East Tullos Energy From Waste Environmental Statement Volume 1
March 2016
I © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Non-Technical Summary
Overview
This summary, presents, in non-technical language, the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that has been undertaken for the proposed East Tullos Energy from Waste (EfW) facility. The purpose of the EIA is to identify how people and environmental resources (collectively known as receptors) could be affected by the proposed EfW facility and to put forward measures (often referred to as mitigation) that will avoid, minimise or offset any negative effects. To achieve this, an Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared following a consultation (or scoping) exercise, involving the planning department of the Aberdeen City Council and other key organisations. Details of the proposals were widely circulated to these bodies and the public as part of pre-application consultations and the responses received have informed the design, and the scope and content, of the EIA. The full report, the ES, which presents the findings of the EIA has been submitted with a planning application by the Applicant. The studies were carried out by experts in a wide range of disciplines. The planning application is being submitted by Aberdeen City Council under the banner Aberdeen Recycling and Energy. The proposals are being brought forward in partnership with The Moray Council and Aberdeenshire Council.
Site and Location
The site is approximately two hectares in size and is located within the established East Tullos Industrial Estate on the south side of Aberdeen (National Grid Reference NJ 95426 03997). The site currently comprises a disused gas holder, associated structures and hard standing which are scheduled for demolition during 2016, followed by site remediation works, by the current land owner SGN (previously Scotia Gas Networks). Existing gas utilities crossing the site, along with the culverted East Tullos Burn, will be re-routed along the site boundary as part of these works. East Tullos Industrial Estate lies to the south of the River Dee, and is accessed via the A956 Wellington road, which links Aberdeen with the A90 south of Charlestown. The site is accessed off Greenbank Crescent via Greenbank Road from the junction with Wellington Road.
Development Proposals
Capacity and waste stream The proposed EfW facility would have the capacity to receive up to 150,000 tonnes of waste every year. The waste stream would be non-recycled household waste and would come from Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and The Moray Councils. The proposed EfW facility would not accept hazardous or clinical waste. This household waste currently goes to landfill, but can only continue to do so until 2021 when a national landfill ban comes into force. This proposal represents the Council’s alternative to landfilling in response to the requirements of the Scottish Government’s Zero Waste Plan.
Operations The internal building processes would run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Waste deliveries would be between, 0700 and 1900 Monday to Friday and, 0700 to 1300 on Saturdays. To accommodate for emergencies and potential future changes in waste delivery patterns, a 24 hour waste/7 day delivery scenario has also been considered. The plant would be managed by 20 staff including office and operational shift staff.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 II © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Layout and design The East Tullos EfW facility comprises the erection of a main building, which would house the majority of process plant, and would have a stack. This building would incorporate an enclosed waste tipping hall, the combustion chamber, offices and welfare facilities. A second smaller building would house the air cooled condenser unit and the combined heat and power plant. The facility would also include external associated plant, weighbridge, internal roads, site access points off Greenbank Crescent and car parking. There is no external storage of waste on-site. Landscape and drainage proposals are also included. The design of the main building represents an architectural statement recognising that this is a large scale building. The shape of the building responds to the landscape and the materials respond to the sky, the surrounding landscape and the industrial estate. The orientation of the building seeks to reduce its scale from residential views from the north.
Processes The waste would arrive onsite in refuse collection and bulk vehicles and there would be no pre-treatment of waste at the site. Vehicles would tip within the enclosed building where the waste would be transferred into the combustion chamber. This would burn out the waste and energy would be recovered from the heat generated. Hot gases rise from the burning process and pass through a heat exchanger, which heats up water in a sealed system, which then transfers to a boiler to produce steam. The steam produced is then fed into a turbine to generate electricity or the steam can be used to generate heat. The gases that leave the heat exchanger would enter a treatment system which would clean the gases before emitting the cleaned gases to the atmosphere, via a flue gas fan and stack. The full system is subject to advanced control measures.
There are waste outputs from the processes, namely bottom ash (~25%) and air pollution control residues (fly ash) (~3-4%). The bottom ash is the residue from the combustion process. It is an inert waste material which can be reused in the construction industry, mainly replacing aggregates. The fly ash is the residue from the gas treatment system and contains captured pollutants from the cleaning process. This ash would be disposed of safely to a designated hazardous waste landfill. Alternatively, there is a growing market for treatment of this waste which can make it an inert waste which is suitable for reuse in ways similar to the uses for bottom ash.
Electricity and Heat Electricity generated would go into the grid and heat would be in the form of hot water which would be piped to the local area creating a district heating network. If the facility was only generating electricity, then it could export 11 MWe to the local electricity network. If all the steam was captured to generate heat, it could be producing up to 20MW thermal energy for export to a district heating system (approximately 10,000 households). A combination of the two is a likely scenario with increased heat generation as the district heating system develops. The district heating system would be phased, focusing on key heat demand users within the local area as a first phase to establish the network. Initially this is likely to include public properties and council owned residential properties. A Heat and Power Plan has been submitted.
Alternatives A comprehensive site search, focusing on areas within Aberdeen and its periphery, has informed the site selection. This search was driven by key policy criteria set by the Scottish Government along with site availability and technical suitability. East Tullos Industrial Estate scored well against identified policy criteria including environmental constraints, proximity to waste concentration, proximity to potential heat users, and site availability. A Site Selection Report has been submitted. A review of available technologies concluded that a solution such as energy from waste, developed as a high quality Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP), meets with Scottish Government aspirations.
Planning Policy Context
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 III © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Aberdeen City Local Development Plan (2012) confirms that sites are required for energy recovery facilities, and other new waste management facilities, in order to meet the requirements of the Aberdeen Waste Strategy 2014-2025. It identifies the site as located within the industrial land allocation covering East Tullos Industrial Estate. Waste uses are supported within such land allocations within Scottish Planning Policy (2014). The forthcoming plan, the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan (2015), identifies the site as suitable for waste related uses under Policy R4: Site for New Waste Management Facilities including “an energy from waste facility or in-vessel composting plant.”
Environmental Impact Assessment: Summary of Findings
Land Quality/Geology The site is brownfield, with a history of commercial use since 1959 according to historical mapping. Previous ground investigations have confirmed that there is the potential for localised contamination to be present in soil and groundwater has been identified. Further investigation and remediation is planned by the current site owner as part of the site demolition work scheduled for 2016. Following implementation of planned remediation works, it is anticipated that there would be a material improvement in the soil and groundwater conditions at the Development Site. The condition of the site following this investigation and remediation work is the predicted future baseline for the Proposed Development and it is likely that any residual risks can be managed and mitigated during construction works.
Freshwater The site currently drains to the East Tullos Burn, which rises near to Redmoss Road, around 2km southwest of the Development Site, before flowing through a culvert below the East Tullos Industrial Estate. The culvert currently passes directly beneath the Development Site, but is scheduled for rerouting during 2016 subject to consents. The site does not lie within an area of potential risk from river, coastal or groundwater flooding. There is a risk of flooding in the event that the existing culvert is exceeded. There is also evidence of small isolated areas of surface water flood risk within the site mainly a reflection of existing topography. A Flood Risk Assessment and a Drainage Impact Assessment have been completed and is appended to the ES. A site specific drainage system is proposed as part of the Proposed Development which has been designed, in accordance with Sustainable Urban Drainage Principles and, in liaison with Aberdeen City Council’s Floods and Drainage Team. It involves the creation of a detention basin, with additional storage provided in below ground tanks. This would allow for up to the 1 in 200 year rainfall event plus a 20% allowance for climate change to be managed at the Development Site. The discharge would be made to the East Tullos Burn culvert. These measures would ensure that there is no increased flood risk to third parties. It has been concluded that following the implementation of the drainage strategy outlined above the Proposed Development would not result in significant effects.
Nature Conservation The majority of the site is covered in hardstanding, but survey work confirmed smaller patches of grass and scrub mainly along the site boundary. The site is bounded to the north and west by some broad-leaved and coniferous trees. No habitats or species of notable ecological importance were recorded within the site, however the site could potentially provide suitable habitat for badgers, breeding birds and reptiles. Taking account of design, and best practice construction mitigation, no significant effects on legally protected species are predicted. Air concentration impacts have been modelled for eight statutory designated sites within 15km of the site, including the River Dee Special Area of Conservation, and five non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site, including the Tullos Hill Local Nature Conservation Site. The assessment concluded that the proposed EfW facility would cause negligible and not significant effects.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 IV © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Traffic and Transport An assessment of traffic related environmental effects has been completed. In addition, a Traffic Statement has been prepared considering the main transport issues relating to the proposed EfW facility along with a capacity assessment of the Wellington Road/Greenbank Road junction. Traffic would be generated during construction and operation. The construction process would be controlled by a traffic management plan, it is estimated to last for a 30 month period and would be subject to both HGV and staff vehicle movements. Once the site is operational, traffic is estimated at 111 HGV (two-way) movements per day (or 9 HGV per peak hour) 5.5 days per week between 07.00 and 19.00. In addition, there would be vehicles associated with approximately 20 staff, some of whom would work shifts. A future operational scenario spreading the same vehicle movements across seven days a week on a 24 hour basis has also been assessed. This is an increase of approximately 46 HGV movements per day to that currently accessing the Greenbank Crescent Waste Transfer Station. The estimated increase in HGVs along Wellington Road during operation is 3% to the south of the Greenbank Road junction and 1% to the north of this junction. The Transport Statement concludes that the Wellington Road/Greenbank Road junction would continue to operate satisfactorily. The overall traffic impact on the local highway network is considered to be negligible. The assessment of environmental effects including severance, driver delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety and hazardous loads concludes that the Proposed Development would not result in significant effects. This assessment takes account of cumulative traffic numbers and considers the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.
Noise Noise monitoring at residential properties at Kirkhill Place and Wellington Road was carried out. The noise assessment has considered residential properties, public properties (including Tullos Primary School), offices and traffic receptors. Construction noise and operational noise have been assessed; including night time operational noise. Whilst some disruption is likely during construction, it would be temporary and a number of best practice construction measures have been incorporated, including solid hoarding around the development site. The assessment, following a standard methodology, concludes that construction noise levels would be below applicable criteria at residential receptors.
The operational assessment has taken account of various design measures including, no external storage, all operations to take place within the buildings and buildings to be fitted with automatically closing doors and sound reduction cladding. For residential properties, the assessment concludes the operational noise would be at most the same as existing background noise, including at night time. Predicted noise levels are also below the World Health Organisation guideline for external amenity areas. Recommended internal noise criteria levels for non-residential properties would also be met.
Air Quality Air quality effects relating to facility emissions, dust and odour have been assessed. The approach has considered existing environmental and meteorological conditions; designed mitigation measures; assessed effects upon the ambient air quality (normal and abnormal operations); assessed potential odour emissions; and assessed fugitive emissions of dust and fine particulates associated with the construction phase. Receptors included residential properties and other human receptors including schools, places of worship, recreational locations; nature conservation designations; and Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). Operational design measures include a sophisticated flue gas treatment plant to treat emissions before they are discharged to the atmosphere, a stack height designed to ensure adequate dispersion; no external storage and fast shutting doors. All waste deliveries would be in enclosed HGVs with subsequent storage and processing taking place within enclosed buildings. Construction dust control measures have also been recommended. The assessment concludes no significant effects. Detailed dispersion modelling of point source emissions to air has demonstrated that, predicted increases in concentrations of relevant pollutants at existing receptor
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 V © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
locations would be considered not significant, on the basis of the proposed EfW Facility’s negligible contribution to baseline concentrations, when the facility is operating normally. No exceedances of the relevant Air Quality Objectives are predicted at the human receptor locations in either the normal or abnormal operational scenarios. The Proposed Development is predicted to have a ‘negligible’ impact on all three of the modelled AQMA. The dust and odour assessment concludes that, with appropriate mitigation measures in place, there would be negligible, and not significant, effects beyond the site boundary. Although separate from the Environmental Statement, a Health Impact Assessment has also been undertaken as part of the planning application which assesses the risk of adverse human health effects occurring due to emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzozofurans (PCDFs). The assessment concludes that the risk of adverse human health effects occurring due to PCDD/F emissions from the Proposed Development is low or effectively zero.
Landscape and Visual A landscape and visual impact assessment has been completed. The landscape assessment looked at the character of the townscape of the City of Aberdeen, the surrounding landscape and seascape character, landscape designations and locally valued landscapes within the study area. The assessment found that the construction and operation of the proposed EfW facility would result in no significant effects on landscape receptors. Landscaping proposals for the site have been prepared taking account of existing planting within the industrial estate. A detailed visual assessment has been undertaken. This includes the assessment of potential effects on views from residential properties, surrounding A and B roads, along key cycle routes and paths and other recreational and tourist receptors (including country parks, golf courses, gardens and designed landscapes and other locally valued areas of greenspace). Significant visual effects are predicted from two groups of residential properties to the north of the site and from sections of an adjacent core path and North Balnagask Road to Wellington Road. In addition, significant views may be experienced from parts of Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) and St Fittick’s Community Park. The proposed main building with stack is larger than existing surrounding buildings, but it has been architecturally designed to respond to the surrounding landscape character, elements and features of the area. The proposed EfW facility has been designed to create a positive and confident architectural statement such that it could become a new visual and civic landmark. In effect, whilst the magnitude of change for some landscape and visual receptors might be high, the nature of this change could be viewed as neutral to positive with the Proposed Development appreciated in architectural terms.
Historic Environment An assessment of potential effects on the surrounding historic environment has been completed. There are no known archaeological remains within the site and there is a low potential for as yet unknown archaeological remains to be present considering the existing level of disturbance. The closest scheduled monument is Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126), the closest listed building is the Category B listed Tullos Primary School (LB49995) and the closest inventory garden and designed landscape is Duthie Park. The assessment has concluded that the proposed EfW facility would not change the understanding, appreciation or key characteristics of these surrounding assets. It concludes that the location of the proposed EfW facility within an existing industrial estate would be in keeping with the existing setting, although it is recognised that there would be increased visibility.
Socio-Economics An assessment of socio-economics, land use and recreation related effects has been carried out. The proposed EfW facility would result in both construction spending and employment, and both would be temporary and beneficial effects. The construction process could also result in temporary, beneficial and potentially significant effects depending on the community benefit clause adopted for construction contract(s).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 VI © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Operational effects considered include regeneration, recreational receptors and the potential for wider benefits through a district heating network. It was concluded that the proposed EfW facility would not result in significant effects, but could result in beneficial effects. Cumulative construction effects were also assessed, taking account of the potential for simultaneous construction spend and employment.
Cumulative Existing and proposed cumulative developments have been assessed within relevant technical assessment as noted above.
A schedule of Mitigations A standalone chapter summarising the Applicant’s mitigation commitments as set out within the technical assessments has been prepared.
Conclusions The East Tullos EfW facility is intended to provide a future waste management solution for Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and The Moray Council. It has been designed to accept 150,000 tonnes per annum of residual household waste. The Proposed Development seeks to use non-recyclable waste to generate heat and power for homes and businesses in Aberdeen. The Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken for the proposed EfW facility has found few effects that are considered to be significant, and only in regards to visibility of the main building. Positive effects have also been identified relating to economic effects, production of heat and electricity, and potentially the design of the facility.
What Happens Next? Prior to making a decision on the planning application, Aberdeen City Council will consult with the public and several organisations (including SEPA). The planning application and the Environmental Statement will be made available for public examination at the following locations: Project website: www.abzre.net;
Planning and Sustainable Development, Aberdeen City Council, Marischal College, Broad Street, Aberdeen; Torry Library , Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9NJ; and Kincorth Library, Provost Watt Drive, Aberdeen, AB12 5NA.
CD copies of the ES and this NTS are available for free. A paper copy of the ES may be purchased. Please contact Aberdeen City Council Waste and Recycling Service at 01224 489344 or e-mail [email protected] or write to 38 Powis Terrace, Aberdeen, AB25 3RF.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 VII © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Contents
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 Purpose of this Environmental Statement 1 Obtaining Further Information 1 1.2 Site Description 2 1.3 Overview of the Development Proposals 2 1.4 The Applicant and Project Team 3 The Applicant 3 EIA Project Team 3 Project Engineers 3 Project Architects 3 1.5 Structure of the ES 3
2. Project Description 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Overview of the Need for the Proposed Development 5 2.3 Overview of Alternatives 6 Alternative Locations 6 Alternative Technologies 6 2.4 Overview of Design Evolution 7 2.5 Site Layout 7 Security and Lighting 7 2.6 Operating Hours and Deliveries 8 Operating Hours 8 Material Delivery and Dispatch 8 2.7 Process Description 8 Tipping Hall 8 Combustion 9 Process Controls 9 Conversion of Waste to Steam/Electricity and Heat 10 Flue Gas Treatment 10 Waste Residues 10 Employment 11 Further Consents 11 2.8 Construction 11 Proposed Programme 11 Hours of Working 12 Construction Traffic 12 Standard Construction Working Practices 12 Health and Safety during Construction 12 Environmental Management during Construction 13
3. EIA Process 15 3.1 Overview 15 3.2 EIA Scoping 15 3.3 Project Evolution 16 3.4 EIA Terminology 16 Defining Significance 16 Impacts and Effects 17 Type of Effect 18 Temporal and Spatial Scope 18
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 VIII © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
3.5 EIA Methodology 18
4. Stakeholder Consultation 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 EIA Scoping 21 Introduction 21 Scoping Consultation Responses 21 Further EIA Consultations 27 4.3 Pre-application Consultation 27
5. Planning Policy Context 29 5.1 Introduction 29 Planning Legislative Framework 29 5.2 The Development Plan 29 Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan 29 Aberdeen City and Shire SDP Supplementary Guidance: Strategic Transport Fund (August 2015) 30 Aberdeen Local Development Plan 30 5.3 Emerging Development Plan and Relevant Guidance 35 Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 and draft Supplementary Guidance 35 Other Relevant Guidance 39 5.4 National Planning Policies 39 National Planning Framework 39 Scottish Planning Policy 40 Other National Planning Policies, Advice and Guidance 43 5.5 Waste Management Legislative and Policy Framework 46 Overview 46 Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (Scottish Government, 2010) 47 SEPA’s Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014 (SEPA, May 2014) 47 Making Things Last: Consultation on creating a more circular economy in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2015) 47 Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2014-2025 48 Moray Council’s Waste Strategy: Consolidation of Waste Management Facilities (November, 2015) 48 5.6 Renewable Energy and Climate Change Material Considerations 48 5.7 Technical References 50
6. Land Quality 57 6.1 Introduction 57 6.2 Methodology and Approach 57 Terminology 57 Legislative and policy context 57 Baseline Establishment 61 Scope of Assessment 63 Receptor Sensitivity 66 Magnitude of Change 67 Significance Evaluation Methodology 68 6.3 Baseline Information 68 Overview 68 Topography and Land Use 69 Nature Conservation Sites 69 Geology 69 Soils 71 Land Contamination 71 Groundwater Resources 75 Predicted Future Baseline 76 Information Gaps 77 6.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures 77 Implementation of the Controls 81 6.5 Impact Assessment 81 6.6 Cumulative Effects 82
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 IX © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
6.7 Additional Mitigation 82 6.8 Residual Effects 82 6.9 Technical References 83
7. Freshwater Environment 85 7.1 Introduction 85 7.2 Methodology and Approach 85 Legislative and Policy Context 85 Scope of the Assessment 87 Baseline Establishment 90 Methodology for Establishing Effects 91 7.3 Baseline Information 94 Current Baseline 94 Future Baseline 97 7.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures 98 Potential effects: Construction Phase 98 Potential effects: Operational Phase 99 Proposed Mitigation Measures 99 7.5 Impact Assessment 101 Predicted effects and their significance 101 7.6 Cumulative Effects 102 7.7 Additional Mitigation 102 7.8 Residual Effects 103 7.9 Technical References 103
8. Nature Conservation 107 8.1 Introduction 107 8.2 Methodology and Approach 107 Legislative and Policy Context 107 Proposed Scope of Assessment 109 Baseline Establishment 110 Methodology for Establishment of Effects 113 Significance Evaluation Methodology 115 8.3 Baseline Information 116 Desk-based assessment 116 Value of Receptors 120 Predicted Future Baseline 121 8.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures 122 Design Evolution 122 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potentially Significant Effects 122 Summary of Mitigation Measures 123 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 124 8.5 Impact Assessment 124 Predicted Construction Effects and their Significance 124 Predicted Operational Effects and their Significance 124 8.6 Cumulative Effects 125 8.7 Additional Mitigation 125 8.8 Residual Effects 125 8.9 Technical References 126
9. Traffic and Transport 127 9.1 Introduction 127 Transportation Features of the Proposed Development 127 9.2 Methodology and Approach 128 Policy and Guidance Context 128
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 X © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Technical Consultations 128 Methodology for Establishment of Effects 129 Information Gaps 133 9.3 Baseline Information 133 Site Description 133 Existing Highways Network 134 Existing and Future Baseline Traffic Flows 134 Existing Accident Record 136 9.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures 136 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 136 Summary of Mitigation Measures 137 9.5 Impact Assessment 137 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 137 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 140 9.6 Cumulative Effects 144 9.7 Additional Mitigation 144 9.8 Residual Effects 144 9.9 Technical References 145
10. Noise 147 10.1 Introduction 147 10.2 Methodology and Approach 147 Planning and Guidance 147 Technical Consultations 148 Proposed Scope of Assessment 149 Data Gathering and Survey Work 150 Methodology for the prediction of effects 151 Significance Evaluation Methodology 155 Summary 157 Significance evaluation 158 Final scope of the assessment 158 10.3 Baseline Information 159 Baseline monitoring results 159 Relevant Measured Sound Levels 159 Information Gaps 160 10.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures 160 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 160 Additional measures incorporated to mitigate possible other effects 161 10.5 Impact Assessment 162 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction phase 162 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational phase 164 10.6 Cumulative Effects 166 10.7 Additional Mitigation 166 10.8 Summary of Predicted Effects 166 10.9 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 168 10.10 Technical References 168
11. Air Quality 171 11.1 Introduction 171 11.2 Methodology and Approach 171 Relevant Terminology 171 Legislation, Policies and Guidance 172 Significance Evaluation Methodology 180 Proposed Scope of Assessment 187 Technical Consultations 194 Baseline Establishment 195 Information Gaps 195 11.3 Baseline Information 196
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 XI © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Current Baseline 196 Predicted Future Baseline 204 11.4 Design Evolution and Embedded Mitigation 204 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 204 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 207 11.5 Impact Assessment 207 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 207 Conclusions 221 11.6 Cumulative Effects 222 11.7 Additional Mitigation 222 11.8 Summary of Predicted Effects 222 11.9 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 223 11.10 Technical References 224
12. Landscape and Visual 225 12.1 Introduction 225 12.2 Planning and Guidance 225 12.3 Assessment Approach 226 Defining the Study Area 226 Landscape and Visual Assessment Methodology 227 Landscape Effects 228 Visual Effects 231 Evaluating Landscape and Visual Effects 232 Consultation and Scope of Assessment 233 Information Gaps 234 12.4 Baseline Information 234 Baseline Landscape Receptors 234 Visual Receptors and Existing Views 237 12.5 Design Statement and Embedded Mitigations 240 Description of Proposed Development 240 Design Strategy and inherent mitigation 240 12.6 Residual Landscape Effects 242 Effects on Townscape Character 242 Effects on Landscape Character 247 Effects on Seascape Character 251 Effects on Designated Landscapes 253 12.7 Residual Visual Effects 253 Viewpoint assessment 253 Effects on Views from Settlements: Aberdeen City 255 Visual Effects on Views from Residential Properties 256 Effects on Views from Transport Routes 256 Effects on Views from Recreational Routes 257 Recreational and Tourist Destinations 260 12.8 Summary and Conclusions 263 Landscape Effects 263 Visual Effects 264 Conclusions 264 12.9 Technical References 265
13. Historic Environment 267 Policy and Legislative Context 267 Scope of Assessment 269 Methodology for Establishment of Effects 271 13.3 Baseline Information 273 Site Description and Geology 273 Current Baseline 273 Archaeological and Historical Background 274 Other Data Sources 275 Heritage Receptor Baseline 276 Predicted Future Baseline 284
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 XII © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
St. Fittick's Church and Churchyard: Category B Listed Building (LB 19955) and Scheduled Monument (SM 10400) 288 Tullos Hill Scheduled Cairns and Consumption Dyke: (SM 4055, SM 4060, SM 4125, SM 4126 and SM 12342) 290 Tullos Primary School: Category B Listed Building (LB 49995) 293 13.6 Cumulative Effects 294 13.7 Additional Mitigation 294 13.8 Summary of Residual Effects 294 13.9 Technical References 294 Documentary Sources 294
14. Socioeconomics 297 14.1 Introduction 297 14.2 Methodology and Approach 297 Policy and Guidance 297 Proposed Scope of Assessment 299 Baseline Establishment 301 Methodology for Establishment of Effects 301 14.3 Baseline Information 304 Land Use and Regeneration 304 Population 305 Employment and Economic Activity 306 Recreation 308 Predicted Future Baseline 309 14.4 Design Evolution and Embedded Mitigation 309 14.5 Impact Assessment 309 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 309 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 312 14.6 Cumulative Effects 314 14.7 Additional Mitigation 314 14.8 Summary of Predicted Effects 315 14.9 Technical References 317
15. Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Management Proposals 321 15.1 Introduction 321
Table 4.1 Review of EIA Scoping Consultation Responses 22 Table 5.1 Other Relevant LDP Policies and adopted Supplementary Guidance 32 Table 5.2 Relevant Proposed Plan Policies and draft Supplementary Guidance 36 Table 5.3 Key Relevant SPP Policy Provisions 41 Table 6.1 Consultee comments and responses to EIA scoping 61 Table 6.2 Sources of Information 62 Table 6.3 Definitions of Importance / Sensitivity of Receptors 66 Table 6.4 Magnitude of Change 67 Table 6.5 Derivation of the Level of Effect 68 Table 6.6 Potential Sources of Contamination Identified in the Phase 1 Desk Study 72 Table 6.7 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 79 Table 7.1 Consultee comments and responses to EIA scoping relevant to the freshwater environment 87 Table 7.2 Freshwater environment – sources of information 90 Table 7.3 Summary of sensitivity (or value) of water features 92 Table 7.4 Examples of water environment magnitude of change 93 Table 7.5 Derivation of significance of potential effects 94 Table 7.6 2013 WFD Classification of relevant surface waterbodies 96 Table 7.7 BMWP Scores for the East Tullos Burn (SEPA data 1995-2004) 96 Table 7.8 Potential changes in the climate for the 25km Grid Box ID 615 centred on the Development Site (medium emissions scenario) anticipated for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. 98 Table 7.9 Proposed embedded environmental mitigation measures 99 Table 7.10 Assessment of the significance of effects on aquatic environment receptors 101 Table 7.11 Assessment of the significance of effects on flood risk receptors 101 Table 8.1 Summary of Relevant Consultee Scoping Responses and ES Response 109 Table 8.2 Statutory and Non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Value, Protected and notable Species 110 Table 8.3 Ecological Sensitivity/Value 114 Table 8.4 Magnitude of Change on Ecological Receptors 115
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 XIII © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 8.5 Matrix Referred to for Establishing the Level of Effect 116 Table 8.6 Statutory Designated Sites within ~15km of the Development Site 116 Table 8.7 Non-statutory Designated Sites within ~2km of the Development Site 117 Table 8.8 Value of Ecological Receptors 120 Table 8.9 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 123 Table 8.10 Summary of Residual Effects 125 Table 9.1 Summary of Consultation Response 128 Table 9.2 Traffic Related Environmental Effects 129 Table 9.3 Identified Receptors 130 Table 9.4 Traffic and Transport Environmental Assessment Significance Criteria 131 Table 9.5 Establishing the Level of Effect 133 Table 9.6 All Vehicles and HGVs: Two Way Average AM Peak and 24-hour Traffic Flows – 2015 134 Table 9.7 All vehicles and HGVs: Two Way Average AM Peak and 24-hour Traffic Flows (including 2018 plus Cumulative Development Proposals) 135 Table 9.8 All Vehicles and HGVs: Two Way Average AM Peak and 24-hour Traffic Flows (2020 plus Cumulative Development Proposals) 135 Table 9.9 Summary of Accident Records 2009-2014 136 Table 9.10 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 137 Table 9.11 Construction Traffic Movements (arrival + departure) per Hour 138 Table 9.12 Predicted Percentage Impact during Construction 138 Table 9.13 Traffic Flows for the Fear and Intimidation Assessment 139 Table 9.14 Anticipated EfW Trips per Hour by Direction during a Typical Weekday 140 Table 9.15 AM Peak Traffic Flows (All Vehicles and HGVs) – 2020 Initial Operations 141 Table 9.17 Traffic Flows for the Fear and Intimidation Assessment 143 Table 9.18 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 144 Table 10.1 British Standards and other Guidance 148 Table 10.2 Nearest Residential Noise Sensitive Receptors 149 Table 10.3 Nearest Non-domestic Noise Sensitive Receptors 149 Table 10.4 Sound Monitoring Locations 150 Table 10.5 Construction Traffic Figures 151 Table 10.6 Operational Traffic Figures 152 Table 10.7 Subjective Method – Tonality Penalties 154 Table 10.8 Subjective Method - Impulsivity Penalties 154 Table 10.9 BS 4142:2014 Assessment Guidance 154 Table 10.10 BS 8233:2014 Internal noise level criteria (non-domestic uses) 157 Table 10.11 Summary of Noise Magnitude Criteria 157 Table 10.12 Noise Effects Significance Matrix 158 Table 10.13 Summary of Baseline Sound Monitoring Results 159 Table 10.14 Relevant Background Measured Sound Levels at LT1 160 Table 10.15 Relevant Background Measured Sound Levels at LT2 160 Table 10.16 Rationale for Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 161 Table 10.17 Assumed Construction Plant Details 162 Table 10.18 Predicted Construction Noise Levels for dwellings on Kirkhill Place 163 Table 10.19 Predicted Construction Noise Levels for dwellings on Wellington Road 163 Table 10.20 Predicted Construction Noise Levels for Nearest Commercial Units 164 Table 10.21 Predicted Sound Levels 165 Table 10.22 BS 4142:2014 Assessment 165 Table 10.23 Predicted Sound Levels at Non-domestic Receptors 166 Table 10.24 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 167 Table 10.25 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 168 Table 11.1 IED Emission Limit Values for EfW Facilities 172 Table 11.2 Air Quality Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels 175 Table 11.3 Typical Levels for Deposition and Obscuration Dust Gauges 178 Table 11.4 Suggested Likelihood of Nuisance Guidelines for Monthly Mean Dust Deposition as Insoluble Deposition (mg m-2 day-1) 178 Table 11.5 Planning policy documents and issues 180 Table 11.6 Impact descriptors for individual receptors 181 Table 11.7 Sensitivity of Receptors 182 Table 11.8 Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property 184 Table 11.9 Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts 184 Table 11.10 Sensitivity of the Area to Ecological Impacts 185 Table 11.11 Risk of Dust Impacts - Earthworks 185 Table 11.12 Risk of Dust Impacts - Construction 185 Table 11.13 Risk of Dust Impacts - Trackout 185 Table 11.14 Examples of Odour Sensitive Receptors 186 Table 11.15 Receptor Sensitivity to Odours 186 Table 11.16 Significance Matrix for Operational Odour Effects 186 Table 11.17 Examples of where the AQOs should apply 187 Table 11.18 Human Receptors included in the Air Quality and Odour Assessments 188 Table 11.19 Location of Modelled Ecological Receptors 190 Table 11.20 Location of Receptor Groups for Dust Assessment 191 Table 11.21 Aberdeen City Council Automatic Monitoring Results for NO2 in 2014 196 Table 11.22 ACC Passive Monitoring Results (2014 Bias Adjusted Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations) 197 Table 11.23 2014 monitored metal concentrations at Belfast and Auchencorth Moss 198 Table 11.24 Mapped annual mean background concentrations at human receptors (µgm-3) 199 Table 11.25 Mapped annual mean background concentrations at ecological receptors (µg m-3) 201
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 XIV © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.26 Background deposition rates 201 Table 11.27 Variation in Monthly Rainfall at Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport 203 Table 11.28 Recommended mitigation measures for the construction phase 205 Table 11.29 Construction dust emission magnitude 208 Table 11.30 Sensitivity of surrounding area to dust impacts 208 Table 11.31 Construction dust summary of dust risk 209 Table 11.32 Construction Dust Significance of Effects 209 Table 11.33 Summary model results for human receptor experiencing maximum impact 210 Table 11.34 Modelled NO2 and PM10 impacts at AQMA receptors 212 Table 11.35 Modelled NOx impacts at ecological receptors 213 Table 11.36 Modelled SO2 and NH3 impacts at ecological receptors 214 Table 11.37 Modelled HF impacts at ecological receptors 215 Table 11.38 Maximum modelled metal deposition rates at human receptors 215 Table 11.39 Modelled nitrogen deposition rates at ecological receptors 216 Table 11.40 Modelled acid deposition rates at Ecological Receptors 217 Table 11.41 Summary model results for human receptor experiencing maximum process contribution during abnormal operation 219 Table 11.42 Predicted Odour Effects during the Operational Phase of the Proposed Development (Abnormal Operation) 220 Table 11.43 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 222 Table 11.44 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 223 Table 12.1 Landscape sensitivity 229 Table 12.2 Magnitude of Landscape Change 230 Table 12.3 Visual Receptor sensitivity 231 Table 12.4 Magnitudes of Visual Change 232 Table 12.5 Evaluation of Landscape and Visual Effects 233 Table 12.6 Viewpoint Location Selection Process 233 Table 12.7 Summary of Townscape Character Assessment within the 2km study area 235 Table 12.8 Summary of LCA within the 5km study area 235 Table 12.9 Summary of Seascape Character Areas within the 5km study area 236 Table 12.10 Effects on Townscape Character within 2km 242 Table 12.11 Indirect Effects on Surrounding Landscape Character within 5km 247 Table 12.12 Indirect Effects on Surrounding Seascape Character within 5km 252 Table 12.13 Viewpoint Assessment 254 Table 12.14 Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes 257 Table 12.15 Visual Effects on Views from Core Paths 258 Table 12.16 Visual Effects on Views from National Recreational Routes and Heritage Paths within 2km 260 Table 12.17 Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations 261 Table 13.1 Relevant provisions within the SPP’s Subject Policy Valuing the Historic Environment 268 Table 13.2 Categorisation of Importance 272 Table 13.3 Definition of Magnitude of Change 272 Table 13.4 Establishing the Level of Effect 273 Table 13.5 Heritage Receptor Baseline 277 Table 13.6 Preliminary Stage 3 Assessment 285 Table 13.7 Summary of Residual Effects 294 Table 14.1 Relevant Policy Guidance 298 Table 14.2 Economic Sensitivity 302 Table 14.3 Sensitivity of Recreational Receptors 303 Table 14.4 Industry and Economic Magnitude of Change 303 Table 14.5 Recreational Magnitude of change 304 Table 14.6 Establishing the level of effect 304 Table 14.7 Key Population Statistics from 2011 Census 305 Table 14.8 Total Population (Mid-Year Estimates) from Scottish Government Statistics 306 Table 14.9 Projected Population by Age Group in Aberdeen to 2037 (NROS, 2014) 306 Table 14.10 % Employment by Industry (2011 Census) 307 Table 14.11 Assessment of Operational Effects on Visitor Attractiveness of Recreational Receptors 312 Table 14.12 Summary of Residual Effects 315 Table 15.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures 323
Figures See ES Volume 2 Appendices See ES Volume 3
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 XV © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Abbreviations
µm – millionths of a metre or thousandths of a millimetre DB&O – Design, Build and Operate ACC – Air Cooled Condensers Defra – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs AAT – Advanced Thermal Treatment DfT – Department for Transport AGANet – Acid Gas and Aerosol Network DHN – District Heating Network AMAAA – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act DIA – Drainage Impact Assessment 1979 DMP – Drainage Management Plan AOD – Above Ordnance Datum DMP – Dust Management Plan APIS – Air Pollution Information System DMRB – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges AQA – Air Quality Assessment DoE – Department of Environment AQAL – Air Quality Assessment Level e.g. - exemplī grātiā (for example) AQAP – Air Quality Action Plan EcIA – Ecological Impact Assessment AQMA – Air Quality Management Area ECML – East Coast Mainline AQOs – Air Quality Objectives ELVs – Emission Limit Values AQS – Air Quality Standards EfW – Energy from Waste ATC – Automatic Traffic Count EALs – Environmental Assessment Levels AWI – Ancient Woodland Inventory. EHO – Environmental Health Officer AWPR – Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment B[a]P – Benzo [a] Pyrene EMPs – Environmental Management Plans BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan. EMS – Environmental Management System BAT – Best Available Technique(s) ES – Environmental Statement BB93 - Building Bulletin 93 EPS – European protected species BGS – British Geological Survey EPUK – Environmental Protection UK BMWP – Biological Monitoring Working Party EQS – Environmental Quality Standard BPEO – Best Practicable Environmental Option FGT – Flue Gas Treatment BS – British Standard FRA – Flood Risk Assessment CAR – Controlled Activities Regulations FTE – Full Time Equivalent CDM – Construction (Design and Management) GBR – General Binding Rule CEM – Continuous Emissions Monitoring GDL – Gardens and Designed Landscapes CEMP – Construction Environmental Management Plan GW – Gigawatts CFA – Continuous Flight Auger HCl – Hydrogen Chloride CHP – Combined Heat and Power HES – Historic Environment Scotland CIEEM – Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management HF – Hydrogen Fluoride CIfA – Chartered Institute for Archaeologists HGV – Heavy Good Vehicle (or waste refuse vehicles) CIRIA – Construction Industry Research & Information HHIA – Human Health Impact Assessment Association HRA – Habitats Regulation Appraisal CMS – Construction Methods Statement IAQM – Institute of Air Quality Management CO – Carbon monoxide (CO) IBA – Incinerator Bottom Ash COs – Conservation Objectives IEA – Institute of Environmental Assessment CRTN – Calculation of Road Traffic Noise IED – Industrial Emissions Directive CTPM – Construction Traffic Management Plan IEMA – Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment D – Dissolved Oxygen JNCC – Joint Nature Conservation Committee DAS – Design and Access Statement LAQM – Local Air Quality Management dB – Decibel
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 XVI © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
LB – Listed Building PM2.5 – Particulate Matter of diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (microns) LBAP – Local Biodiversity Action Plan PPC – Pollution Prevention and Control LCA – Landscape Character Area PPG - Pollution Prevention Guidelines LCT – Landscape Character Type PRoWs – Public Rights of Way LDP – Local Development Plan RBMP – River Basement Management Plan LNCS – Local Nature Conservation Site RCAHMS – Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical LNR – Local Nature Reserve Monuments of Scotland LVIA – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment RCV – Refuse Collection Vehicle CV – Calorific Value RVAA – Residential Visual Amenity Assessment MAGIC - Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the rWFD – revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC Countryside (rWFD) MCC – Manual Classified Count SAC – Special Area of Conservation MDR – Maximum Deposition Rate SAQD – Scottish Air Quality Database MJ/Kg – Mega joules per Kilogram SBL – Scottish Biodiversity List MSW – Municipal Solid Waste SDP – Strategic Development Plan MW – Megawatt SEPA – Scottish Environment Protection Agency MWe – Megawatt Equivalent SGA – Strategic Growth Area NAEI – National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory SHEP – Scottish Historic Environment Policy NAMN – National Ammonia Monitoring Network SM – Scheduled Monument NBN – National Biodiversity Network SNCR – Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction NCAP – National Collection of Aerial Photography SNH – Scottish Natural Heritage NDPB – Non Departmental Public Body SO2 – Sulphur Dioxide NESBReC – North East Scotland Biological Records Centre SPP – Scottish Planning Policy NH3 - Ammonia SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest NNR – National Nature Reserve SuDS – Sustainable (Urban) Drainage System NOx – Nitrogen Oxide SW – Scottish Water NO2 – Nitrogen Dioxide STF – Strategic Transport Fund NPF3 – National Planning Framework 3 SWMP – Site Waste Management Plan NRMM – Non-Road Mobile Machinery TCA – Townscape Character Area NSR – Nearest Sensitive Receptors TEMPRO – Trip End Model Presentation Program NTEM – National Trip End Model th - Thermal OPEX – Operational Expenditure TOMPS – Toxic Organic Micropollutants Survey OS – Ordnance Survey tpa – Tonnes per Annum -3 ouE m – European odour units per cubic metre at standard TPH – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons conditions for olfactometry UFI – United Fish Industries PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons UK BAP – United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan PAN – Planning Advice Note UKCP09 – UK Climate Projections PAC – Pre-Application Consultation VERs – Valued Ecological Receptors PC – Process contribution VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds PDR – Predicted Deposition Rate VOCs as TOC – Volatile Organic Compounds as Total Organic PEC – Predicted Environmental Concentration Carbon PEDR – Predicted Environmental Deposition Rate (= PC + WCA – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 background) WFD – Water Framework Directive PIAs – Personal Injury Accidents WHO – World Health Organisation PM10 – Particulate Matter of diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (microns) ZTV – Zone of Theoretical Visibility
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 1 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Aberdeen City Council is submitting a planning application for the development of an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility (the ‘Proposed Development’) within the East Tullos Industrial Estate off Greenbank Crescent, south Aberdeen. The facility would convert residual household waste from the Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Council area, via a moving grate process, into heat and power for the adjacent public properties, housing, and nearby businesses, as well as supplying surplus electricity into the National Grid.
