL TIME STUDENTS) Swynnerton Stafford West Midlands England Hotels and 5 5 5 5 restaurants Transport, storage 6 and 6 6 7 communications Financial 4 3 3 5 intermediaries Real estate, renting 12 and business 11 11 13 activities Public 5 administration and 9 5 6 defence, social security Education 11 9 8 8 Health & social 10 13 11 11 work Other 4 4 4 5 Total 2,120 58,761 2,334,567 22,441,498 Source: The Office for National Statistics, 2001 Census

The above table demonstrates interesting differences in the industries Swynnerton residents work in. There is an above average proportion of local people employed in manufacturing industry, with 17% of all persons aged 16-74 in employment in Swynnerton employed in manufacturing compared to 15% in England. However, this is lower than for the West Midlands where 21% of all persons aged 16-74 in employment are employed in manufacturing. There is also an above average number of people employed in education, with 11% of all persons aged 16-74 in employment in Swynnerton employed in education compared to 8% in both the West Midlands and England. 53 people in Swynnerton worked in agriculture, hunting and forestry in 2001.

Socio-Economic Indicators

The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD) is a composite measure of deprivation based on 37 indicators that are grouped into 7 domains. The 7 domains relate to income, employment, health and disability, education, skills and training, barriers to housing and services, crime and the living environment. The local area geography adopted by the Government for this measure is Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs). These LSOAs are based on groups of census output areas and have populations of between 1,000 and 3,000 people living in them with an average population of 1500 people.

There are 32,482 LSOAs in England. The LSOA ranked 1 by the IMD is the most deprived and that ranked 32,482 is the least deprived. The proposed site falls within Stafford 002E LSOA and in the 2007 IMD had an overall rank of 17,724 of 32,482. This rank places the SOA in the 55th percentile, well outwith the generally accepted range for deprived areas of the worst 20%. However closer examination of the individual domain rankings (see Table 13.4) shows that the area is disadvantaged in terms of access to housing and key services (GP premises, supermarkets, primary schools and post offices) for which it is ranked within the worst 20% of LSOAs.

TABLE 13.4 – INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION 2007 – STAFFORD 002E LOWER SUPER OUTPUT AREA Rank Percentile Overall SIMD 17,724 55% Income domain 22,187 68%

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-5

Greenpark Energy Ltd

TABLE 13.4 – INDEX OF MULTIPLE DEPRIVATION 2007 – STAFFORD 002E LOWER SUPER OUTPUT AREA Rank Percentile Employment domain 13,921 43% Health Deprivation and Disability 16,349 50% domain Education, skills & training domain 20,089 62% Barriers to Housing and Services 6,343 20% domain Crime domain 21,936 68% Living Environment domain 15,952 49% Source: Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2007

Land Use

Throughout the Staffordshire Plain, the predominant land use in rural areas is the production of grass for dairy cattle. This agricultural activity is based on the widespread fertile and productive clay soils in Staffordshire and the relatively high rainfall levels that help promote good grass growth. Woodland cover is generally low.32

The proposed site is the grass field within which there are various horticultural crops.

Tourism

The Heart of England Tourism West Midlands Economic Impact of Tourism 2004 provides detailed information on tourism trends for each of the West Midland’s counties and for the region as a whole from 2002-2004. Key findings were:

• in 2004, the West Midland’s had approximately 102 million trips, with Staffordshire County accounting for the second greatest number of tourist visits at 20.2 million trips;

• of these 102 million trips to the West Midlands in 2004, 89% were day visits and 11% were staying trips. Of the 20.2 million trips to Staffordshire in 2004, 95% were day visits, showing that Staffordshire has a market profile of primarily day visitors;

• this brought in £4,492 million to the region’s economy, with Staffordshire accounting for almost a fifth (16%) of the regions tourism spend;

• visitors to the Staffordshire spent their money on a variety of things. In 2004 of the £703 million spent by visitors, 35% was spent on catering, 31% on retail, 11% on entertainment and 8% on accommodation; and

• this provided a total of 19,094 jobs supported by tourism spend in 2004 in Staffordshire, although all these jobs are not provided to residents of Staffordshire.

The Trentham Estate is an established major tourist attraction in Staffordshire, with Manchester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Derby all within 1 hours travel. The Estate, which is located approximately 1.5 km to the north east of the application site, is host to a number of events, including many outdoor concerts. The attraction

32 Countryside Commission (1998). Countryside Character Volume 2: North West. Character Area 61/62. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/englands/character/areas/northwest.aspx

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-6

Greenpark Energy Ltd

is five years into a £100 million restoration project and contains a great variety of attractions including:

• Trentham Gardens (386570, 340672) – the 750 acre historic gardens, located at the northern end of Trentham Lake, are one of the most important in Britain and are being restored to reflect the original design of Sir Charles Barry for the Duke of Sutherland. They also contain an adventure play ground. A total of 108 visitors paid to get into the gardens in 2009, bringing in £800,00033 to the local economy;

• Trentham Monkey Forest (386774, 339279) – the monkey forest, located at the southern end of Trentham Lake, is a 60 acre area of woodland and meadows where 140 monkeys live in freedom. The Monkey Forest attracted an estimated 229,000 visitors in 2007;34

• Trentham Lake (386702, 340436) – the mile long formal lake is used for pleasure boat trips and rowing boats;

• Trentham Woodland (386702, 340436) – there are over 400 acres of woodland on the Estate which contain a number of walks of different length for all fitness levels;

• Trentham Shopping Village & Trentham Garden Centre (386820, 340597) – situated to the east of the Trentham Gardens, the shopping village contains over 60 retail outlets. The Trentham Garden Centre is an award winning centre of horticultural excellence; and

• Trentham Aerial Extreme (386751, 339492) – an aerial based adventure rope course set within the grounds of the Trentham Estate.

Other tourist attractions in the vicinity of the site include:

• Wedgewood Visitor Centre (388714, 339770) – located approximately 3.5 km to the east of the application site, the centre provides a history to Josiah Wedgwood and allows visitors to see how the Wedgewood products are made. It also contains two restaurants and a shop. In 2004 there were 107,5000 visitors to the centre35;

• Whitmore Hall (381075, 341292) – located approximately 4.5km to the north west of the application site, Whitmore Hall is a Grade I listed building, designated as a house of outstanding architectural and historical interest. In 2006 there were 1,477 visitors to Whitmore Hall;36

• The Mill Meece Pumping Station (382815, 334768) – located approximately 5.4km to the south west of the application site, the Station is one of the last examples of a 20th Century steam water pumping stations remaining intact; and

• Slater’s Craft Village (379422, 339152) – located approximately 5.9km to the west of the application site, the village is designed to resemble an old Victorian village and comprises 15 shops selling gifts and crafts.