Purpose of this Environmental Statement
1.1.2 This Environmental Statement (ES) reports on the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken for the Proposed Development.
1.1.3 The Proposed Development falls under Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (the "EIA Regulations"), developments for which EIA is mandatory. Specifically, paragraph (10) of this schedule states that EIA is required for “Waste disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment (as defined in Annex I to Directive 2008/98/EC under heading D9) of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day”.
1.1.4 The EIA and the resulting ES were undertaken and prepared with due regard to the criteria of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. The ES includes an assessment of the predicted effects of the Proposed Development, focusing on the likely significant environmental effects as required by the EIA Regulations. The content of the ES, as well as the overall approach to the EIA, has also been designed to reflect other requirements of the EIA Regulations as well as widely recognised good practice in EIA.
Obtaining Further Information
1.1.5 The ES and supporting documentation are available on the dedicated project website for the Proposed Development: http://www.abzre.net/Downloads/Downloads.aspx.
1.1.6 Copies of the Non-Technical Summary (NTS) are available free of charge during the planning application process. CD copies of the ES and associated planning application documents are also available free of charge during the planning application process.
1.1.7 Paper copies of the entire ES and associated planning application documents may be obtained at a cost of £150 per copy (+ Postage &Packing). To request a paper copy please contact Aberdeen Recycling and Energy at 01224 489344 or [email protected] or at Aberdeen City Council, 38 Powis Terrace, Aberdeen, AB25 3RF.
1.1.8 Hard copies of the ES and associated planning application documents are available for public viewing at the following locations: Planning and Sustainable Development, Aberdeen City Council, Marischal College, Broad Street, Aberdeen AB10 1AB; Torry Library, Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9NJ; and
Kincorth Library, Provost Watt Drive, Aberdeen, AB12 5NA.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 2 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
1.2 Site Description
1.2.1 The site within which the Proposed Development would be located (the ‘Development Site’) extends to approximately 2 hectares (ha) and is located within the East Tullos Industrial Estate, on the south side of Aberdeen. The location of the Development Site, which is centred on National Grid Reference NJ 95426 03997, is shown on Figure 1.1 to Figure 1.3.
1.2.2 The Development Site is vacant brownfield land. It comprises a disused gas holder, associated structures and hard standing which are scheduled for demolition followed by site remediation works during 2016 by the current landowner SGN (formerly Scotland Gas Networks). The remediation works will include rerouting of all existing onsite utilities to the perimeter of the Development Site. These demolition and remediation works are being carried out independently of the Proposed Development and are therefore not assessed as part of this ES (these works will be complete prior to the Construction of the Proposed Development in the event that permission is granted).
1.2.3 The Development Site is currently accessed via existing site entrance point on Greenbank Crescent, which can be accessed from the A956 Wellington Road via Greenbank Road. The northern section of Wellington Road is designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).
1.2.4 The Development Site is bordered by the wider industrial estate in all directions, including the United Fish Industries (UFI) processing plant to the east and south, and the existing East Tullos Waste Transfer Station to the west. East Tullos Industrial Estate in general, comprises a mix of industrial storage, distribution and office buildings. In addition, Altens Nursery is located approximately 600m west of the Development Site within the industrial estate. The East Tullos Industrial Estate is bordered by A956 Wellington Road to the west and the Aberdeen Dundee railway line to the north. The Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) covers a large elevated area to the south and east of the industrial estate, and St Fittick’s Community Park is located north and east of the railway line.
1.2.5 Torry residential areas are located to the north of the industrial estate, approximately 300m from the Development Site. Tullos School is also located approximately 300m to the north. Beech House Nursery and Torry Nursing Home are located off Balnagask Road within Torry. There are also residential receptors along Wellington Road, approximately 600m to the west.
1.2.6 The Development Site is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory environmental designations. The nearest statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest to the Development Site are the River Dee Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Kincorth Hill Local Nature Reserve (LNR). Both Tullos Hill Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) and Loirston Country Park are non- statutory nature conservation sites. There are a number of cultural heritage assets within the wider surrounding areas, with the closest being the Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126) Scheduled Monument within Loirston Country Park.
1.2.7 The Development Site is allocated for general industrial uses within the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 (LDP) and is subject to a proposed waste site allocation, covering EfW or In Vessel Compost facility, within the Proposed Aberdeen LDP 2015.
1.3 Overview of the Development Proposals
1.3.1 The Proposed Development is aimed at both contributing to sustainable waste management and providing a localised source of heat and power. The East Tullos EfW could operate as a Combined Heat and Power plant (CHP) producing up to 20MW thermal for export to a district heating system, or generate up to 11.1MW electricity for export, or a combination of both after taking into account the parasitic load of the facility. This would have wider climate change benefits by providing an alternative to fossil fuels as well as offering an energy source, partly renewable, close to centres of population and industry.
1.3.2 In terms of waste treatment, the Proposed Development would accept residual municipal waste from the three Council areas. There would be no pre-treatment of waste on site, as the waste received would be pre-treated at source as part of extensive recycling programmes. Currently, the
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 3 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
waste to be processed at the East Tullos EfW facility is being disposed of to landfill, however with the Scottish Government 1st January 2021 ban on the landfilling of separated recyclables and biodegradable waste, this is changing.
1.3.3 The Proposed Development would have the capacity to process up to 150,000 tonnes of waste per annum (p.a.) and has been sized based upon predicted waste arisings for each of the three authorities. This capacity allows for ‘future proofing’ for any future municipal waste arisings as a result of economic growth and projected housing growth within the Council areas. The Proposed Development would not accept hazardous or clinical waste.
1.3.4 Further details of the proposals are given in Chapter 2.
1.4 The Applicant and Project Team
The Applicant
1.4.1 The legal applicant is Aberdeen City Council who is bringing forward the Proposed Development in partnership with the Moray Council and Aberdeenshire Council. The Proposed Development is being promoted under the banner of Aberdeen Recycling and Energy, a project entity of the Council.
EIA Project Team
1.4.2 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd (Amec Foster Wheeler) is a firm of Environmental and Engineering Consultants, which has been responsible for all technical assessments, compilation of the ES and Non-Technical Summary (NTS).
Project Engineers
1.4.3 Amec Foster Wheeler has also been responsible for the outline engineering design option which have informed the design of the Proposed Development.
Project Architects
1.4.4 Garry Stewart Design Associates (GSDA) are the project architects and responsible for final site layout and building design as detailed in the planning application drawings
1.5 Structure of the ES
1.5.1 The ES comprises four parts: Non-Technical Summary (NTS): summary of the main findings of the EIA; Volume 1 Report: detailing how the EIA process has been applied to the Proposed Development; describing the Proposed Development, how it has evolved and reporting the EIA’s findings in relation to relevant environmental topics. Volume 1 is divided into 15 chapters: Introductory chapters 1 to 5: provides project overview, project description, EIA methodology and scope, and planning policy context; Technical assessment chapters 6 to 14: report the findings on each of the environmental topics where the possibility of likely significant environmental effects was anticipated at scoping stage, and propose mitigation and enhancement measures. Whilst each chapter deals with an individual environmental topic, there is a clear link between many of the subjects and the order in which they appear on the ES is intended to strengthen the connections; and Chapter 15 summarises the mitigation and residual effects.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 4 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Volume 2 Figures: the figures to accompany the text presented in Volume 1; Volume 3 Technical Appendices: technical documentation to support the text presented in Volume 1.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 5 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
2. Project Description
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The Proposed Development would have the capacity to process up to 150,000 tonnes of waste per annum (p.a.). The waste stream would be comprised of residual municipal solid waste (MSW) from Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Council areas. The Proposed Development would not accept hazardous or clinical waste.
2.1.2 There would be no pre-treatment of waste at the Development Site. Waste would be pre-treated at source through use of the recycling schemes available before delivery to the Development Site and, if necessary, further pre-sorting at existing facilities within the individual Council areas would be used. This is in compliance with SEPAs Thermal Treatment Guidelines.
2.1.3 The East Tullos EfW could operate as a Combined Heat and Power plant (CHP) producing up to 20MW thermal for export to a district heating system, or generate up to 11.1MW electricity for export, or a combination of both after taking into account the parasitic load of the facility.
2.1.4 The following information is outlined in this chapter:
Overview of the need for the Proposed Development; Overview of any alternatives considered; Overview of Design Evolution;
Site Layout; Operating Hours and Deliveries; and Process Description.
2.2 Overview of the Need for the Proposed Development
2.2.1 Between them, Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Councils collected 278,422 tonnes of household waste in 2014 as well as a small amount of commercial/trade waste. Of the household waste, 42.2% was recycled and 161,000 of mixed untreated waste was sent to landfill. There has been a steady increase in recycling efforts and the forecast suggests that up to 60% recycling is achievable via kerbside recycling for the three councils by 2020.
2.2.2 The Proposed Development has been sized based upon predicted waste arisings for each Council. The capacity of the Proposed Development allows for ‘future proofing’ for any future municipal waste arisings as a result of economic growth and projected housing growth. Anticipated waste arisings from each council which would feed into the EfW plant are: Aberdeen City Council 60,000 tonnes; Aberdeenshire Council 70,000 tonnes; and Moray Council 20,000 tonnes.
2.2.3 The Proposed Development has therefore been sized to accept 150,000 tonnes p.a. of residual municipal waste however should the Councils efforts to recycle result in less residual municipal waste, the remainder can be sourced from local commercial/trade waste with a similar composition to household waste.
2.2.4 Policy changes have driven the need for the three councils to develop an EfW facility: The EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) requires the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 6 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
In 2012, the Scottish Government set out the Zero Waste Regulations (Scotland) and Zero Waste Plan, proposing new municipal waste targets for composting and recycling of 50% by 2013, 60% by 2020 and 70% of all waste by 2025. Overall, the Scottish Government is seeking to achieve a 95% diversion rate of all waste from landfill by 2025; and The Scottish Government has also banned the disposal to landfill of separated recyclables and biodegradable waste under the Zero Waste Plan from 1st January 2021.Wastes that can be re‐ used or recycled must be recovered as far as reasonably practicable. The remaining waste must also be treated to remove valuable materials. Only then can wastes be thermally treated to recover energy.
2.2.5 Failure to meet ever more stringent recycling and landfill diversion targets could result in substantial financial penalties being imposed on local Councils.
2.3 Overview of Alternatives
2.3.1 The EIA Regulations require that an ES should include details of the main alternatives to the development considered by the applicant. In this context, the applicant has considered: Alternative locations for the Proposed Development; and Alternative technologies to the Proposed Development.
2.3.2 In view of the need to develop new recovery facilities and to divert wastes from landfill, it is not considered that the ‘do-nothing’ option is a viable or sustainable one.
Alternative Locations
2.3.3 A comprehensive site search exercise has been carried out by the applicant to determine whether there are any suitable and available sites in Aberdeen or its periphery that would be suitable for the development of a strategic waste management facility. As detailed in the Site Selection Report (Appendix 2.A) 44 sites where identified and considered. Following a staged review against applicable policy criteria a final list of 11 sites where identified. Following further review, East Tullos Industrial Estate was identified as the preferred site, scoring well against identified policy criteria including environmental constraints, proximity to waste concentration, proximity to potential heat users, and site availability.
Alternative Technologies
2.3.4 The applicant carried out a review of various technologies capable of processing residual municipal waste and concluded that a solution such as energy from waste, developed as a high quality Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP), meets with Scottish Government aspirations1 and supports other Circular Economy initiatives.
2.3.5 Energy from Waste is a proven solution for the effective treatment of residual waste, with numerous operational facilities in the UK and continental Europe; in particular it is a strong solution for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill.
2.3.6 Mass Burn Incineration is the most common type of Energy from Waste Technology although others are available; pyrolysis and gasification, otherwise described as Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) plants. These three technology options are all available at the size and scale required for the waste produced by the three Councils and the chosen site, however Mass Burn incineration is by far the most common, with a significant track record of working efficiently and safely in the UK, processing residual municipal waste, therefore this technology has been selected.
1 http://www.gov.scot/makingthingslast
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 7 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
2.4 Overview of Design Evolution
2.4.1 The architectural design for the Proposed Development has been prepared by Gary Stewart Design Associates.
2.4.2 The main building has been designed around a typical internal plant layout. Given the aspiration by the applicant to deliver a landmark building it was decided to enclose all of the plant within the building envelope, with potentially visually intrusive elements of the building’s process equipment being contained. This approach led to a less industrial looking building fitting of its location and the aspirations of the Council.
2.4.3 Further information on the design of the proposed development is provided in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted as part of this planning application (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2015).
2.5 Site Layout
2.5.1 The EfW facility is made up of the following principal elements: A main building – this would house the majority of process plant and would have a flue stack. All waste material would be unloaded inside the building. In addition, this building would house the offices and welfare facilities. At its highest point, the main body of the building would be ~47.5m high and be ~170m long by estimated maximum width of 51.4m. It is anticipated that the flue stack would extend to a maximum height of 80 m high; Air Cooled Condensers & Combined Heat Power plant – these two elements would be combined into a separate building ~20m high, 66m long and 20m wide;
Substation compound – this would be a separate building ~7 m high, 15 m long and 10 m wide; and Fire water tank – the tank would be ~ 15 m diameter and 12 m high.
2.5.2 In addition, the external site areas would include:
Two weighbridges (in and out); Site entrance and circulation roads; 22 car parking spaces;
Drainage proposals; and Landscaping.
2.5.3 The development details can be found in the submitted planning application drawings pack.
Security and Lighting
2.5.4 Likely security and lighting arrangements based on similar developments are: Security gates and fencing around 2.4m in height around the full Development Site; Security and utility lighting on buildings and/or pole mounted; Security cameras on buildings and/or pole mounted; and
Manned personnel on site outwith delivery hours.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 8 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
2.6 Operating Hours and Deliveries
Operating Hours
2.6.1 With the exception of an ‘emergency situation’, it is anticipated that the facility would generally accept the delivery of waste and the despatch of materials between: 0700 to 1900 hours during weekdays and 0700 to 1300 on Saturday. To accommodate for emergencies and potential future changes in waste delivery patterns, a 24 hour delivery despatch scenario has also been assessed which is based on 15% of Aberdeen City Council waste being delivered outwith normal hours.
2.6.2 The internal processing of materials would operate on a continuous (24 hour) basis, however, external onsite activities and internal tipping hall activities would be limited to the delivery and despatch hours set out above. Routine and non-routine maintenance operations within the buildings would take place as and when required. Routine maintenance operations outside the building(s) would be scheduled to take place during the daytime (delivery) hours and would only extend into the night time and/or weekends should this prove necessary to maintaining the continuity of the process. Any non-routine maintenance and repair operations would be undertaken as and when they arise.
Material Delivery and Dispatch
2.6.3 All waste would be deposited within the building, and there would be no external storage, handling or processing on the Development Site.
2.6.4 It is envisaged that waste would be delivered to the Development Site via refuse collection vehicles from Aberdeen City Council and bulk heavy goods vehicles from Aberdeenshire and Moray Councils (collectively referred to as HGVs). It is estimated that the operational site with a 150,000 tonnes p.a. capacity would generate on average 111 HGV two‐way movements between 7.00am and 7.00pm 5.5 days week. This includes vehicles required for the delivery of chemical reagents and export of ash residues and other materials once the facilities are fully operational.
2.6.5 It is proposed that access to and egress from the Development Site would be achieved via Greenbank Crescent.
2.7 Process Description
2.7.1 All HGVs delivering residual waste would be weighed when entering the Development Site at the dedicated weighbridge for incoming traffic. The HGVs would then proceed to the waste reception area at the northern end of the building.
Tipping Hall
2.7.2 The Proposed Development would incorporate an enclosed tipping hall, where the delivery vehicles enter, then manoeuvre to directly unload their material through internal openings into the waste bunker.
2.7.3 Air is extracted from the tipping hall and the bunker, which operates at negative air pressure. The air is used in the waste combustion process which helps control odours arising in this area. Access to the tipping hall is with automatic access doors with automatic air louvers to balance the required air movements.
2.7.4 The residual waste would be transferred from the waste bunker by overhead grab cranes which have three functions. Firstly, they manually remove large items that are unsuitable for processing, such as engine blocks or other hard items that would damage the plant, they act to mix the waste to provide a more homogenous feedstock, and they pick up the waste and deposit it via a dedicated feed chute into the combustion chamber.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 9 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
2.7.5 The feed chute would be fitted with an interlock that isolates the chamber if conditions within it are not within the operating specification. This ensures that no additional waste can enter the chamber until conditions have been investigated and any anomalies rectified.
Combustion
2.7.6 The combustion facility would use a moving grate which comprises of inclined fixed and moving bars that would move the waste from the feed inlet to the ash discharger. The grate movement turns and mixes the waste along the surface of the grate to ensure that all waste is exposed to the combustion process. This ensures full combustion/burn out of the waste leaving an inert ash.
2.7.7 This process is an established and robust form of combustion system which provides a good level of flexibility to fuel characteristics. The grate would be able to burn waste from approximately 9.0 MJ/Kg to 12.0 MJ/kg which would allow for changes in residual waste composition due to changes in recycling practises over time.
2.7.8 Primary air for combustion would be fed to the underside of the grates by inverter-driven fans. Secondary air would also be admitted above the grates to create turbulence and ensure complete combustion with minimum levels of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) produced. The volume of both primary and secondary air would be regulated by a combustion control system described below.
2.7.9 The Proposed Development would be designed to meet the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). The combustion control system would regulate the combustion conditions (and thereby minimise the levels of pollutants and particulates in the flue gas before flue treatment) and would control the performance of the boilers. The furnaces would also be fitted with auxiliary burners, fired on low sulphur gasoil, which would automatically maintain the temperature above 850°C for the required 2 seconds to ensure the destruction of dioxins, furans and other undesirable combustion products.
Process Controls
2.7.10 The entire process and auxiliary systems are controlled and monitored by a complex telemetry system from a central control room which is manned during normal operating hours by skilled staff. This room contains computerised monitoring devices that measure and control conditions within the plant from many individual sensors located at key stages of the process. These include monitoring: The weighbridge;
The vehicles within the tipping hall; The doors; The amount of waste within the bunker; The combustion temperature and rate of burning within the chamber; The air flow within the tipping hall and bunker and through the air system; The temperature, flow and composition of the gases within the primary and secondary chambers; The chemical dosing rates and flows within the flue gas treatment process; The efficiency of the heat exchanger; The power being generated by the turbine; and The amount of bottom ash and fly ash awaiting removal.
2.7.11 The telemetry system is programmed with the parameters for normal operation and this would react to any sensor reporting data outwith these parameters. The system then signals a problem to the skilled staff within the control room who can then adjust the process to recover normal
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 10 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
operating conditions, isolate parts of the process for investigation, or shut down the plant. As mentioned above, there are interlocks between the various plant items that prevent the waste, gas or steam from entering the next stage of the process where conditions are not as expected. The system would automatically induce shut down if no action is taken by the staff.
Conversion of Waste to Steam/Electricity and Heat
2.7.12 The facility would recover energy from the waste in the form of heat from the combustion processes. The hot gases rise from the waste and pass through a heat exchanger which heats up water in a sealed system which then transfers to a high efficiency boiler to produce steam.
2.7.13 The steam produced is then fed into a steam turbine. If all supplied steam was used to generate electricity, then the Proposed Development would be capable of generating approximately 13.5 MWe of electricity in total, of which 2.1 MWe would be needed for plant requirements. The remaining 11.1 MWe could be fed to the local electricity network via an onsite substation. This correlates to a net electrical efficiency of 27% (Net CV basis) and a gross efficiency of circa 28% (Gross CV basis). The Proposed Development would also be designed to enable offtake of steam at the turbine in order to provide a source of hot water to deliver heat to a district heating network.
2.7.14 Whilst a district heating scheme does not form part of the Proposed Development, they typically operate with a flow temperature of 90oC to 120oC and return water temperatures of 50oC to 80oC. Steam is extracted from the turbine at low pressure to maximise the power generated from the steam. The steam is passed through a condensing heat exchanger, with condensate recovered back into the feed-water system. Typically heat could be distributed in pipework which would be buried where possible for up to around 5km from the Development Site. Pre-insulated steel pipes would be used to supply pressurised hot water to the customer and to return cooler water. Where pipes are small, two pipes may be integrated within a single insulation sleeve. However, single pipes are likely to be used to meet large heat demands. Additional pipe work can be added in the future and it is a straightforward process to add branches to serve new developments.
Flue Gas Treatment
2.7.15 The flue gas leaves the heat exchanger and enters the flue gas duct. Lime and activated carbon are pneumatically injected directly into the duct and react with the flue gas adsorbing and absorbing HF, HCl, SO2, dioxins and heavy metals as solids that are then collected within bag filters.
2.7.16 The clean flue gas is then emitted to the atmosphere via the flue gas fan and through the flue gas stack. The amount of lime & activated carbon injected into the flue gas is automatically adjusted according to information from the emission monitoring system.
2.7.17 The build-up of solid particles on the filter bags is removed by pulses of air that dislodge the solids which then fall to the bottom of the filter house. The filter bags have a programmed sequence for pulsing to enable on-line cleaning and prevent spikes in emission readings. The timing of these pulses is based on the measured differential pressure. Clogging is prevented by a heater located near the bottom of the filter house.
2.7.18 The solid particles ( or ‘filter dust’) that fall to the bottom of the filter house are then removed by a screw conveyor which transports this to the storage buffer; and then the dust is transported pneumatically to the filter dust silo.
Waste Residues
Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA)
2.7.19 IBA is generated from the grate combustion unit and can amount to 15-25% of input material (approximately 40,000 tonnes pa at the facility). This material can be used in the construction of concrete and concrete block construction, replacing up to 50% of the aggregate traditionally used.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 11 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
2.7.20 IBA has also been used successfully in the sub-base and roadbase layers in road construction, after a process of hot asphalt stabilisation and mixing with cement or bitumen.
2.7.21 Processing IBA allows a range of different grades of construction materials to be generated, and allows further capture of any residual ferrous material within the original wastes.
Air Pollution Control Residue
2.7.22 Air pollution control residue (fly ash) is the residue from the flue gas treatment process prior to release of the cleaned flue gas into the atmosphere. This ash consists of carbon dust and some captured pollutants, organic compounds and heavy metals. These are removed from the flue gases to ensure that the cleaned emissions from the facility are safe prior to release, preventing pollution to the environment. Air pollution control residue represents about 3% - 4% by mass of the waste feedstock (approximately 4,500 tonnes per annum at the facility), and is disposed of safely by enclosed tanker to a designated hazardous waste landfill. The air pollution control residue is designated hazardous due to the high alkalinity (caustic nature) of the material.
2.7.23 The market is growing for further treatment of the Fly Ash to render it inert so that it can also be used within construction materials.
Employment
2.7.24 The Proposed Development would contribute directly to the local economy, and it is estimated that it would provide around 20 staff comprising operating shift staff, maintenance employees, weighbridge operators, clerical and administrative staff and plant management staff and Security Staff.
Further Consents
2.7.25 In addition to planning permission, other consents would be required to enable the Proposed Development to proceed. Of particular importance to the Proposed Development is the need for a Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) Permit from the SEPA that will control all operations associated with the plant based upon various risk assessments.
2.7.26 A connection to the National Grid and an underground pipe network to enable supply of heat to third party users will be subject to separate application processes.
2.8 Construction
Proposed Programme
2.8.1 It is anticipated that the construction of the Proposed Development would commence in 2018. A 24 months construction programme is estimated at this stage, followed by a 6 month commissioning period.
2.8.2 It is anticipated that construction would comprise the following activities: Earthworks and excavation – 3 months to form site levels. Enabling works – 3 months:
Construction of site road and working and lay‐down areas; Construction of site drainage facilities; Establishing of site office and camp facilities; and Establishing of underground services such as drainage, water supply and temporary power supply. Construction of building shell and installation of process equipment – 18 months.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 12 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Finishing civil works such as permanent roads, lighting and landscaping – 3 months. Commissioning and testing – 6 months (overlapping with finishing above).
Hours of Working
2.8.3 For the purposes of this ES, construction activities have been assumed to take place between 07:00 to 19:00 hours on week days (Monday to Friday) and 07:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays. Quiet onsite working activities such as electrical commissioning have been assumed to extend outside the core working times noted (where required).
2.8.4 Work outside the hours noted is not usual, though if required to meet specific demands (e.g. during foundation pours and highly weather dependent activities), permission for short term extensions to these hours would be sought from Aberdeen City Council as required.
Construction Traffic
2.8.5 During construction of the Proposed Development there would be approximately 150 workers onsite at any one time.
2.8.6 It is proposed that access to the Development Site for construction and during the operational phase would be achieved via Greenbank Crescent. Estimated construction traffic levels including staff and delivery vehicles are estimated to be 400 (total two way trips) per day.
Standard Construction Working Practices
2.8.7 Contractors’ working areas would be clearly delineated onsite to ensure that no unnecessary disturbance is caused to any potentially sensitive areas.
2.8.8 Particular attention would be given to the storage and use of fuels for the plant onsite. Oil would be stored in accordance with the Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Drainage within the temporary construction compounds, where construction vehicles would park and where any diesel fuel would be stored, would be directed to an oil interceptor to prevent pollution in the event of any spillage occurring. Storage of diesel fuel would be within a bunded area or self-bunded tank in accordance with the SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines. Standard construction working practices would be implemented during construction and operation in order to ensure adherence to Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) guidance and other current best practice, including the following SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG):
PPG 1 General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution; PPG 2 Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks; PPG 3 Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water Drainage Systems; PPG 4 Treatment and Disposal of Sewage Where No Foul Sewer is Available; PPG 5 Works and Maintenance in, or Near, Water; PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites; PPG 8 Safe Storage and Disposal of Used Oils; and PPG 21 Pollution Incident Response Planning.
Health and Safety during Construction
2.8.9 Health and Safety is of vital importance to the applicant and the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) would be addressed throughout the development stages. If planning consent is granted, the Principal Contractor would be required to produce a Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan in accordance with CDM 2015 to outline and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 13 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
define the approach to Health and Safety that would be adopted specifically for the Proposed Development. In addition to CDM 2015, the applicant and their Contractors would also adhere to other relevant UK Health and Safety legislation including: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2006; and Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (1995) (RIDDOR).
2.8.10 Method statements and risk assessments would also be undertaken for each work package prior to activities taking place.
Environmental Management during Construction
Construction Method Statement (CMS)
2.8.11 The final range of measures to be taken to reduce or mitigate the environmental impact of the construction process would be captured in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP), Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and emergency procedures that would all fall under the wider Construction Method Statement (CMS). The CEMP would ensure that the mitigation measures outlined in this ES are fully implemented.
2.8.12 The CEMP, would as a minimum, include all of the mitigation measures required during construction which are identified as being necessary within this ES to mitigate any likely significant adverse effects, and would outline a suite of control measures to manage the potential environmental impacts during this phase (including noise, pollution, surface water runoff and waste).
2.8.13 The CMS and supporting documents would be submitted for approval by Aberdeen City Council following consultation with bodies such as SEPA prior to construction and development. In order to ensure that they are being suitably adhered to by the appointed contractors, an independent and suitably qualified engineer, who would also liaise with the various environmental advisers employed during the construction phase, would be appointed to monitor implementation and provide specialist advice.
Dust and Air Quality
2.8.14 There is the potential for an increase in dust during construction and the main measures for managing dust that would be used where necessary are: Adequate dust suppression facilities would be used onsite. This would include the provision of onsite water bowsers with sufficient capacity and range to dampen down all areas that may lead to dust escape; Any onsite storage of aggregate or fine materials prone to dust generation would be managed using enclosures and screening if required so that dust escape from the Development Site is avoided. Sheeting would be provided for the finer materials that are prone to ‘wind whipping’; HGVs entering and exiting the Development Site would be fitted with adequate sheeting to totally cover any load carried that has the potential to be ‘wind whipped’ from the vehicle; Vehicles used onsite would be regularly inspected and maintained, to minimise vehicle emissions and the risk of leaking diesel or hydraulic fluids; Good housekeeping or ‘clean up’ arrangements would be employed so that the Development Site is kept as clean as possible. There would be regular inspections of the working areas and immediate surrounding areas to ensure that any dust accumulation, litter or spillages are removed/cleaned up as soon as possible; and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 14 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
A site liaison person would investigate and take appropriate action where complaints or queries about construction arise.
2.8.15 These measures would be included in the CEMP.
Site Waste Management
2.8.16 Where possible, and subject to geotechnical testing, any material generated by excavation of foundations is expected to be re-used on site. Excavated material would (depending on type) be used to backfill excavations and for general restoration purposes where appropriate. It is not expected that any material would be unsuitable for re-use in this way, though in the unlikely event that such material arises, it would be disposed off-site in line with relevant waste disposal regulations.
2.8.17 Soil movement would be undertaken with reference to best practice guidelines available in the Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (Defra, 2009).
2.8.18 Construction waste is expected to be restricted to normal non-hazardous materials such as off-cuts of timber, wire, fibreglass, cleaning cloths, paper and similar materials. These would be sorted and recycled if possible, or disposed of to an appropriately licensed landfill by the relevant contractor.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 15 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
3. EIA Process
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 EIA is a systematic procedure that must be followed for certain categories of project before they can be granted planning permission. It aims to identify a project’s likely significant environmental effects, identify mitigation measures to reduce the level of those effects and finally to assess residual effects with these measures applied. This process helps to ensure that any likely significant effects, the scope for reducing them, and residual effects are properly understood by the public and the determining authority, in this instance Aberdeen City Council, before a decision is made.
3.1.2 An EIA process that culminates in the submission of an ES has a number of key characteristics: It is systematic, comprising a sequence of tasks defined both by regulation and by practice; It is analytical, requiring the application of specialist skills from the environmental sciences; It is impartial, its objective being to inform decision-making rather than to promote the project; It is consultative, with provision being made for obtaining information and feedback from interested parties including local authorities, members of the public and statutory and non- statutory agencies; and It is iterative, allowing opportunities for environmental concerns to be addressed during the planning and design of a project.
3.1.3 The preparation of the ES is one of the key stages in the EIA process, as it brings together the environmental information that has been used to inform the evaluation of the significance of the environmental effects. The ES also needs to include information about the decisions that have been taken during the iterative scheme design process referred to above. This process, in effect, incorporates mitigation measures into the scheme design at the outset to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects; such measures being referred to as ‘embedded mitigation’ (i.e. these mitigation measures are designed into the Proposed Development).
3.1.4 Following the production of the ES, the next key step in the EIA process is for the competent authority that is responsible for determining the planning application to determine whether or not the development should be allowed to proceed. If consent is granted, the EIA process should continue, reflecting any requirement for monitoring or the implementation of mitigation measures which may be conditioned as part of the consent.
3.2 EIA Scoping
3.2.1 Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations specifies that amongst other matters the ES should describe those:
“Aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.”
3.2.2 Establishing which aspects of the environment and associated issues are relevant for a particular project is captured in an EIA scoping process. Under this process, the scope of the assessment proposed by the applicant is provided to the determining authority and, taking account of feedback they obtain from key consultees, they in return provide their view on this.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 16 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
3.2.3 In the scoping report, potential environmental effects are identified for further assessment and therefore are ‘scoped-in’ when: They are likely to be significant; or They could be significant and further information and/or consultation is required to determine whether they are likely to be significant.
3.2.4 For each of these effects, the scoping report identifies the work required to allow the assessment. Ideally there might already be sufficient information available for the scoping report to fully define the assessment approach for each environmental topic required. Often though, all that can be done is to identify the survey work needed to determine whether receptors are present and to understand the changes that could result in significant effects upon them. Only when this has been done can the assessment requirements relating to the receptor be fully defined and as new evidence becomes available, effects that were previously ‘scoped-in’ might be ‘scoped-out’ and vice versa.
3.2.5 The scoping exercise undertaken for the Proposed Development is described in Chapter 4.
3.3 Project Evolution
3.3.1 Even before the start of the EIA process, many development proposals are informed by environmental considerations. For example, early decisions might be made to avoid direct effects to designated nature conservation or historic environment features and there will often be recognition of the need to implement standard measures to control noise and dust emissions, and to minimise the risk of pollution incidents. Further opportunities to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects, or to deliver environmental enhancements, may be identified whilst preparing the scoping report become part of the scheme proposals. The interactive process of scheme development continues through to a ‘design freeze’ at which stage detailed work to assess the effects of the finalised scheme can be completed.
3.3.2 Amec Foster Wheeler’s approach to EIA is to assess the effects of the scheme proposals as they stand at the ‘design freeze’, incorporating the mitigation and enhancement measures that the applicant has agreed should form part of the proposals, irrespective of how or when they were adopted. However, in undertaking the assessment of the proposals, it is essential to consider the likely effectiveness of the mitigation/enhancement measures. Only those measures that might reasonably be expected to be effective are likely to influence the assessment, although other measures can still provide benefits.
3.3.3 The mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Development are related to each of the individual environmental topics that are assessed as part of the EIA and are described in the relevant topic-specific ES chapters (6-13).
3.4 EIA Terminology
Defining Significance
3.4.1 Development proposals affect different environmental elements to differing degrees and not all of these are of sufficient concern to warrant detailed investigation or assessment within the EIA process. The EIA Regulations guide the assessor to only consider those effects that may be significant. These are identified through a scoping process.
3.4.2 Conclusions about significance of effects are derived with reference to available information about the project description and the environmental receptors (or ‘receiving environment’), and to predictions about the potential changes that the Proposed Development would cause to the affected receptors.
3.4.3 In each of the environmental topic chapters, professional judgement is used in combination with relevant guidance to assess the interaction of the receptor’s sensitivity (this may be defined in
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 17 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
terms of importance, value, rarity, quality) against the predicted magnitude of change to identify a level of effect. The divisions between categories of receptor sensitivity, magnitude of change, and level of effect should not be interpreted as definitive, and boundaries between categories should in many cases be considered as ‘blurred’. In some cases, the judgement can be guided by quantitative values, whilst in other cases qualitative descriptions are used. The significance of the effect may also need to be qualified with respect to the scale over which it may apply (e.g. local, regional, national and international). There are also specific variations for some topics, for example noise and air quality, where the assessment establishes whether the Proposed Development will meet or exceed limit values defined by the relevant guidance methodology, rather than establishing whether a significant effect will occur. The approach to assessing significance of effects is described within the individual technical chapters.
3.4.4 As noted, the EIA Regulations guide the assessor to focus on effects that are likely to be significant and, in its simplest form, the outcome of the assessment of a given effect on a particular receptor would be that it is either significant or not significant. However, there may be instances where it is appropriate to further sub-divide the category of ‘not significant’, for example by use of the terms ‘slight’ and ‘negligible’ in terms of the level of effect. The use of the category of ‘slight’ may for example be used in acknowledgement that there are instances whereby there may be an effect, albeit that this is not likely to be significant - and this approach may better facilitate assessment of cumulative effects where cumulatively several slight effects could be significant. While in general, environmental effects are categorised as: very substantial; substantial; moderate; slight; negligible; or no effect, specific technical assessments may deviate from this, though this will be explained in the relevant methodology section.
3.4.5 Having defined a level of effect, professional judgement in combination with guidance and standards are then applied to identify those considered to be equivalent to significant effects in terms of the EIA Regulations. For some of the topics that are assessed in this ES, there is published guidance about significance evaluation and, where such topic-specific guidance exists, it is used to inform the development of the significance evaluation methodologies. For other topics, a level of effect of very substantial or substantial is generally of most importance to the decision- maker and so these effects are considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. Where the level of effect is considered to be moderate or less, these are generally not deemed significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. However, depending on the receptor being considered, it is possible that some moderate effects could potentially be judged as significant in terms of the EIA Regulations, and where this is considered to be the case, the rationale for this conclusion will be provided in the technical assessments.
3.4.6 A definition of how the terms are derived for each topic is set out in the corresponding chapter along with the relevant explanation and descriptions of receptor sensitivity, magnitude of change and levels of effect that are considered significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.
Impacts and Effects
3.4.7 EIA is concerned with the identification of likely significant effects on the environment. However the terms impact and effect are often used synonymously and this can lead to confusion. For clarity in this assessment, a cause and effect logic is applied where impacts are the changes that arise (e.g. changes in drainage pattern) and effects are the consequences of those changes (e.g. habitat becomes degraded by changes in drainage). They have been defined as follows: Impact: any change attributable to the development that is likely to result in an environmental effect, i.e. they are the cause of the environmental effect; and Effect: the result of the change in relation to specific environmental resources or receptors (an effect may in turn produce further change, i.e. an effect may become an impact in its own right).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 18 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Type of Effect
3.4.8 The EIA Regulations (Schedule 4, Part 1) require consideration of a variety of types of effect, namely direct / indirect, secondary, cumulative, positive / negative, short / medium / long-term, and permanent / temporary. In this ES, effects are considered in terms of how they arise, their valency (i.e. whether they are positive or negative) and duration. Each will have a source originating from the development, a pathway and a receptor and may fall into one of several categories: Direct effects are readily identified because of the clear connection between some element of the development and an affected receptor; Indirect effects require some additional pathway for the effect to arise. For example, a listed building may be a considerable distance from any elements of a development, but if the development affected its wider setting, there would be an indirect effect on the listed building; Secondary effects would typically require further pathway connections, for example, an effect on a receptor population A could have a secondary effect on receptor population B, if B was itself dependent on A in some way, as, for example, a food source; and Cumulative effects arise when the receptors affected by one development are also affected by other developments resulting in the aggregation of environmental effects or the interaction of impacts.
3.4.9 Most predicted effects will be obviously positive or negative, and will be described as such. However, in some cases it is appropriate to identify that the interpretation of a change is a matter of personal opinion, and such effects will be described as ‘subjective’.
Temporal and Spatial Scope
3.4.10 In its broadest sense, the spatial scope is the area over which changes to the environment would occur as a consequence of the development. In practice, an EIA should focus on those areas where these effects are likely to be significant. The spatial scope varies between environmental topic areas.
3.4.11 The temporal scope of environmental effects is stated where known. Effects are typically described as: Temporary – these are likely to be related to a particular activity and will cease when the activity finishes. The terms ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ may also be used to provide a further indication of how long the effect will be experienced; and
Permanent – this typically means an irreversible change.
3.4.12 Effects are generally considered in relation to the following key stages of the development: Construction – effects may arise from the construction activities themselves, or from the temporary occupation of land. Effects are often of limited duration although there is potential for permanent effects. Where construction activities create permanent change, the effects will continue into the operational period; and Operation – effects may be permanent, or they may be temporary, intermittent.
3.4.13 Where a development is temporary, a decommissioning phase is also generally assessed. Effects may arise from the decommissioning activities themselves, or from the temporary occupation of land. The effects would generally be temporary and of limited duration. Additional permanent change would normally be unlikely unless associated with restoration.
3.5 EIA Methodology
3.5.1 Following the identification of the scope of the EIA, individual environmental topics are subject to survey, investigation and assessment, and individual topic chapters are prepared for the ES. The
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 19 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
assessment methodologies are based on recognised good practice and guidelines specific to each topic area, details of which are provided in the appropriate chapter. A range of reference material and guidance has been drawn upon in developing the EIA methodology adopted for the Proposed Development. Principal sources of reference material and guidance over and above the EIA Regulations are noted Chapter 5 and in each technical chapter.
3.5.2 In general terms, the technical studies undertaken for each topic area and chapter include: Collection and collation of existing baseline information about the receiving environment and original surveys to fill any gaps in knowledge or to update any historic information, along with identification of any relevant trends in, or evolution of, the baseline; Consultation with experts and relevant consultees to define the scope of the assessment and study area; and subsequent consultation in response to emerging study findings; Consideration of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on the baseline conditions, followed by identification of design changes to seek to avoid or reduce any predicted significant adverse effects; Engagement with other technical topic specialists and engineers / designers in a design iteration process seeking to optimise the scheme for the differing environmental effects and to identify any appropriate mitigation measures that can be embedded into the design; Assessment of the final scheme design and evaluation of significant effects, together with an evaluation of any residual significant effects that remain after mitigation measures have been implemented; and Compilation of the ES chapter.
3.5.3 In reality, many of the effects are relevant to more than one environmental topic area, and careful attention has been paid to interrelationships to avoid overlap or duplication between topic chapters.
3.5.4 The following format has been adopted for the presentation of information within the ES: Introduction – provides a brief introduction to the assessment topic; Methodology and Approach – provides details of the technical policy context, describes how receptors were identified through a scoping process, along with the specific methods used for data gathering, predicting levels of effects and evaluating significance of effects;
Baseline information – describing the current state and circumstances of the receptors and changes that might be expected to arise in advance of the development being implemented as well as those that might arise regardless of the development; Embedded mitigation measures – describing the ways in which the scheme design has been modified to avoid or reduce the effects that could potentially be significant during the key phases of the development. Measures designed to compensate for or offset likely significant effects are also provided; Predicted effects: Receptor – the effects predicted to arise as a result of implementing the final design of the Proposed Development; Predicted effects: Cumulative – the effects predicted to arise as a result of the Proposed Development in combination with existing and proposed developments in the vicinity of the Development Site; Mitigation and enhancement measures – identification of non-embedded measures (i.e. those measures not inherent in the scheme design) which may be necessary to control or manage identified potentially significant effects or provide enhancements; Residual effects – an assessment of any effects remaining after non-embedded mitigation measures have been employed; and Technical References.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 20 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
3.5.5 In some cases, technical data and analysis is presented in a technical appendix (that are included in Volume 3 in the case of this ES). Figures supporting the technical assessments are presented in Volume 2.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 21 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
4. Stakeholder Consultation
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This chapter provides an overview of consultation activities undertaken to date including the EIA Scoping exercise and statutory pre-application consultation.
4.2 EIA Scoping
Introduction
4.2.1 As described in Chapter 3, scoping is the process of identifying those aspects of the environment and associated issues that need to be considered when assessing the potential effects of a particular development proposal. This recognises that there may be some environmental elements where no significant effects are likely to result, and hence where there is no need for further investigation to be undertaken.
4.2.2 Scoping is undertaken through consulting organisations and individuals with an interest in and knowledge of the Development Site, combined with the professional judgement and experience of the EIA team. The process takes account of published guidance, the likely nature of environmental effects from the type of development proposal under consideration, and the nature and importance of environmental resources or receptors which could be affected.
Scoping Consultation Responses
4.2.3 The Scoping Report (Appendix 4.A) was submitted to Aberdeen City Council in September 2015. The EIA Scoping Report therefore constituted a request to the Council for its formal view, or ‘scoping opinion’, on the information that should be presented within the ES. The Scoping Report sets out the proposed assessment methodology to assess potentially significant environmental effects from the Proposed Development, so for reasons of brevity this detailed scope of assessment is not duplicated in this ES chapter.
4.2.4 In response to the Scoping Report, a number of EIA Scoping consultation responses were received from consultees. It should be noted that no formal Scoping Opinion has been issued by Aberdeen City Council. Consultation responses, together with details of how they have been addressed, are summarised thematically in Table 4.1. It should be noted that no consultation responses where received in relation to Landscape and visual and Socio-economics;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 22 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 4.1 Review of EIA Scoping Consultation Responses
Topic Area & Key Issues / Points Raised During Consultations How Points Raised Have Been Taken into Account in EIA Process Consultee
Project Description, permitting, waste management and heat study
Scottish Provided guidance regarding the level of technical detail (including plans) which should be Noted. A detailed description of the Proposed Development is provided in Environment provided regarding the design and operational characteristics of the Proposed Development Chapter 2 Project Description. This chapter refers to Planning Protection and the EIA methodology used. Application Drawings detailing building designs, floor plans, elevations etc. Agency (SEPA) EIA figures are contained within Volume 2 of the ES. Noted that the Proposed Development would require regulation under the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (Incineration of non-hazardous waste) and to be Noted. The design and EIA processes have taken account of permitting operated under a permit issued by SEPA. SEPA confirmed that the planning application issues and relevant legislations as discussed with SEPA (including this ES) should “include satisfactory information to demonstrate that the proposed A draft Schedule of Mitigation is presented in Chapter 15 of this ES. plant will be designed to meet the correct environmental standards and legislative Principles to inform the production of a CEMD/CEMP are detailed in requirements and the operator will be able to comply with the relevant Regulations”. Chapter 2 Project Description. A draft Schedule of Mitigation should be prepared, covering all identified environmental Details regarding waste to be treated and residual wastes are set out in sensitivities and proposed pollution prevention and mitigation measures to minimise Chapter 2 Project Description. environmental effects. Outline details on the implementation of these should be included along with the principles to inform a Construction Environmental Management Document (CEMD). A Details regarding the main alternatives (both technologies and sites) CEMD should then inform the subsequent production of detailed site specific Construction considered by the Applicant are provided in Chapter 2 Project Environmental Management Plans (CEMP) Description and the supporting Site Selection Report, Appendix 2.A. Stated that the ES should provide information regarding waste streams which would be treated Relevant information is set out within Chapter 2 Project Description and by the Proposed Development, the proposed treatment process and measures to ensure that the Heat and Power Plan. only residual waste is treated. Stated that the ES should provide information regarding the minimisation and management of residual waste/waste by-products, including both construction waste (e.g. excavated materials) and operational waste (e.g. fly ash), including details of any landfilling required. Stated that the ES should include a description of the “main alternatives” considered. A Site Selection Assessment should demonstrate consideration of the siting of the Proposed Development adjacent to potential heat and power users.
Stated that the planning application submission should: Demonstrate use of a Best Available technique (BAT) for treatment of residual waste, with further evidence of BAT required to support a permit application. The ES should identify how efficiency of the plant is maximised and how heat and power will be captured; Explain how the development “fits” within the waste hierarchy and meets the objectives of the EU Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC); For proposals of 20MWth input minimum size, include a Cost Benefit Analysis of proposals to use any waste heat generated; and, Include a Heat and Power Plan. “Every reasonable effort” should be expended to complete the Plan as far as practicable at planning application submission, with further details required to support a permit application.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 23 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Topic Area & Key Issues / Points Raised During Consultations How Points Raised Have Been Taken into Account in EIA Process Consultee
Land Quality
Scottish Natural Advised that the geological interest of the Nigg Bay SSSI is unlikely to be affected by the Noted. The Nigg Bay SSSI was scoped out of the Land Quality Heritage (SNH) Proposed Development due to the nature of the SSSI’s interests and distance from the assessment presented in Chapter 6 Land Quality. Development Site.
Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk
SEPA Advised that the implications of The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Noted. Relevant assessments are provided in Chapter 6 Land Quality Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR) should be considered in the ES. and Chapter 7 Freshwater and the FRA/DIA contained in Appendix 7.A. Requested that the ES should detail surface and foul drainage requirements (i.e. foul to public, The existing culvert along with other utilities within the Development Site surface water with SUDS). are scheduled to be diverted as part of the demolition and remediation works to be carried out 2017 as set out in Chapter 1 and relevant Stated that a site survey of existing water features and a map of the location of all proposed technical chapters A separate consent will be sought for the culvert engineering activities in the water environment should be included in the ES. A systematic diversion. table detailing the justification for the activity and how any adverse impact will be mitigated should also be included. The table should be accompanied by a photograph of each affected water body along with its dimensions. Observed that a culverted section of the East Tullos Burn flows underneath the north-western boundary of the site and must be protected. Stated that as per the SPP (2014) flood risk affecting the Development Site must be assessed. If a flood risk is identified a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be carried out in line with relevant guidance publications.
Flood Risk Requested the submission of a Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA). The DIA should consider A full FRA/DIA has been prepared in accordance with relevance Management BAT for surface water drainage and examine all watercourses and sewers within the vicinity of guidelines and in adherence to SuDS principles. This FRA/DIA is Service, the Development Site. Furthermore, the design of the Proposed Development should accord presented within Appendix 7.A to this ES. Aberdeen City with SUDS principles. The planning application submission should include appropriate Council (drainage) design calculations and plans for the approval of the planning authority.
Nature Conservation
SNH Noted that the Development Site is located approximately 1.2 km from the River Dee SAC, and Statutory designations within 15km of the Development Site and non- as such the ES should consider any impacts of the Proposed Development on this designation. statutory within 2km have been assessed (Chapter 8 Nature Stated that any potential impact from air pollution on the River Dee Special Area of Conservation and Chapter 11 Air Quality). It should be noted that a HRA has not been carried out as significant effects unlikely. Conservation (SAC) should be considered within the ES. Air emission impacts on Cove SSSI, and potentially other locations outwith 2km from the Development Site, may also need to be considered. Accepted the conclusion within the Scoping Report that due to the likely water discharge route from the Development Site, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on the SAC arising from water based pollution. Provided links to SNH guidance for carrying out a Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 24 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Topic Area & Key Issues / Points Raised During Consultations How Points Raised Have Been Taken into Account in EIA Process Consultee
SEPA Stated that the ES should include a detailed map of all designated sites within 15km of the Statutory designations within 15km of the Development Site and non- Development Site and that designated ecological sites beyond this distance may also require statutory within 2km have been assessed (Chapter 8 Nature considered within the EIA Conservation and Chapter 11 Air Quality). Recommended that a co-ordinated approach be used for any HRA or Appropriate Assessments required, and that a habitat based approach based upon the H1 method be used to establish the PPC BAT.
RSPB Responded with no comments. Noted.
Road Traffic
Transport Advised that due to streamlined EIA Scoping consultation procedures Transport Scotland Noted. As detailed in Section 4.3 additional consultation activities with Scotland would not be providing a Scoping consultation response, however if consulted would respond Transport Scotland and Aberdeen City Council took place in relation to the to any subsequent planning application for the Proposed Development. scope of the submitted Transport Assessment.
Aberdeen City The Traffic Team confirmed that the scope of the ES was acceptable. They further confirmed The assessment is set out in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport and the Council Traffic that a Transport Statement would be acceptable and that this should include a capacity Traffic Statement, Appendix 9.A Team analysis of the Wellington Road/ Greenbank Road junction.
Noise and Vibration
Aberdeen City Operational noise should comply with the following: The methodology for the assessment was agreed with the EHO and is Council presented in Chapter 10 Noise. Noise monitoring locations at Kirkhill Residential night-time: not to exceed a level equal to the existing LA90 background Environmental Place and Wellington Road where agreed with the EHO. sound level during the night-time period, with reference to the BS 4142:2014 health Officer assessment; Residential daytime: WHO Community Guideline values for outdoor living areas; Commercial daytime: whichever of the following provides the most protection for the nearest commercial receptors; Not to exceed the existing background sound level at the nearest noise sensitive receptor; or Achieve BS 8233:2014 internal noise criteria limits for non-domestic buildings.
SEPA Stated that information regarding operational noise and vibration should be included within the Chapter 10 Noise includes an assessment of operational noise and from ES, using robust data and considering both day and night time noise levels. the Proposed Development. As detailed within Chapter 10 Noise, all Advised that in relation to BAT justification (see above), noise and vibration impacts on local potential vibration effects from the Proposed Development were scoped sensitive receptors will be a “key factor”, whilst further noise assessments will be required at out of the EIA on the basis that they are not likely to be significant. the PPC application stage once detailed design information is available. Noted. The conclusions of the noise assessment provided in Chapter 10 Noise have been considered in the BAT justification for the Proposed Development (see Chapter 2 Project Description). The noise data gathered and calculated within Chapter 10 Noise would inform any permit application for the operation of the Proposed Development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 25 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Topic Area & Key Issues / Points Raised During Consultations How Points Raised Have Been Taken into Account in EIA Process Consultee
Air Quality
SEPA Stated that the ES should include an assessment of baseline air quality, with reference to the In discussion with SEPA, the methodology for Chapter 11 Air Quality has air quality objectives outlined in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and been agreed and addresses all matters raised by SEPA in their Northern Ireland and the limit values in the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010. consultation response. Air quality matters relating to nature conservation interests are set out within Chapter 8 Nature Conservation. Observed that 3 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) have been identified by Aberdeen City Council due to localised nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particles (PM10) levels. All 3 are Relevant cumulative industrial and waste cumulative developments were within 3km of the Development Site. identified and these form part of the baseline for Chapter 11 Air Quality Stated that the cumulative effect of the point source emissions and fugitive emissions from the assessment. These were all existing operations. A number of proposed Proposed Development combined with baseline/background levels (taking account of ambient developments have informed the traffic assessment in Chapter 9 Traffic local background data) should be assessed against levels specified in relevant Air Quality and Transport. Objectives (AQO) and Air Quality Standards (AQS). Cumulative effects upon AQMAs also Vehicle emissions associated with the construction and operational require to be assessed. phases of the Proposed Development were scoped out of the air quality Stated that the ES must demonstrate that “emissions are unlikely to result in any significant assessment presented in Chapter 11 Air Quality, for the threshold based environmental or human health impacts”. Guidance was provided regarding the type and level reasons explained in Section 11.2. of information required and potential modelling techniques which could be used to satisfactorily provide this assurance. SEPA strongly advised that an appropriately detailed Air Modelling Methods Statement should be submitted for their consideration prior to any modelling work being undertaken. Stated that sensitive receptors relating to air emissions must be identified within the ES, taking account of surrounding land uses, human activities and ecological sensitivities. Stated that the ES should include information regarding any proposed odour minimisation measures, together with an operational odour risk assessment, in line with SEPA’s Odour Guidance 2010. Stated that traffic effects should be assessed in the ES as traffic is the main source of NOx pollution.
Human Health Impact Assessment
SEPA Advised that a Human Health Impact Assessment would be required to support a permit A Human Health Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance application for the Proposed Development and not a planning application, however as twin- with relevant guidance and is presented separately from the ES in support tracking of planning and permitting processes are encouraged by SEPA the HHIA could be of the planning application. included within the ES. Details of the types of sensitive receptors to consider within an HHIA were provided, along with links to relevant guidance publications.
Historic Environment
Historic Requested consideration of potential effects (individual and cumulative) on the following The applicable assessment is set out in Chapter 13 Historic Environment Scheduled Monuments: Baron's Cairn, cairn (Index no. 4126); Crab's Cairn (Index no. cairn Environment and additional receptors noted. Aberdeenshire, Moray and Scotland 4060); Tullos Cairn (Index no. cairn 4055); Loirston Country Park, cairn and dyke 220m NE of Angus Archaeological Service has been consulted as noted below. Cat Cairn (Index no. 12342); and Cat Cairn, cairn (Index no. 4125).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 26 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Topic Area & Key Issues / Points Raised During Consultations How Points Raised Have Been Taken into Account in EIA Process Consultee
Noted that Aberdeen City Council’s Archaeological and Conservation Advisors should be consulted in relation to unscheduled archaeology and Category B and C listed buildings.
Aberdeenshire, Agreed with the cultural heritage conclusions within the Scoping Report. Confirmed that no The applicable assessment is set out in Chapter 13 Historic Moray and Angus archaeological mitigation work would be required within the Development Site. Environment and additional receptors noted. Archaeological Agreed that impacts on the setting of historic assets should be considered within the EIA. Service Confirmed agreement with the proposed 1km Study Area for designated sites, however also requested consideration of potential impacts on four receptors outwith this: Girdleness Lighthouse; Duthie Park; Allenvale Cemetery; and Ruthrieston South Church.
Aviation
Aberdeen Airport Advised that the Scoping Report does not raise any significant issues of interest to Aberdeen Noted. The Proposed Development includes no external storage of Airport, however a detailed safeguarding assessment would be undertaken at the time of waste. Landscaping and drainage details including SUDs are presented planning application submission. as part of the Planning Application Drawings pack. Relevant assessments Confirmed that the height of the proposed stack in combination with ground levels would not can be found in Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual, Chapter 7 penetrate the Airport’s Outer Horizontal Surface threshold so would not cause a physical Freshwater and FRA/DIA (Appendix 7.A). obstruction. Stated that consideration must be given to proposed waste storage arrangements and any proposed landscaping or SUDS pond to minimise bird flight risks. Also noted that large flat roofs may pose bird flight risks
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 27 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Further EIA Consultations
Air Quality
4.2.5 As recommended within SEPA’s EIA Scoping consultation response, an Air Modelling Methods Statement was prepared and submitted to SEPA in advance of the submission of this ES.
4.2.6 Consultation with SEPA regarding cumulative receptors has also taken place.
Drainage
4.2.7 Ongoing consultation with Flood Risk Management Service, Aberdeen City Council has been held throughout the design and assessment process.
4.2.8 In preparing a FRA/DRA for the Proposed Development (see Appendix 7.A) Amec Foster Wheeler sought to consult Scottish Water regarding the acceptability of proposed drainage arrangements. However, at the time of writing this ES chapter (24th February 2015) no consultation response has been received from Scottish Water.
Traffic
4.2.9 Further consultation with Aberdeen City Council in relation to site access point, parking and removal of on street car parking spaces also took place.
4.2.10 Direct consultation with Transport Scotland confirmed that it had no concern regarding the potential traffic generation of the Proposed Development. Transport Scotland further confirmed that it had no road proposals that would be affected by the Proposed Development.
Design
4.2.11 Two design review meetings have been held with Aberdeen City Council Planning Department and Design Team which mainly considered the building design and materials.
Pre-application Forum, Aberdeen City Council
4.2.12 Presentation to commit on draft proposals and discussion of key issues pertaining to traffic and air quality.
4.3 Pre-application Consultation
4.3.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, all development proposals falling within Schedule 1 to the EIA Regulations are automatically categorised as ‘major’ developments for the planning application purposes. Consequently the planning application for the Proposed Development must: Undergo a statutory 12 week pre-application consultation (PAC) process; Be accompanied by a PAC Report (which describes the pre-application consultation undertaken); and Be accompanied by a Design & Access Statement (DAS).
4.3.2 Full details of all community consultation undertaken are provided in the statutory PAC Report which accompanies the planning application submitted to Aberdeen City Council for the Proposed Development. Consultations pertaining to the design process are also outlined within the submitted DAS. In summary, key EIA design and assessment matters raised through public consultation includes: Noise impact;
March 2016
28 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Traffic impact; Air quality including odour; Site selection; Cumulative impact, in particular traffic; Type of waste; Operational compliance and failure; and District heating.
March 2016
29 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
5. Planning Policy Context
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This chapter sets out the key planning legislation, policies and other material considerations applicable to the Proposed Development which have informed the siting, design and environmental assessment processes. The structure of this chapter is as follows: Local Development Plan; Emerging Local Development Plan; National Planning policy; Waste Management Legislation and Policy; and Climate Change and Renewable Energy Legislation and Policy
5.1.2 Applicable statutory provisions and individual planning policies are listed within relevant technical assessments presented in Chapters 6 – 14 of this ES.
Planning Legislative Framework
5.1.3 The key planning legislation of relevance to this ES and the overall EIA process is:
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended); The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended); The Town and Country Planning (Development Hierarchy) Regulations (Scotland) 2009 (as amended);
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended); and The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.
5.1.4 Under section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) the determination of all planning applications must be made in accordance with the statutory Development Plan for the relevant local authority area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 The Development Plan
5.2.1 The statutory Development Plan applicable to the Development Site comprises the approved Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan (SDP) (2014) and the adopted Aberdeen City Local Development Plan (LDP) (2012) and associated statutory Supplementary Guidance.
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan
5.2.2 The SDP, which was formally approved by the Scottish Ministers in March 2014, sets out a vision statement and spatial strategy and identifies key objectives to shape the long term spatial development of the Aberdeen City and Shire city-region.
March 2016
30 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
5.2.3 The introduction of the SDP identifies two ‘main aims’ of the plan, namely to: “provide a strong framework for investment decisions which help to grow and diversify the regional economy, supported by promoting the need to use resources more efficiently and effectively; and take on the urgent challenges of sustainable development and climate change”.
5.2.4 The SDP designates four strategic growth areas (SGA) where development should be focused, including Aberdeen City. The SDP identifies a need for new waste-management infrastructure including Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities and states that such infrastructure should be located within Aberdeen or neighbouring SGAs (paragraph 3.12). The SDP sets a target of working towards “at least an extra 300,000 tonnes of new waste-management infrastructure” and calls for Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire local authorities to work together “to identify and put in place appropriate residual waste management solutions”. SDP confirms that the waste hierarchy should guide all decisions regarding waste management strategies and proposals.
5.2.5 The SDP includes an objective of ensuring “new development maintains and improves the region’s important built, natural and cultural assets” and requires local planning authorities to take account of natural heritage matters in planning determinations. Similarly the SDP seeks to ensure the accessibility of all new developments from sustainable transport modes and includes a target that all development proposals should meet the accessibility standards detailed in the Nestrans Regional Transport Strategy 2013 (see below). The SDP also includes a target for all new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2020.
Aberdeen City and Shire SDP Supplementary Guidance: Strategic Transport Fund (August 2015)
5.2.6 The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Transport Fund (‘the STF’), which seeks to upgrade transport infrastructure to alleviate cumulative impacts at identified hotspots, was first approved in 2011.
Aberdeen Local Development Plan
5.2.7 This section provides an overview of applicable Aberdeen LDP (adopted February 2012) policies and adopted LDP Supplementary Guidance.
5.2.8 The LDP sets out the a detailed Spatial Strategy for Aberdeen, which: Prioritises the redevelopment of brownfield sites (such as the Development) to maximise the sustainability of new development and catalyse urban regeneration; and Identifies Torry as one of seven “Priority Regeneration Areas”.
5.2.9 The LDP confirms that sites are required for energy recovery facilities (all available technology will be considered) and other new waste management facilities in order to meet the requirements of the Aberdeen Waste Strategy 2014-2025; and that industrial sites have the potential to accommodate these.
5.2.10 Of particular relevance to the Development Site and the Proposed Development is Policy BI1 – Business and Industrial Land, Policy R3 – Waste Management Facilities and Policy R5 – Energy from Waste. Policy BI1 offers a general support to the development of business and industrial land allocations. Policy R3 states that proposals must comply with the waste hierarchy and will be supported if they:
“1. Conform to the Zero Waste Plan and Aberdeen Waste Strategy; 2. Meet a clear need for the development to serve local and/or regional requirements for the management of waste; 3. Represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for that waste stream;
March 2016
31 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
4. Will not compromise health and safety; and 5. Minimizes the transport of waste from its source”.
5.2.11 It further states that proposals located on Business and Industrial Land (BI1) will, depending on operations involved, need to be located in a building.
5.2.12 Policy R5 states that “industrial sites with the potential for connection to the electricity grid and with potential users of heat or power are likely to be suitable locations for energy from waste”. The policy confirms that proposals should be accompanied by an EIA, demonstrate compliance with Policy R3 and give consideration to treatment of residual wastes, SEPA’s Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines (see 5.5), connectivity to grid, supply of heat and power to neighbouring uses and Regional Waste Facilities Supplementary Guidance (see Table 5.1).
5.2.13 Other policies within the adopted LDP and Supplementary Guidance (both Statutory and Non- Statutory) of relevance to the Proposed Development are outlined in Table 5.1.
March 2016
32 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 5.1 Other Relevant LDP Policies and adopted Supplementary Guidance
Policy/Guidance Summary
Policy I1: Infrastructure Delivery This policy requires all development proposals to be supported by adequate existing or new infrastructure, services and facilities. Applicants are required and Developer Contributions to fund any necessary infrastructure improvements to make their proposal acceptable in planning policy terms.
Policy T2: Managing the Transport This policy requires applicants to demonstrate, including through compliance with the Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance, that Impact of Development proposals minimise traffic generation.
Policy D1: Architecture and This policy requires all proposals to demonstrate a high standard of design, taking account of context and setting. The policy states that “factors such as Placemaking siting, scale, massing, colour, materials, orientation, details, the proportions of building elements, together with the spaces around buildings, including streets, squares, open space, landscaping and boundary treatments, will be considered… Landmark or high buildings should respect the height and scale of their surroundings, the urban topography, the City’s skyline and aim to preserve or enhance important views”.
Policy D2: Design and Amenity This policy seeks to protect amenity from inappropriate development through setting out design related assessment criteria. Many of these criteria relate to residential developments, however criterion seven states: “External lighting shall take into account residential amenity and minimise light spillage into adjoining areas and the sky”.
Policy D5: Built Heritage This policy sets out multiple assessment criteria for development proposals affecting different types of designated historic assets.
Policy D6: Landscape This policy requires development proposals not to: result in significant adverse effects on landscape character or sense of place; obstruct important views of Aberdeen’s townscape; adversely affect recreational or woodland resources; result in urban sprawl; and to avoid significant adverse impacts on landscape elements “which contribute to local amenity”.
Policy NE5: Trees and Woodlands This policy sets out a presumption against development proposals that would damage or destroy trees and woodlands with important ecological, landscape or local amenity values.
Policy NE6: Flooding and Drainage This policy seeks to achieve satisfactory disposal of sewage to maintain and to improve standards of environmental quality, public health and amenity. Under this policy, development proposals will not be approved if they either increase flood risk or are themselves at risk of flooding.
Policy NE8: Natural Heritage This policy requires development proposals with residual adverse effects on protected species or designated areas to satisfy relevant criteria in the SPP (2014). Where negative impacts are predicted, suitable mitigation measures must be proposed. This policy also sets out a “presumption against excessive engineering and culverting”.
Policy NE9: Access and Informal This policy states that development proposals “should not compromise the integrity of existing or potential recreational opportunities including access Recreation rights, core paths, other paths and rights of way”.
Policy NE10: Air Quality This policy requires development proposals with “the potential to have a detrimental impact on air quality” to be supported by an air quality assessment and to include suitable mitigation measures.
Policy R2: Degraded and This policy requires degraded or contaminated land to be “restored, reclaimed or remediated to a suitable level for its proposed use”. In addition, “any Contaminated Land actual or possible significant risk to public health or safety, or to the environment” arising from a development proposal must be considered.
March 2016
33 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Policy/Guidance Summary
Policy R7: Low and Zero Carbon This policy requires the installation of low and zero-carbon generating technology (LZCGT) to reduce predicted carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by at Buildings least 15% below Scottish Building Standards 2007 levels.
Policy R8: Renewable and Low This policy provides support for appropriately sited renewable energy generation proposals and outlines criteria relating to local environment, air quality, Carbon Energy Developments tourism and residential amenity.
Air Quality Supplementary This provides guidance on the need for certain development proposals to be supported by an Air Quality Assessment (AQA), the required content of an Guidance AQA, and potential air quality mitigation measures is provided. There are three designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) in Aberdeen due to localised exceedance of limits on nitrogen oxide and/or particulate matter levels. Air quality is likely to be a significant consideration where: a development is inside or adjacent (buffer zone) to an AQMA; result in the designation of a new AQMA; conflict with the Air Quality Action Plan; or the development could lead to a measurable deterioration in air quality.
Archaeology and Planning This provides guidance relating to the protection of scheduled monuments and other archaeological sites of national or local importance from Supplementary Guidance unacceptable adverse impacts. Where an adverse impact is predicted, the Applicant must demonstrate that: “There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature; There is no alternative site for the development; and Information is provided regarding the affected archaeological features”. Where adverse impacts are predicted, satisfactory mitigation must be proposed. In cases where full in-situ preservation of an archaeological site is not possible, this Supplementary Guidance requires “the full excavation and recording of the site in advance of development”.
Bats and Development This provides detailed information regarding potential effects of development activities on bats and how this is addressed within planning. It identifies Supplementary Guidance relevant statutory provisions and applicable licencing regimes, explains the need for bats surveys to be undertaken in some circumstances and sets out the required survey methodology.