33 The Sentinel, Visitor numbers down at Trentham Gardens. Friday February 27 2009. 34 Visit Britain, Annual Visitor Attraction Survey 2007 West Midlands www.tourismtrade.org.uk 35 http://mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/publication/ss- stoke/PDFs/student/Visitors%20to%20Local%20Attractions.pdf 36 Visit Britain, Visitor Attraction Trends – England 2006 and 2005. www.tourismtrade.org.uk

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-7

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Information Gaps

While there is a lack of specific data relating to finances in agriculture and other businesses in the local area, it is not considered to be sufficiently important in relation to this assessment. No other significant information gaps relating to socio-economic issues have been identified.

13.6 Impact Assessment

Employment and Economy

The proposed CBM development would not result in any fundamental or long term changes in population, structure of the local community, local services or employment. However, it would involve investment in the local area and should therefore create direct and indirect economic benefits associated with the various phases. Table 13.6 summarises the potential impacts.

TABLE 13.6 – EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT Full-time equivalent Tasks Opportunities Time (FTE) workers - Local contractors Civil constructions, fencing, Phase 1 - Site - Local 5 weeks 8-10 drainage, transporting Drilling preparation accommodation rig and ancillary equipment suppliers Drilling rig operation, data - Local contractors Up to 17 logging and analysis, - Local Phase 2 – Drilling 16-20 weeks communications, specialist accommodation equipment operations suppliers Production and maintenance Local residents/ 1 crew contractors Local residents/ Unknown Supervision/management contractors Phase 3 – Up to 20 Production years - Local contractors - Local Unknown Annual overhaul accommodation suppliers 6 weeks - Local contractors Phase 4 – (over an Civil constructions, fencing, - Local Capping & 8-10 18 month drainage, seeding/planting accommodation restoration period) suppliers

In terms of employment, the proposed drilling works will directly support 16 to 20 jobs for a period of up to 17 weeks. Due to the specialist technical nature of the drilling and maintenance work, there is likely to be a greater competitive advantage for experienced contractors. However, Greenpark will encourage the use of local contractors wherever possible to ensure maximum positive benefits to the local communities. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the site preparation and capping and restoration phases will support a number of jobs. However given the limited timescale of these activities, this effect is expected to be positive but negligible. It is estimated that the value of the construction contracts would be in the order of £70,000.

The production phase of the proposed development will directly support one maintenance/engineering job for the duration of the production phase which could be up to 20 years. This represents a positive but not significant effect.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-8

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Indirectly the proposed development may also create further employment opportunities down the supply chain for those companies providing services to the contractors during the four phases of the proposed development. However, again given the scale of the development, this effect is expected to be positive but not significant.

One of the major potential economic impacts relates to local accommodation providers. It has been estimated that the potential impact of the drilling phase alone, if undertaken by contractors outside the area that require accommodation, is between £25,920 and £57,750 per site. These estimates are based on the following scenarios:

• 22 weeks with 20 workers staying 5 nights per week at £55 per night for a twin room = £57,750; and • 18 weeks with 16 workers staying 4 nights per week at £45 per night for a twin room = £25,920.

In addition, workers staying in local accommodation would also have a positive economic impact on other local services such as shops, cafes, takeaways etc.

Financial Investment

The proposed CBM gas development represents a loss of agricultural land and associated income from farming. However, the total area of land-take associated with the development is relatively small, covering approximately 0.81 ha. Consequently the loss of agricultural land is assessed as insignificant in the context of the available agricultural land both locally and in the wider area.

There will be an economic benefit to the local landowner through the income received from the leasing of the land. This is a positive effect associated with the development however given the number of beneficiaries (the landowner) it is not considered significant.

Tourism

The nearest tourist attraction to the application site is the Trentham Estate, the grounds of which are approximately 1km from the application site at the nearest point. Given the scale of the development, the intervening woodland and M6 motorway, and the distance of the application site to the Trentham Estate, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant effects on the Trentham Estate as a result of the site preparation, drilling, production and restoration activities. The other visitor attractions are over 3.5 km from the site and will not be affected by the proposed development.

13.7 Mitigation

Socio-economic

Greenpark will seek to us local labour where possible to maximise the benefits to the local economy.

Financial Investment

The proposed development has been designed to minimise land take where possible, for example by locating the site adjacent to the A519 to avoid the need for lengthy access tracks across agricultural land.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-9

Greenpark Energy Ltd

In order to avoid any potential damage and disturbance to neighbouring agricultural land and farming activities, all machinery used in the construction of the proposed CBM gas development would be restricted to the site. All construction activities would also be contained within clearly demarcated areas to minimise disruption to agricultural activities.

Tourism

Minimisation of visual impacts has taken place through the design and location process, for example the site is visually well contained by the woodland to the north and east of the site.

13.8 Statement of Significance

The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment has considered the impact of the proposed CBM gas development at the Knowl Wall Farm site. The proposed development will generate opportunities for local accommodation providers and businesses through an increased demand, and this is a significant benefit to the local economy. In addition, the proposed development may provide potential opportunities for local people to be employed.

Due to the scale of the development and lack of tourist attractions in the immediate vicinity of the site, the effect on tourism is considered negligible.

Overall, the socio-economic impact of the proposed development at the Knowl Wall Farm site is therefore assessed as positive to the local economy.

Knowl Wall Farm Environmental Statement 13-10

Greenpark Energy Ltd

14. Amenity Issues

14.1 Summary

This chapter considered the various impacts of the CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm upon amenity, in terms of recreation and access in the local area.

The site is currently a grass field. However, large greenhouses were noted 70m south of the boundary of the site and Beech Farm Shop is located 85m south of the boundary of the site. The access road to Black Lake and Keepers Cottage passes Beech Farm Shop.

Based on the practical and cost-effective mitigation measures recommended in other chapters of this report, other than a recommendation to consider the erection of an interpretation board close to Beech Farm Shop, the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is considered neutral because there are no appreciable effects identified, either positive or negative, on the recreation and access attributes identified in this chapter.

As the CBM gas development has no significant impacts on recreation and access related objectives for the study area, it is concluded that the proposal has an insignificant impact on identified valuable attributes within the site and its catchment area.

14.2 Introduction

This chapter assesses the potential amenity issues in terms of access and recreation that may arise as a result of the site preparation, drilling and restoration activities of the proposed CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm.

14.3 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

Natural England has prepared maps of all open country and registered common land in England. This was a statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The final conclusive map was issued on 16th August 2005. Access rights for the whole of England came in to force on 31st October 2005.

The following guideline has been considered in the preparation of this assessment:

• Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures – A Consultation Paper.

14.4 Methodology

Fieldwork

A site walkover was undertaken on the 20th May 2009 to determine current land use and setting.