Design Review Panel This explains the procedures to be followed by the Aberdeen City and Shire Design Review Panel in the consideration of development proposals. Any Supplementary Guidance report produced by the Panel regarding a development proposal will be a material consideration in the determination of a relevant planning application.
Drainage Impact Assessments This provides guidance on the required scope, process and technical requirements to be followed in the preparation of a Drainage Impact Assessment Supplementary Guidance (DIA) submitted under LDP Policy NE6 (see above). It advises that development proposals should incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and, at section 3.1, states that “in general terms, the rate and volume of surface water run-off from the post development situation should not exceed the surface water run-off from the existing site”.
Infrastructure and Developer This supports the implementation of LDP Policy I1 (see above) by setting out the methodologies used to identify infrastructure requirements and to Contributions Manual calculate associated developer contributions. It notes that “windfall” planning applications for sites not allocated within the LDP may be liable for Supplementary Guidance developer contributions to the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Transport Fund. This document should be read in conjunction with the adopted Aberdeen City and Shire SDP Strategic Transport Fund Supplementary Guidance (August 2015), as together they specify when and what level of site specific and strategic developer contributions would be required from development proposals..
Landscape Guidelines This sets out expected standards for landscaping (both hard and soft landscaping) to provide an attractive setting for new developments. The Supplementary Guidance Supplementary Guidance notes that “the relationship and appearance of a development to its surroundings, landscape and buildings, are material considerations in the determination of planning applications”.
March 2016
34 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Policy/Guidance Summary
In relation to landscape and townscape character the Supplementary Guidance states: “Applicants must be able to demonstrate that they have taken all relevant environmental considerations into account, show how proposals relate to local landscape or townscape character, and indicate what physical and visual impacts developments may have upon them”.
Low and Zero Carbon Buildings This explains the methodology which applicants should use to demonstrate the compliance of development proposals with LDP Policy R7 (see above). Supplementary Guidance
Transport and Accessibility This sets out expectations and requirements regarding the accessibility of new developments and transport infrastructure provision. In particular, it Supplementary Guidance requires new developments to be accessible using public transport and other modes of travel and to safeguard access rights. This Guidance also details the expected contents of Transport Assessments to support planning applications for certain development proposals.
Trees and Woodland This sets out the information required to assess the impacts of development proposals on trees and woodland. It also provides advice regarding the Supplementary Guidance retention of existing trees in new developments.
Technical Advice Note (TAN) 7 - This supports the implementation of policy NE8 within the LDP (2012) by summarising the legal obligations, biodiversity principles and requirements for Natural Heritage Guidance (non- protected species and sensitive habitats which must be considered in the determination of relevant planning applications. statutory Supplementary Guidance)
March 2016
35 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
5.3 Emerging Development Plan and Relevant Guidance
Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 and draft Supplementary Guidance
5.3.1 Aberdeen City Council are currently in the process of reviewing the LDP. The Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 (Proposed Plan) was consulted upon between 20th March and 1st June 2015 along with a number of draft Supplementary Guidance documents. In November 2015, the Proposed Plan was approved by Aberdeen City Council for submission to the Scottish Ministers to undergo a formal examination process. The current target date for the completion of the examination is August 2016. Once adopted, the Proposed Plan and its draft Supplementary Guidance will replace the existing LDP and statutory Supplementary Guidance.
5.3.2 The Development Site is identified within the Proposed Plan as a site to be safeguarded for ‘waste- related’ uses under Policy R4: Site for New Waste Management Facilities and specifically identifies the site as suitable for “an energy from waste facility or in-vessel composting plant” (OP107). Of relevance is proposed Policy R3: New Waste Management Facilities which, with the exception of removing reference to BPEO and highlighting the importance of supporting diversification of existing facilities, outlines matching criteria to the adopted LDP Policy R3 and moves the waste management process up the waste hierarchy. Proposed Policy R5: energy from Waste also carries forward the criteria under adopted LDP Policy R5, but removes the reference to the Supplementary Guidance on Regional Waste Facilities and emphasis the need to supply heat and power to a ‘mix’ of neighbouring uses. Proposed Policy BI1: Business and Industrial Land is also applicable and its wording matches the adopted LDP Policy BI1.
5.3.3 Supporting proposed policies R3-R5, the Proposed Plan at paragraph 3.132 notes that waste should be considered as a resource and its value therefore extracted through energy capture when waste is not recycled or composted. This paragraph continues:
“The means by which this waste could be treated will be determined through an analysis which will consider all available technologies including incineration, gasification and pyrolysis of waste. Heat derived from energy from waste processes should be used to generate heat and power and supplied to homes and businesses in the city. Energy from waste has great potential to contribute to the Renewable and Low Carbon Policy R8.”
5.3.4 Other Proposed Plan policies of relevance to the Proposed Development are outlined in Table 5.2. Many of these policies include similar assessment criteria to policies within the adopted Aberdeen LDP (2012), although the Proposed Plan policies also take account of the National Planning Framework (NPF) 3 and the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) which were published on 23rd June 2014.
March 2016
36 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 5.2 Relevant Proposed Plan Policies and draft Supplementary Guidance
Proposed Policy / Draft Summary Supplementary Guidance
Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by In line with SPP (2014), this requires all proposals to demonstrate a high standard of design and “have a strong and distinctive sense of place”, taking into Design account their context and setting. It identifies the six essential qualities of successful places, namely: “Distinctive, Welcoming, Safe and pleasant, Easy to move around, Adaptable, and Resource efficient” and detailed criteria regarding these are provided.
Policy D2: Landscape Previously LDP Policy D6, this Proposed Plan policy requires proposals to “have a strong landscape framework which improves and enhances the setting and visual impact of the development, unifies urban form, provides shelter, creates local identity and promotes biodiversity”. Planning applications for new developments must be supported by a landscape strategy and management plan including landscaping design specifications. In addition the policy sets out assessment criteria to define good quality developments.
Policy D3 Big Buildings This new policy states that the most appropriate location for big buildings is within the city centre and its immediate periphery. It emphasises high quality design which complements and improves existing site context and should be demonstrated through a design statement (criteria listed). Whilst this policy states that it is not applicable to employment and industrial land areas, it has been considered in the design process for the Proposed Development due to its scale.
Policy D4: Historic Environment Previously LDP Policy D5, this Proposed Plan policy seeks to ensure that development proposals protect, preserve and enhance the historic environment. Development proposals respecting “the character, appearance and setting of the historic environment” and which protect the special architectural or historic interests of designated historic assets will be supported. Conversely, “developments that would adversely impact upon archaeological remains…or on their setting will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where there is no practical alternative site and where there are imperative reasons of over-riding public need”. In such cases satisfactory mitigation measures must be proposed.
Policy I1: Infrastructure Delivery This mirrors LDP Policy I1. and Planning Obligations
Policy T2: Managing the This is a revision of LDP Policy T2 and requires development proposals to “demonstrate that sufficient measures have been taken to minimise traffic Transport Impact of Development generated and to maximise opportunities for sustainable and active travel”. Where thresholds set out in Supplementary Guidance are exceeded, planning applications must be accompanied by Transport Assessments and Travel Plans.
Policy T3: Sustainable and Active This is a revision of LDP Policy D3 and requires new developments to make suitable provision for active and sustainable transport modes, including Travel protecting or improving existing pedestrian and cycle links.
Policy T4: Air Quality This mirrors LDP policy NE10, though with the addition of some reference updates.
Policy T5: Noise This new policy requires development proposals likely to result in significant noise emissions to be supported by a Noise Impact Assessment. It sets out a presumption against noise generating proposals being located close to noise sensitive receptors. The proposed policy also provides assessment criteria for developments proposals within or near to Candidate Noise Management Areas and Candidate Quiet Areas.
Policy NE1 Green Space Network This is a revision of LDP Policy NE1 and sets out the Council’s aim to “protect, promote and enhance the wildlife, access, recreation, ecosystem services and landscape value of the Green Space Network”. It requires negative impacts on the existing Green Space Network to be mitigated through the provision of enhancement measures.
March 2016
37 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Proposed Policy / Draft Summary Supplementary Guidance
Policy NE5: Trees and Woodlands This mirrors LDP Policy NE4 and sets out a presumption against development proposals that would damage or destroy important trees. In addition to the qualities stated in adopted LDP policy NE4, climate change adaptation and mitigation functions are referenced as additional valuable attributes of woodland assets. The proposed policy states that adverse impacts on trees should be minimised through careful siting, with appropriate mitigation measures deployed during and after construction. Details of proposed tree and hedgerow planting should be submitted as part of a development proposal’s landscape strategy (required under proposed policy D2).
Policy NE6: Flooding, Drainage This is a revision of LDP Policy NE6 and requires all new development proposals to incorporate suitable SUDS solutions and, as per adopted LDP policy and Water Quality NE8, sets out a “presumption against excessive engineering and culverting”. In addition, as per adopted LDP policy 6, development proposals will not be approved if they either increase flood risk or are themselves at risk of flooding.
Policy NE8: Natural Heritage This is a revision of LDP Policy NE8 and seeks to protect natural heritage interests (including but not limited to designated sites, protected species and carbon rich soils) from unacceptable adverse impacts. The main policy variation proposed relates to survey requirements for suspected protected species, reference to carbon rich soils and relocation of water quality to Policy NE6. In relation to protected species, development proposals which may adversely affect a protected species must be supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate “both the need for the development and that a full range of possible alternative courses of action has been properly examined and none found to acceptably meet the identified need”. This proposed policy includes a general requirement that “no development will be permitted unless steps are taken to mitigate negative development impacts”, and negative impacts may need to be addressed through a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
Policy NE9: Access and Informal This mirrors LDP Policy NE9 and requires development proposals to safeguard general rights of access and existing or potential “recreational Recreation opportunities”.
Policy R2: Degraded and This mirrors adopted LDP Policy R2. Contaminated Land
Policy R7: Low and Zero Carbon This is a revision of LDP Policy R7 and requires proposed new buildings, excluding unheated/uncooled buildings and small ancillary buildings, to reduce Buildings, and Water Efficiency predicted CO2 emissions by at least 20% below applicable Scottish building regulations through the use of low or zero-carbon generating technologies (LZCGT). The proposed policy also requires all development proposals to deploy water saving technologies/techniques.
Policy R8: Renewable and Low This mirrors LDP Policy R8. Carbon Energy Developments
Supplementary Guidance – Big Buildings: This draft Supplementary Guidance requires all proposals (including employment/industrial) for ‘Big Buildings’ to respond to their site context Design: Townscape and and to be supported by a Visual Impact and Analysis Assessment. It also sets out detailed considerations regarding setting, building design, detailed Landscape design issues and building maintenance.
Landscape: This draft Supplementary Guidance requires new developments to conserve or enhance “essential characteristics” of landscape and townscape character. It also sets out detailed considerations regarding development layout, design, landscaping treatment, car parking, planting and landscaping maintenance.
Supplementary Guidance – Planning Obligations: As per existing Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Manual Supplementary Guidance, this sets out the methodologies which Housing and Planning Obligations should be used to identify infrastructure requirements and calculate associated developer contributions.
March 2016
38 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Proposed Policy / Draft Summary Supplementary Guidance
Supplementary Guidance – Transport and Accessibility: This draft Supplementary Guidance states that “development proposals which could lead to a significant increase in road Transport and Infrastructure: traffic, a worsening of air quality or an increase in exposure to potential sources of pollution and/or noise will not be permitted unless it can be Transport, Air Quality and Noise demonstrated that measures will be implemented to minimise and/or manage the impacts to an appropriate level. In assessing planning proposals, the cumulative impact of development will also be taken into account”. It also provides details on applicable roads development guidance, the required content of Transport Assessments and multi-modal parking standards.
Air Quality: In support of proposed Policy T4, this draft Supplementary Guidance explains the importance of the EU’s Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC), sets out the methodology to be used in air quality assessments and identifies potential mitigation measures to tackle poor air quality.
Noise: This draft Supplementary Guidance provides information regarding designated Candidate Noise Management Areas and Candidate Quiet Areas in Aberdeen and sets out factors for consideration in noise impact assessments. Guidance is also provided regarding the treatment of noise impacts as a material consideration.
Supplementary Guidance – Natural Heritage: This draft Supplementary Guidance supports proposed policies NE1-NE9, in particular proposed policy NE8: Natural Heritage. Similar to Natural Environment: Land and the approved non-statutory Supplementary Guidance, this document summarises the legal obligations, biodiversity principles and detailed requirements for Water protected species and associated sensitive habitats which must be considered in the determination of all relevant planning applications.
Trees and Woodland: This draft Supplementary Guidance mirrors existing Statutory Supplementary Guidance which supports LDP policy NE5. It also states that compliance with BS 5837:2012 (tree retention) and BS 3998:2010 (tree management) are material considerations in the determination of relevant planning applications.
Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality: This draft Supplementary Guidance explains the flood risk management regime, identifies when DIA and or Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) will be required to support planning applications, sets out the required content of FRAs and DIAs and encourages the use of SUDS.
Open Space and Green Infrastructure: This draft Supplementary Guidance identifies open space and green infrastructure requirements for development proposals. In relation to brownfield redevelopment proposals, the draft Supplementary Guidance recognises the potential need for site remediation and states that “if developers can satisfy the Council that there are exceptional development costs associated with a site it may not always be appropriate to apply the minimum standards for open space to such developments. The Council may instead seek a contribution towards off-site open space enhancements. The necessary contribution will reflect the scale and type of development”.
Supplementary Guidance – Resources for New Developments: This draft Supplementary Guidance provides guidance regarding density, energy use, waste and water efficiency to Resources: Energy and minimise resource usage in new developments. Of particular relevance, the draft Supplementary Guidance explains the benefits of and viability Resources requirements for district heating schemes. The draft Supplementary Guidance also states that new development will “be deemed to have complied with the requirement to install LZCGT if it can be demonstrated that the development will achieve a CO2 saving 15% greater than required by the current building standards”. Of note, whilst this required percentage reduction (15%) in CO2 emissions through the use of LZCGT is consistent with adopted LDP Policy R7, proposed Policy R7 requires a greater (20%) reduction.
March 2016
39 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Other Relevant Guidance
Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Regional Economic Strategy: Securing the future of the north east economy (December 2015)
5.3.5 This strategy provides a vision and investment plan to enable the North East’s economy to respond to current economic challenges and realise long term growth. The strategy identifies a need for both transport and utilities infrastructure (including waste) improvements across the region.
5.3.6 The strategy commits the Councils to the regeneration of a 2ha site within East Tullos with the potential delivery of a £150m EfW facility by 2021.
Regional Transport Strategy Refresh (Nestrans, January 2014)
5.3.7 This document provides a refresh of the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) for Aberdeen City and Shire which was originally adopted in 2008. The refreshed RTS sets out a framework of integrated measures to enable the North East’s transport system to facilitate “a more economically competitive, sustainable and socially inclusive society”. Required measures identified in Table 5.1 of the document include junction upgrades on the A956/A90 corridor, including Wellington Road situated to the west of the Development Site, to improve traffic flow.
Aberdeen City Local Transport Strategy 2016 – 2021
5.3.8 This document sets out Aberdeen City Council’s policies, committed interventions and proposed future projects to guide the planning and improvement of the city’s local transport network to 2021. As in the Regional Transport Strategy Refresh, the Aberdeen Western Periphery Route (AWPR) is considered as part of the reference case upon which new transport improvement projects can be developed.
5.4 National Planning Policies
5.4.1 National planning policy is contained within both the NPF 3 and the SPP, both of which were published on 23rd June 2014. Subject specific national planning policies of potential relevance to the Proposed Development are contained within numerous Planning Circulars and Advice documents.
National Planning Framework
5.4.2 NPF3 provides a statutory framework around which to orientate Scotland’s long-term spatial development. The Framework highlights the spatial planning implications of multiple national policy documents and commitments, including the binding decarbonisation targets enshrined within the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
5.4.3 Overall the NPF3 emphasises the Scottish Government’s commitment to increasing sustainable economic growth across all areas of Scotland and therefore orientates the efforts of Scotland’s planning system towards this purpose. The national spatial strategy of the NPF3 is structured around four key themes, namely: “A successful, sustainable place: paragraph 2.21 recognises the importance of brownfield redevelopment as a catalyst for wider regeneration; A low carbon place; A natural, resilient place: paragraph 4.8 states “All of our resources, including our waste, require sustainable management to deliver on our climate change commitments and realise opportunities for business and employment. A decentralised network of processing facilities will be needed to achieve our vision for a circular economy where waste is recognised as an opportunity, not a burden.; and
March 2016
40 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
A connected place”.
Scottish Planning Policy
5.4.4 The SPP sets out the Scottish Government’s expectations regarding the treatment of specific planning issues within development planning and development management. The document aims to contribute to the achievement of the Scottish Government’s overarching purpose of achieving sustainable economic growth. Key relevant policy provisions within the SPP are considered in Table 5.3.
March 2016
41 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 5.3 Key Relevant SPP Policy Provisions
Policy Summary
Sustainable Development The SPP’s Principal Policy on Sustainability (paragraphs 24-35) includes a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development, which relates to the identification of the need for and acceptability of the development. To implement this policy presumption, the SPP (paragraph 29) identifies 13 sustainable development principles which should guide planning policies and decisions.
Placemaking The SPP’s Principal Policy on Placemaking (paragraphs 36-57) seeks to direct new development to the right location and to encourage a design-led approach to development in order to create high quality places. The SPP (under paragraph 40) states that high quality development which demonstrates the following six qualities of successful places should be supported: “Distinctive, Safe and Pleasant, Welcoming, Adaptable, Resource efficient, and Easy to move around and beyond”. As noted in Table 5.2 above, these six qualities are referenced in Proposed Plan Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design.
Waste Management The SPP includes a Planning for Zero Waste Subject Policy (paragraphs 176 – 192), which sets out the planning implications of both Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (2010) and the waste management aspirations detailed in the NPF3. The SPP identifies that the planning system should: “Promote developments that minimise the unnecessary use of primary materials and promote efficient use of secondary materials; Support the emergence of a diverse range of new technologies and investment opportunities to secure economic value from secondary resources, including reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturing and reprocessing; Support achievement of Scotland’s zero waste targets: recycling 70% of household waste and sending no more than 5% of Scotland’s annual waste arisings to landfill by 2025; and Help deliver infrastructure at appropriate locations, prioritising development in line with the waste hierarchy: waste prevention, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and waste disposal”. SPP states that development plans should align with the Zero Waste Scotland Plan and should “enable investment opportunities in a range of technologies and industries to maximise the value of secondary resources and waste to the economy, including…anaerobic digestion, mechanical, biological and thermal treatment plants”. The SPP also requires planning authorities to take account of annually updated waste management capacity requirements for local authorities and to ensure that Scotland as a whole has sufficient capacity to deal with all generated waste through developing a network of appropriately located waste management infrastructure. Whilst the SPP encourages the localised treatment of waste, it prioritises need ahead of proximity when a shortfall in capacity is identified, and it allows for cross (local authority) boundary transportation of waste. With respect to proposed energy for waste facilities, the SPP states that such proposals “should enable links to be made to potential users of renewable heat and energy”. The SPP emphasises the need to “take full account of” the planning principles identified at paragraph 176 in decision making and to consider SEPA’s Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2013. The SPP states that planning authorities should consider the application of buffer zones between sensitive receptors dwellings and proposed facilities when siting waste management infrastructure, with a distance of 250m suggested as an appropriate buffer zone “between sensitive receptors and operations such as outdoor composting, anaerobic digestion, mixed waste processing, thermal treatment or landfill gas plant”.
Energy Infrastructure Policies specific to energy infrastructure development (including renewables) are set out within the SPP at paragraphs 152-174. It is noted that taken together, the NPF3 and the SPP should “facilitate the development of generation technologies that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector…efficient supply of low carbon and low cost heat and generation of heat and electricity from renewable energy sources are vital to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and can create significant opportunities for communities”. The SPP identifies four planning principles in relation to support the transition to a low carbon economy; support the development of a diverse range of electricity generation from renewable energy technologies; guide developments to appropriate locations; and help reduce emissions and energy use in new buildings and from new infrastructure.
March 2016
42 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Policy Summary
In addition to heat maps, the following assessment criteria are relevant to the Proposed Development: Net economic impact; Contribution to renewable energy generation targets and effect on greenhouse gas emissions; Cumulative impacts; Impacts on communities and individual dwellings; Landscape and visual impacts; Impacts on natural environment, water environment, historic environment, tourism and recreation and aviation and defence interests; Impacts on public access, road traffic including adjacent trunk roads; Conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration; and Opportunities for energy storage.
Supporting Business and Relevant policy considerations contained within paragraphs 92 – 108. Employment
Valuing the Historic Relevant policy considerations contained within paragraphs 135 – 151. Environment
Valuing the Natural Relevant policy considerations contained within paragraphs 193 – 233. Environment
Managing Flood Risk and Relevant policy considerations contained within paragraphs 254-268. Drainage
Promoting Sustainable Relevant policy considerations contained within paragraphs 269-291. Transport and Active Travel
March 2016
43 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Other National Planning Policies, Advice and Guidance
Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) (2011)
5.4.5 This document sets out Scottish Ministers’ policies for the historic environment and provides policy direction for Historic Scotland. A number of key principles underpin SHEP, including that “there should be a presumption in favour of preservation of individual historic assets and also the pattern of the wider historic environment; no historic asset should be lost or radically changed without adequate consideration of its significance and of all the means available to manage and conserve it”.
Creating Places - A policy statement on architecture and place for Scotland (2013)
5.4.6 This document sets out the Scottish Government’s overall policy statement on architecture and place. The document defines ‘good design’ as “an innovative and creative process that delivers value”, in terms of:
“Physical value – enhances a setting; Functional value – meets and adapts to the long-term needs of all users; Viability – provides good value for money;
Social value – develops a positive sense of identity and community; and Environmental value - efficient and responsible use of our resources”.
5.4.7 The policy statement provides a detailed explanation of the six qualities of successful places which are now embedded within the SPP and the Aberdeen City LDP Proposed Plan (2015).
National Planning Advice and Guidance
5.4.8 National planning policy is supported by numerous Scottish Government Planning Circulars, Planning Advice Notes (PANs), Advice Sheets, Ministerial/Chief Planner Letters to Planning Authorities, as well as guidance documents prepared by Key Agencies of the Scottish Government. Annexe A to Scottish Government Planning Circular 3/2013: Development Management Procedures (Revision 1.0) confirms that amongst other considerations, the types of documents listed below are all potential material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The following Scottish Government documents are considered to be of relevance to the planning application for the Proposed Development: Scottish Government’s Chief Planner letter regarding Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy (November 2015); Online Planning and Waste Management Advice (updated July 2015); Online Planning Advice regarding Flood Risk (June 2015); PAN 1/2013: Environmental Impact Assessment (August 2013); Online Renewables Planning Advice (the ‘Specific Advice Sheet) regarding Energy from Waste (May 2013); PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology (July 2011); Planning Circular 3/2011: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011; PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise (March 2011); PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage (2000, revised January 2008);
March 2016
44 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
PAN 81 Community Engagement (March 2007); PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation (Revised October 2006); PAN 79 Water and Drainage (September 2006); PAN 75 Planning for Transport (August 2005); PAN 68 Design Statements (August 2003); PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (July 2001); and, PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land.
5.4.9 Of particular relevance are the Scottish Government’s Online Planning and Waste Management Advice (updated July 2015), Online Renewables Planning Advice regarding Energy from Waste (May 2013) and Chief Planner letter regarding Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy. These are considered further below.
Online Planning and Waste Management Advice (July 2015)
5.4.10 The document summarises the existing waste management policy context requiring the need to establish a network of waste management infrastructure, and then sets out the development planning and development management implications of this. The document clarifies that the SPP does not preclude local planning authorities from identifying the most appropriate sites for waste management infrastructure depending on their local context and does not prescribe the technology mix which should be used to deal with waste, providing that the waste hierarchy is adhered to.
5.4.11 In relation to development planning the document, paragraph 21 identifies the following sites as suitable for waste management activities:
“Industrial and employment areas; Degraded, contaminated or derelict land;
Working and worked out quarries; Sites that have the potential to maximise the potential for the re-use of waste heat through co- location with potential heat users; Existing or redundant sites or buildings that can be easily adapted;
Existing waste management sites, or sites that were previously occupied by waste management facilities; and Sites accessible to railways, waterways or the trunk and principal road network junctions”.
5.4.12 The document requires planning applications for EfW plants to be supported by a sufficiently detailed heat plan, and in this regard it is supportive of the connection of EfW plants to district heating networks.
5.4.13 The following environmental considerations associated with waste management development proposals are of relevance: “Effects on residential amenity, related to emissions to air, the control of odour, dust, noise, vermin, birds and litter; Impacts related to site access and traffic movements; Potential impacts related to the types of waste to be treated or deposited and the proposed method of treatment or disposal; and Potential effects on the water environment or flood risk”.
March 2016
45 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Online Renewables Planning Advice regarding Energy from Waste (May 2013)
5.4.14 This document advises that in the course of determining planning applications for EfW developments, planning authorities should: “Ensure that key consultees are involved in meetings and site visits on the application to minimise impacts and to help ensure that constraints are overcome where possible; and, Technical information and guidance on typical issues associated with EfW are provided below which planning authorities should draw upon in determining applications”.
5.4.15 The document clarifies the Scottish Government’s position that to implement the principles within Article 16 of the Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (see further details in Section 5.5) and to contribute to the achievement of the Scottish Government’s renewable energy generation targets, planning authorities have an “obligation” to consider suitable sites for EfW facilities and to develop a “supportive” planning policy framework for these developments.
5.4.16 The document identifies the following “typical” planning considerations in the determination of applications for EfW plants: Design and Visual Impact Considerations - visual impacts need to be considered, with “careful attention” given to layout, building design, boundary treatment and lighting matters; Amenity Considerations – amenity factors including “provision for storage of waste, odour and air quality issues, noise from engines, boilers and handling equipment, and the traffic involved in transporting waste/by-products to and from the site” require consideration; Defence Considerations: physical and radar safeguarding issues resulting from tall stacks require consideration. Consultation with the Ministry of Defence is therefore advised; and
Pollution Prevention: SEPA should be consulted “at an early stage” regarding thermal treatment and potential hydrological or associated ecological impacts. Whilst SEPA’s requirements must be “proportionate” they may have design related implications.
Scottish Government’s Chief Planner letter regarding Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy (November 2015)
5.4.17 This Chief Planner’s letter clarifies the Scottish Government’s view of the continued importance of Scottish renewable energy generation targets and their relevance to planning determinations. The letter therefore confirms that the Scottish Government remains committed to achieving their target of generating the equivalent of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020. In this regard the letter advises that “the planning system should support the transformational change to a low carbon economy, consistent with national objectives and targets, including the 100% target”.
5.4.18 Energy generated from the recovery of biodegradable municipal wastes is defined as renewable energy as per the European Union Directive 2009/28/EC – The Renewable Energy Directive.
March 2016
46 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
5.5 Waste Management Legislative and Policy Framework
Overview
5.5.1 The Scottish waste management legislative framework is presently underpinned by European Union (EU) Directive 2008/98/EC – the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) and EU 1999/31/EC – the Landfill Directive.
5.5.2 Article 5(1) of the EU Landfill Directive requires the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill to be undertaken by all EU member states within time limited periods. Subject to a possible 4 year derogation, by 2024 member states must reduce biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to 35% of the level recorded in 1995.
5.5.3 The rWDF introduces a waste hierarchy and emphasises the need for waste to be managed as far up this hierarchy as possible, whilst waste management activities must not endanger human health or harm the environment. There are requirement for the establishment of an integrated and adequate network of waste management infrastructure which takes account of proximity and most appropriate method. The rWFD classifies municipal waste incinerators as “recovery operations” provided they contribute to the generation of energy with high efficiency and encourage innovation in waste incineration.
5.5.4 The rWFD Directive has been transposed into law in Scotland through:
The National Waste Management Plan for Scotland Regulations 2007 (as amended); The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended); The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) and The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (as amended); and
Consequential amendments to existing pollution prevention/control and landfill regulations.
5.5.5 Of note, the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (as amended) introduced the ban on the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste from 1st January 2021, with limited exceptions. The stated purpose of this landfill ban (Scottish Government, 2012) is to maximise resource recovery in line with the waste hierarchy set out in the rWFD Directive and Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (see below).
Other Legislative Drivers The aim of the European Union Directive 2000/76/EC (as amended) - the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) is to prevent or limit, as far as practicable, negative effects on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. The European Union Directive 2010/75/EU – the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) is now the main EU instrument regulating pollutant emissions from industrial installations, and it amends the Waste Incineration Directive accordingly. The Directive prescribes emission limit values for certain industrial processes/plants including waste incineration, requires other emissions limit values to be based on Best Available Techniques (BAT), and introduces detailed technical and consultation requirements for permitting processes. The ‘Closing the loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy’ policy package (European Commission, 2015) seeks to implement the Commission’s long term vision of significantly reducing waste landfilling and increasing recycling. The Action Plan explicitly recognises the need to increase the deployment EfW facilities in order to recover value from non-recyclable materials and to avoid landfilling. The Action Plan commits the European Commission to adopting a specific “Waste to Energy” initiative under the European Union’s Energy Strategy.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
47 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (Scottish Government, 2010)
5.5.6 Building upon legislative drivers, Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan sets out a strategic direction for waste management policy and identifies specific policy objectives. The overarching ‘Mission’ of the Plan is: “To achieve a zero waste Scotland, where we make the most efficient use of resources by minimising Scotland’s demand on primary resources, and maximising the reuse, recycling and recovery of resources instead of treating them as waste” (Page 2).
5.5.7 Many of the actions detailed within the Plan have been implemented through the legislative framework outlined above. Key actions noted include an emphasis on the need for the planning system to play a role in implementing the Plan, support towards generating renewable EfW management facilities and recognising their potential to contribute towards Scottish renewable targets, and it cautions that energy recovery technologies should only be used “to recover value from resources that cannot offer greater environmental and economic benefits through reuse or recycling”.
5.5.8 Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan identifies important roles for EfW facilities in relation to sustainable waste management, renewable energy generation and climate change mitigation. The Plan states :
“Energy from waste has an important role to play and could contribute to 31% of Scotland’s renewable heat target and 4.3% of our renewable electricity target. For energy from waste to be truly sustainable it should only be used for resource streams which cannot practicably offer greater environmental and economic benefits through reuse or recycling” (Page 9).
SEPA’s Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014 (SEPA, May 2014)
5.5.9 This guidance sets out SEPA’s approach to permitting thermal treatment of waste facilities (utilising a range of possible technologies) and its role as a statutory consultee in the land use planning system. This guidance confirms that, providing proposals are appropriately located, well managed and comply with emissions standards as detailed in the IED, new EfW facilities should not cause significant pollution of the environment or harm to human health. In relation to the use of EfW facilities in district heating networks, the guidance sets an expectation “that where heat networks and heat generators do exist that any new development proposed in the vicinity will be connected to these sources.”
5.5.10 The guidance requires applications (planning and/or permit applications as appropriate) to demonstrate that proposals for thermal waste treatment plants: Comply with emissions standards set out in the IED; Do not cause significant pollution of the environment or harm to human health; Maximise opportunities to use heat and energy sources; Are highly efficient; and Are accompanied by a Heat Plan.
Making Things Last: Consultation on creating a more circular economy in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2015)
5.5.11 Building on the zero waste policy agenda, this draft strategy outlines the Scottish Government’s broader proposals to develop a more circular economy. The draft strategy (page 31) notes that the thermal treatment of non-recyclable waste plays an important role in avoiding the landfilling of waste, but that its role within a truly circular economy is limited so the development of new EfW facilities should take care to avoid overprovision. The document reiterates the Scottish Government’s policy position that where thermal treatment facilities are required, only “good
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
48 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
quality” Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facilities which maximise the use of heat and minimise environmental impacts should be developed.
Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2014-2025
5.5.12 This strategy sets out Aberdeen City Council’s long terms plans for sustainable waste management in line with Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (2010). The strategy seeks to implement localised waste management solutions where possible in accordance with the ‘proximity principle’ and fully endorses the use of the waste hierarchy.
5.5.13 The strategy identifies the following targets of relevance to the Proposed Development: Elimination of waste growth by 2015; In order to minimise landfilling, development of “residual treatment capacity in Aberdeen by using non-recycled waste to generate heat and power”; and, A 5% cap on the landfilling of household waste by 2025.
5.5.14 The strategy explains the drivers for these targets, including compliance with applicable waste management regulations, contributing to climate change mitigation (in the context of the Council’s public body duty), the generation of financial savings associated with waste disposal and the implementation of waste management commitments within the Aberdeen City and Shire SDP (2014). The specific rationale for the Proposed Development is outlined on page 22, where the strategy states:
“We need an EfW plant. This will allow us to generate heat and power from our black bin waste. This will allow our city to benefit from heat and power produced from our waste resources; helping to tackle fuel poverty issues in our area, cutting our landfill costs and offering a sustainable energy resource”.
5.5.15 The strategy notes that heat and electricity generated from an EfW facility could be used by local communities and businesses (page 23).
Moray Council’s Waste Strategy: Consolidation of Waste Management Facilities (November, 2015)
5.5.16 This document provides an overview of the Council’s plans for the consolidation and development of waste management facilities. The document sets out Moray Council’s commitment to work jointly with Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils to develop an EfW facility in Aberdeen to treat residual municipal waste arising from the three council areas.
5.6 Renewable Energy and Climate Change Material Considerations
5.6.1 The Scottish and UK legislative and policy framework on climate change is shaped by international climate change legislation. These incorporate binding targets in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and in generation of energy from renewable sources. At an EU level, there is a binding target for the UK to generate 15% of all energy consumed from renewable sources by 2020 (Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC). Alongside this, there is the following commitments (EU 2030 Climate & Energy Policy Framework, October 2014): A binding EU target of an at least 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 (i.e. without the use of international carbon trading); A binding EU target of at least 27% of all energy consumed to come from renewable energy consumed in 2030; and An indicative target at the EU level of at least 27% improvement in energy efficiency.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
49 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
5.6.2 At a Scottish level, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets binding net carbon emission reduction targets of 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, and also requires Scottish Ministers to meet annual emission reductions targets in line with a trajectory towards the 2050 target. Specific provisions of relevance include a requirement of all public bodies to contribute to the delivery of these, and a duty on the Scottish Ministers to promote renewable heat.
5.6.3 The Scottish Government have published multiple plans, strategies and other documents regarding the role of Scottish renewable energy generation in climate change mitigation and the wider importance of the Scottish renewable energy sector. In summary, this national policy framework: Sets out the following renewable energy generation targets: 100% of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020, which would require approximately 14-16 Gigawatts (GW) of electricity generation capacity; 11% of Scotland’s heat demand to be met from renewable sources from 2020, which would require approximately 2.1GW of renewable heat generation capacity; 1.5TWh of Scotland's heat demand to be delivered by district or communal heating and to have 40,000 homes connected by 2020;
A carbon intensity of 50g CO2/kWh for electricity generation by 2030; A target of achieving a “largely decarbonised electricity generation sector by 2030”, largely using renewable sources; and In line with recommendations of the UK Committee on Climate Change, an ambition of realising a “largely decarbonised heat sector by 2050 with significant progress by 2030”, involving “a massive increase in the use of renewable or low carbon heating”.
Confirms that the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets are time limited deadlines for the deployment of minimum levels of installed generating capacity; Supports the deployment of all scales and types of renewable energy technologies in appropriate locations and confirms that the deployment of renewable energy technologies, as a “key aspect” of Scotland’s current economic strategy.
5.6.4 The UK and Scottish legislative and policy framework for climate change and renewable energy is set out in a number of documents and key ones of relevance to the Proposed Development are listed below:
The Climate Change Act 2008; The Energy White Paper (2007); The Carbon Plan (DECC, 2011); The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009); National Renewable Energy Action Plan for the United Kingdom (2010); UK Energy Road Map (2011, updated 2012, 2013); Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (DECC, July 2011); National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (DECC, July 2011); Annual Energy Statement 2014 (DECC, 2014); The Climate Change Delivery Plan (CCDP) (2009); Renewable Heat Action Plan (2009); The Scottish Government Renewables Action Plan (2010); A Low Carbon Economic Strategy for Scotland (2010);
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
50 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Low Carbon Scotland – Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027: the Second Report on Policies and Proposals (RPP2) (2013); 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland (updated October 2012 and December 2013); Draft Outline Heat Vision and Draft Heat Deployment Options Guidance (January 2013); District Heating Action Plan: Response to the Expert Commission on District Heating (June 2013); Electricity Generation Policy Statement (2013); Renewable Heat Action Plan 2014 Update (2014); Scotland’s Economic Strategy (March 2015); The Heat Policy Statement: Towards Decarbonising Heat: Maximising the Opportunities for Scotland (June 2015); and Draft Low Emissions Strategy for Scotland (2015).