14-1

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Data gathering

Information was obtained from the following sources:

• Staffordshire County Council http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/e-land/RightsofWay/ http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/walkingandcycling/ • Visit Britain http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/MarketIntelligenceResearch/DomesticTourism Statistics/UKTS/UKTS.asp; • Lisa Heaton, Tourism and Heritage Manager, Stafford Borough Council • http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk/map.aspx • http://localview.staffordshire.gov.uk/lvinternet/OnTheMap.aspx • Ordnance Survey 2008. Explorer Map 1: 25000 Map 258 – Stoke on Trent & Newcastle-under-Lyme; • http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/walkingandcycling/maps/ • National Catalogue of Rights of Way (CROW) http://www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk/; and, • Natural England http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/.

Scope of Study

This assessment examined the effects of the development associated with the following issues:

• effects on recreation; and, • effects on outdoor access.

Assessment Methodology

There are no published Environmental Assessment techniques or good practice methods relating specifically to recreation and outdoor access impact assessment. The method adopted is therefore one of determining the existing circumstances (the baseline) through map based and desk based analysis before undertaking appraisal of the potential impacts of the proposal on valuable attributes.

Evaluation Criteria and Assessment of Significance

Two criteria were used in the evaluation of the significance of the predicted effects of the proposed CBM gas development:

• the type of effect (i.e. positive, negative, neutral or unknown); and • the significance of a potential impact – based on its magnitude and the importance of the attribute (Table 14.1).

TABLE 14.1 – CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Importance of attribute Magnitude of Impact Very High High Medium Low

Major Very Highly Significant Low Significant Significant Significance

Moderate Highly Significant Low Insignificant

14-2

Greenpark Energy Ltd

TABLE 14.1 – CRITERIA FOR ESTIMATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS Importance of attribute Magnitude of Impact Very High High Medium Low

Significant Significance

Minor Significant Low Insignificant Insignificant Significance

Negligible Low Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Significance

In terms of recreation, predicted effects would be “significant negative” where the proposal may result in a negative impact on the recreational resource, because it either:

− contradicts the relevant objectives which apply to the study area; or − has mixed positive and negative impacts, but the negative impacts are much more significant than the positive impacts (this requires judgement and should be justified in the qualitative comments box);

In terms of recreation, predicted effects would be “significant negative” where the proposal may result in a negative impact on cycleways and paths for walking through the countryside, because it either:

− contradicts the relevant objectives which apply to the study area; or − has mixed positive and negative impacts, but the negative impacts are much more significant than the positive impacts (this requires judgement and should be justified in the qualitative comments box);

14.5 Baseline Conditions

Fieldwork

The site is currently a grass field. A 2m high brick wall bounds the north-eastern perimeter of the site and a 1m high wire fence with wooden posts separates the south-eastern boundary of the site from an orchard planted with young fruit trees, many of which are no more than 3m high.

Large greenhouses were noted 70m south of the boundary of the site and Beech Farm Shop is located 85m south of the boundary of the site. The access road to Black Lake and Keepers Cottage passes Beech Farm Shop.

Desk Study

Indications of the kinds of activities visitors undertake when in Staffordshire have been obtained from the Staffordshire Visitor Survey 2005 Report37 and are set out in Tables 14.2 and 14.3 below.

37 Stafford Borough Council. Staffordshire Visitor Survey 2005. Prepared by Research Department Heart of England Tourist Board. 14-3

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Visitors were shown a “show card” listing a range of activities and asked to indicate which had been the main activity they had been involved in whilst in the county. Only one answer was given per party (Table 14.2).

TABLE 14.2 – MAIN ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN % Visiting an Attraction 31 Visiting Friends and Relatives 22 General Sightseeing 16 Shopping 15 Walking and Hiking 6 Cycling 3

Visitors were again shown a “show card” listing a range of activities and asked to indicate which they or any member of their party had been included in whilst in Staffordshire (Table 14.3). Percentages add up to more than 100% due to multiple answers by respondents.

TABLE 14.3 – ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN % Eating Out 61 Visiting an Attraction 53 General Sightseeing 53 Shopping 46 Walking and Hiking 35 Visiting Friends and Relatives 28 Other 8 Leisure Cycling 7 Canal Trips 4 Cinema/theatre 4

Analysis

With regards to Knowl Wall Farm the highest proportion of visitors is likely to be associated with Beech Farm Shop.

Overall, there were three main activities which high proportions of visitors to Staffordshire participated in. Eating out formed the most important activity, undertaken by three fifths (61%) of all visitors, followed by visiting an attraction (53%) and general sightseeing (53%). Shopping was the main activity of 46% of visitors followed by walking/hiking (35%).

Villages

Beech is 0.9km south of the site.

Cultural Heritage

Trentham Park Conservation Area and Registered Park and Gardens is located 0.15m east of the site. Despite its proximity to the site, Trentham Park is located at the other side of the M6 motorway.

The closest Listed Building is Grade II listed Drayton Road Cottages, Trentham Park, Swynnerton 1.7km north-west of the site and the Scheduled Ancient Monument is Saxon’s Lowe, Tittensor Common, located 1.3 km south of the site.

14-4

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Landscape

The site is situated within two designations, the Special Landscape Area of Hanchurch Hills and a Green Belt.

Wildlife Habitats

The closest statutory designated site is the King’s and Hargreaves Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest about is 0.7km north-east of site. It is deciduous woodland recorded as being of ‘ancient’ origin but the line of the M6 breaks the connection of the woodland in the area and the site.

Walking

The Explorer Map identifies a footpath 0.3km south-west of the site. This footpath connects the A519 to the Hanchurch Hills Blue Walk.

Cycling

No rural cycle paths were identified within 5km of the site.

Angling

Black Lake is owned by Mrs Prestwood, Knowl Wall Farm, Beech, Staffordshire. It is leased by Fenton Private Angling Club which has about 100 members. Fish species include pike, carp, rudd and rainbow trout. Despite its proximity to the site, Black Lake is located at the other side of the M6 Motorway, and is accessed by bridge across this Motorway.

The nearest watercourse is the River Trent approximately 1km east of the boundary of the site. Reference to the Environment Agency guide to fishing38 lists the River Trent. This document makes reference to this River with respect to interpretation of Rod Fishing Byelaws for the Midlands Region i.e. ‘The Midlands Region’ means the combined areas of the natural catchments of the River Severn and River Trent and of all the watercourses draining or flowing, directly or indirectly, into them.

14.6 Impact Assessment

Site Preparation Phase

Cultural Heritage

There would be no direct impacts on any cultural heritage feature. There may be impacts on the settings of several listed buildings. These impacts would be temporary (lasting approximately six weeks) and reversible. The impacts while occurring would be no more than slight adverse.

Walking

Walkers will see and hear the CBM gas development as they pass by. However, due to the partial screening effect of the hedgerows - and to some extent the soil bunds - any negative contribution should be limited to intermittent views of site preparation plant and noise generated by plant. These impacts would be temporary (lasting approximately six weeks) and reversible. The impacts while occurring would be no more than slight adverse.

38 Environment Agency (2007). A Guide To Coarse and Game Fisheries. Midlands – Upper Trent. 14-5

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Visitors to Beech Farm Shop

Visitors will see and hear the CBM gas development during this phase. However, due to the partial screening effect of the soil bunds, any negative contribution should be limited to intermittent views of site preparation equipment and noise generated by equipment. These impacts would be temporary (lasting approximately six weeks) and classified as no more than slight adverse.

Drilling Phase

Cultural Heritage

There would be no direct impacts on any cultural heritage feature. There may be impacts on the settings of several listed buildings. These impacts would be temporary (lasting no more than 17 weeks) and reversible. The impacts while occurring would be no more than slight adverse.

Walking

Walkers will see and hear the CBM gas development as they pass by. However, due to the partial screening effect of the hedgerows - and to some extent the soil bunds - any negative contribution should be limited to intermittent views of drilling equipment and noise generated by equipment. These impacts would be temporary (lasting no more than 17 weeks) and in many cases views of the drilling rig may be limited to the upper element of the drilling rig only. Overall, the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered slight adverse.

Visitors to Beech Farm Shop

Visitors will see and hear the CBM gas development during this phase. However, due to the partial screening effect of the soil bunds, any negative contribution should be limited to intermittent views of site preparation equipment and noise generated by equipment. These impacts would be temporary (lasting no more than 17 weeks) and views of the drilling rig may be limited to the upper element of the drilling rig only and in many cases may be a positive contribution in terms of people’s curiosity as to how a drilling rig operates. Overall, the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Production Phase

The site compound will be smaller (0.5 ha), with localised concrete chambers.

During the production phase, there is no noise from equipment which would be heard offsite. Occasional visits would be made by engineers to maintain equipment and tankers would routinely visit to remove any water from the tanks. On this basis, the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is considered neutral.

Capping and Restoration Phase

There will be no residual impacts following capping and restoration on the surrounding landscape as boreholes will be decommissioned in agreement with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Mines (HMI) and the site will be restored to its original condition with original field drainage. Therefore the net impact of this aspect of the CBM gas development is also considered neutral.

14-6

Greenpark Energy Ltd

14.7 Mitigation

Cultural Heritage

No specific mitigation is proposed. However, it is noted that, although the drilling rig would be a relatively tall structure, measuring some 37 metres in height maximum.

Walking

Practical and cost-effective mitigation measures recommended in other chapters of this report and discussed in the Impact Assessment above reduce residual impacts to acceptable levels.

Visitors to Beech Farm Shop

Practical and cost-effective mitigation measures recommended in other chapters of this report and discussed in the Impact Assessment above reduce residual impacts to acceptable levels.

If considered appropriate, an interpretation board could also be erected. This would describe, for example, what CBM gas is, why this location has been chosen, details of the drilling rig and the development as well as benefits to the UK of having its own gas supply.

14.8 Statement of Significance

The assessment considered the impact of the CBM gas development on the recreation and access of the Knowl Wall Farm site and its catchment area.

Based on the practical and cost-effective mitigation measures recommended in other chapters of this report, other than a recommendation to consider the erection of an interpretation board close to Beech Farm Shop, the net impact of the proposed CBM gas development is considered neutral because there are no appreciable effects identified, either positive or negative, on the recreation and access attributes identified in this chapter.

14-7

Greenpark Energy Ltd

15. Cumulative Impacts

15.1 Summary

Cumulative impacts can arise as a result of a number of similar developments producing a combined adverse effect upon a particular receptor or receptors. It is also possible that the single development may have a number of different impacts on a given receptor.

In order to identify whether there is or might be similar development in the area, consultation was undertaken with Staffordshire County Council Planning Department. In order to identify the whether this proposal might impact upon a given receptor in a number of ways, an examination of the various site specific mitigation measures suggested within each individual chapter within this ES was made.

Staffordshire County Council clarified that there are no other developments, current or proposed, of a similar type in the area. An examination of the previous chapters in this ES showed that there is no receptor likely to receive multiple adverse impacts from this proposal.

It is therefore concluded that there will be no cumulative or secondary impacts from this development.

15.2 Introduction

The Environmental Impact Assessment (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 requires the consideration of cumulative impacts. The aim of this assessment was therefore to identify other developments in the area that may, in combination with this proposal, become a significant adverse effect, or a “cumulative” impact. The aim of this assessment was also to identify direct and indirect adverse impacts (short, medium and long-term) for topic areas identified in the previous chapters for which mitigation measures have been proposed but which may cause a secondary impact e.g. an inappropriately placed soil bund may have adverse an adverse ecological effect and not help reduce noise.

In summary, cumulative impacts may arise from:

• particular potential adverse impacts from this development adding to an adverse effect arising from other developments in the area (a cumulative impact); and • a particular receptor receiving a number of adverse impacts from this one development (a secondary impact).

15.3 Relevant Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

• The Environmental Impact Assessment (England & Wales) Regulations 1999.

15.4 Methodology

Cumulative Impacts

Discussions were held with Staffordshire County Council to determine whether other similar developments are proposed (either consented or in the planning process) within the area of the Knowl Wall Farm site.

15-1

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Secondary Impacts

Similarly, as to whether any receptor might have two or more adverse impacts was assessed by summarising the list of mitigation measures proposed in the various chapter topic areas; any perceived as having two or more adverse impacts following mitigation measures resulted in discussion between topic specialists regarding the design of the site, including timing of an operation, as well as whether there might be more appropriate mitigation measures.

15.5 Baseline Conditions

Staffordshire County Council confirmed that it knows of no other similar developments (current or planned) within the vicinity of the proposed Knowl Wall Farm site.

However, this site is one of two sites that Greenpark is currently applying for planning permission for in order to develop CBM gas. The other site is at Groundslow Farm about 2.4 km south-east of the Knowl Wall Farm site. However, Greenpark intends that these sites be developed sequentially which will avoid cumulative effects.

A summary of the mitigation measures recommended as a result of the EIA across the various topic areas is detailed in Table 15.1 below.