5.7 Technical References
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority (2014). The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan. Available at: http://www.aberdeencityandshire- sdpa.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1111&sID=90 (Accessed 13/01/2016).
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority (2015). Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan Supplementary Guidance: Strategic Transport Fund (August 2015). Available at: http://www.aberdeencityandshire-sdpa.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1205&sID=1309 (Accessed 03/03/2016). Aberdeen City Council (n.d.). Technical Advice Note (TAN) 7 - Natural Heritage Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31830&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/local_development_plan/pla_local_develop ment_plan.asp (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Air Quality Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31822&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Archaeology and Planning Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31788&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Bats and Development Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=47678&sID=14394 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Design Review Panel Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31780&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Drainage Impact Assessments Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31828&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
51 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Aberdeen City Council (2012). Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Manual Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=47676&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Landscape Guidelines Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31802&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Low and Zero Carbon Buildings Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=55244&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31774&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Trees and Woodland Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31830&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2014). Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2014-2025. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=56656&sID=24896 (Accessed 13/01/2016).
Aberdeen City Council (2015). Design: Townscape and Landscape Draft Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=62570&sID=26047 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2015). Housing and Planning Obligations Draft Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=62576&sID=26047 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2015). Natural Environment: Land and Water Draft Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=62578&sID=26047 (Accessed 13/01/2016).
Aberdeen City Council (2015). Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/local_development_plan/pla_2016_propose d_plan.asp (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2015). Resources: Energy and Resources Draft Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=62582&sID=26047 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2015). Transport and Infrastructure: Transport, Air Quality and Noise Draft Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=62578&sID=26047 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2016). Local Transport Strategy 2016-2021. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=68616&sID=2866 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Opportunity North East (One). Approved Regional Economic Strategy: Securing the future of the north east economy. Available at: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/documents/s52770/Regional%20Economic%20Strategy.pdf (Accessed 25/01/2016). Barton Wilmore on behalf of Aberdeen Harbour Board (2015). Draft Nigg Bay Development Framework. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=65982&sID=27115 (Accessed 15/02/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
52 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Department for Energy & Climate Change. (2011) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47854/1938- overarching-nps-for-energy-en1.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Department for Energy & Climate Change. (2011) National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47856/1940-nps-renewable- energy-en3.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Department for Energy & Climate Change (2011) The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future. London: HM Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-carbon-plan- reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions--2 (Accessed 22/01/2016). Department for Energy & Climate Change (2013). UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-renewable-energy-roadmap (Accessed 22/01/2016). Department for Energy and Climate Change. (2014) Annual Energy Statement 2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371387/43586_Cm_8945_acc essible.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). European Council (1999). Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031&from=EN (Accessed 22/01/2016).
European Council and European Parliament (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0076&from=EN (Accessed 22/01/2016). European Commission (2014). Communication: A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/docs/com_2014_15_en.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). European Commission (2015). Communication from The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions: Closing The Loop - An EU Action Plan For The Circular Economy. Available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7- 01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (22/01/2016).
European Council of Ministers (2015). 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework. Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/145356.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). European Council and European Parliament (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN (Accessed 13/01/2016). European Council and European Parliament (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN (Accessed 13/01/2016). European Council and European Parliament (2010). Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075&from=EN (Accessed 13/01/2016). Great Britain Parliament (1997). The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. (c.9). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/9/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016). Great Britain Parliament (1997). The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. (c.8). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/8/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016). Great Britain Parliament (2008). Climate Change Act. (c.27). London: HMSO. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
53 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Historic Scotland (2011). The Scottish Historic Environment policy. Available at: http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/shep-dec2011.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). HM Government (2007). Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205174605/http:/www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/publications/ white_paper_07/file39387.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). HM Government (2009). The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228752/9780108508394.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). HM Government (2009). The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228866/7686.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). HM Government (2010). National Renewable Energy Action Plan for the United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47871/25-nat-ren-energy- action-plan.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Moray Council (2015). Report to Moray Council on 11th November 2015: Waste Strategy – Consolidation of Waste Management Facilities. Available at: http://www.moray.gov.uk/minutes/data/MC20151111/Item%2010- Waste%20Strategy%20and%20Depot%20Rationalisation-R.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Nestrans (2013). Regional Transport Strategy Refresh 2013. Available at: http://www.nestrans.org.uk/db_docs/docs/RTS_Refresh_FINAL_APPROVED_BY_MINISTER.pdf (Accessed 25/01/2016). Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2014). Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/28983/thermal-treatment-of-waste-guidelines_2014.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). Scottish Executive (2000). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33: Development of Contaminated Land. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2000/10/pan33 (Accessed 22/02/2016).
Scottish Executive (2000). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 60: Planning for Natural Heritage. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2000/08/pan60-root/pan60 (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Executive (2001). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 61: Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/07/pan61 (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Executive (2003). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 68: Design Statements. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47133/0026407.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Executive (2005). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 75: Planning for Transport. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/57346/0016795.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Executive (2006). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/152228/0040973.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Executive (2006). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 79: Water and Drainage. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/149784/0039881.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2009). Climate Change Delivery Plan: Meeting Scotland's Statutory Climate Change Targets. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/276273/0082934.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2009). Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010-2022: The Report on Proposals and Policies (RPP1). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/346760/0115345.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
54 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Scottish Government (2009). Renewables Action Plan. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/278424/0083663.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2010). A Low Carbon Economic Strategy for Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/15085756/12 (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2010). Renewable Heat Action Plan (2010). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/290657/0089337.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2010). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 3/2010: Community Engagement. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/322754/0103851.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2010). Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00458945.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2015). Scottish Government (2011). Low Carbon Scotland – Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010-2022: The First Report on Policies and Proposals (RPP1). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/lowcarbon/rpp (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2011). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011: Planning and Noise. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/343210/0114180.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2011). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/355385/0120020.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2011). Planning Circular 3/2011: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/06/01084419/0 (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2011). Zero Waste Regulations Policy Statement. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/360341/0121809.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). Scottish Government (2011). 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland (original version). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/08/04110353/0 (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2012). Draft Executive Note – The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2012/9780111016657/pdfs/sdsien_9780111016657_en.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2012). 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland – Update 30th October 2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00406958.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2013). 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland – Update 19th December 2013. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00441628.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2013). Creating Places: A policy statement on architecture and place for Scotland. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00425496.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2013). District Heating Action Plan: Response to the Expert Commission on District Heating. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00423849.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). Scottish Government (2013). Draft Outline Heat Vision and Draft Heat Deployment Options Guidance. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00413386.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). Scottish Government (2013). Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2013. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00427293.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
55 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Scottish Government (2013). Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027 - The Second Report On Proposals And Policies (RPP2). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00426134.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2013). Online Renewables Planning Advice regarding Energy from Waste. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00423076.pdf (13/01/2016). Scottish Government (2013). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00432581.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2014). National Planning Framework 3. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453683.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2014). Renewable Heat Action Plan 2014 Update. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-sources/19185/Heat/RHUpdate2014 (Accessed 13/01/2015). Scottish Government (2014). Scottish Planning Policy. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453827.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Chief Planner Letter regarding Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy (dated 11th November 2015). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00488945.pdf (Accessed 01/12/2015). Scottish Government (2015). Draft Low Emissions Strategy for Scotland. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00467625.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Making things last: Consultation on creating a more circular economy in Scotland. Available at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/zero-waste-delivery/making-things-last (22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2015). Planning Circular 3/2013: Development Management Procedures (Revision 1.0). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/12/9882/0 (20/12/2015). Scottish Government (2015). Online Planning Advice regarding Flood Risk (2015). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/Policy/Subject-Policies/natural-resilient-place/Flood- Drainage/Floodrisk-advice (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Online Planning and Waste Management Advice (2015). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00481407.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2015). Scotland’s Economic Strategy. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472389.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2015). The Heat Policy Statement: Towards Decarbonising Heat: Maximising the Opportunities for Scotland. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00478997.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2015). The Scottish Parliament (2006). Planning etc. (Scotland) Act. a.s.p.17. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/17/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016).
The Scottish Parliament (2007). The National Waste Management Plan for Scotland Regulations 2007. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/251/contents/made (Accessed 22/01/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2009). Climate Change (Scotland) Act. a.s.p.12. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/12/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2009). The Town and Country Planning (Development Hierarchy) Regulations (Scotland) 2009. Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2009/9780111001714/contents (13/01/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2011). The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Scotland) 2011. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/139/contents/made (Accessed 22/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
56 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
The Scottish Parliament (2011). The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/226/contents/made (Accessed 22/01/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2011). The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2011/9780111012147/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2012). The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2012/9780111016657/contents (Accessed 22/01/2016).
The Scottish Parliament (2013). The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2013/155/contents/made (Accessed 22/01/2016). UNFCCC (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). UNFCCC (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
UNFCCC (2012). Final decisions adopted by COP 18 and CMP 8. Available at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/meeting/6815/php/view/decisions.php (Accessed 22/01/2016). UNFCCC (2015). The Paris Agreement. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2015).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
57 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
6. Land Quality
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This Chapter provides an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Development in relation to geology, hydrogeology and ground conditions (including land contamination and geotechnical stability).
6.1.2 The Proposed Development is the construction and operation of an energy from waste facility on an existing brownfield site, formerly used as a gas distribution site, with a single gasholder. The gasholder is still present, however it is scheduled for demolition and the Development Site is to be subject to ground investigation and remediation by the present site owner prior to the Proposed Development commencing. The baseline site conditions, prior to the Proposed Development construction phase will therefore be the remediated site with the gasholder removed.
6.1.3 This chapter should be read with reference to the scheme description in Chapter 2 Project Description.
6.2 Methodology and Approach
Terminology
6.2.1 Key terms used in this chapter are defined briefly below:
Geology - soils and underlying bedrock; Hydrology - surface water; Hydrogeology – groundwater;
Ground conditions – in this chapter the term ‘ground conditions’ is used to refer to the soil and groundwater characteristics (i.e. soil and aquifer properties, and soil and groundwater quality/chemistry and associated aspects such as ground stability hazards); and The Water Environment - surface water and groundwater.
Legislative and policy context
Legislation and Guidance
Geology
6.2.2 The only European Union (EU) legislation which is directly relevant to the subjects of geology and land contamination is the Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC) transposed in Scotland by the Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009. The Environmental Liability Directive is based on the “polluter pays” principle and requires EU member states to impose obligations and liabilities on operators whose activities cause or threaten environmental damage. Environmental damage specifically includes land contamination where there is a significant risk of adverse effects to human health. Operators are required to take preventative, as well as remedial, measures. The Environmental Liability Directive applies both to damage that has occurred and where there is an imminent risk of it occurring, but it does not apply to damage that occurred prior to 30 April 2007.
6.2.3 National legislation which provides for the protection of geological features includes: The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 covers the protection of wildlife, the countryside, National Parks and the designation of protected areas, and Public Rights of Way. It provides for
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
58 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
the designation of SSSIs including those applied to geological or geophysical features. There have been some changes to the 1981 Act through The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 empowers the local authority to make byelaws for the conservation or enhancement of natural or cultural heritage, which includes geological and physiographical features.
Water Environment
6.2.4 Key legislative drivers relating to the water environment which have been considered in this assessment include the following: Control of Pollution Act 1974; Environmental Protection Act 1990; Environment Act 1995; EC Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC); Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2005;
Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006; The Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006; Groundwater Daughter Directive (2006/118/EEC);
EC Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP, 1272/2008); The Water Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2010; EU Directive on Industrial Emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) (IED, 2010/75/EU);
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations (CAR) 2011 (as amended); and Water Environment (Drinking Water Protected Areas) (Scotland) Order 2013.
Construction
6.2.5 Construction works in the UK are regulated under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. This includes consideration of environmental impacts for the full duration of the construction works from design to implementation. Pre-construction information given to contractors should include details of the ground conditions in order that the works can be designed appropriately to mitigate associated risks to workers and to the environment.
Contaminated Land
6.2.6 There are several items of UK and Scottish legislation and guidance that aim to deal with the prevention of land and groundwater contamination and others which aim to address and remediate contamination once it has occurred:
Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA – this is the key piece of legislation which is directly relevant to contaminated land in the UK and the associated Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/658), which amend the Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2000. The Environment Act 1995 added Part IIA to the Environment Protection Act 1990 and Part IIA came into force in 2000. This contains the primary legislation with respect to
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
59 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
identification, assessment and, where necessary, determining liability for the remediation of contaminated and groundwater in Scotland. Part IIA created a statutory definition of ‘Contaminated Land’ as follows: “any land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that; a) significant harm is being caused or there is the significant possibility of such harm being caused, or b) pollution of controlled water is being, or is likely to be caused.” The 2005 Regulations amend section 78A(9) of the 1990 Act to replace the definition of "controlled waters" with a definition of the "water environment". The effect of the amendment is to ensure consistency of approach in the operation of the pollution control regimes provided for under Part IIA of the 1990 Act and the 2003 WEWS Act, which concern contaminated land as a source of pollution of the water environment. Table A in the statutory guidance provided in the Scottish Government’s Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land - Statutory Guidance: Edition 2 (SE/2006/44), June 2006 defines statutory receptors under Part IIA to include: human beings, various ecological systems, property in the form of timber, crops, produce, livestock, owned or domesticated animals, and wild animals subject to shooting or fishing rights, and property in the form of buildings. The Part IIA statutory guidance is based on the assessment and determination of contaminated land using the ‘source (contaminant) – pathway – receptor’ approach, whereby a ‘pollutant linkage’ must be shown to exist between the source of contamination and a receptor (target). A pathway could be any route or means by, or through, which a receptor is being exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant, or could be exposed or affected.
The Part IIA statutory guidance states that land should not be designated as contaminated land where: a substance is already present in the water environment; entry of that substance into the water environment from the land has ceased; and it is not likely that further entry would take place. Part IIA imposes liability for clean-up of contaminated land in the first instance, on those who caused or knowingly permitted the contaminating substances to be present in, on or under the land (by applying the “polluter pays” principle). If no such person can be found, liability passes to the current owners and occupiers of the site (regardless of whether they were aware of the contamination). The planning system has a key role to play in addressing the problem of historical contamination and Part IIA requires Planning Authorities and developers to be aware of the provisions of the contaminated land regime. The Planning Authorities must ensure that their policies, procedures and decisions are consistent with it. In Scotland the current guidance for Planning Authorities and developers is Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33 Development of Contaminated Land. This sets out the ‘suitable for use’ approach whereby a site must be demonstrated to be suitable for its current use and suitable for its proposed future use.
6.2.7 The following UK guidance documents set out the UK approach to the assessment of contaminated land: CLR 11 (DEFRA) is the UK industry technical framework used for applying a risk management process when dealing with land impacted by contamination. This sets out a procedure for carrying out an environmental risk assessment based on a CONTAMINANT-PATHWAY- RECEPTOR relationship, referred to as a pollutant linkage. This allows an assessment of potential environmental risk to be determined, based on the nature of the contaminant, the degree of exposure of a receptor to a contaminant and the sensitivity of the receptor. BS10175 provides recommendations for the investigation of land potentially affected by contamination and provides guidance. It is designed to be used by those with an understanding of the risk-based approach described in CLR 11.
6.2.8 The operation of energy from waste facilities is regulated by SEPA under The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (PPC 2012). The PPC 2012 regulations provide for the protection of soil and groundwater during the operation and decommissioning phases. The current
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
60 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
guidance on site condition reports is SEPA IED TG02 Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012, PPC Technical Guidance Note 2 (Site Reports).
Policy
6.2.9 All relevant national, Development Plan and other planning policies and other considerations are outlined in Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context. Planning policies of relevance to this assessment are listed below: PAN 1/2013: Environmental Impact Assessment (August 2013); PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land; and PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation (Revised October 2006).
6.2.10 Other relevant regulatory policy documents include: SEPA Policy No 19: Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland v3 (November 2009); SEPA Policy No 61: Control of priority and dangerous substances and specific pollutants in the water environment; SEPA Position Statements (PS) and Supporting Guidance (SG), namely:
WAT-SG-29: SEPA (March 2009), Engineering in the Water Environment, Good Practice Guide, Temporary Construction Methods, First Edition; WAT-SG-31: SEPA (June 2006), Prevention of Pollution from Civil Engineering Contracts: Special Requirements, Version 2; and Watercourses in the Community: A Guide to Sustainable Watercourse Management in the Urban Environment (June 2000).
SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) Notes, namely: PPG 1 Understanding Your Environmental Responsibilities - Good Environmental Practices (July 2013); PPG 2 Above ground oil storage tanks (August 2011);
PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems (April 2006); PPG 4 Treatment and disposal of sewage where no foul sewer is available (July 2006); PPG 5 Works and maintenance in, or near, water (October 2007);
PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites (2012); PPG 8 Safe storage and disposal of used oils (February 2004); PPG 13 Vehicle washing and cleaning (July 2007); PPG 18 Managing fire water and major spillages (December 1991); PPG 20 Dewatering of underground ducts and chambers (June 2002); PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning (March 2009); PPG 22 Dealing with spills (April 2011); and PPG 26 Safe storage – drums and intermediate containers (May 2011).
6.2.11 Relevant industry guidance includes: Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Report C532: Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites, January 2001;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
61 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
CIRIA Report C741: Environmental Good Practice on Site, Fourth Edition, June 2012; CIRIA Report C733: Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing risks, march 2014; Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra; 2009) Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites; and BS6031:2009 Code of Practice for Earth Works.
Baseline Establishment
Data Gathering and Survey Work
6.2.12 A Contaminated Land Preliminary Investigation (Phase 1) Desk Study was completed for the t Site in March 2015 and is presented in full in Appendix 6.D. The desk study was prepared in accordance with applicable guidance and in accordance with PAN 33 (Scottish Government), the Development Site was assessed for its ‘suitability for use’ based on the current use and proposed future commercial site use as an energy from waste facility.
6.2.13 The Phase 1 desk study included environmental data requests to SEPA and to Aberdeen City Council’s Environmental Health Department and Petroleum Officer. Groundsure EnviroInsight, GeoInsight & MapInsight reports were obtained for the Development Site in order to provide information on its environmental setting, including its geology and hydrogeology, surrounding industrial land uses and historical development. A site reconnaissance visit was also carried by Amec Foster Wheeler (March, 2015) to provide information on the condition of the Development Site. Previous ground investigation reports and environmental desk studies were reviewed (see Table 6.2).
6.2.14 The assessment in this Chapter is based upon information sources detailed in Table 6.2. A summary of the information from the various reports produced for the Development Site is provided in this Chapter and these items should be referred to in their original form if additional details are required.
Technical Consultations
6.2.15 A Scoping Report was submitted to Aberdeen City Council in September 2015 and relevant responses concerning the Development Site soil and groundwater quality are included in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Consultee comments and responses to EIA scoping
Consultee Comments Incorporation in this ES
SEPA Pollution prevention and environmental Potential operational impacts of the Proposed management: In relation to the operational phase and Development on soil and water quality are assessed in the Proposed Development’s regulation under PPC Section 6.5 of this chapter, (see also potential human 2012, SEPA states that the general principle is that PPC health impacts, discussed below in this table). installations are operated in such a way that all preventative measures are taken against pollution, in particular through the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT), and that no significant pollution is caused. The PPC permit would only be granted once compliance with the PPC 2012 regulations has been demonstrated by the applicant.
SEPA will not regulate the Development Site during the Potential impacts of the Proposed Development on soil construction phase, however their response to the and groundwater quality during the construction phase scoping exercise advises the use of a Construction (or further construction works during the operational Environmental Management document as a key phase) are assessed in Section 6.5. management tool to implement the Schedule of Mitigation.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
62 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Consultee Comments Incorporation in this ES
All aspects of site work that might impact upon the Comment on risks to human health (construction environment and all potential pollution risks must be workers) during the construction phase is provided in identified and then the principles of preventative Section 6.2. measures and mitigation applied to remove or lower the risk. This exercise forms the Schedule of Mitigation. The Construction Environmental Management document which implements the Schedule of Mitigation will form the basis of a more detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
SEPA requires that good construction practices are Potential impacts from construction activities and implemented to minimise the use of raw materials and mitigation measures such as use of a Site Waste maximise the use of secondary aggregates, and Management Plan are discussed in Section 6.4 and recycled or renewable materials. 6.6.
Flood risk: the site should be assessed for flood risk The identification of a flood risk may result in specific from all sources in line with Scottish Planning Policy. pollution prevention measures being required (to SEPA flood maps are available to view online and, if the protect soil and groundwater) for the Proposed need for a flood risk assessment is identified, then this Development. Flood risk is discussed in the Chapter should be carried out following the guidance document: 7 Freshwater of this ES and is also considered with technical flood risk for stakeholders (Reference 11). regard to prevention of pollution of soil and groundwater in section 6.3 of this chapter.
Human health: In accordance with SEPA’s Human Potential effects on human health from soil and Health Position Statement, and in line with Scottish groundwater contamination are assessed in Section Planning Policy which states "Planning authorities 6.5 for the construction and operation phases. should determine whether proposed developments would constitute appropriate uses of the land, leaving the regulation of permitted installations to SEPA", Human Health Impact Assessment is not required by SEPA for planning purposes, although a PPC permit application will require such an assessment to be included.
Information Sources
6.2.16 The main sources of information used to provide the baseline site condition are detailed in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Sources of Information
Data Source Information Obtained
Previous Environmental and Ground Investigation Reports
September 1999, WS Atkins, Environmental Assessment Desk Study Factual Report Environmental site audit
July 2001, Carl Bro, Interpretative Environmental Investigation Report, Transco Geo-environmental site conditions Operations Unit
October 2002, White Young Green Environmental (WYGE), Environmental Geo-environmental site conditions Assessment Ground Investigation Factual Report (Vol.s 1 and 2) (Appendix 6A)
October 2014, Remedios, DSM Demolition Ltd, Interpretative Report for Land at Geo-environmental site conditions Greenbank Crescent (Appendix 6.B)
October 2014, St Francis Group, St Francis Development & SGN Site Appraisal Site appraisal
Further Investigation and Remediation Scope
December 2013, DSM, T9393 Greenbank Crescent, East Tullos, Demolition Site Remediation and demolition scope Remediation and Associated Works (Appendix 6.C)
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
63 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Data Source Information Obtained
August 2015, DSM, C9393/08 Aberdeen Gas Holder Site Investigation Works Site investigation scope (Appendix 6.C) Specification
Site Layout Plans and Surveys
Date unknown, Tullos Industrial Area, Wayleave Plan Historical site layout/activities
March 1992, British Gas Scotland, Site Boundary Survey Historical site layout/activities
July 1999, Fifteen Person Office for British Gas/Transco at East Tullos Industrial Historical site layout/activities Estate, Aberdeen, Site Layout with ‘As Built’ Drainage
October 1999, North of Scotland Water Authority, Greenbank Crescent – Aberdeen, Historical site layout/activities Drainage
October 2014, Granite City Surveys, Existing Site Survey Layout Plan (Topographic Topographical survey survey)
Environmental Data
*Groundsure EnviroInsight, GeoInsight & MapInsight reports (Ref. GS-1853247, GS- Geology, hydrogeology, potentially 1853248, GS-1853249, 19 January 2015) contaminating land uses, industrial land use, environmentally sensitive land uses, aerial photography, natural ground hazards including subsidence, coal and shallow mining, historical maps (Appendix 6.D)
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Sitelink Information on ecologically designated sites (http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/searchmap.jsp), consulted on 16 February 2015.
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) National collection of aerial photography and Historical Scotland (http://pastmap.org.uk/) consulted on 16 February 2015.
*Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) diligence response received 2 Water environment including aquifer February 2015. designation, Drinking Water Protected Areas, groundwater vulnerability and regulated waste management site information (Appendix 6.C)
SEPA River Basin Management Plan (http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/) consulted on 16 Information on regional groundwater quality February 2015.
British Geological Survey (BGS) Geoindex 1:50,000 scale superficial and solid geology (http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?submit=Open+the+onshore+GeoIn mapping and borehole logs dex) consulted on 16 February 2015.
*Aberdeen City Council Environmental Health and Trading Standards, Communities, Environmental data held by the Local Housing and Infrastructure, Environmental Enquiry response received on 20 January Authority including contaminated land 2015. (Appendix 6.D)
*Aberdeen City Council Environmental Health and Trading Standards, Communities, Licensed petroleum storage information Housing and Infrastructure, Petroleum Officer response received on 19 January (Appendix 6.D) 2015. * Copy appended within the Amec Foster Wheeler Phase 1 Desk Study (Appendix 6.D)
Scope of Assessment
6.2.17 The site is brownfield and there is the potential for land (soil or groundwater) contamination to be present due to its historical uses and the presence of potentially contaminative activities on nearby sites.
6.2.18 There are also potential geotechnical hazards associated with the site’s brownfield status (such as relic underground structures and the presence of Made Ground). These could impact on the built environment e.g. through differential settlement.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
64 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
6.2.19 During the construction phase of the Proposed Development there is potential for soil and groundwater to be impacted if existing contaminants onsite are mobilised as a result of the construction works, or if contaminants are released to ground during the construction work.
6.2.20 During the operational phase, given that the operations would be regulated under PPC 2012 and the process would meet BAT, there is a limited potential for humans to be impacted by contamination in onsite soil or groundwater e.g. if historical contamination is present that has not been adequately investigated and/or remediated, and to a lesser extent if contaminants are released to the ground during the operational phase.
6.2.21 Potential effects on groundwater flows have been considered but ‘scoped out’ of the EIA on the basis that; The Development Site is underlain by superficial deposits with no aquifer classification and Made Ground of variable permeability; There are no groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs), as defined by SEPA in LUP-GU31 (2014), on the Development Site; The bedrock aquifer is considered to be of low productivity; The site is currently predominantly surfaced with hardstanding or compacted gravel, with some open ground, and the Proposed Development is likely to have a similar ratio of hard/soft surfacing (featuring the energy from waste building, smaller ancillary buildings, hardstanding for parking and storage areas, roads and open ground in the form of a swale and other landscaping); and The Proposed Development includes below ground structures including a basement extending several metres below ground level, however the site already has buried structures (such as the base of the large gasholder, tanks and interceptors), therefore changes to groundwater flow during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development are unlikely to be significant.
6.2.22 There are no designated geological sites within the study area, and, as such, geology has been scoped out of the EIA.
6.2.23 Other environmental features scoped out from the EIA include the identified CAR licenses and registrations i.e. abstractions or discharges located on commercial premises which are over 100m from the Development Site and located at industrial premises or associated with sewer discharges.
6.2.24 Potential effects on construction workers are not considered in the assessment as management of these impacts should be dealt with through the CDM regulations (CDM 2015) during the construction phase, and potentially during the operation of the Proposed Development. The CDM regulations require that the Clients (organisations or individuals for whom a construction project is carried out) provide details of the ground conditions (including soil type, groundwater level and chemical quality) to designers and contractors to allow them to consider and address the health and safety risks associated with their design and activities. These regulations would apply to the construction and operation phases of the Proposed Development.
6.2.25 The assessment takes into account the mitigation measures, which would feed into the method statements for the Proposed Development; these measures would reflect current best practice in the industry. Standard construction practices would be assessed, and modified where necessary, to ensure that predicted effects are controlled. Guidance on the protection of soil and groundwater would also be used to assist with the development of mitigation. Such guidance would be based on SEPA and CIRIA documents.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
65 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptors
6.2.26 The following receptors are considered to have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Development if mitigation measures are not implemented:
6.2.27 Humans: Humans (site users, site visitors and neighbouring site users) are considered as potential receptors, with high sensitivity, for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development in relation to potential exposure to contaminants from the site soil and/or groundwater. Risks to construction workers have been excluded from the scope, as detailed in Section 6.2.
6.2.28 Soil and groundwater: Soil and groundwater onsite have the potential to be impacted by the construction phase and the operational phase. Both are considered to be of low sensitivity however moderate impacts (magnitude of change) are possible if mitigation measures are not implemented.
6.2.29 Property (the built environment and buried services): Property is included due to the ground conditions at the site which present potential geotechnical hazards (e.g. compressible Made Ground soils, disused buried structures) and potential contamination hazards in soil and groundwater (e.g. ground gas, aggressive ground conditions deleterious to construction materials). The risks to property are predominantly at the operational phase where, without mitigation, the energy from waste site infrastructure could become compromised/unusable (e.g. damage to a building or drain caused by differential settlement resulting in a moderate/high impact). Property is considered to have medium sensitivity.
Spatial and Temporal Scope
Spatial scope for receptors
6.2.30 A 1km radius from the site has been used as the study area, this is to ensure that offsite sources of contamination and potential receptors are considered. Based on the most recent Phase 1 Desk Study there is limited potential for the site soil and groundwater to impact on offsite receptors prior to the construction or operation of the Proposed Development; however it cannot be ruled out entirely.
6.2.31 The neighbouring commercial land use lowers the potential for humans to be impacted by contaminants from the Development Site since much of the surrounding area is surfaced with hardstanding. Neighbouring site users could potentially be impacted by soil contamination (e.g. as dust) during the construction phase without appropriate mitigation measures being implemented. Contaminants in soil or groundwater could potentially migrate offsite onto neighbouring land e.g. though permeable layers in the soil profile or via leaching, via preferential pathways such as service trenches or via groundwater flow from the Development Site.
Temporal scope
6.2.32 Effects on soil and groundwater (which in turn could have the potential to impact on humans and property) would principally be associated with the construction phase (2018 to 2020) of the Proposed Development. Once constructed, the operational phase (2020) effects would be expected to be limited, but there could feasibly be impacts on all receptors (humans, soil and groundwater and property) due to accidental spills or leaks of hazardous and/or polluting substances.
Inter-related effects
6.2.33 Inter-related effects have been considered in this assessment, i.e. where effects in one environmental area could give rise to effects in others. There is a limited potential for the ground conditions (contamination in soil and groundwater) onsite to impact on hydrology (e.g. via groundwater ingress to surface water drains). There would also be potential for contaminated
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
66 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
run-off during the construction phase to enter surface water drains and subsequently enter a watercourse (East Tullos Burn). Risks to surface water are considered in Chapter 7 Freshwater.
Cumulative effects
6.2.34 No potential cumulative effects have been identified associated with soil and groundwater conditions.
Receptor Sensitivity
6.2.35 The assessment methodology involves assessing the existing baseline conditions and the risks to various receptors in order to assess the significance of effects during all aspects of the project lifetime (i.e. current conditions, conditions during construction and operational phase). The required mitigation measures would then be identified and residual effects determined on the assumption that these are implemented.
6.2.36 The receptors identified in this assessment will be considered in terms of their importance and their sensitivity to change within the context of the site. Definitions of Importance / Sensitivity of Receptors are presented in Table 6.3 below. For the purposes of this impact assessment humans have been assigned high sensitivity.
Table 6.3 Definitions of Importance / Sensitivity of Receptors
Sensitivity Criteria Examples
Very High Geology and/or groundwater with a high Site conditions such that they merit international conservation designation quality and rarity at an international (e.g. UNESCO World Heritage Site). scale, with little potential for substitution. Conditions support sites with international conservation designations (Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar sites), where the presence (or potential presence) of the qualifying features is dependent specifically on the combination of the site geological, hydrogeological and chemical conditions.
High Feature with a high yield and/or quality Highly productive aquifers, typically used for public water supplies. and rarity at a national scale, with a Public water supplies. limited potential for substitution. Geological and chemical conditions supporting a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Water quality of receptor water body: Supporting WFD element type (e.g. Priority Substances) classified as ‘High’, ‘’Good’ or Pass’.
Site where any additional risk would be Site designated as Contaminated Land or land adjacent to a site unacceptable designated as Contaminated Land. Site with known geotechnical hazards e.g. a high risk of coal mining hazards assessed by the Coal Authority.
Medium Feature with a medium yield and/or Locally designated geological superficial or solid strata. quality at a regional scale, or good Medium productivity aquifer, typically used for smaller public water quality at a local scale, with some supplies or industrial water supplies. potential for substitution. Industrial water supplies.
Conditions supporting local nature conservation interest (e.g. National Nature Reserve (NNR)), where the interest features are soil or groundwater-dependent. Water quality of receptor water body: Supporting WFD element classified as at least ‘Good’ in all cases.
Site where any additional risk may be Site where further ground investigation and or detailed quantitative risk unacceptable. assessment is needed to confirm whether a viable pollutant linkage exists, and if it exists, remediation will be needed.
Low Feature with variable yield and/or quality Non-designated geological superficial or solid strata. at a local scale, with potential for Low productivity aquifer, potentially used for private water supplies or not substitution. utilised. Private water supplies; livestock supplies; springs; ponds/lagoons; non- statutory groundwater-dependent conservation sites.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
67 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Sensitivity Criteria Examples
Water quality of receptor water body: Supporting WFD element type classified as less than ‘Good’ in any situation (any supporting element).
Very Low Feature with poor yield and/or quality at Unproductive strata. a local scale, with good potential for Abandoned PWS. substitution. Water quality of receptor water body: Supporting WFD element type
classified as ‘Poor’ or ‘Bad’, with severely restricted ecosystems and pollution. Small surface water bodies such as drainage ditches and ephemeral ponds that are too small to be classified under WFD and have limited ecological potential due to being artificial or heavily-modified.
Magnitude of Change
6.2.37 The magnitude of an impact in the context of land contamination is based upon the change in the level of risk from the contamination. Magnitude of change is assessed on the basis of the degree of change to the receptor and definitions are provided in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Magnitude of Change
Magnitude Criteria Examples
High Results in major impact on Large scale change to protected geological site, likely to be permanent or long term. feature, of sufficient Major reduction in groundwater levels, flow or quality, reducing use and water body magnitude to affect its status. use/integrity. Complete loss of resource or severely reduced resource availability to other
land/water users.
Medium Results in noticeable impact Measurable deterioration in geological feature attributes, but with short term and on feature, of sufficient reversible consequences in terms of use and status. magnitude to affect its Moderate reduction in groundwater levels, flow or quality, reducing use and water use/integrity in some body status in some circumstances. circumstances. Water quality status may impact upon potential future thresholds in relation to objective WFD status – potential for prevention of waterbody reaching its future WFD objectives. Minor reduction in resource availability for other land/water users.
Low Results in minor impact on Measurable deterioration in geological feature attributes, but with limited feature, with insufficient consequences in terms of use and status. magnitude to affect its Measurable reduction in groundwater levels, flow or quality, but with limited use/integrity in most consequences in terms of use and water body status. circumstances. No change in resource availability for other land/water users.
Negligible Results in little or no impact No measurable change in geological baseline. on feature, with insufficient No measurable reduction in groundwater levels or flow. Any change to water magnitude to affect its quality will be quickly reversed once activity ceases with no consequence in terms use/integrity. of use, water body status (of overall status or supporting element status) or compromise of EQSs.
6.2.38 In terms of effects on people, the magnitude of change for health impacts from exposure to contaminated soils, groundwater or ground gas would be medium (e.g. exposure to a substance causing a minor short term health impact) or high (e.g. a serious or chronic health impact caused by exposure to a toxic substance or carcinogen). This is in order to ensure a suitably robust assessment of potential impacts of the Proposed Development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
68 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Significance Evaluation Methodology
6.2.39 The assessment of the significance of effect in relation to contamination or other ground hazard risks has been carried out in accordance with best practice guidance (SNH) using a magnitude of change/receptor sensitivity matrix.
6.2.40 In terms of the EIA Regulations, it is only impacts that are likely to have significant environmental effects that require detailed assessment. As the EIA Regulations guide the assessor to focus on effects that are likely to be significant, the outcome of the assessment of a given effect on a particular receptor in its simplest form would be that it is significant or not significant. However, there may be instances where it is appropriate to further sub-divide the category of ‘Not Significant’, for example by use of the terms ‘Slight’ and ‘Negligible’ in terms of the level of effect. The use of the category of ‘Slight’ may, for example, be used in acknowledgement that there are instances whereby there may be an effect, albeit that this is not likely to be significant, and this approach may better facilitate assessment of cumulative effects where cumulatively several slight effects could be significant. With this consideration in mind, Table 6.5 illustrates a matrix which has been used for guidance in the assessment of significance.
6.2.41 Having defined a level of effect, professional judgement is then applied to identify which of those levels of effect are then considered to be equivalent to significant effects when discussed in terms of the EIA Regulations. Those levels of effect which are shaded in Table 6.5 equate to those considered significant under the EIA Regulations, with the others constituting a ‘Not Significant’ effect.
Table 6.5 Derivation of the Level of Effect
Magnitude of Change Sensitivity
High Medium Low
High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate
Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate
Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight
Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible
Key: Significant Not Significant
6.3 Baseline Information
Overview
6.3.1 This section aims to characterise the local geological and hydrogeological environment, and the status of the Development Site with regard to contaminated land, so that the potential effects of the Proposed Development can be determined and appropriate mitigation undertaken. It also provides the point of reference against which the success of the adopted mitigation measures (embedded and additional mitigation) can be assessed.
6.3.2 It contains a summary of the baseline conditions at present based on the findings of the Amec Foster Wheeler Phase 1 Desk Study (Appendix 6.D) but also the predicted future pre- development baseline since additional site investigation works and remediation will be undertaken by the current site owner SGN (formerly Scotland Gas Networks) prior to the completion of the site purchase by Aberdeen City Council and the re-routing of the culverted East Tullos Burn that is currently located beneath the Development Site.
6.3.3 This additional investigation and remediation of the Development Site by the present owner and rerouting of the East Tullos Burn culvert is likely to result in an improvement in the site condition in relation to soil and groundwater contamination (e.g. by removal of structures potentially containing
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
69 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
residual hazardous substance, and remediation of localised contamination hot spots), and protection of a potentially sensitive receptor by construction of a new impermeable and structurally sound culvert.
6.3.4 A radius of 1km from the Development Site has been used to conduct data searches from Aberdeen City Council, Groundsure and SEPA. This ‘buffer zone’ search area is sufficient to identify nearby receptors at potential risk of effects from the Proposed Development and potential sources of offsite contamination (which can be assessed as necessary).
Topography and Land Use
6.3.5 The Development Site is approximately 2 hectares in size and is predominantly flat with an elevation typically between 17 and 19 metres above Ordnance Datum (mAOD). However there is a steep embankment in the south and southeast which slopes downward by several metres to the north from a high point of approximately 25 mAOD. Gravel and soil mounds up to 6 m in height are present between the embankment and the gas holder.
6.3.6 The Development Site is currently disused but is secure and bound by palisade fencing at least 2 m in height. The dominant feature on site is a large disused gas holder in the central eastern area. Other buildings and structures comprise a disused covered store and storage bays in the southwest, an office building and stores in the west (disused Transco depot), a cluster of small buildings in the northwest, and various sheds, small locked stores and portacabins.
6.3.7 The ground surface is a combination of concrete hardstanding, compacted gravel and hardcore and open ground with vegetation. There is an active gas governor compound in the north which is enclosed within security fencing and is not included within the Development Site footprint. This compound will remain active following the Proposed Development and continue to be owned and operated by the current site owner SGN.
Nature Conservation Sites
6.3.8 The closest statutory nature conservation site to the Development Site is The River Dee approximately 1 km northwest which is classed as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) with qualifying species including Atlantic Salmon, otter and freshwater pearl mussel.
6.3.9 Given the distance to the nearest statutory designated receptor and the Development Site’s urban location, ecology has been scoped out of this chapter in relation to its interaction with soil and groundwater quality. The ecological impact assessment for the Development Site is presented in Chapter 8 Nature Conservation.
Geology
6.3.10 The geology of the Development Site is shown in the GeoInsight report (see Appendix 6.D, Phase 1 Desk Study, Appendix E).
6.3.11 Published information in the Groundsure GeoInsight report does not indicate the presence of Made Ground deposits below the Development Site, however Made Ground deposits have been confirmed onsite by previous ground investigations detailed below).
6.3.12 The GeoInsight Report indicates that superficial deposits are present on the Development Site comprising Banchory Till Formation (diamicton) below much of the Development Site, with the exception of the northwest area which is underlain by Tullos Clay Member deposits (sand, silt and clay).
6.3.13 The underlying bedrock comprises the Aberdeen Formation (Psammite and Semipelite; metasedimentary rocks largely comprised of quartz and feldspar). No faults are recorded within the Development Site boundary, however an east – west trending fault is located approximately 30 m to the north.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
70 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
6.3.14 The BGS does not hold any borehole records for the Development Site or its immediate surroundings.
Made Ground
6.3.15 The review of historical maps indicates the presence of infilled ground on the Development Site. In the west the maps show a former water channel with a dam and sluice and a narrow channel running northeast, the feature is referred to on mapping from 1901 as Mill Dam and the channel as the Mill Lead. The dam was partially infilled by 1962 and the channel by 1974. The former channel route approximately follows the existing culvert through the Development Site, suggesting infilling and/or diversion may have taken place along its length.
6.3.16 Historical mapping shows an embankment in the south of the Development Site between 1962 and 1974. As this feature is not present on previous mapping it may have constructed using imported material or formed by excavating on the Development Site. Following this time an embankment can be seen around the southeast limit of the gas holder. The changing of ground level features on the Development Site generally suggests the movement and/or import/export of material onto and off it. Mounds of demolition rubble have also been noted during previous investigations that are no longer on the Development Site, suggesting further movement of material within or off it.
Information on Ground Conditions from Previous Ground Investigations
6.3.17 Ground conditions encountered in WYGE’s ground investigation in 2002 confirmed a near surface geological sequence comprising: Made Ground, of between 0.2 m and up to at least 2.3 m thickness (non degraded vegetation was recorded between 2.25 m and 2.3 m below ground level (bgl) in the west (TP8) and this is likely to indicate deeper Made Ground associated with the former Mill Dam/Mill Lead;
The Made Ground overlies Glacial Till (silts, sands, sands and gravels, and clays) confirmed to a depth of at least 8 mbgl; The depth to bedrock was not proven.
6.3.18 Made Ground has the potential to be highly compressible and unsuitable for foundations. Contaminated soil may be unsuitable for use within open or landscaped areas of the Proposed Development or may result in aggressive ground conditions which can impact on building materials such as concrete.
6.3.19 Assessment of the ground conditions would be completed for the Proposed Development to inform its design and specification; this would include geotechnical tests to inform foundation design and chemical testing to inform design of concrete and services, and potential reuse of soils onsite.
Mineral Extraction and Coal Mining
6.3.20 According to the Groundsure GeoInsight report, no mining or mineral extraction is recorded on site.
Natural Ground Subsidence
6.3.21 The Groundsure GeoInsight report indicates that the risk of natural ground subsidence on the Development Site ranges from negligible to low. The only low risk identified is the potential for shrinking or swelling clay.
Radon
6.3.22 The Development Site is located in an area where between 1 and 3% of properties are above the Radon Action Level as defined by the Health Protection Agency. However no radon protective measures are necessary for new properties.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
71 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Soils
6.3.23 The Development Site is in an urban location and urban areas were excluded from the mapping programme during the Soil Survey of Scotland. However, the southern area of the Development Site is covered in the Soil Survey of Scotland map (1981) which indicates that the natural soil type in its central and southern area is predominantly podzols (humus-iron podzols) derived from granites and granitic rocks. These soils are infertile and acidic in nature with an ash-like subsurface layer from which minerals have been leached.
6.3.24 In urban areas, and on commercial sites such as the Development Site, significant quantities of the natural soils are likely to have been removed during construction and either redeposited on the Development Site or replaced with imported fill materials. Made Ground has been confirmed onsite by previous ground investigations, therefore the effect of the Proposed Development on soil type is not significant in the context of EIA and is not discussed further.
Land Contamination
6.3.25 This section focuses on the characterisation of baseline soil and groundwater conditions with respect to contamination. The receptors for contaminated land include humans, groundwater and property (the built environment). These receptors are considered in this chapter to have high, low and moderate sensitivity, respectively. All other receptors have been scoped out of this assessment on the basis that they are unlikely to be impacted by the Proposed Development.
6.3.26 The information below is summarised from the Phase 1 Contaminated Land Desk Study which included a review of historical maps, review of previous environmental and ground investigation reports, and review of currently available environmental data. The report is included in full in Appendix 6.D.
Site Historical Development
6.3.27 The historical development of the Development Site is summarised below:
By first mapping in 1866 the Development Site was agricultural land associated with Middleton Farm (farm buildings were offsite to the northeast). The Mill Dam and the Mill Lead were present onsite, and a well to the southwest; The industrialisation of the surrounding area is evident from the 1950s onwards and an engineering works was developed 30 m north by 1953; however the Development Site remained predominantly undeveloped at that time; The Development Site was developed as a gas storage and distribution depot by 1959. The gas holder was constructed and possibly operational, the Mill Dam and sluice had been partially infilled and an embankment was shown in the south of the Development Site; By the 1970s the Development Site included a main process area in the northwest with diesel tanks, compressor and engine rooms, cooling tower, water tank, buildings and storage areas. A boiler house and fuel tank were present northeast of the gas holder. A pipe house was present north of the gas holder, and pumps to its north and east sides, access roads and an embankment were present in the south and southeast, and a store in the southwest. The channel (former Mill Lead) had been infilled/culverted; In the surrounding area, a refuse disposal plant was developed southwest, various depots east and west, a foundry 125 m west, and an engineering works 30 m north. The fish processing factory to the east and southeast was present by 1982; Ness Landfill appears on mapping 70 m south of the Development Site from the early 1980s; however the first date of waste deposition is not known; Process activity in the northwest of the Development Site appears to have been scaled down between 1976 and 1988, with demolition of process areas and ancillary buildings including the
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
72 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
northwest area, the boiler and tank in the east, the pipe house north of the gas holder and the store in the southwest; The current gas governor compound and an antifreeze house were developed in the north of the Development Site by the late 1980s/early 1990s, and the site access road slightly extended to reach them; Antifreeze storage areas (possibly external stores) were present in the north and southwest in 1992; A new store and hardstanding area was constructed in the southwest and an office building in the west for the Transco depot sometime after 1992; The gas holder was decommissioned by 2001 but is still present. The Development Site was disused as a storage depot by October 2014; and The embankment in the south and southeast of the Development Site appears to have been partially removed/reworked over time as the raised area shown on historic maps and plans change and does not correspond exactly to the 2014 topographical survey.
Potential Contamination
6.3.28 The desk based assessment identified a number of potential sources of contamination as described in detail in the Phase 1 Desk Study (Appendix 6.D) and summarised below in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Potential Sources of Contamination Identified in the Phase 1 Desk Study
Source Potential Contaminants
Historic On Site Sources
Made Ground Range of potential contaminants includes metals, sulphate, cyanides, hydrocarbons, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, phenols, asbestos, ground gases and vapours
Gas holder , associated interceptor, gas condensate Hydrocarbons including BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs including PAHs, phenols, pipes, sumps ammoniacal nitrogen, sulphate
Bulk diesel/fuel oil tanks Hydrocarbons, PAHs
Chemical, oil and waste stores Ethylene glycol, hydrocarbons, VOCs and SVOCs including PAHs
Oil interceptor and oil drains Hydrocarbons including BTEX, PAHs
Weedkiller use Metals, cyanides, herbicides (aminotriazole, atrazine, simazine, divron, dicamba and 24D)
Current Offsite Sources
Fish processing factory Effluent (high COD and BOD), ammoniacal nitrogen, chloride, hydrocarbons
Waste management facility Hydrocarbons, effluent
Metals recycling facility Chlorinated solvents (VOCs)
Historic Offsite Sources
Landfill Leachate, landfill gas
BOD – biological oxygen demand PAH – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons BTEX – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene & xylene SVOC – semi-volatile organic compound COD – chemical oxygen demand VOC – volatile organic compound
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
73 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Ground Conditions from Previous Ground Investigations
6.3.29 Several phases of investigation have been completed at the Development Site.
6.3.30 Carl Bro Group carried out an environmental assessment at the Development Site on 12 June 2001. The subject of the assessment was surface water/liquid of unknown origin migrating onto the Development Site from a neighbouring property. This was noted to have occurred since early 2000 and had increased in volume, forming pools near the Transco office building. Carl Bro completed a site walkover and sampling of the pooled water. Samples of ponded water were obtained from the following two locations on site, shown on Carl Bro Figure 1 included in Appendix J of the Phase 1 Desk Study (Appendix 6.D): The base of a slope adjacent to the Development Site boundary with United Fish Products; and An area of ponded water south of the gas holder. Samples were analysed for pH, electrical conductivity, alkalinity, chloride, total sulphur, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, nickel, chromium, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, manganese, iron, total organic carbon, ammoniacal nitrogen, total oxidised nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, ionic balance, total anions, total cations. An elevated ammoniacal nitrogen concentration of 15.8 mg/l was observed in the sample obtained close to the United Fish Products boundary. The sulphate concentration in this sample was 394 mg/l which exceeded the Drinking Water Standard (DWS) used of 250 mg/l. The results did not identify any definitive onsite or offsite source of pollution associated with the pooled water.
6.3.31 A ground investigation was completed in 2002 by White Young Green Environmental (WYGE) comprising 18 trial pits, 5 cable percussion boreholes installed as gas/groundwater monitoring wells, soil and groundwater sampling, and soil gas and groundwater monitoring.
6.3.32 Remedios Ltd was commissioned by DSM Demolition Ltd to review and interpret environmental data for the Development Site in 2014. This assessment included review of the factual data contained in the WYGE report. It did not identify any potentially significant pollutant linkages at the Development Site with regard to human health. Remedios did not identify a significant risk from ground gases. Exceedances of water quality standards were identified however it was considered by Remedios that this could be largely due to the offsite and up hydraulic gradient sources including the Ness Farm landfill.
6.3.33 Remedios recommended additional investigation at the Development Site including additional boreholes installed for groundwater and gas monitoring, investigation of the ground underlying the gas holder (during the demolition) and validation sampling around other underground structures such as fuel tanks (if still remaining) and drains on the basis that:
Potentially contaminative activities including storage of wastes, oils and fuels, had continued at the Development Site after 2002 when the WYGE investigation took place; The twenty three sampling points did not comply with the minimum recommendation, as designated within BS10175, of sixteen locations per hectare2 and some operational areas of the Development Site had received sparse coverage. This was noted in addition to coverage of the gas holder footprint being considered prudent to investigate; TPH data was lacking and available data was not in the individual fractions currently used for risk assessment purposes; and Gas monitoring data representing worst-case scenario in terms of atmospheric pressure was not available and gas monitoring coverage did not include the southern area close to the former offsite landfill, a potential source of ground gas migration onto site.
2 BS10175 2011. +A1.2013 states that typical sample density for a main investigation is between 10 m and 25 m centres, equivalent to 16 to 100 samples per ha.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
74 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Baseline Contaminated Land Status prior to Additional Ground Investigation and Remediation
6.3.34 Amec Foster Wheeler’s Phase 1 Desk Study considered all of the desk study information, previous investigations and site observations during the reconnaissance visit to assess the current condition of the Development Site. The environmental risk assessment identified potentially significant pollutant linkages at the Development Site as follows: One moderate risk to humans (future site users of the Proposed Development) associated with former fuel tanks (historical underground diesel tanks and one disused above ground storage tank). Six moderate risks to the water environment, specifically shallow groundwater, associated with historical onsite sources comprising: Made Ground (including mounds and raised areas in the south, infilled structures and shallow subsoils in all site areas); Disused gas holder and associated interceptor and drains; Historical and disused bulk fuel storage tanks; Chemical, oil and waste stores; Oil interceptor in the west of the Development Site and associated oily drains; and
Weedkiller use on all areas of open ground (likely to be a larger area than current hardstanding cover).
6.3.35 The Development Site owner at the time of producing the Phase 1 Desk Study (SGN) indicated that as part of the site’s sale, the gas holder would be fully demolished and remediated. Ground investigations would be carried out to validate the remediation works, including investigation beneath the concrete slab base of the gas holder. This was designed to address risks associated with the gas holder and its associated oil interceptor. Investigation of other potential pollutant linkages was also proposed by SGN, however details were not available at the time of producing the Phase 1 Desk Study. On this basis recommendations for further investigation were made by Amec Foster Wheeler, these are detailed in the Phase 1 Desk Study (Appendix 6.D) and summarised as follows: A minimum of four additional boreholes (installed for groundwater/gas monitoring):
One north of the former diesel UTSs and old process area; One north of the existing bunded AST in the north, central area; One in the northeast at the former demolition rubble stockpile; and
One through the hardstanding adjacent to the storage compound (location of demolished store and former glycol storage) in the southwest. Additional trial pits in mounded areas, with pits extended to depths of approximately 4.5 m where possible to enable possible older layers of waste present at depth within the mounds to be better characterised. Gas monitoring of new boreholes (and any serviceable existing wells) during groundwater sampling of new boreholes as a precautionary measure. If Made Ground greater than 5 m was encountered, associated with historic infilled structures, then more detailed gas monitoring would be required. A review of available on-going monitoring data for Ness Landfill was recommended to confirm whether onsite gas monitoring should be carried out. The condition of surface water within the culvert was not known therefore sampling upstream, midstream and downstream of the Development Site was recommended to assess whether
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
75 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
contamination from soil/groundwater within the Development Site may be impacting surface water offsite (the East Tullos Burn). Given the age of the Development Site and its historic use, it is likely that asbestos containing materials are present in the built environment and were present in demolished buildings and structures. Where demolition rubble is identified at surface or as fill material this has potential to contain asbestos so testing of all Made Ground for asbestos would be required.
Groundwater Resources
6.3.36 According to SEPA the entire Development Site is underlain by a low productivity aquifer with fracture flow, and this aquifer is assessed to have low sensitivity. The superficial deposits present (mainly Banchory Till, sand, silt and clay in the northwest) have not been given an aquifer classification. However, some groundwater flow may take place within granular Made Ground and in the Banchory Till and Tullos Clay Member within permeable layers via intergranular flow. It is acknowledged that there will be areas of enhanced hydraulic conductivity within these deposits; however based on previous ground investigation, these are unlikely to be present as continuous layers across the Development Site (see below for groundwater level trend information).
6.3.37 During the WYGE investigation, groundwater strikes/seepages were recorded within sands and gravels across the Development Site at depths between 1.1 and 3.5 m bgl (14.44 to 17.54 mAOD). Five boreholes were installed for gas/groundwater monitoring. The wells were typically screened in sand and gravel deposits. Monitored groundwater depths ranged from ground level (BH3 west of the gas holder and BH5 in the south were flooded) to 2.15 m bgl in the southeast (BH4). The water levels converted to mAOD ranged from 16.2 to 18.41 mAOD. No discernible trend in groundwater level was noted.
Groundwater Quality
6.3.38 According to SEPA River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) mapping, the Development Site lies within the Banchory groundwater aquifer, which is classified as ‘Good’ for its groundwater chemistry and overall status.
6.3.39 The Development Site sits within a Water Framework Directive (WFD) Groundwater Bodies Drinking Water Protected Area, meaning that it has to be protected with the aim of avoiding any deterioration in quality that would compromise a relevant abstraction of water intended for human consumption. However, there are no designated abstractions or Source Protection Zones (SPZs) within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Development and no known boreholes currently monitoring groundwater quality in the study area.
6.3.40 Protection of aquifers is generally only provided by the overlying soils. The BGS Groundwater Vulnerability (Scotland) GIS dataset, v2 2011, indicates that the groundwater vulnerability classification of the study area is mainly Class 4a meaning that groundwater is vulnerable to contaminants not readily adsorbed or transformed. The southeast of the Development Site is in an area which is Class 5, meaning groundwater is vulnerable to most pollutants, with rapid impact in many scenarios. This classification is likely to indicate that the natural superficial deposits with low permeability are generally thin or absent in this area, however the classification must be treated as indicative of regional conditions rather than specific to the Development Site. Previous investigations onsite have not encountered shallow rockhead.
Abstractions and Discharges
6.3.41 Aberdeen City Council has provided information to confirm that there are no private water supplies (PWS) located within a 2km radius of the Development Site.
6.3.42 Following the introduction of CAR (2011), SEPA regulates activities such as abstraction, impoundment and engineering activities, as well as pollution of watercourses. SEPA holds the records for six such activities within a 1km radius of the Development Site. One of these is located at the adjacent United Fish Products site, one is located at Greenbank Crescent (East) and one at
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
76 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Greenbank Crescent (west) for surface water sewers, one at Greenwell Road for a surface water sewer, one at Shell Buildings, Altens for discharge to surface water sewer, and one for an engineering activity at East Tullos Burn. All of these licences and associated activities are presented in the response from SEPA in the Phase 1 Desk Study in Appendix 6.D.
6.3.43 None of the licenced points for abstraction/discharge or engineering activity lie within 100m of the Development Site. Given the distance from site, the local geology and the industrial nature of the licensed activities these points are not considered as receptors for potential impacts from the Proposed Development in relation to soil and groundwater quality.
Hydrology
6.3.44 The hydrological baseline, including potential for flooding of the Development Site, is described in Chapter 7. Brief comment on flooding is provided below as this could have an effect on the soil and groundwater conditions.
6.3.45 Climate may prove variable, with observed historical and predicted future changes in global climate due to a combination of both natural and human causes. The main human influence on global climate is increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, and the water environment baseline may alter in the future as a result of climate change. The Meteorological Office predicts that winters will become generally wetter, with more frequent storm events occurring throughout the year. Changes in rainfall and temperature will result in changes to the magnitude and distribution of river flows and groundwater recharge, and subsequently the water resources available for use and for the water environment.
3 6.3.46 For this region of Scotland, the latest climate change predictions (using medium emissions scenario with 50% probability level) indicate decreases in summer rainfall of ~13% by the 2050s. This is predicted to be accompanied by increases in winter rainfall of ~10%. As a result, river flows can be expected to increase in the winter, with more frequent storm events occurring throughout the year. The main risk associated with this would be flooding of the Development Site during the operational phase resulting in the mobilisation of polluting substances. Flood risk is discussed in Chapter 7. The design and operation of the Proposed Development would include consideration of climate change and the need to prevent pollution in the event of a flood.
Predicted Future Baseline
Contaminated Land
6.3.47 Prior to development, a site-wide ground investigation will be undertaken by the current site owner (SGN) to investigate and assess residual contaminated land risks. The Site Investigation Works Specification (Appendix 6.C) for the ground investigation states that: It will comprise of up to ten boreholes and twenty machine excavated trial pits to target soil and groundwater within the footprint of the gasholder, other existing buildings and areas where potential contamination has been identified; Representative soil and groundwater samples will be obtained and submitted for a suite of chemical analysis designed to target the potential contaminants identified in the Phase 1; Ground gas monitoring will be carried out from monitoring wells over a period of two months.
6.3.48 The data obtained from the investigation will supplement the existing ground investigation data for the Development Site (summarised in the Phase 1 reports). The soil, groundwater and gas results will be assessed against relevant screening criteria for a commercial end use. If the results of the investigation indicate that remediation works are required, then these works will be completed to address the issues identified. The remediation design and remediation verification report will be submitted to the regulator for approval.
3 http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/21708?projections=23831
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
77 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
6.3.49 The regulator will only approve the design and verification of the remediation works if they are satisfied that there is no potential for a significant pollutant linkage to be realised at the Development Site. On this basis, this assessment reflects the condition of the Development Site following completion of the additional ground investigation work, associated remedial works and their sign-off by the regulator.
6.3.50 Planning permission for the Proposed Development would only be granted if it is assessed by the regulatory authority to be ‘suitable for use’ in relation to the soil and groundwater chemistry and the identified potential receptors, therefore if unacceptable residual contamination risks were identified by the planning authority, planning conditions would be used (assuming planning is granted) to ensure that these were addressed prior to construction of the Proposed Development.
6.3.51 Following implementation of the remediation works described above, it is likely that there would be a material improvement in the soil and groundwater conditions at the Development Site as compared to the current baseline.
Information Gaps
6.3.52 The groundwater abstractions/discharges information presented above are from the current SEPA database of abstraction and discharge licences and Aberdeen City Council records of PWS. However, it is possible that there are other abstractions/discharges in the study area that have not been identified e.g. unlicensed abstractions/discharges.
6.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures
6.4.1 The potential effects of developments on brownfield sites, without appropriate mitigations, are well understood, and as such there are regulatory controls in place to ensure that developers, and operators of potentially polluting processes, avoid or mitigate these effects. These include the planning regime (specifically PAN 33), CDM 2015 and, for the operational phase, PPC 2012. Therefore the mitigation measures for the potential effects below are embedded in the design of the Proposed Development.
Potential Effects during the Construction Phase
6.4.2 For brownfield sites such as the Development Site, risks to receptors include: Mobilisation of contaminants during earthworks that could impact on environmental, property or human receptors;
Failure to identify and assess/remediate contamination prior to or during the earthworks that could impact on environmental, property or human receptors; and Leaks or spills of potentially polluting substances which could impact on soil and groundwater, or enter surface water drains.
Potential Effects during the Operational Phase Accidental releases of potentially polluting substances to soil and groundwater which could impact on environmental, property or human receptors; Cumulative leakages of potentially polluting substances over time from failed pollution prevention infrastructure which could impact on environmental, property or human receptors; and Impacts on humans, property or environmental receptors caused by pre-existing contamination not identified prior to or during the construction phase.
6.4.3 Table 6.7 lists the receptors that could be affected by the Proposed Development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
78 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
79 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 6.7 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures
Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Potential Effects
Construction Phase
Humans Exposure to site Risks to construction workers have been scoped out. derived contaminants For site visitors the potential for exposure to contaminants would be by inhalation, controlled through good construction practices such as site induction, ingestion or direct requirement for PPE suitable to prevent exposure and/or restricted access contact during higher risk activities. Similarly, any activity with the potential produce or release dusts would be risk assessed and dust would be avoided where possible through design, or, if unavoidable, controlled onsite using construction best practice to prevent site users and neighbouring site users being exposed to contaminants. Additional ground investigations and remediation would be completed prior to the Proposed Development being constructed. If localised contamination with the potential to release ground gas is identified during these investigations, or subsequently during the construction phase, this would be remediated prior to the operational phase and/or appropriate mitigation measures included in the design (such as vapour membranes). There is the possibility that unexpected contamination ‘hot spots’ could be encountered, or other ground hazards identified, during the construction phase. A strategy for dealing with this would be included in the Implementation Plan for the Proposed Development. The identification and remediation of any unexpected contamination identified is expected to be an overall positive effect on the Development Site.
Soil and Groundwater Spillages Given the ground conditions, (Glacial Till is present across much of the Development Site and whilst it contains some sand and gravel, the presence of lower permeability clay would limit vertical and lateral groundwater flow), the effect on the groundwater environment in the event of an accidental spillage incident during construction would be likely to be limited in extent. Fuel, oil and chemical storage and handling would be minimised in the design of the works. Fuelling and plant/machinery repair work would be undertaken in designated areas away from drains flowing to surface water. The risks from accidental spillages/leaks during handling and storage of chemicals and fuels would be mitigated by pollution prevention measures and good working practices in accordance with current guidelines (e.g. through compliance with PPGs).
Release of The foundation concrete would be a high strength structural grade which is contaminants from impermeable and not prone to the leaching of alkalis, and therefore would building materials or minimise adverse effects to groundwater. construction activities The foundation excavations would be dewatered by pumping as required. The discharges from dewatering operations would be subject to a method statement agreed with SEPA. It is likely that the water would be collected in suitable tanks and held on site for collection by a licensed waste contractor. If onsite water treatment is used, the design of the treatment facility may include settling ponds, or filter treatment facilities (silt traps) and buffer strips would be installed to remove sediment from pumped water. No water from foundation dewatering operations would be discharged directly to ground or to a watercourse. If required, any discharge would occur under the appropriate SEPA consent. Designated washdown areas with fully contained drainage can be used for plant/vehicles in contact with contaminated soils to avoid contaminants being moved around the Development Site or taken offsite. During the site works tendering process, the expected level of environmental control would be included in the tender documents, so that all contractors allow for mitigation measures in their work scope4. These environmental controls would include the production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP). Suitably qualified and experienced geo-environmental engineers would be used to supervise the ground works.
4 SEPA’s special requirements for water pollution prevention from civil engineering contracts contain a definitive list of clauses for incorporation into civil engineering contractual documents.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
80 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Potential Effects
Creation of pathways Investigation works would be undertaken in accordance with BS 10175, for the migration of ‘Investigation of potentially contaminated Sites. contamination The basement/foundation excavations would be dewatered by pumping as required. The discharges from dewatering operations would be subject to a method statement agreed with SEPA. It is likely that the water would be collected in suitable tanks and held on site for collection by a licensed waste contractor. Onsite water treatment may be carried out using a fully contained system. No water from foundation dewatering operations would be discharged directly to ground, surface water drains or to a watercourse. If required, any discharge would occur under the appropriate SEPA consent.
Operational Phase
Humans and buildings Ground gas/vapours All buildings would need to be designed to comply with Building Regulations, could migrate and including the provision of ground gas protective measures, where necessary, build up within in accordance with The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. enclosed spaces within buildings
Soil and groundwater Accidental releases of Below ground structures such as the concrete basement of the energy from potentially polluting waste building and water tanks would be constructed from suitable substances to soil and impermeable material, which meet relevant British Standards. groundwater Operational areas of the Proposed Development including site access roads, chemical, oil and waste storage points would be covered by competent impermeable hardstanding in order to protect the underlying soils and groundwater. PPC 2012 requires embedded mitigation measures for permitted activities such as energy from waste, in the form of application of BAT with respect to the process and the pollution prevention measures. PPC 2012 also requires most operators to provide baseline soil and groundwater data at the start of operations, and to carry out environmental and infrastructure monitoring during the operational phase. PPC 2012 requires the operator to have a documented environmental management system (EMS), a preventative maintenance system and documented procedures for the storage and handling of substances with the potential to cause pollution of soil or groundwater. The pollution prevention measures would comply with the Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and best practice for storing and handling chemicals and oils e.g. the relevant PPGs. The Development Site would use techniques such as site inductions, one- way vehicle access routes, enforced site speed limits, segregated vehicle and pedestrian access routes, signage and crash barriers to minimise the potential for accidents with the potential to cause impacts to soil or groundwater. Drainage design would be undertaken during the detailed design phase, measures to be considered include secondary containment of drains where there is potential for contaminants to be present that could impact on soil or groundwater, and inclusion oil interceptors downstream of drains carrying run-off from vehicle access roads or parking areas. The outline drainage design (Appendix 7.A) includes a swale which would permit rainwater infiltration and retention of stormwater onsite. As there may be hydraulic continuity between the swale and underlying groundwater, this feature would not carry surface run-off from potentially contaminated process areas or from drains serving process or vehicle manoeuvring or parking areas. Where required, regularly spaced clay bunds would be included in the design of service trench backfill to prevent the introduction of preferential flow paths within cable/service trenches.
Property (Site Direct contact with The SWMP used in the construction phase would ensure that soils reused landscaping) elevated on site which contain contaminants are placed in a manner which breaks concentrations of potential pathways to human or environmental receptors. An example would phytotoxic be use of a capping layer of clean soil in any landscaped areas. This would contaminant(s) need to be installed and verified in accordance with the guidance in ‘Contaminated Land Report 11 – Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’ (Environment Agency, 2004).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
81 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Potential Effects
Property (Buildings and Settlement of non- This can be dealt with through consideration in the design by suitably buried pipes), and piled structures qualified and experienced contractors/consultants. potential impacts on Soil and Groundwater if a release of contaminants occurs
Property (Buildings and Groundwater ingress This can be dealt with through consideration in the design suitably qualified buried structures, or potential release of and experienced contractors/consultants.e.g. by specification of including the basement contaminants to soil impermeable concrete to the appropriate British Standard/BRE specification. of Proposed and groundwater Development), Soil and Groundwater
Property (Water supply Permeation of plastic Potable water supply pipes serving the Proposed Development would be pipes) pipes by constructed from appropriate materials. contaminants. Pre-construction information including the results of ground investigations should be submitted to the water supply company so as the pipes can be designed with suitable resistance to the types and levels of contaminants identified.
Property (Buildings and Direct contact with Founding materials appropriate for prevailing ground conditions, designed in buried structures) sulphates and low pH accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, would be used to construct the Proposed Development to mitigate risks from aggressive ground conditions, if present
Implementation of the Controls
6.4.4 The construction phase will fall under CDM 2015. The CDM regulations set out the responsibilities of the various duty holders (e.g. client, designer, contractors) involved in construction works. Potential environmental and human health impacts must be considered, and avoided or mitigated, at all stages of the construction works from design to implementation.
6.4.5 Through planning conditions it is necessary to demonstrate that the Development Site is suitable for use and not capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA EPA.
6.4.6 PPC 2012 is the main legislative driver for prevention of pollution during the operational phase. A permit would only be issued once SEPA is satisfied that the process and pollution prevention measures meet BAT. Once a permit has been issued, PPC 2012 places the onus on the operator to provide information on soil and groundwater quality, to prevent accidental emissions to soil or groundwater during the operations and to provide evidence to show that this is the case. SEPA may also set conditions in the permit requiring specific monitoring of soil and groundwater.
6.5 Impact Assessment
6.5.1 All predicted effects of the Proposed Development would be mitigated by the embedded mitigation detailed in Section 6.4. Table 6.8 summarises the impact assessment for all phases of the Proposed Development assuming that the embedded mitigation measures implemented.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
82 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 6.8 Impact Assessment for Identified Potential Receptors
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Rationale* of change
Humans High Low Not significant Potential for human health impacts during all phases would be controlled by: The planning regime (site must be demonstrated to be suitable for the intended use and should not be capable of being determined as ‘contaminated land’ under Part IIA EPA); The regulatory framework for construction works, Building Regulations; and, PPC 2012 for the operational phase. With these controls in place, use of tools such as the CEMP, SWMP, EMS and best practice applied to all stages of the Proposed Development, effects on humans are not significant.
Soil and Groundwater Low Low Not significant Potential for impacts on soil and groundwater would be controlled during all phases through compliance with regulatory controls: The planning regime (site must be demonstrated to be suitable for the intended use and should not be capable of being determined as ‘contaminated land’ under Part IIA EPA); The regulatory framework for construction works; and, PPC 2012 for the operational phase. With these controls in place, use of tools such as the CEMP, SWMP, EMS and best practice applied to all stages of the Proposed Development, effects on soil and groundwater are not significant.
Property (the built Medium Low Not significant The embedded mitigation measures, and environment and buried regulatory controls such as Building Control, services) would ensure that consideration of risks to the built environment and buried services during the construction and operational phase is given at the design stage. The suitability of soils for construction and reuse onsite would be assessed during the design and construction phase. Available information on ground conditions including the depth, type and thickness of Made Ground would be used to inform the design, therefore the overall effect is likely to be negligible and Not Significant.
6.6 Cumulative Effects
6.6.1 Cumulative effects have been scoped out of this assessment.
6.7 Additional Mitigation
6.7.1 No further mitigations have been identified.
6.8 Residual Effects
6.8.1 No residual effects have been identified.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
83 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
6.9 Technical References
Defra, Environment Agency (September 2004), Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11. BS10175:2011 + A1:2013 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of practice. Amec Foster Wheeler (February 2016) Aberdeen City Council, Greenbank Crescent, East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen, Environmental Due Diligence, Contaminated Land Preliminary Investigation (Phase 1) Desk Study. Planning Advice Note (PAN 33) Development of Contaminated Land. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Scottish Natural Heritage (2014) A handbook on environmental impact assessment (4th edition). Soil Survey of Scotland Staff. (1981). Soil maps of Scotland at a scale of 1:250 000. Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen. RBMP Water body information sheet for water body 150409 in North East Scotland (2008 assessment). DSM Demolition (August 2015) C9393 Aberdeen Gas Holder, Site Investigation Works – Specification.
Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders (Reference: SS-NFR-P-002). Version 9.1 (June 2015)
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
84 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1
85 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
7. Freshwater Environment
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the impacts of the Proposed Development on the freshwater environment. It considers potential effects on surface water, groundwater and flood risk receptors. This assessment should be read in conjunction with the project description in Chapter 2 Project Description and other documents which provide an assessment of effects on the water environment; namely, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) (contained within Appendix 7.A).