TABLE 15.1 – SUMMARY OF THE VARIOUS MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED AS A RESULT OF THE EIA Chapter Topic Mitigation Measures Landscape • Local stone to be used as hardcore • Soil bunds along the southern perimeter to visually screen the site. • Lighting to be shielded and deflected downwards. Ecology • Noise to be contained. • Lighting to be shielded and deflected downwards. • Bird breeding season to be avoided when removing or cutting hedgerow or a check to ensure no signs of breeding birds. • Pond to be given a 3 m protection zone. Hydrology • Installation of a ditch network around the site to allow appropriate drainage of the site and a similar runoff rate as a greenfield site. • Adoption of Pollution Prevention practices such as Spillage and Emergency procedures. • Bunded fuel and chemical tanks, tamperproof taps and valves etc. • Removal of extracted groundwater by tanker. Hydrogeology • Adoption of Pollution Prevention practices. • Appropriate sealing of hydraulic units at both drilling and production phases. Noise • Equipment and engines should be well maintained and closed when not required. • Adoption of best practice measures incorporated into an Environmental Management Plan to be used at the site, e.g. voices to be raised only when there is danger. • Wherever practicable, noisy works audible at the site boundary should be only undertaken during normal daytime hours. Traffic and transport • If required, sweepers to be deployed to prevent mud spreading onto the road network. Air Quality • No idling vehicles. • Dust management best practice techniques. Archaeology/Cultural • None recommended Heritage Socio- Economic • None recommended Amenity • If required, an Interpretation Board alongside the public footpath.

None of the mitigation measures work against one another.

15-2

Greenpark Energy Ltd

15.6 Impact Assessment

There will be no cumulative or secondary impacts from this development.

15.7 Mitigation

No further mitigation is required beyond that proposed within the individual topic areas.

15.8 Statement of Significance

The EIA has carefully examined the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the proposed CBM gas development at Knowl Wall Farm. It is concluded that there will be no cumulative or secondary impacts from this development.

15-3

Greenpark Energy Ltd

16. Overall Conclusion

The potential environmental impacts of the proposed CBM gas development at the Knowl Wall Farm site have been assessed. The main purpose of the development would be to test the suitability of the site for CBM gas production and then, if appropriate, convert the site into a CBM Gas Production Hub.

The findings revealed that no significant adverse impacts were identified in the studies relating to landscape, hydrology, hydrogeology, noise, traffic, air quality, archaeology, recreation or tourism. In summary, any impacts are minimised by the limited size of the development, the carefully selected site location and the temporary nature of the drilling phase which would be most likely to cause greatest impact.

The ecology study identified the hedgerow adjacent to the main road as an 'Important' hedgerow as defined within the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. However, the mitigation/enhancement measures proposed would provide a significant positive effect for many species for many decades.

The socio-economic assessment identified that the loss of earnings from grazing the land at the proposed site would be outweighed by the income provided to the owner from this development. In addition, there would be further benefits to local construction contractors and suppliers. The socio-economic impact from this proposed development at Knowl Wall Farm is therefore assessed as significantly beneficial to the local area.

16-4

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Appendix 1 – List of Abbreviations

16-1

Greenpark Energy Ltd

AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQS Air Quality Strategy bgl Below ground level BS British Standard BTO British Trust for Ornithology CBM gas Coal bed methane CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association CMM Coal mine methane DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges EA Environment Agency EC European Commission EEC European Economic Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement EU European Union FRA Flood Risk Assessment Ha Hectare IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management IHT Institution of Highways and Transportation JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee Km Kilometre LA90 Noise levels exceeded for 90% of each sample period Leq Equivalent continuous noise level averaged over the measurement period and often regarded as an average level m Metre MW Mega Watt NPPG National Planning Policy Guidance NSCA National Society for Clean Air LAQS Local Air Quality Strategy NTS Non Technical Summary NSR Noise Sensitive Receptor OS Ordnance Survey PAN Planning Advice Note PM Particulate Matter PPG Pollution Prevention Guidelines RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SAC Special Area of Conservation SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SUDS Sustainable Drainage Systems UK United Kingdom WHO World Health Organisation ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility

16-2

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Appendix 2 – Ecology

16-3

Phase 1 Habitat Target Notes

Number Note 1 Area of semi-mature and young trees including sycamore, oak and Scots pine separated from the site by a row of hawthorn. Ground flora including common nettle, bramble, red campion, cleavers, herb Robert and ground ivy.

2 Five mature oak trees adjacent to site boundary, three are ivy covered and all have some broken limbs but no visible rot holes. Moderate – high potential to support roosting bats.

3 Standing dead wood within woodland offering habitat for invertebrates. 4 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland adjacent to site comprising mature specimens of sycamore, silver birch, oak, alder, willow species and ash. Within the woodland dead wood is scattered across the woodland floor. The field layer includes elder, bramble, blackthorn and rowan whilst the ground flora is scarce due to the shading but comprises common nettle, bluebell, male fern, lemon-scented fern, bracken, wood melick and the mosses Polytrichum commune and Eurhynchium species.

5 Pond approximately 8m x 5m containing pond weed and surrounded by Glyceria species, flag iris and reedmace. Surrounding the pond are scattered trees and scrub including alder, bramble and hawthorn.

6 Hedgerow bounding A519 adjacent to site. Approximately 1m tall and 0.7m-2m wide this hedgerow is kept low to assist with the sight lines of the road. There was evidence of historic laying and gaps accounted for less than 10%. Standard trees were found approximately every 5m. Species include hawthorn, sycamore, elder, holly, oak, blackthorn and Swedish whitebeam. A single tree adjacent to the target note is a young Swedish whitebeam (Sorbus intermedia) with no features suitable for bat roosting.

7 Hedgerow lining opposite side of road (A519) containing many mature trees overhanging the road. Species in this area included sycamore and oak.

Botanical Species List

Common name Latin name DAFOR Alder Alnus glutinosa O Blackthorn Prunus spinosa R Bracken Pteridium aquilinum R Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. O Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O Broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum R Cleavers Galium aparine R Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata O Common field-speedwell Veronica persica R Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum O Common nettle Urtica dioica LA Common ragwort Senecio jacobea R Common vetch Vicia sativa R Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp. R Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris O Creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera F Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens F Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense LF Daisy Bellis perennis O Daffodil Narcissus sp. LD Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg. O Elder Sambucus nigra O Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata R Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea R Hairy brome Bramopsis ramosa A Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna agg O Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum R Ivy-leaved speedwell Veronica hederifolia R Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris O Pedunculate oak Quercus robur R Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne A Red campion Silene dioica R Red clover Trifolium pratense O Reedmace Typha latifolia R Scots pine Pinus sylvestris R Soft rush Juncus effuses O Swedish whitebeam Sorbus intermedia R Sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum oderatum LA Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus R Timothy grass Phleum pratense O White clover Trifolium repens O Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus A

Hedgerow Regulations Recording Form

HEDGEROW RECORDING FORM Hedge Reg’s1 and BAP2 assessments (not HEGS) – For Wildlife and Landscape Date: 20 May 2009 Hedgerow No: Hedgerow 1

Project name and ref: Knowl Wall Farm, Staffordshire

Surveyor: Rebecca Dollery Photo ref (if relevant): No

Hedge length (to end or intersection): Height:1m Width: 0.7–2m Age (+/- 200m 30yrs ?): Hedge Surveyed From (pref’ both sides): >30 years East MANAGEMENT

Trimmed? A Shape Box Other:

Layed? Recent Historical

Grown out?