7.2 Methodology and Approach
Legislative and Policy Context
Legislative requirements
7.2.1 The Scottish Government has responsibility for setting national planning policy for flood risk management and for maintaining and improving the quality of all fresh and marine waters in Scotland. It works with a number of other organisations, jointly responsible for the management and regulation of the water environment including:
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA); Local authorities (in this case, Aberdeen City Council; and Scottish Water (SW).
7.2.2 The following legislation is relevant to the assessment of potential effects on the water environment: Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (as amended); Local Government Scotland Acts 1973 and 1994;
Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended); Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; Environment Act 1995; Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997; Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997; Building (Scotland) Acts 2003, together with the relevant technical standards; The European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) as incorporated into The Water Environment & Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; Sewers for Scotland (2nd edition) 2007; SuDS for Roads (Scotland) 2009; Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009; The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended);
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 86 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
General Binding Rule (GBR) 10: discharge of surface water run-off from a surface water drainage system to the water environment from construction sites, buildings, roads, yards and any other built up areas; and GBR 11: discharge into a surface water drainage system.
Planning Policy
7.2.3 The planning policy context is set out in Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context. Key policies of relevance to the assessment of potential effects on the water environment are included below: Scottish Planning Policy (SPP, 2014) – Subject Policy Managing Flood Risk and Drainage. Other Scottish Government Guidance and Advice: Online Planning Advice regarding Flood Risk; Planning Advice Note (PAN) 79 Water and Drainage; PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; and PAN 69 Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding. Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012: Policy NE6: Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality; Policy R7: Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency; and
Drainage Impact Assessments Supplementary Guidance. Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015: Policy NE6: Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality;
Policy R7: Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency; Supplementary Guidance Natural Environment: Land and Water - Flooding, Drainage and Water Quality; and Supplementary Guidance Resources: Energy and Resources - Resources for New Developments.
Guidance
7.2.4 A range of general good practice and technical guidance is also of relevance to the assessment of the potential effects on the water environment: Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA) Report C697: The Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) manual (2007); CIRIA Report C698: Site handbook for the construction of SuDS (2007); CIRIA Report C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites (2001); CIRIA Report C648: Control of water pollution from linear construction projects – technical guidance (2006); CIRIA Report C649: Control of water pollution from linear construction projects – site guide (2006); CIRIA Report C715: Environmental good practice on site (third edition) (2010). SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 1 General guide to the prevention of pollution (2013); SEPA PPG 2 Above ground oil storage (2011);
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 87 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
SEPA PPG 3 Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems (2006); SEPA PPG 5 Works and maintenance in or near water (2007); SEPA PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites (2012); SEPA PPG 7 Safe storage – the safe operation of refuelling facilities (2011); SEPA PPG 8 Safe storage and disposal of used oils (2004); SEPA PPG 13 Vehicle washing and cleaning (2007); SEPA PPG 21 Pollution incident response planning (2009); SEPA PPG 22 Incident response - dealing with spills (2011); SEPA PPG 26 Safe storage – drums and intermediate bulk containers (2011); SEPA PPG 17 Installation, decommissioning and removal of undergrounds storage tanks (date unknown); and SEPA Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders (Reference SS-NFR-P-002) (2015).
Scope of the Assessment
Technical Consultation
7.2.5 A Scoping Report was submitted to Aberdeen City Council in September 2015. Relevant responses concerning the freshwater environment are included in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Consultee comments and responses to EIA scoping relevant to the freshwater environment
Consultee Comments Incorporation in this ES
SEPA Pollution prevention and environmental Potential operational effects of the Proposed management: any application to SEPA for a permit Development on water quality is assessed in section made under regulation 13 of the Pollution Prevention 7.5 of this chapter and for ecological receptors in and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 must provide Chapter 8 Nature Conservation. the information detailed in Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the Regulations. Key matters during operation will be assessed as part of the permit application to SEPA and controlled through conditions if required. These matters include: water quality and impacts on sensitive ecological receptors. Engineering activities in the water environment: a A site survey of water features has been completed as site survey of existing water features and a map of the part of this assessment. No proposed engineering location of all proposed engineering activities in the activities in the immediate water environment are water environment should be included in the ES. A considered part of the current application and so no systematic table detailing the justification for the activity further consideration is required as part of this EIA. and how any adverse impact will be mitigated should be provided. The table should be accompanied by a photograph of each affected water body along with its dimensions. Justification of the location of any proposed
activity is a key issue for us to address at the planning stage. It should be noted that the East Tullos Burn is culverted It is acknowledged that the East Tullos Burn is a underneath the north-western boundary of the watercourse and not a surface water drain, as Development Site and must be protected throughout the previously stated. Potential effectss on the East Tullos construction and final use of the site. This is not a Burn are considered within section 7.5 of this chapter. surface water drain, as stated in the scoping report, but
is a watercourse. Any potential water quality or quantity effects on Habitats Assessment: assessment of any potential ecological sites within the vicinity of the Development impacts on ecological sites within a 15km radius of the Site are considered within Chapter 8 Nature Development Site. Conservation (along with consideration of wider effects on ecological receptors).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 88 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Consultee Comments Incorporation in this ES
Flood risk: the Development Site should be assessed Flood risk from all sources has been assessed within for flood risk from all sources in line with Scottish the FRA and DIA (Appendix 7.A). Effects on third Planning Policy. SEPA flood maps are available to view party flood risk receptors are also summarised in online and, if the need for a flood risk assessment is section 7.5 of this chapter. identified, then this should be carried out following the guidance document: technical flood risk for stakeholders.
Aberdeen Drainage Impact Assessment: A Drainage Impact A full FRA/DIA has been written in accordance with City Council Assessment will be required, including proposed best ACC guidelines and in adherence to SuDS principles. available option for surface water drainage and full It includes design calculations and drawings and a full examination of all watercourses/sewers within the examination of all watercourses/sewers within the vicinity of the Development Site. vicinity of the Development Site. Any proposed design should be in accordance with Aberdeen City Council Floods and Drainage Team SuDS principles and include design calculations and were consulted over the design of the proposed drawings to be submitted for approval. drainage system in order to ensure the best available option for surface water drainage has been achieved for the Development Site. The proposed drainage option outlined fully within the accompanying FRA and DIA (Appendix 7.A).
Scottish No response received by Scottish Water on the A separate pre-application enquiry has been submitted Water Scoping report to Scottish Water regarding the Proposed Development, in tandem with the FRA/DIA.
Definition of receptors
7.2.6 In general terms, hydrological, drainage and flood risk effects may occur as a result of disturbance to hydrological elements of the environment. Receptors fall into the following three broad types:
Aquatic environment receptors: represent a range of potential water courses, Water Framework Directive (WFD) water bodies, and protected areas. Water resources receptors: include both surface water and groundwater resources. The potential deterioration of these resources in terms of water quantity or quality could adversely impact on local water users. Flood Risk Receptors: Flood risk receptors are defined within this assessment as people, property and infrastructure that could be at risk of flooding
7.2.7 Potential effects on hydrology and flood risk receptors would principally be associated with the construction phase. Operational effects are expected to be more limited or an attributable consequence of construction.
Spatial scope of assessment
7.2.8 The scope for interactions between the Proposed Development and the upstream catchment area is highly limited because there is no flow pathway; as such, the area upstream of the Development Site have been scoped out of this assessment. Further baseline information in respect of the WFD is given in the baseline conditions section of this chapter (section 7.3).
7.2.9 The general study area for this assessment extends to a distance of approximately 1km downstream from the proposed site boundary; this is the zone of influence of the Proposed Development where any potential significant effects on surface water or groundwater would be expected. For instance, in terms of water quality, the dilution effect would mean that any small- scale impacts on a water body would not be propagated far downstream. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to consider the downstream catchment area as part of the assessment due to the potential hydraulic connectivity with the Proposed Development.
7.2.10 Figure 7.1 shows all surface water and groundwater bodies within the vicinity of the Development Site (up to and beyond the 1km search area). The closest surface water body to the Development Site is the East Tullos Burn. The East Tullos Burn culvert drains to the East Tullos Burn and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 89 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
therefore provides hydrological connectivity with this water body. The East Tullos Burn is not classified as a being part of a WFD catchment by the SEPA River Basement Management Plan (RBMP). This is most likely due to the small size of the East Tullos Burn catchment area, and because the burn serves a stand-alone catchment that drains straight to the sea. Water bodies within the immediate vicinity of the Development Site are identified on Figure 7.2.
7.2.11 The closest defined WFD surface water bodies to the Development Site are the Dee (Aberdeen) Estuary (water body ID: 200103) heavily modified, transitional water body and the Don Estuary to Souter Head (Aberdeen) (water body ID: 200105) coastal water body.
7.2.12 The only hydrological connection between the Development Site and a WFD surface water body is between the Don Estuary to Souter Head (Aberdeen) and the East Tullos Burn. However, the Proposed Development is unlikely to affect this large coastal WFD water body, considering it would be located approximately 1km upstream and because there is minimal freshwater input from the East Tullos Burn. Therefore, potential impacts on the Don Estuary to Souter Head (Aberdeen) WFD water body have been scoped out of this assessment.
7.2.13 As shown on Figure 7.2, the Development Site is located on the northern edge of the Banchory groundwater (water body ID 150409) water body, with the Lower Dee Valley Sand and Gravel (water body ID 150297) groundwater water body to the north. Due to the highly impermeable surface cover at the Development Site and within the wider surrounding area, it is unlikely that there is any significant hydrological connectivity between the Development Site and these WFD groundwater water bodies. The SEPA RBMP interactive map also shows that the East Tullos Burn is not associated with either water body. Therefore, it is assumed that the East Tullos Burn is not heavily dependent on groundwater and, conversely, that the groundwater bodies are not dependent on the East Tullos Burn. It is therefore unlikely that any potential impacts on the East Tullos Burn (open watercourse) would result in significant effects on either of these groundwater bodies. Therefore, these water bodies have been scoped out of the assessment.
Aquatic environment receptors
7.2.14 It is anticipated that there would be no interactions between the Proposed Development and the adjacent WFD waterbodies due to lack of hydrological connectivity; this includes all estuarine and groundwater bodies.
7.2.15 The single aquatic environment receptor that has been identified is the East Tullos Burn. In terms of spatial extent, the full 1km downstream length of the East Tullos Burn will be assessed as an aquatic environment receptor. Any potential effects on water quality or quantity of water and sediment (and consequently hydromorphology) in the East Tullos Burn will be considered in the assessment.
Water resource receptors
7.2.16 In terms of abstractions, the Lower Dee Valley Sand and Gravel WFD groundwater water body is a designated drinking water protection zone. However, there is assumed to be very limited hydrological connectivity between surface waters and ground water within the site area. Other than the installation of building foundations, no intrusive groundworks are proposed under the development; embedded environmental mitigation measures would be implemented and are outlined later in this report. No surface water or groundwater abstractions are proposed. On this basis the assessment of impacts on the Lower Dee Valley Sand and Gravel water body have been scoped out of this assessment. No other water resource receptors have been identified and this element is therefore scoped out of the assessment.
Flood risk receptors
5 7.2.17 A risk of surface water flooding to the Development Site is identified on the SEPA flood maps . Flood risk receptors identified within the vicinity of the Development Site include those areas of the
5 SEPA flood maps, available at: http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm. Accessed 28/01/16.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 90 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
East Tullos Industrial Estate that are downstream of the Development Site. Specific receptors comprise of the adjacent industrial property (United Fish Products Ltd.) and Greenwell Road, which are located to the immediate east and north of the Development Site.
Inter-related effects
7.2.18 Inter-related effects have been considered in this assessment, i.e. where effects in one environmental area could give rise to effects in others. The greatest potential for water environment effects that are inter-related with other topics is considered to be with biodiversity (covered in the Chapter 8 Nature Conservation). Impacts on the water quality and hydromorphology of aquatic environment receptors could give rise to effects on specific aquatic protected habitats and species. However, no specific protected aquatic habitats or species have been found within the vicinity of the Development Site. Therefore, inter-related effects will not be considered further.
Cumulative effects
7.2.19 For the purposes of this assessment, the zone of influence can be defined to extend 1km downstream the along East Tullos Burn i.e. from the Development Site to Nigg Bay.
Temporal scope of assessment
7.2.20 Potential effects on the freshwater environment would principally be associated with the construction phase of the Proposed Development (anticipated to be from 2018 to 2021). While potential effects during the operational phase are expected to be more limited in scope, they will nonetheless be considered as part of this assessment.
Baseline Establishment
Desk Based Assessment
7.2.21 A comprehensive data gathering exercise was undertaken in order to inform this chapter. The most up-to-date data and information available on publically accessible websites were initially used to provide a broad understanding of the current baseline conditions of the Development Site and of the immediate surrounding area. This included all watercourses that are hydrologically connected to the Development Site.
7.2.22 Sources of data and other information collected to inform this assessment are listed in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Freshwater environment – sources of information
Data type Source of information
Ordnance Survey mapping 1:50,000 and 110,000 scales Topography Site topographic survey is included within the FRA and DIA in Appendix 7.A
Flood Estimation Handbook CD-ROM v.3 (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2009) Climate Met Office climate data website6
Scotland’s environment gateway website7 Hydrology MAGIC online mapping8
Flood risk SEPA flood map5
6 Met Office climate data website available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gfnt07u1s. Accessed 15/02/16 7 Scotland’s environment gateway, website available at: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/water-body- classification/ Accessed 28/01/16. 8 MAGIC online mapping, available at http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx. Accessed 11/02/16.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 91 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Data type Source of information
Aberdeen City Council Local Development Plan Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2014)
Aberdeen City Council East Tullos Burn Environment Improvements Project9 10 SEPA River Basin Management Plans Interactive Map11 Scotland’s environment gateway website Water Quality Water quality data provided by Aberdeen City Council Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Volume 2: Environmental Statement Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Volume 3: Technical Appendices. Appendix 7-A Water quality monitoring data
Geology British Geological Survey (BGS) online Geology of Britain Viewer12
Groundwater SEPA River Basin Management Plans Interactive Map
Water abstractions SEPA River Basin Management Plans Interactive Map
Water resource availability SEPA River Basin Management Plans Interactive Map
Baseline surveys
7.2.23 A site walkover survey was conducted by an Amec Foster Wheeler E&I UK hydrologist in September 2015. The conclusion of the desk based assessment and the site walkover survey was that no further site specific survey or monitoring work in respect of the freshwater environment was required to inform this assessment.
Methodology for Establishing Effects
7.2.24 Potential effects will be assessed using an approach consistent with that advocated by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).
7.2.25 The assessment of effects will be carried out such that their significance is evaluated as a product of the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change in the relevant parameter (e.g. water quality or quantity) arising from the Proposed Development, drawing on professional judgement and experience from other similar projects. As set out in Chapter 3, the assessment is based on the assumption that relevant embedded environmental mitigation measures that have been identified will be implemented. These measures are described later in Table 7.9 within section 7.4.
Receptor sensitivity
7.2.26 Table 7.3 provides a summary of the methodology used to classify the value or sensitivity of water environment receptors that may be subject to potential effects. This is based on an assessment of the following criteria: For aquatic environment receptors: The spatial scale and type of the receptor; Assessment of water quality for the East Tullos Burn, based upon the precautionary assumption that it will attain the equivalent of ‘good’ WFD status by commencement of development in 2018 (or a proxy for ‘good’ water quality status assuming this water body will remain non-reportable); and
9 Aberdeen City Council East Tullos Burn Improvement Project Presentation available at: http://www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org/media/845536/the-east-tullos-burn-improvement-project.pdf. Accessed 28/01/16. 10 Aberdeen City Council East Tullos Burn Improvement Project website available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/environment/txt_wac_east_tullos_burn.asp. Accessed 28/01/16. 11 SEPA River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) interactive map available at: http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/. Accessed 28/01/16. 12 British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain Viewer, available at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html. Accessed 28/01/16.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 92 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
The presence of international or national nature conservation designations (where designations relate specifically to water dependant habitats or interest features). For flood risk receptors: The sensitivity to flooding based on the nature of the receptor as defined by Table 2 of the SEPA Land Use Vulnerability Guide.
Table 7.3 Summary of sensitivity (or value) of water features
Value/ Criteria Examples Sensitivity
Very High Aquatic environment receptor: feature with a Surface WFD water body elements* at high status or non- very high yield, quality and rarity with little reportable classified water body with the equivalent of high or potential for substitution. good water quality in line with the WFD assessment criteria. Conditions supporting sites with international conservation designations (SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites), where the designation is based specifically on aquatic features.
Flood risk receptor: land use type considered SEPA most vulnerable uses of relevance to the Development vulnerable to flooding as defined by SEPA Site include: guidance. Residential institutions (e.g. care homes/prisons); and Nurseries, children’s homes and educational establishments.
High Aquatic environment receptor: feature with a Conditions supporting sites with national conservation high yield, quality or rarity with a limited potential designations (e.g. SSSI) where the designation is based for substitution. specifically on aquatic features. Receptor water body: all relevant WFD supporting element at least good status/potential. Or, in non-reportable water bodies identified as having good standard of water quality, based on the same thresholds as the WFD (as a proxy for good WFD status).
Flood risk receptor: land use type defined as SEPA examples include: ‘Highly Vulnerable’ to flood risk. Dwelling houses; Social services homes and hostels, student halls of residence etc.; Non-residential uses for health service; and Landfill and sites used for waste management facilities for hazardous waste.
Medium Aquatic environment receptor: feature with a Sites with local conservation designations where the moderate yield, quality and rarity with some designation is based specifically on aquatic features. potential for substitution. Receptor water body: all relevant WFD elements at least moderate status/potential; or non-WFD classified water bodies with moderate water quality status.
Flood risk receptor: land use type defined by SPP examples which include: SEPA as ‘Less Vulnerable’ to flood risk. Buildings used for: shops, financial, professional and other services; Restaurants and cafes;; General industrial sites; Waste treatment (except landfill and hazardous waste facilities); and Minerals and processing (excluding sand and gravel working).
Low Aquatic environment receptor: commonplace Receptor water body: relevant WFD elements* at less than feature with low yield or quality with good moderate status/potential. potential for substitution. Small watercourses that are non-reportable and with low water quality status (as a proxy for WFD status).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 93 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Value/ Criteria Examples Sensitivity
Flood risk receptor: land use type defined as SPP examples which include: ‘Water-compatible development’ or undeveloped Flood control infrastructure; from a flood risk point of view. Docks, marinas and wharves; Amenity open space; and Sewage transmission infrastructure and pumping stations *For the purposes of this assessment, ‘relevant WFD elements’ are taken to mean: • All biological quality elements e.g. fish, invertebrates etc.; • All physico-chemical quality elements e.g. dissolved oxygen, phosphate etc.; and • Hydromorphological supporting elements. The definition of ‘relevant WFD elements’ (given the lack of potential for the project to influence these substances) excludes: • Priority Hazardous Substances; • Priority Substances; and • Specific Pollutants.
Magnitude of change
7.2.27 The magnitude of change acting on water environment receptors is independent of the sensitivity of the feature. This is a largely qualitative assessment, which relies on professional judgement, although it may be informed by quantitative information and analysis where data are available and where appropriate. Table 7.4 provides examples of criteria/change with respect to water features and the corresponding Magnitude level in the categories of High, Medium, Low and Negligible.
Table 7.4 Examples of water environment magnitude of change
Magnitude Criteria Examples of negative change
High Results in major change to Aquatic environment: deterioration in flow/ level regime, morphology or feature, of sufficient magnitude to water quality, leading to sustained, permanent or long-term breach of affect its use/integrity. environmental thresholds (e.g. relevant SSSI conservation objectives (COs), or WFD boundary class Environmental Quality Standard (EQS)). Flood risk: major change in level or extent at receptor location.
Medium Results in noticeable change to Aquatic environment: deterioration in flow/ level regime, morphology or feature, of sufficient magnitude to water quality, leading to periodic, short-term and reversible breaches of affect its use/integrity in some EQSs. circumstances. Flood risk: moderate change in level or extent at receptor location.
Low Results in minor change to Aquatic environment: measurable reduction in flow/ level regime, feature, with insufficient magnitude morphology or water quality, but with limited consequences in terms of to affect its use/integrity in most COs or water body status (i.e. no breaches of EQSs). circumstances. Flood risk: small, but measurable change in level or extent at receptor location.
Negligible Results in little or no change to Aquatic environment: no measurable deterioration in flow/ level regime, feature, with insufficient magnitude morphology or water quality, and no consequences in terms of COs or to affect its use/integrity. WFD status. Flood risk: any change to level or extent at receptor location within range of uncertainty in estimate.
7.2.28 The significance of effects is derived by considering both the sensitivity of the feature and the magnitude of change, as summarised in the matrix presented in Table 7.5. Effects are deemed to be either Significant or Not Significant.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 94 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 7.5 Derivation of significance of potential effects
Sensitivity of receptor Magnitude of change Very High High Medium Low
High Significant Significant Significant Not Significant
Medium Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant
Low Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
Negligible Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
7.3 Baseline Information
Current Baseline
Land use
7.3.1 Land-use within the Development Site is best classified as ‘brownfield industrial’. The Development Site is occupied by a disused gas holder and associated buildings which are scheduled for demolition in 2016; to be followed by site remediation works by the current landowner SGN (formerly Scotland Gas Networks). The remainder of the Development Site is covered with hardstanding (gravel hardcore) and is used for the open air storage of industrial materials.
Topography
7.3.2 Assessment of the 1:10,000 scale OS map indicates that the Development Site and immediate surrounding area falls within the 20 mAOD and 30 mAOD contour lines. As shown on the topographic survey (within the FRA and DIA in Appendix 7.A), the Development Site is situated at an elevation of around 17 mAOD to 20 mAOD. There is a general south east to north west slope. Elevation rises sharply beyond the south east boundary of the Development Site and reaches a maximum height of 83 mAOD at the summit of East Tullos Hill.
Geology, soils and hydrogeology
7.3.3 The BGS geology of Britain Viewer indicates that the solid geology comprises Aberdeen Formation – Semipelite and Psammite, metasedimentary rocks of siltstone and sandstone, with Tullos Clay Member (sand, silt and clay) underlying the north west of the Development Site. Drift geology is composed of low permeability Banchory Till. The Aberdeen Formation is classed as a low productivity aquifer and the Banchory Till deposits are not deemed a significant superficial aquifer. Due to the impermeability of the geology, it is assumed that there is poor connectivity between surface water and groundwater bodies downstream of the Development Site.
Climate
7.3.4 The standard annual average rainfall estimate for the period 1961-1990 (SAAR61-90) was taken from the FEH CD-ROM 3 for an unnamed catchment including the site to NGR E395450, N804350. This broadly coincides with the upper reaches of the East Tullos Burn. The FEH CD-ROM 3 indicates an average annual rainfall in the area of approximately 723mm for the aforementioned catchment area. This is significantly lower than the Scottish annual average (1981-2010) of 1570mm.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 95 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Hydrology and drainage
7.3.5 The Development Site drains to the East Tullos Burn, which rises near to Redmoss Road, around 2km southwest of the Development Site, before flowing through a culvert below the East Tullos Industrial Estate. The culvert passes directly beneath the Development Site and emerges as an open watercourse approximately 500m to the north east of the Development Site, on the northern side of the Aberdeen to Dundee railway line. It then flows in a broadly eastwards direction for around 1.25km before discharging into the coastal waters of Nigg Bay. No details are available to indicate the type, size or depth of the culvert below the Development Site. Furthermore, no flow data are available for the East Tullos Burn. The location of water bodies within the vicinity of the Development Site are illustrated on Figure 7.2.
7.3.6 The Development Site is currently served by a formal drainage system, which separates surface water and foul water. The baseline site walkover survey considered all existing water features at the Development Site, which are illustrated on the existing surface water drainage plan provided within the FRA and DIA in Appendix 7.A. Surface water drains to the East Tullos Burn culvert that runs below the Development Site, whilst foul/oily discharges pass through a separator before being discharged to the foul sewer on Greenbank Road.
Flood Risk
7.3.7 No risk of fluvial or tidal flooding is shown on the SEPA online flood mapping5. Flood waters associated with the River Dee are shown to be constrained within the immediate vicinity of the river banks and would not encroach toward the Development Site. It should be noted that flood risk from the East Tullos Burn culvert running below the Development Site is not shown on the SEPA flood maps5, as they do not consider catchment areas below 3km2. Nor is an assessment of flood risk from this watercourse presented in the Aberdeen City Council’s LDP Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (version 4, December 2014). There is a residual risk of flooding in the event that the capacity of the culvert is exceeded. Although no information on the diameter of the culvert is available, and Aberdeen City Council’s Floods and Drainage Department have confirmed that there are no previous records of significant flooding at the Development Site or in the immediate surrounding area. The current landowners have also indicated no knowledge of historical flooding of any significance at the Development Site.
7.3.8 The SEPA online flood mapping5 shows small isolated areas of surface water flood risk around the northern edge of the gas holder, to the north of the gas holder and along Greenbank Crescent (along the western boundary of the Development Site). These areas coincide with localised topographic depressions, as identified on the Development Site topographic survey. Surface water ponding was noted in these locations during the site visit and anecdotal evidence of this was also provided by the landowner.
7.3.9 No groundwater flood risk is identified on the SEPA online flood mapping5. This is likely to be due to the underlying impermeable geology.
Water Quality
7.3.10 Table 7.6 provides a summary of the waterbodies within the vicinity of the Development Site, along with an appraisal of their WFD water quality status in 2013, which is the most up-to-date publically available WFD data. Baseline WFD information has been provided for those water bodies that are not connected to the Proposed Development in order to provide context regarding the state of the adjacent water environment; the single identified receptor, the East Tullos Burn, is a non-reportable water body and therefore is not assessed under the WFD (although there is hydrological connectivity between the East Tullos Burn and the Don Estuary to Souter Head (Aberdeen), effects on this water body have been scoped out of this assessment and it is provided here for context only).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 96 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 7.6 2013 WFD Classification of relevant surface waterbodies
Water body name Water body Type of Heavily WFD WFD Overall Hydrological ID water body modified ecological chemical WFD connectivity status/ status/ Status to the site? potential potential
East Tullos Burn 23247 Non- Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes reportable water body
Dee (Aberdeen) Estuary 200103 Transitional Yes Bad Pass Good No ecological potential*
Don Estuary to Souter 200105 Coastal No Poor Pass Poor Yes Head (Aberdeen)
River Dee (Peterculter 23315 River No Bad Pass Bad No to tidal limit) ecological potential *The status of good ecological potential applies to heavily modified water bodies and accounts for mitigation measures that, if in place, could allow the water body to achieve good ecological potential.
7.3.11 Between 2012 and 2014, Aberdeen City Council invested in improvements to water quality, geomorphology and biodiversity along a 1km stretch of the East Tullos Burn downstream of the Development Site. The aim of these remediation works was to address long-term water quality issues, specifically in respect of point source pollution from the East Tullos Industrial Estate. Limited water quality monitoring for the East Tullos Burn is undertaken by SEPA around 500m downstream of the Development Site where the burn becomes open watercourse. All available SEPA data have been provided by Aberdeen City Council in order to inform this assessment. Point source pollution incidents for the period 2006-2012 are shown in Appendix 7.A. No information is provided on specific parameters monitored, however it is understood to include heavy metals, toxic substances and hydrocarbons. The only gaps in data (e.g. January to May 2009 and in January 2010) are due to instrumentation problems and do not necessarily indicate that no pollution incidents occurred during these time periods. Aberdeen City Council officer’s interpretation of this dataset (provided in Appendix 7.A) concludes that: “using reliable data only, the data shows that over the 55 months sampling occurred, 14 months, or 25%, experienced ten or more days of pollution”.
7.3.12 The only other data supplied by Aberdeen City Council are the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) scores, collected by SEPA between 1995 and 2004. These data are reproduced in Table 7.7, along with an indication of how the BMWP score should be interpreted in terms of water quality (see Appendix 7.A for the full dataset). Table 7.7 shows that over the 9 year sampling period, the East Tullos Burn water body is classified as ‘poor’ to ‘very poor’ which is consistent with a polluted to heavily polluted water course.
Table 7.7 BMWP Scores for the East Tullos Burn (SEPA data 1995-2004)
Sampling period BMWP Score Notes Classification Interpretation
July 1995 13 None Poor Polluted or impacted
November 1995-December 1996 <10 Scores ranged from 1-3 Very Poor Heavily polluted
March 1997 15 None Poor Polluted or impacted
August 1997-July 2000 <10 Scores ranged from 3-8 Very Poor Heavily Polluted
October 2000 10 None Very Poor Heavily Polluted
October 2000-November 2004 <10 Scores ranged from 1-8 Very Poor Heavily Polluted
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 97 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
7.3.13 A 5 month surface water quality monitoring programme of the East Tullos Burn at its outlet in Nigg Bay was also undertaken as part of the EIA for the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project (Volume 2: Environmental Statement). These data provide a baseline for water quality between November 2014 and March 2015, following implementation of the East Tullos Burn Improvements Project.
7.3.14 Monthly samples of metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and other determinants, including nutrients and dissolved oxygen (D), are provided in the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project ES (Volume 3: Technical Appendices, Appendix 7A). Different detection limits were used for different determinants, for instance there is no current limit value for TPH. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) based on SEPA guidance were used where possible. Of the measured determinants PAHs and chlorides were found to be above the detection limits. However, it should be noted that the sampling location for this dataset is approximately 700m downstream of the SEPA monitoring location. The potential for dilution of any upstream pollutants may explain the differences in water quality data.
7.3.15 Due to differences between the parameters measured, as well as the spatial and temporal scope of the SEPA and the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion monitoring programmes, it is difficult to determine definitively whether there have been significant improvements in water quality since the implementation of the East Tullos Burn Improvements Project. It has nonetheless been concluded that there has been some improvement as a result of the scheme. Further improvements in water quality may be seen in the near future that are not presently indicated due to the limited data available.
7.3.16 It should be noted that the East Tullos Burn Improvements Project has seen ecological and wildlife improvements to the riparian habitat under the scheme. This resulted in the scheme winning a Herald Society Award in the Environmental Initiative of the Year category.
Water dependant designated areas
7.3.17 The Development Site does not coincide with any freshwater dependent sites that are designated for nature conservation. The receiving coastal waters of Nigg Bay are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), although the citation is on account of its geological and geomorphological characteristics. Therefore, it is not considered to be a freshwater water dependent designation.
Future Baseline
Land use
7.3.18 Demolition works and site remediation is scheduled to start in 2016 and will be carried out by the current landowner SGN. The remediation works are schedule to be completed advance of the construction phase of the Proposed Development (estimated 2018 till 2020) and will involve the removal of all existing structures and decommissioning of the gas holder on site. Post-clearance the Development Site would remain entirely impermeable.
7.3.19 The existing gas utilities and East Tullos Burn culvert which currently cross the Development Site will be re-routed around the Development Site as part of the remediation works. The works described are subject to separate consents which is being secured as part of the Development Site remediation works.
Hydrology and drainage
7.3.20 As noted above, the East Tullos Burn culvert is scheduled to be re-routed around the Development Site. This assessment assumes that on passing the Development Site at Greenbank Road, the East Tullos Burn culvert would continue along its present route.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 98 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Climate change
7.3.21 By the time of construction in 2018 it is estimated that climate change may have altered the current baseline. It is predicted that winters will become generally wetter and summers generally drier as a result of climate change. Estimates of likely change in temperature and rainfall, under a range of emissions scenarios are provided by UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) and are summarised in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8 Potential changes in the climate for the 25km Grid Box ID 615 centred on the Development Site (medium emissions scenario) anticipated for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s.
Parameter 2020s* 2050s* 2080s*
Changes to winter mean temperature ºC +1.2 +1.8 +2.0
Changes to summer mean temperature ºC +1.6 +2.3 +3.0
Changes to winter mean precipitation % +5 +13 +10
Changes to summer mean precipitation % -5 -13 -14
* Central estimates Source: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/ 21942
7.3.22 Changes in rainfall and temperature will result in changes to the magnitude and distribution of river flows and groundwater recharge, and subsequently the water resources available for use. It is also likely that the frequency and magnitude of flood events could change as a result of climate change effects on storm rainfall intensity, high river flows and sea levels. Consideration of climate change scenarios and their effects on flood risk over the lifetime of the Proposed Development are assessed within the FRA (Appendix 7.A).
7.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures
Potential effects: Construction Phase
7.4.1 The Proposed Development has the potential to generate sediment-laden run-off which could, in the absence of appropriate environmental mitigation measures and design measures, adversely affect East Tullos Burn receptor. Activities that have been identified that could potentially produce sediment-laden run-off include:
Construction and removal of temporary site access routes and other working areas (e.g. construction of site road and working and lay-down areas); Run-off from installed access routes, temporary lay-down compounds and working areas (e.g. earthworks and excavation; enabling works); Run-off and direct sediment disturbance from earthworks and excavation; Run-off and direct sediment disturbance from enabling works (e.g. establishing of underground services such as drainage, water supply, and temporary power supply) and construction and building shell and installation of process equipment; and Stockpiling of soils.
7.4.2 There is potential for these sediment generating activities to affect the East Tullos Burn due to increased sediment laden runoff entering the East Tullos Burn culvert, which would act as a pathway. A precautionary approach has been applied when determining the significance of suspended sediment related effects on this water body.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 99 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Potential effects: Operational Phase
7.4.3 Potential impacts of the operational phase of the Proposed Development would include the management of surface water run-off generated within the Development Site and surface water run-on from adjacent land. In terms of aquatic environment receptors, this could have water quality implications for the East Tullos Burn culvert, should run-off from the Development Site be untreated. Similarly, flood risk to third parties would be increased due to uncontrolled surface water run-on.
7.4.4 Incorporation of a site specific drainage system has been outlined in the accompanying FRA and DIA (Appendix 7.A). The proposed drainage system has been designed in accordance with SuDS principles and following liaison with Aberdeen City Council’s Floods and Drainage Team. It would involve the creation of a detention basin on site, with additional storage provided by below ground tanks. This would allow for up to the 1 in 200 year rainfall event plus 20% allowance for climate change to be managed at the Development Site. Discharge would be made to the East Tullos Burn culvert at greenfield rates. This would ensure that there is no increased flood risk to third parties.
7.4.5 Furthermore, three stages of treatment would be provided to all discharges leaving the main body of the Development Site in the form of filter drains, trapped gullies and the detention basin. This would ensure that there are no adverse water quality effects on the East Tullos Burn culvert and therefore, on the identified aquatic receptor (i.e. the East Tullos Burn).
Proposed Mitigation Measures
7.4.6 The rationale for the inclusion of specific environmental mitigation measures in the design of the Proposed Development, with respect to the freshwater environment, is summarised in Table 7.9. Mitigation measures pertaining to the construction phase would be detailed and delivered through a site specific Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and those relating to the operational phase are considered by the site drainage system (as outlined in Appendix 7.A).