Newly planted? Notes on Recent Management: Trimmed to height of 1m (presumably to maintain visibility along highway)

HEDGEROW FEATURES Score Supporting bank or wall present along half length N Gaps less than 10% of length in total Y Standard trees at least every 50m3 Y Ditch along at least half length N Parallel hedge within 15m Y At least three woodland herb species present Y Number of hedge connections (1 point each)4 0

Number connections with pond/B-L woodland (2 points)5 1 Total score for features Evidence of protected/RDB species Schedule 1 birds: none Schedule 5 animals: none Schedule 8 plants: none Red Data Book (RDB)6: none

Rights of way: Tick Geographical Location: Staffordshire Adjacent to a bridleway or footpath? NO

Adjacent to a road used as a public path? YES

Adjacent to a byway open to all traffic? Yes

1 Use associated flow-chart and refer to 1997 Act if unsure 2 Refer to NBAP priority Habitats list www.ukbap.org 3 Must be >15cm girth @ 1.3m or 20cm girth for single stemmed trees 4 Needs a combined connection score of 4 or more to gain a feature score point 5 Note if hedgerow is within 10m, and in direct line of feature, then connection point is scored 6 RDB Category 3 species only (declining breeders) for birds plus all other endangered, extinct rare or vulnerable spp listed in Appendix 1

WOODY SPECIES PRESENT/30M SECTION 100- 30- 200m 100m S = shrub T = standard tree <30m all central >200m central 30m All species centr species 30m in in each 1/3 present al each 30m half Acer campestre field maple Alnus glutinosa alder Betula pendula silver birch Corylus avellana hazel Cornus sanguinea dogwood Crataegus laevigata Midland hawthorn Crataegus monogyna hawthorn Y Y Y Euonymus europaeus spindle Fraxinus excelsior ash Ilex aquifolium holly Y Y Y Ligustrum vulgare wild privet Malus sylvestris crab apple * Populus nigra spp black-poplar betulifolia Prunus spinosa blackthorn Y Y Y Quercus robur pedunculate oak Y Y Y Rosa arvensis field-rose Rosa canina agg dog-rose Rhamnus cathartica buckthorn Salix sp willow Sambucus nigra elder Y Y Y * Sorbus torminalis wild-service tree * Tilia cordata small-leaved lime * Tilia platyphyllos large-leaved lime Ulmus glabra wych elm Ulmus procera English elm Viburnum opulus guelder-rose * Special interest species Other woody sp present: Swedish whitebeam, sycamore, bramble 5 5 5 + + + divide divide by 3 by 2 Total number of HR species in each 30m: 5 Total number of species in whole length surveyed: 5 All herbaceous species present (optional records of spp. within 1m of the outermost edge of the hedge): Woodland herb species present (within 1m of the outermost edge of the hedge)

Barren strawberry Hairy brome Y Primrose Wood millet Bluebell Hairy woodrush Ramsons Wood sage Broad buckler fern Hard fern Sanicle Wood sedge Broad-leaved helleborine Hard shield fern Scaly male-fern Wood sorrel Bugle Hart’s tongue Small cow-wheat Wood speedwell Common cow-wheat Heath bedstraw Soft shield fern Wood spurge Common dog violet Herb paris Sweet violet Woodruff Common polypody Herb -robert Y Toothwort Yellow archangel Dog’s mercury Lady fern Tormentil Yellow pimpernell Early dog violet Lords -and-ladies Wild strawberry Early purple orchid Male fern Wood anemone TOTAL PRESENT: 2 Enchanter’s nightshade Moschatel Wood avens Giant fescue Narrow buckler-fern Wood false-brome Goldilocks buttercup Nettle -leaved bell-flower Wood horsetail Great bell-flower Oxlip Wood meadow-grass Greater wood-rush Pignut Wood mellick

STRAWBERRY FIELD, KNOWLE WALL FARM, STAFFORDSHIRE

GREAT CRESTED-NEWT SURVEY

Prepared for GREENPARK ENERGY

June 2009 STRAWBERRY FIELD, KNOWLE WALL FARM, STAFFORDSHIRE

GREAT CRESTED-NEWT SURVEY

Prepared for

GREENPARK ENERGY

Prepared by

APEX ECOLOGY LIMITED

Synchro House, 512 Etruria Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme Staffordshire ST5 0SY

Survey undertaken by Max Robinson

Report produced by Max Robinson

Report checked by Helen Ball

June 2009 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SURVEY METHODS

2.1 Search of Existing GCN Records 2.2 Survey Methods 2.5 Bottle Trapping 2.6 Torchlight Counting 2.7 Hand Netting 2.8 Egg Searching 2.9 Weather Conditions during Survey

3. SURVEY FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

3.1 Review of Existing GCN Records 3.2 Pond Description 3.3 Survey Findings 3.6 Interpretation of Survey Findings

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 In Relation to the Proposed Development 4.5 Management of Pond

5. REFERENCES

TABLES

I Amphibian survey results

APPENDIX

I Legislation Relating to Great Crested Newt

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report presents the results of great-crested newt (GCN) surveys at Strawberry Fields, Knowle Wall Farm, Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire undertaken by Apex Ecology Limited. The surveys were carried out between April and May 2009.

1.2 The surveys were commissioned by Greenpark Energy in April 2009 in support of a planning application to Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council. The proposals relate to the extraction and processing of coal bed methane. The surveys were undertaken to establish if the proposals would impact upon GCN.

1.3 The GCN is legally protected under both European and domestic legislation and it is, therefore, a material consideration when determining the planning application. A summary of the key legislation protecting GCN is provided in Appendix I at the end of the report.

1.4 The site comprises a mixture of semi-improved grassland bordered by broadleaved woodland. The pond itself is surrounded by extensive marginal vegetation.

1.5 The site lies to the south west of the city of Stoke-on-Trent, around 1.1km from the village of Beech. The M6 motorway is situated around 120m to the east of the site. Access to the site can be gained from the adjacent A519. The OS grid reference for the farm is SJ 852 395. The surrounding landscape comprises agricultural fields, grasslands, woodland and hedgerows.

1.6 The report describes the methods used for the survey, including dates and conditions, and any constraints encountered. It then presents the results of the survey (accompanied by raw data in tables, where appropriate) and provides an interpretation of the findings in relation to the proposed development.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

2. METHODOLOGY

Search of Existing GCN Records

2.1 Greenpark Energy approached the local biological records centre Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) for records of GCN from the site and surrounding area. The radius of the search was 2km. Such information is important as it can help put the site and the survey findings into context.

Survey Methods

2.2 An initial scoping survey was undertaken by Greenpark Energy to assess the suitability of the site and surroundings for GCN. A single pond deemed suitable for use by GCN was found on the site proposed for development. Thus surveys were deemed necessary to establish if GCN would be affected by the proposals. The following pond was identified:

Pond 1 –to the north of the site, adjacent to the proposed access track.

2.3 The surveys were undertaken by Max Robinson, a licensed GCN ecologist (Natural England licence number 20083814).

2.4 The pond was surveyed using bottle traps, nocturnal torchlight methods and egg- searching or hand netting with a pond net during spring 2009. The methods followed those recommended in English Nature (2001). The surveys were undertaken on the following dates:

29-30th April 09 6-7th May 09 13-14th May 09 27-28th May 09

Bottle Trapping

2.5 Bottle traps were set in the evening and checked early the following morning. The bottle traps used allowed air breathing by newts and were checked within 17 hours of setting. The submerged bottle traps were held firmly in place with a cane inserted into the substrate to prevent the bottle from tilting and air loss. The trap placement followed recognised guidelines and they were placed at approximately 2m sampling points along the edge of the pond. The bottle trap survey attempted to target the edges of the waterbodies supporting the most suitable habitat for GCN (such as areas with shallower banks or lush marginal or submerged plant growth). Following the identification and counting of any captured newts, they were released back into the pond.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

Torch Counting

2.6 The waterbodies were slowly walked around and scanned with a powerful torch at night. The score is expressed as the total number of GCN observed during a circuit of the pond or waterbody (Gent and Gibson, 1998). This method is less useful in turbid water or during heavy rain or windy conditions.

Hand Netting

2.7 A long-handled hand net was used for this method. From the banks, the water and vegetation along the water’s edge was carefully netted in an attempt to capture GCN. This method was used during the later stages of the survey where the edges of the aquatic vegetation were netted in an attempt to net larvae that may be present.

Egg Searching

2.8 Newt eggs were searched for within the areas that contained submerged or floating aquatic vegetation. Where egg laying has been undertaken on vegetation this is easily recognisable as the vegetation suitable for egg laying such as Glyceria sp. leaves are markedly folded over the eggs. A fold in the vegetation is then opened and the egg identified to species.

Weather Conditions during the Surveys 2.9 The weather conditions during the surveys ranged from cool to mild (between 7.5 and 12 degrees centigrade during night time torchlight surveys and 10.5 and 17 degrees centigrade during setting and retrieval of the bottle traps). During the visits the conditions were mixed, although were mainly cloudy with drizzle and light winds. Overall, conditions were optimal for GCN survey, both during the day and at night.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

3. SURVEY FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

Review of Existing GCN Records

3.1 Greenpark Energy noted that the data search undertaken by SER did not reveal any existing records of GCN on either the site or within the 2km search radius.

Pond Description

3.2 A single pond with an approximate circumference of 18m, the pond is heavily vegetated around the periphery with reedmace Typha latifolia dominating. Other marginal vegetation is also present with species such as soft rush Juncus effusus and water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica also present. Within the open water of the pond a considerable amount of broad-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans is present. The pond is surrounded by unmanaged semi-improved grassland and broad-leaved woodland is located around 10m to the north.

Survey Findings

3.3 No great crested-newts were recorded as being present during the surveys. The detailed survey results are presented in Table 1.

3.4 Small numbers of smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris were recorded in the pond on all four survey dates. Both male and female were caught in the bottle traps as well as seen during the torch light surveys. The highest count of smooth newts was recorded during bottle trapping on the 13/14th May 09, where a total of 14 newts were recorded. There is a high likelihood that smooth newts are breeding within the pond, although no egg laying was recorded.

3.5 Additionally to smooth newt, small numbers of tadpoles of both common frog Rana temporaria and common toad Bufo bufo were recorded during the surveys, as well as a single adult frog.

Interpretation of Survey Findings

3.6 The survey results suggest that the pond is not used by great crested newts. The absence of a local network of ponds further reduces the likelihood of any great crested-newts being present. The pond is however considered to have suitable habitat for the species.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

In Relation to the Proposed Development

4.1 Given that the possibility of an offence being committed by the proposed development is considered highly unlikely, as such, it is advised that a statutory licence would not be required to undertake the proposals.

4.2 However, in the unlikely event that GCN are found to be present during the works, where found the materials should be carefully replaced so as to shelter the animals. A licensed GCN worker or Natural England should then be contacted for advice on how to progress.

4.6 Additionally, it is considered prudent to ensure a minimum of a 2m vegetated ‘stand-off’ zone is created/retained between the proposals and the pond. This would create a buffer between the site and the pond allowing fauna a degree of sheltered access to the pond on the.

4.7 As a bund is proposed for construction near to the pond it is recommended that a buffer zone is created prior to works commencing. This should be installed so as to prevent the encroachment of plant, machinery and contractors onto the areas immediately surrounding the pond.

Management of Pond

4.5 Although the pond does not appear to support a population of great crested- newts it does support other amphibian species. All native species of amphibians are in decline in the UK largely from a loss of habitat. Habitat loss can occur due to a lack of suitable management of water bodies and as such the water body is often lost to encroaching vegetation. The following suggestions are made to the management of the surveyed pond:

A small long-armed digger or hand tools can be used to periodically to maintain around a 50% coverage of emergent vegetation (most notably reedmace). Vegetation removal should take place ideally in late summer, early autumn when most amphibians have breed and the young left the pond and whilst hibernation is not taking place. The removed vegetation should then be left on the side of the pond for at least 24hours to allow any fauna to return to the pond. Composting of the removed vegetation would be considered beneficial.

Because the pond currently exhibits steep sides, it is suggested that a small long-armed digger or hand tools be used to ‘pull back’ the banks and create an area of shallow margin. Ideally the pond margin should show gradual undulations on both the vertical and horizontal plain. This will then create areas of water with varying temperatures and conditions and as such increase biodiversity. Species of semi/aquatic invertebrates, such as dragonflies, are likely to utilise such areas, as well as amphibians.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

The inclusion of dead wood and brash piles around the pond. These will not only provide a potential foraging resource for amphibians but also an area for the animals to shelter.

The grassland around the pond should not be subject to intensive management. If the grassland is to be cut this should be confined to between 2-3 times a year. The grassland habitat currently surrounding the pond can promote invertebrate populations, as well as provide shelter for amphibians from predators. Where possible additional grassland on site should be managed similarly.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

5. REFERENCES

English Nature. (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature.

Gent, T. and Gibson, 1998. Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. JNCC, London.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey Summary of Amphibian Survey Results Strawberry Field, Knowle Wall Farm.

Capture Results Visit 1 Survey Date: 29th April - 30th April 2009 Weather Conditions: Eve- Light drizzle 10°C- 7.5°C. Morn- Cloudless and Time of Survey: 19.00-22.00 clear. Mild 9.5 °C. Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 4(M) 2(F) 0 0 0 2Tad 0 0 0

Capture Results Visit 2 Survey Date: 6th May - 7th May 2009

Weather Conditions: Eve- breezy with broken cloud 11.5°C. Morn- Broken Time of Survey: 19.15-22.15 cloud 60% cover 14.5 °C

Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 1(F) 0 0 1 (M) Tad 0 0 0

Capture Results Visit 3 Survey Date: 13th May - 14th May 2009

Weather Conditions: Eve- Breezy with light drizzle 12°C. Morn- 15°C high Time of Survey: 19.15-22.10 cloud

Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 12(M) 2(F) 1CF, Tad 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capture Results Visit 4 Survey Date: 27th May-28th May 2008

Weather Conditions: Eve-Light drizzle 12°C. Morn- Overcast 100% cloud Time of Survey: 19.00-22.15 cover 15.5°C

Bottle trap captures Torchlight findings Netting & Egg search Waterbody GCNSN Other GCNSN Other GCNSN Other Pond 0 6 (M) 1 CT Tad 0 1(M) 2 CT Tad 0 0 0

Key: GCN - Great Crested Newt; SN - Smooth Newt; Other - Other amphibian species F - Female; M - Male; U - Unknown sex CT - Common Toad; CF - Common Frog; Tad - Tadpoles Blank squares = surveyed but no amphibian species recorded. ns = not surveyed during visit.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Strawberry Fields Pond, Newcastle-under-Lyme Great Crested Newt Survey

APPENDIX I – LEGISLATION RELATING TO GREAT CRESTED-NEWTS

The information below is intended only as guidance to the legislation relating to great crested- newts. The Acts themselves should be referred to for the correct legal wording.

Great crested-newts are protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC)) Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instrument No. 2716 known as the Habitats Regulations), which have been amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (Statutory Instrument 2007/1843). The amended regulations largely came into force on the 21st August 2007, with further amendments made in January 2009 (Statutory Instrument 2009/6). Due to their inclusion on Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations, great crested-newts are considered ‘European Protected Species’

In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to:

deliberately capture, injure or kill a great crested-newt; deliberately disturb a great crested-newt; damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any great crested-newt; possess a great crested-newt (alive or dead) or any part of a great crested-newt.

Disturbance of great crested-newts includes in particular any disturbance which is likely: (a) to impair their ability: (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (b) to affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. Great crested-newts are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which has also been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act, 2000. In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to:

intentionally or recklessly disturb a great crested-newt while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place which any great crested-newt uses for shelter or protection.

In addition, the great crested newt is a Priority Species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan with a Species Action Plan aimed at maintaining the existing range and population status, as well as increasing the number of populations through re-colonisation.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2009 Report MR090623 Greenpark Energy Ltd

Appendix 3 – Hydrology

16-4

GREENFIELD ESTIMATION OF PEAK FLOW RATE OF RUNOFF No. ASV1 Abbreviation Calculations Value Hydrological 1 Region R 4

2 (SOIL) type (1-5) S 4

3 Development Size A 0.50 Ha If development area is 200+ ha a full FEH analysis is recommended to Method of obtain a more accurate estimate of 4 Greenfield Analysis greenifeld runoff characteristics

No. ASV2 Abbreviation Calculations Value 5 Area A 0.50 Ha

6 Annual Rainfall SAAR 800 mm Soil runoff 7 coefficient SPR 0.47 Development mean annual peak flow 8 rate QBAR 282.211493 2.82 l/s Mean annual peak 9 flow per unit area QBAR/A 5.64422985 5.64 l/s/ha Minimum sizes of an orofice may limit the minimum hydraulic control flow Minimum limit of rate. This allows the derivation of an 10 discharge Qthrottle equivalent value of a QBAR/A l/s 100 year flow rate 10.1 per unit area Qthrottle/A l/s/ha Equivalent mean annual peak flow 10.2 per unit area Qthrottle/3.5A l/s/ha 1yr, 30 yr and 100yr peak discharge rate of Use the larger of the 2 values of item 11 runoff per unit area 9 and 10.2 for calculating 11.1 to 11.3

11.1 Q1yr 4.80 l/s/ha

11.2 Q30yr 7.17 l/s/ha

11.2 Q100yr 7.56 l/s/ha

ASSESSMENT OF ATTENUATION STORAGE VOLUMES No. ASV3 Abbreviation Calculations Value 1 Hydrological Region R 4

2 Hydrological rain fall region Z 17, 0.4

3 Development Area A 0.50 ha

Proportion of impervious area 4 requiring Attenuation Storage α 1

5 Greenfield flow Rate per unit area QBAR/A 5.64 l/s/ha

estimate of development (PIMP) 6 percentage impermeable area PIMP 100 % Attenuation storage volumes per unit 7 area Uvol1yr 100 m3/ha

Uvol30yr 250 m3/ha

Uvol100yr 320 m3/ha

8 Basic Storage Volumes BSV1yr U.Vol.α A 50.03 m3 BSV30yr U.Vol.α A 125.08 m3

BSV100yr U.Vol.α A 160.10 m3

No. ASV4 Abbreviation Calculations Value 9 Climate Change Factor CC 1.1

10 FEH Rainfall factor FF1yr 1.2

FF30yr 1.1

FF100yr 1.1

11 Storage Volume ratio SVR1yr 0.92 0.86

SVR30yr 1.00 1.00

SVR100yr 1.00 1.00

12 Adjustment Storage Volumes ASV1yr SVR x BSV 43.03 m3 ASV30yr SVR x BSV 125.08 m3

ASV100yr SVR x BSV 160.10 m3 Hydrological Region volume storage 13 ratio HR1yr 1

HR30yr 1.06

HR100yr 1.08

14 Final Estimated Attenuation Storage At.Vol1yr HR x ASV 43.03 m3 At.Vol30yr HR x ASV 132.58 m3

At.Vol100yr HR x ASV 172.90 m3

ASSESSMENT OF LONG TERM STORAGE VOLUME No. ASV3 Abbreviation Value 1 Development Area A 0.50 ha 2 Estimate of PIMP( percentage impermeable area) PIMP 100 % 3 Impermeable Area (A.PIMP/100) AP 0.50 ha 4 Long Term Storage Factor LFT 5.6 m3/ha.mm 5 Rainfall depth RD 55 mm

LTVol 100yr 6 Long Term storage volume 6hr 154.09 m3

ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT STORAGE VOLUME No. ASV3 Abbreviation Value 1 Development Area A 0.50 ha 2 Estimate of PIMP (percentage impermeable area) PIMP 100 % 3 Proportion of impervious area requirng Treatment storage β 1

4 Soil runoff coefficient SPR 0.47

5 5 year/60 minute rainfall depth M560 17 mm 6 Treatment storage volume T Vol 90.05 m3

Greenpark Energy Ltd

Figures

16-5