Table 7.9 Proposed embedded environmental mitigation measures
Potential Predicted changes and Incorporated measures receptor potential effects type*
Aquatic Change in water quality via Construction phase environment generation of sediment-laden General runoff as a result of All Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) would be followed onsite to avoid pollution, construction activities e.g. with particular emphasis placed on SEPA PPG 1, PPG 5 and PPG 6. temporary access routes, earthworks and excavation of As set out in the CEMP, the contractor would undertake daily inspections, which the Development Site to form would include monitoring conformance with the CEMP. Immediate action including, site levels, construction of site if necessary ‘stopping a job’, would be taken should any incidents or non- access roads and the conformance with the CEMP be found during inspection. This would ensure that the construction of building measures taken to protect the water environment are effective. foundations; or via the Access routes and laydown compounds accidental discharge of Access routes and works areas (including laydown compounds) would be drained by concrete or fuels etc. resulting appropriate SuDS methods for the Development Site, either through use of infiltration in potential deterioration in or via controlled discharge to the East Tullos Burn Culvert (following 3 stages of water quality of the water treatment). The precise treatment measures would be determined on body. commencement of construction works on the Development Site. Changes in morphology and Silt fencing or similar in situ measures would be installed to prevent run-off from flow conveyance to the disturbed areas from entering the East Tullos Burn culvert. downstream, open Soil stockpiles watercourse section of the Soil stockpiles on site would be located as far as practicable from temporary site East Tullos Burn as a result of drainage measures; with ditches installed adjacent to those stockpiles that are increased sediment inputs deemed to present a potential risk of run-off away from the Development Site. The resulting in potential surface of stockpiled soils would be smoothed with excavators to reduce potential for deterioration to the water run-off generation. All stockpiles to be in place >3 months would be seeded to body. encourage stabilisation of topsoil. No silty water to be discharged directly into the East Tullos Burn culvert. Site specific methods to dispose of the stockpiles would be incorporated as appropriate.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 100 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Potential Predicted changes and Incorporated measures receptor potential effects type*
Where there remains the potential for this water to be leached off the Development Site additional control measures would be put in place, which may include emplacing sediment fencing or passing the silt-laden water through a Siltbuster® or similar. Laydown compounds Planned maintenance works of vehicles and heavy plant would be conducted within the designated site compounds, as per PPG, additional measures would be implemented as required (e.g. drip trays). Prior to the use of any existing piped drainage systems, the contractor would investigate the suitability of such systems and replace elements and install additional measures, such as oil interceptors, where required. As part of the Drainage Management Plan (DMP) (discussed below) a detailed site drainage strategy would be prepared in adherence to SuDS principles, as required under CAR regulations. Discharge of site drainage to the East Tullos Burn culvert may be subject to Environmental Permit. Any discharge to sewers would be subject to permit from Scottish Water. Construction Dependant on the foundation type that is chosen for the new buildings, there may be a requirement to carry out piling. With respect to sediment disturbance, piling works generally result in less disturbance (and less generation of sediment laden run-off) than alternative excavation-based foundation installation methods. Drainage Management Plan Further details of construction phase drainage management measures would be developed by the appointed contractors after planning permission has been granted, and would be presented in a DMP. The DMP would be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority prior to commencement of construction. CEMP The requirement for all of the measures above would be detailed and secured in a single CEMP, or similar document. Operational phase Surface water management and drainage A site specific drainage system has been designed to serve the Proposed Development and is outlined fully in the accompanying FRA and DIA (Appendix 7.A). The drainage system has been designed in accordance with SuDS principles and following liaison with Aberdeen City Council’s Floods and Drainage Team. It would involve the creation of a detention basin on site, with additional storage provided by below ground tanks. This would allow for up to the 1 in 200 year rainfall event plus 20% allowance for climate change to be attenuated. Discharge would be made to the East Tullos Burn culvert at greenfield rates. Three stages of treatment would be provided to all surface water leaving the Development Site through the use of the following: 1) Filter strips; 2) Trapped gullies and; 3) The detention basin. This would ensure there are no adverse water quality effects on the receiving water course.
Flood risk Changes to run-off rates Construction phase resulting from ground Ground cover disturbance during the Access routes and working areas to be constructed of material at least as permeable construction phase. as the topsoil removed (e.g. stone/crushed gravel), where practicable. Drainage Management Plan See measures listed above re: drainage management measures in context of aquatic environment receptors. Construction phase See Surface water management and drainage section above. Surface water would be managed on site, with an allowance made for run-on from adjacent land. Rates of discharge to the East Tullos Burn would be controlled to at or below the greenfield rate.
* Receptor types are introduced in section 7.2 Methodology and Approach.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 101 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
7.5 Impact Assessment
Predicted effects and their significance
Aquatic environment receptors
7.5.1 The only aquatic receptor that has been identified is the East Tullos Burn. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been assumed that the East Tullos Burn will have improved to ‘good’ water quality by the time of construction of the Proposed Development, for example as a result of the East Tullos Burn Improvements Project. A precautionary approach has been applied to assume that this receptor would be Medium sensitivity during the construction phase (2018) and High by the operational phase (2021). Table 7.10 assesses the potential effects of the Proposed Development on the East Tullos Burn against the significance of effects evaluation matrix in Table 7.5.
Table 7.10 Assessment of the significance of effects on aquatic environment receptors
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Rationale of change
East Tullos Burn Medium Low Not significant Small localised watercourse, situated 500m (construction phase) downstream of the Development Site but is hydrologically connected to the Development Site High (operational via the East Tullos Burn culvert. Potential for phase) construction related water quality changes due to the long term duration of the construction phase and earthworks and excavation involved with the proposed development. However, the embedded mitigation would reduce any effect to an acceptable (not significant) level.
7.5.2 As shown in Table 7.10 the proposed magnitude of change on the East Tullos Burn would be Low under all phases of the Proposed Development – based on Table 7.4. The sensitivity of this receptor is assessed to be Medium during the construction phase, increasing to High sensitivity by the time of operations as defined by Table 7.3. When assessing the sensitivity of the receptor (high, or medium) in combination with the Low magnitude of change against Table 7.5, it is concluded the effect is Not Significant.
Flood risk receptors
7.5.3 Table 7.11 identifies the flood risk receptors taken forward in this assessment. These receptors have been assessed based on their distance from the Development Site and with consideration given to topography and hydrological connectivity. The sensitivity of these receptors has been identified in accordance with the criteria outlined in Table 7.5.
Table 7.11 Assessment of the significance of effects on flood risk receptors
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Significance Rationale Change
East Tullos Burn Medium (all Low Not significant Increased sediment inputs into the East Tullos Burn Industrial Estate phases) culvert during the construction phase could result in Via the East Tullos blockage/surcharging of the culvert downstream of the Burn culvert Development Site (fluvial flood risk).
United Fish Medium (all Low Not significant Unmitigated changes to surface water flow paths during Products Ltd., phases) the construction phase could result in increased risk of fish processing surface water flooding. plant Potential impacts during the operational phase have already been addressed through the design of a site
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 102 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Significance Rationale Change
specific drainage system as part of the FRA and DIA (Appendix 7.A).
Greenbank Road Low (all Low Not significant Unmitigated changes to surface water flow paths during phases) the construction phase could result in increased risk of surface water flooding along Greenbank Road. Potential impacts during the operational phase have already been addressed through the design of a site specific drainage system as part of the FRA and DIA (Appendix 7.A). This would include the residual risk of flooding along Greenbank Road in the event that the Development Site drainage system is exceeded/fails. However, this is a residual risk as the site drainage system would incorporate two drainage pumps; the likelihood of failure of both these pumps is very low. In this event, there would be some localised flooding on Greenbank Road, which would be low magnitude and would, in the worst case, result in short term temporary road closure.
*Assuming the embedded environmental mitigation measures proposed in Table 7.9 are implemented.
7.5.4 The sensitivity of the three identified receptors ranges from Low to Medium and covers the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. The potential magnitude for change is considered to be Low for all identified receptors due to the implementation of the embedded environmental mitigation measures (as outlined in Table 7.9). When the sensitivity of the identified receptors is evaluated against the magnitude of change, the overall significance can be determined to be Not Significant.
7.6 Cumulative Effects
7.6.1 At the time of writing the only major development within the zone of influence is the proposed Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project. This project involves the extension of Aberdeen Harbour into Nigg Bay, approximately 1km east of the Proposed Development. As described in the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Volume 2: Environmental Statement, this development would primarily involve dredging of the bay for land reclamation, construction of new north and south breakwaters in the form of a harbour, provision of new quays and associated infrastructure to include new roads both on and off site. It is anticipated that the construction phase would begin in 2017, with the development being operational by 2020.
7.6.2 As outlined in the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Volume 2: Environmental Statement (Chapter 7) any potentially negative effects of the project on the marine and surface water environment (Including the East Tullos Burn) would be mitigated through the implementation of best management practice. Implementation and adherence of the Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project to a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and PPG would ensure that there would be no significant effects in this regard. This development would also include embedded environmental mitigation measures to ensure no negative effects on the freshwater environment.
7.6.3 On this basis, the overall cumulative effects can be considered to be negligible and can be scoped out of this assessment.
7.7 Additional Mitigation
7.7.1 No further mitigations have been identified.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 103 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
7.8 Residual Effects
7.8.1 Following from the assessment in Section 7.5 it can be concluded that there are no residual effects on freshwater resources that would remain significant after the incorporation of the proposed design and construction mitigation has been implemented. No residual significant effects on freshwater resources are therefore predicted.
7.9 Technical References
Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/local_development_plan/pla_local_develop ment_plan.asp (Accessed 13/01/2016) Aberdeen City Council (2012). Drainage Impact Assessments Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=31828&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Low and Zero Carbon Buildings Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=55244&sID=14394 (Accessed 13/01/2016). Aberdeen City Council East Tullos Burn Improvement Project Presentation available at: http://www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org/media/845536/the-east-tullos-burn-improvement-project.pdf. Accessed 28/01/16. Aberdeen City Council (n.d.). East Tullos Burn Improvement Project website. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/environment/txt_wac_east_tullos_burn.asp (Accessed 28/01/16).
Aberdeen City Council (2014). Aberdeen City Council Local Development Plan - Strategic Flood Risk Assessment working document: Version 4. Fugro EMU Ltd and Waterman Infrastructure and Environment Ltd (2015). Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Volume 2: Environmental Statement. Available at: http://www.aberdeen- harbour.co.uk/article/expansion-project-environmental-impact-assessment/ (Accessed 13/01/2016). Enviro Surveying Ltd. (2015). Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Volume 3: Technical Appendices. Appendix 7-A Water quality monitoring data. Available at: http://d80a69bd923ff4dc0677- b849429a75dd6216be63404a232a877c.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/EIA_Volume_3/Technical_Appendices_7A.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016).
British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain Viewer, available at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html. Accessed 28/01/16. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 2009. Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) CD-ROM (v3). Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxon. Construction Industry Research & Information Association (2001). Control of water pollution from construction sites; Guidance for consultants and contractors. Report C532, CIRIA, London. Construction Industry Research & Information Association (2006). Control of water pollution from linear construction projects – technical guidance. Report C648, CIRIA, London. Construction Industry Research & Information Association (2006). Control of water pollution from linear construction projects - site guide. Report C649, CIRIA, London Construction Industry Research & Information Association (2007). The SuDS Manual. Report C697, CIRIA, London. Construction Industry Research & Information Association (2007). Site handbook for the construction of SuDS. Report C698, CIRIA, London.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 104 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Construction Industry Research & Information Association (2010). Environmental good practice on site (third edition). Report C715, CIRIA, London. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2011). The State of Environmental Impact Assessments in the UK. MAGIC online mapping. Available at http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx. Accessed 11/02/16. UK Met Office. Climate data website available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/gfnt07u1s. Accessed 15/02/16. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. River Basin Management Plans Interactive Map. Available at: http://gis.sepa.org.uk/rbmp/ (Accessed 28/01/16). Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2006). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 3 - Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2007). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 5 - Works and maintenance in or near water. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2007). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 13 - Vehicle washing and cleansing. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2009). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 21 - Pollution incident response planning.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2011). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) Incident response – dealing with spills. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2011). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 2 - Above ground oil storage. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2011). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 26 - Safe storage – drums and intermediate bulk containers.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2011). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 7 - Safe storage – the safe operation of refuelling facilities. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2012). SEPA Land use Vulnerability Guidance, version 1. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2012). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 6 - Working at construction and demolition sites, 2nd edition, 2012.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2013). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 1 - General guide to the prevention of pollution. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2014). Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/28983/thermal-treatment-of-waste-guidelines_2014.pdf (Accessed 13/01/2016). Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2014). SEPA Flood Map 2014. Available at: http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm (Accessed 28/01/16).
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2014). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 8 - Safe storage and disposal of used oils. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2015). Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders (Reference SS-NFR-P-002), version 9.1. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (n.d.). Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 17 - Installation, decommissioning and removal of underground storage tanks. Scottish Executive (2001). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 61: Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/07/pan61 (Accessed 22/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 105 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Scottish Executive (2006). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 79: Water and Drainage. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/149784/0039881.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government. Scotland’s Environment Gateway Website. Available at: http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/water-body-classification/ (Accessed 28/01/16). Scottish Government (2013). Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2013-2027 - The Second Report On Proposals And Policies (RPP2). Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00426134.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016).
Scottish Government (2014). Scottish Planning Policy. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00453827.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Online Planning Advice regarding Flood Risk (2015). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/Policy/Subject-Policies/natural-resilient-place/Flood- Drainage/Floodrisk-advice (Accessed 22/01/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 106 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 107 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
8. Nature Conservation
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 This chapter of the ES describes and evaluates the current nature conservation interest of the Development Site (centred on National Grid Reference NJ 95426 03997), describes the methods used to assess the effects of the Proposed Development, presents the mitigation measures incorporated its design, and assesses the predicted residual effects.
8.1.2 The Development Site is brownfield and currently comprises a large gas holder with associated structures and hardstanding which are scheduled for demolition prior to site remediation works by the current land owner SGN (formerly Scotland Gas Networks). The Development Site is approximately 2 hectares (ha) in size and is located within the East Tullos Industrial Estate to the south of Aberdeen. The surrounding area to the north and west consists of industrial buildings and offices associated with the Industrial Estate. The main railway into and out of Aberdeen runs to the north of the Industrial Estate, with Tullos School and residential dwellings beyond. An area of grassland, woodland, scrub and heath is located directly adjacent to the southern boundary which extends eastwards.
8.1.3 The Proposed Development would provide an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility which would convert residual municipal waste into heat and power. Following all efforts to recycle, the EfW would accept residual municipal waste from Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Moray Council. The Proposed Development would comprise buildings that would include waste reception, waste bunker, boiler, turbine hall and stack, together with ancillary buildings and infrastructure, including air cooled condensers, offices and a weighbridge.
8.1.4 Nature conservation is closely inter-linked with a number of environmental topics which are addressed in other sections of the ES and cross-references are made where appropriate, particularly for hydrological interests (Chapter 7) and air quality interest (Chapter 11).
8.1.5 Supporting ecological information is presented in Technical Appendix 8.A - Ecological Baseline Report.
8.2 Methodology and Approach
Legislative and Policy Context
8.2.1 Relevant national and local planning policies are outlined in Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context. This chapter pays regard to the requirements of relevant policy and guidance considerations and takes account of relevant statutory provisions and advice, as listed below:
Legislation
8.2.2 Key European and UK legislation of relevance to nature conservation and biodiversity includes: The EC Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) as translated into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (‘Habitats Directive’); EC Directive 2000/60/EC, the Water Framework Directive (WFD); Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (WCA); Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004; The Protection of Badgers Act 1992; Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (WEWS Act); and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 108 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
The Surface Waters (Fishlife) (Classification) (Scotland) Regulations 1997 (as amended).
National Policy, Advice and Guidance Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (1995); Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom and Ireland (the “CIEEM Guidelines”(2016)); The Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014); PAN 79 Water and Drainage (September 2006); Nature Conservation: Implementation in Scotland of the Habitats and Birds Directives: Scottish Executive Circular 6/1995 as amended (June 2000);
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP13); The Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL); Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (2001). European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System Interim guidance for local authorities on licensing arrangements; and
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (2003) H1 Horizontal Guidance Note: Assessment and Appraisal of BAT14.
Regional and Local Policy The Aberdeen Local Development Plan (LDP, 2012) and the emerging Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan, 2015) policies and Supplementary Guidance of relevance to this technical assessment are:
LDP Policy NE1 Green Space Network; LDP Policy NE5 Trees and Woodland; LDP Policy NE8 Natural Heritage;
LDP Bats and Development Supplementary Guidance; LDP Trees and Woodlands Supplementary Guidance; Technical Advice Note (TAN) 7 - Natural Heritage Guidance (non-statutory Supplementary Guidance); Proposed Plan Policy NE1 Green Space Network; Proposed Plan Policy NE5: Trees and Woodlands; Proposed Plan Policy NE8: Natural Heritage; and Proposed Plan Natural Environment: Land and Water Supplementary Guidance.
13 The UK BAP was replaced by the 'UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework' (July 2012) which covers the period 2011-2020. This framework is implemented individually by each of the four UK countries. Following the publication of the new framework the UK BAP partnership no longer operates but many of the tools and resources originally developed under the UK BAP still remain in use. Within Scotland, the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework is co-ordinated through the Biodiversity Action Reporting System (BARS) which is an online tool which contains a list of Scottish priority habitats and species (The Scottish Biodiversity List [SBL]). 14 Best Available Techniques
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 109 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Proposed Scope of Assessment
8.2.3 A Scoping Report was submitted to Aberdeen City Council and scoping responses relevant to ecology are summarised in Table 8.1. Full details of the information provided in the scoping report and the responses received are provided in Table 2.2 Summary of EIA Scope and Table 2.3 Scoping Responses.
Table 8.1 Summary of Relevant Consultee Scoping Responses and ES Response
Consultee Concern/Comments ES Response
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Stated that as the Development Site is ~1.2km from Desk studies and site surveys presented the River Dee Special Area of Conservation (SAC), in Technical Appendix 8.A. the EIA should consider any impacts on this in Consideration of the effects of the accordance with the Habitats Regulations. Proposed Development on the River However, it was concluded that given the lack of Dee SAC and Cove SSSI are presented connectivity between the East Tullos Burn and the in Section 8.5 of this chapter River Dee SAC, it was unlikely for any significant effect on the SAC arising from water based pollution. It was, however, noted that the assessment of impacts from air pollution may need to extended outwith the 2km buffer due to the presence of Cove SSSI which lies 2.75km to the south of the Development Site and which is notified for vascular plants and maritime cliff habitat.
SEPA Whilst no specific ecology response was received Air Quality is considered in Chapter 11 in the main scoping response, a habitat-based and its associated Appendices and approach was suggested based upon the H1 within Section 8.5 of this chapter. method for PPC BAT. This included a detailed assessment (and map) of all designated sites within 15km of the Development Site with respect to nutrient nitrogen or acid deposition. SEPA also clarified that the East Tullos Burn, which was previously referred to as a surface water drain, and which is culverted under the Development Site boundary to the northwest is a watercourse.
Aberdeen Council Aberdeen Council did not provide comment on the n/a Proposed Development.
RSPB Responded with no comments. n/a
Aberdeen International Airport The response raised the concern that the Desk studies and site surveys presented Development Site may become more attractive to in Technical Appendix 8.A and birds as large flat roofs may also pose a bird risk. consideration of the effect on birds is Currently, there is no landscaping proposed at the presented in Section 8.5 of this chapter Development Site but should this change, a detailed planting schedule and SUDS ponds would Clarification on SUDS and landscaping be requested proposal was submitted, but no further response received.
Result of the Scoping Process
8.2.4 The net result of the consultations and collation of baseline data was a scope that encompassed the following: Consideration of how the development may affect statutory sites within 15km and non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the Proposed Development; A survey of the habitats and species that may be present on/adjacent to the Development Site; An assessment of the impacts of construction and operation of the Proposed Development upon protected species and notable habitats, and the design of appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 110 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Consideration of how the Proposed Development would affect both UK BAP and SBL key habitats and species; and Identification of the need for any ecological survey / monitoring prior to or during construction and/or operation.
Baseline Establishment
8.2.5 Baseline surveys follows nationally recognised Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (IEMA, 1995) and the ecological impact assessment takes into account the recognised CIEEM Guidelines.
8.2.6 The assessment takes into account both statutory and non-statutory considerations in identifying key nature conservation features. These are summarised below in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Statutory and Non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Value, Protected and notable Species
Nature Conservation Features Comments
Statutory Nature Conservation Sites SNH notifies sites that are of national importance for nature conservation as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), although some sites that are of national importance for certain species have not been so designated. Internationally important sites may also be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) or Ramsar sites. National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) are also statutory designated sites.
Non-statutory Nature Conservation Sites This includes Study of Environmentally Sensitive Area (SESAs), Sites of Importance for Natural Science (SINS), Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and areas included under the Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) or Semi- Natural Ancient Woodland Inventory (SNAWI). These sites, which are designated due to the presence of notable species or important habitats, broadly constitute the most important wildlife and geological sites in the county that do not reach the criteria required for SSSI designation.
Protected Species Many species of animal and plant received legal protection, which for the purposes of this study, refers to: Species included on Schedule 1, 5 and 8 of WCA, excluding species that are only protected in relation to their sale (see Section 9[5] and 13[2]); Species included on Schedule 2 and 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (referred to as the ‘Habitat Regulations’); and Badgers, which are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, as amended by the Nature Conservation Act (Scotland) Act 2004.
Notable Habitats and Species These include habitats and species listed on Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive, bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, together with habitats and species which are listed Local BAPs, the Scottish Biodiversity List and / or those which are of some other conservation interest based on their status nationally, regionally or locally
Desk-based Assessment
8.2.7 Baseline data on the nature conservation interest of the Development Site and its surroundings, including information on designated nature conservation sites and protected species records were sought from the following sources: SNH Site Link website (http://gateway.snh.gov.uk) – accessed December 2015; The National Biodiversity Network website (http://data.nbn.org.uk/) (NBN Gateway) – accessed December 2015; North East Scotland Biological Records Centre (NESBReC); Forestry Commission’s Land Information Search (mainly for woodland listed on the Ancient Woodland Inventory [AWI]) - accessed December 2015;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 111 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Large-scale 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey (OS) maps in conjunction with colour 1:25,000 OS map (to determine the presence of ponds and other features of nature conservation interest); and Aerial photographs were used to identify the suitability of habitats for roosting, commuting and foraging bats within 5km of the Development Site boundary - accessed December 2015.
8.2.8 The data request to NESBReC, included a 2km search area from the boundary of the Development Site for baseline data relating to statutory sites and non-statutory sites and records of protected, notable and invasive species from the last 10 years within sought from ~ 500m of the Development Site. This area was increased to 15km in respect of sites that have features which may be sensitive to acid and nitrogen deposition based on SEPA guidance.
Baseline Surveys
8.2.9 Baseline surveys followed nationally recognised guidelines (e.g. Cresswell et al. 2012, JNCC 2010, CIEEM Sources of Survey Methods15) and the competency of the surveyors was assessed against the CIEEM’s Competencies for Species Survey Guidance16 to ensure that all surveying and reporting was carried out by adequately experienced and trained ecological surveyors. All surveyors were full members of CIEEM and undertook survey work under appropriate survey licences where necessary.
8.2.10 The field surveys focussed mainly on the area within the Development Site, though adjacent areas were accessed where it was safe and possible to do so. The relevant study / survey areas are described in the Appendix 8.A and are illustrated on the associated figures. The field surveys undertaken are summarised in below.
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
8.2.11 A Phase 1 habitat survey, based on the JNCC Phase 1 Habitat survey methods was undertaken by an appropriately qualified Amec Foster Wheeler ecologist (Tim Kell) on 24 August 2015, during which any distinct habitats on the Development Site were identified and mapped. This survey method was ‘extended’ through the additional recording of specific features indicating the presence, or likely presence, of protected species or other faunal species of nature conservation importance. This included species/groups such as such as bats, reptiles and badger (Meles meles), as well as birds of interest. Any areas of particular ecological interest were reported in a ‘target note’ and all results are provided on the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey in Appendix 8.A.
8.2.12 Key habitats extending up to ~50m from the Development Site were also mapped using a combination of walkover survey (where access was available) and aerial photography (Google Earth Pro). This wider area was mapped to assess the connectivity of habitats around the Development Site, to identify any surrounding potential areas of interest, and to provide a spatial context for any features of nature conservation interest.
Badger
8.2.13 Habitats within ~50m of the Development Site were assessed for their suitability to support setts (typically woodland, scrub, tall ruderal, hedgerows and railway embankments) and foraging and commuting badgers (e.g. improved/semi-improved pasture, rough grassland, arable, scrub, broadleaved woodland and short grazed or mown grassland), following standard methods (Harris et al. 1989, SNH 2003).
Otter and Water Vole
8.2.14 Watercourses within the survey area were subject to a habitat-based assessment for their potential to support water vole (Arvicola amphibius) and otter (Lutra lutra) following standard methods e.g. otter surveys were based upon methods outlined in Chanin 2003, SNH 2008 and water vole surveys were based upon methods outlined in Strachan et al. 2011.
15 http://www.cieem.net/sources-of-survey-methods-sosm 16 http://www.cieem.net/competencies-for-species-survey-css
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 112 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Breeding Birds
8.2.15 Breeding birds utilise a wide variety of habitats including dense scrub, grassland that is not regularly disturbed or cut, hedgerows and trees and the presence of these features within the survey area was recorded. As the survey was undertaken during the breeding bird season, the presence of any active nests were noted (the presence of any non-active nests was also noted).
Reptiles
8.2.16 Any habitat features which would be suitable to provide refuge and foraging opportunities for reptiles17 were noted. Such features might include rough grassland, disused quarries and wasteland, sunny hollows, banks and gullies and man-made features such as disused railway lines, embankments, cuttings, etc.
Other Protected and / or Notable Species
8.2.17 Habitats on the Development Site were also assessed for the potential to support other protected and notable species e.g. invertebrates (the general suitability of terrestrial habitats for invertebrates such as butterflies, bees and moths, e.g. botanical diversity, larval food plants of notable butterfly species were noted where present); other UK BAP species such as European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and brown hare (Lepus europeaus), as well as other incidental species including invasive non-natives.
Bats
8.2.18 A preliminary assessment of habitat suitability for bats was carried out in accordance with the prevailing best practice guidelines (Hundt, 2012) on 24 August 2015 in combination with the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. This involved noting habitat features which were likely to have suitability for use by roosting, foraging and commuting bats.
8.2.19 During this survey, a single disused building was identified on the Development Site that offered potential to support for roosting bats. The building was subject to an internal and external inspection on 1 October 2015 by Amec Foster Wheeler ecologist, Amy Simpson to further assess the building for potential roosting suitability. During this survey, features with potential for use by bats for roosting were recorded (e.g. cavities, cracks and crevices) and a search undertaken for evidence of current/historic bat use (e.g. droppings, urine stains, feeding remains or bats themselves). A description of the building was made with regard to its structure, condition and potential for roosting bats.
Emergence Bat Survey
8.2.20 The single disused building was surveyed at dusk on 1 October 2015 by two suitably qualified Amec Foster Wheeler surveyors to seek bat emergence from features of the building identified as having the potential to support bat roosts. The emergence survey began at least 15 minutes before sunset and ended 120 minutes after sunset, thus encompassing the typical emergence periods for UK bat species.
8.2.21 Surveyors watched for bat activity (light levels permitting) and listened for bat echolocation calls using a dual heterodyne/frequency division bat detector (Batbox Duet) which enable bats’ ultrasonic calls to be heard. Bat calls were continuously recorded using a Roland R-05 or Edirol R-09 digital recorder. Survey work was undertaken in line with current best practice guidelines, as set out by the Bat Conservation Trust.
8.2.22 Recordings made during the surveys were analysed using BatSound software to determine whether bats were present and, if so, to confirm their identity (to species where possible).
8.2.23 Temperature, humidity, cloud cover and rainfall levels were recorded by the surveyors. The visit took place on a night where there was no rain or excessive wind and when the temperature was
17 As listed in Froglife’s Advice Sheet 10 – Reptile Survey and the Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual guidelines.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 113 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
above 10°C, these being conditions in which bats will not be deterred from flying. Any other environmental conditions that may affect bat activity, such as high noise or artificial light levels, were also noted.
Methodology for Establishment of Effects
8.2.24 A key consideration in assessing the effects of any development on flora and fauna is to define the areas of habitat and the species that need to be considered. This requires the identification of a potential zone of influence, which is defined as those areas and resources that may be affected by biophysical changes caused by project activities, however remote from the Development Site. In identifying ecological receptors that should be considered in an assessment, it is important to recognise that a development can affect flora and fauna directly (e.g. land take requirements) and indirectly by affecting land beyond the development study area (e.g. through noise generation or hydrological impacts).
8.2.25 The assessment of the significance of predicted effects on ecological receptors is based on the ‘value’ (or ‘sensitivity’) of a receptor and the predicted magnitude of change that the Proposed Development would cause, drawing on professional judgement. Effects on biodiversity may be direct (e.g. the loss of species or habitats) or indirect (e.g. effects due to noise, dust or disturbance on receptors located within or outside the Development Site). This Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has, in principle, followed the assessment methodology outlined in Chapter 3 EIA Process but with regard to the specific methods and criteria as defined below.
Receptor Value
8.2.26 The approach that has been applied to this assessment is to identify ‘valued ecological receptors’ (VERs), i.e. species and habitats that are valued in some way, that could be affected by the Proposed Development and, separately, to consider legally protected species.
8.2.27 The value of species populations and habitats is assessed with reference to: Their importance in terms of their biodiversity conservation value (which relates to the need to conserve representative areas of different habitats and the genetic diversity of species populations); Any social benefits that species and habitats deliver (e.g. relating to enjoyment of flora and fauna by the public); and
Any economic benefits or other secondary benefits they provide (angling for example).
8.2.28 Both species’ populations and habitats have been valued using the following evaluation scale: International; UK; Scottish; District; Local; and Less than local. The approach generally taken in this assessment is that a species population or habitat that is considered to be of District or greater importance in biodiversity conservation terms is considered to be a VER. Exceptions are made if the species population or habitat is identified as having a high social or economic value, or if the species is legally protected. Species’ populations and habitats have been valued using the scale set out in Table 8.3 (with examples of criteria used when defining the value provided).
8.2.29 It should be noted that the approach of this assessment is to consider the value of the Development Site for the species or habitat under consideration, rather than the overarching nature conservation importance of the species or habitat itself (e.g. a species could be considered to be of International importance solely by virtue of its listing on Annex II of the Habitats Directive). While the overarching importance of the species or habitat present is taken into account in order to assess nature conservation importance, the number of individuals of that species using the Development Site (or extent of habitat), and the nature and level of this use, is also taken into account. An assessment is then made of the value of the area for that species or habitat, based upon professional judgment.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 114 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 8.3 Ecological Sensitivity/Value
Value Examples of Criteria
International (High) An internationally important site e.g. SAC (or a site proposed for, or considered worthy of such designation). A regularly occurring substantial population of an internationally important species (listed on Annex IV of the Habitats Directive).
UK (High) A nationally designated site e.g. SSSI or a site proposed for, or considered worthy of such designation. A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive or of smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole. A regularly occurring substantial population of a nationally important species e.g. listed on Schedules 1, 5 and/or 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended).
Scottish (Medium) Areas of internationally or nationally important habitats which are degraded but are considered readily restored. A viable priority species population or habitat listed on the SBL. Species occurring regularly in regionally important numbers (>1% of the regional population). A regularly occurring, regionally significant population of a species listed as being nationally rare (e.g. species recorded from <15 10x10km squares of the national grid).
District (Aberdeenshire) A designation such as a Local Nature Reserve, Scottish Wildlife Trust Wildlife Site or woodland listed (Medium) on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. A regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce (e.g. species recorded from 16-100 10x10km squares of the national grid). A priority species/habitat listed on the SBL, but which is only present in very low numbers or habitat that is isolated and/or degraded. Viable areas of priority habitat identified in the LBAP or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger habitat.
Local (Low) Areas of internationally or nationally important habitats which are degraded and have little or no potential for restoration. A good example of a common or widespread habitat in the local area, e.g. those listed as broad habitats on the LBAP. Species of international or national importance, but which are only present very infrequently or in very low numbers within the subject area.
Less than local (Low) Areas of heavily modified or managed vegetation of low species diversity or low value as habitat to species of nature conservation interest. Common and/or widespread species.
Legal Protection of Species
8.2.30 There is also a need to identify all legally protected species that could be affected by the Proposed Development in order that measures can be taken to ensure that contravention of the relevant legislation is avoided. This may include the adoption of mitigation which is acceptable to SNH. By implication, therefore, it is inappropriate to assess the significance of effects within the context of species’ legal protection – measures to avoid or reduce effects on such species are legally required. In certain situations, however, adherence to measures that are designed to ensure that the law is not contravened may not prevent a significant effect relating to a species’ biodiversity conservation, social or economic value (i.e. in the context of the species being a VER) and so further mitigation is required to reduce the significance of effect.
8.2.31 Even where a protected species is not considered to be a VER, for example badgers, which are protected on animal welfare grounds rather than nature conservation value, the measures that would be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation are documented within this chapter.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 115 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Significance Evaluation Methodology
Magnitude of Change
8.2.32 As defined in Chapter 3 EIA Process an impact is defined as any change attributable to the Proposed Development that is likely to result in an environmental effect, i.e. they are the cause of the environmental effect. Effect is defined as the result of the change in relation to specific environmental resources or receptors (an effect may in turn produce further change, i.e. an effect may bring about an impact in its own right).
8.2.33 Effects can be permanent or temporary; direct or indirect; adverse or beneficial, and can be cumulative. These factors are brought together to assess the level of effect on the ‘conservation status’ of the particular VER, and the ‘integrity’ of the habitats that support them: Integrity is the coherence of the ecological structure and functions of a site or habitats that enables it to sustain its plant and animal communities and populations; and Conservation status is a measure of the ability of a habitat, to maintain its range, area, structure and function, while for species; range, population, habitat (extent and condition) are considered. Future prospects are also considered for both species and habitats.
8.2.34 Wherever possible, the magnitude of change is quantified using professional judgment (considering duration, whether direct/indirect, timing and frequency, reversibility, whether positive/negative and confidence in prediction) and assigned to one of four classes: High, Medium, Small or Negligible/None, with examples of each class provided in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4 Magnitude of Change on Ecological Receptors
Magnitude of Change Definition
High Would cause discernible effects in the long-term (>15 years) or permanently and the integrity and conservation status of the habitat or population would be at risk.
Medium Would cause discernible effects in the medium-term (5-15 years) but would not affect the long-term integrity or conservation status of the habitat or species population.
Small Would cause discernible effects in the short-term (< 5 years) but would not affect the long-term viability of the habitat or species population.
Negligible/None No discernible effect on the habitat or species population.
Level of Effect
8.2.35 In terms of the EIA Regulations, it is only impacts that are likely to have significant effects that require detailed assessment. As the EIA Regulations guide the assessor to focus on effects that are likely to be significant, the outcome of the assessment of a given effect on a particular receptor in its simplest form would be that it is significant or not significant. However, there may be instances where it is appropriate to further sub-divide the category of ‘not significant’, for example by use of the terms ‘slight’ and ‘negligible’ in terms of the level of effect. The use of the category of ‘slight’ may for example be used in acknowledgement that there are instances whereby there may be an effect, albeit that this is not likely to be significant - and this approach may better facilitate assessment of cumulative effects where cumulatively, several slight effects could be significant.
8.2.36 With this consideration in mind, Table 8.5 illustrates a matrix, which is has been used for guidance in the assessment of significance. Those effects which are shaded equate to those considered significant under the EIA Regulations with the others constituting no effect or an effect that is not significant. Having defined a level of effect, professional judgment in combination with guidance and standards are then applied to identify which of those levels of effect are then considered to be equivalent to significant effects in terms of the EIA Regulations. Where the level of effect is considered to be moderate or less, these are generally not deemed significant in terms of the EIA
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 116 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Regulations. However, depending on the receptor being considered, it is possible that some potentially moderate effects could be judged as significant in terms of the EIA Regulations, and where this is judged to be the case, the rationale for this conclusion will be provided.
Table 8.5 Matrix Referred to for Establishing the Level of Effect
Magnitude of Change Sensitivity
High Medium Low
High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate
Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate
Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight
Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible
Key: Significant Not Significant
8.2.37 It should be noted that the type of categorisation illustrated in Table 8.5 provides a guide only, and may be moderated based upon professional judgment and experience. In particular, the divisions between categories of receptor value/sensitivity, magnitude of change, and level of effect should not be interpreted as definitive, and the lines that represent the boundaries between categories should in many cases be considered as ‘blurred’. In some cases, the judgement can be guided by quantitative values, whilst in other cases qualitative descriptions are used.
8.2.38 For potentially significant effects, mitigation is identified in order to prevent, reduce or offset the significant adverse effect. Effects determined as slight or lower are not considered to be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations and do not require the identification of mitigation. Where the magnitude of any impact can be reduced by the application of best practice procedures to project design/construction/operation etc, this is also identified. This assists in reducing all effects, whether significant or not. For all potentially significant effects, the identified mitigation is taken into consideration and the residual effect is then assessed. For any remaining residual effects that are judged to be significant, compensation measures are identified.
8.3 Baseline Information
Desk-based assessment
Designated Sites
8.3.1 Statutory nature conservation sites within 15km of the Development Site are shown on Figure 8.1 and described in Table 8.6 below. Nigg SSSI and Balmedie Quarry SSSI are excluded as they are geological sites.
Table 8.6 Statutory Designated Sites within ~15km of the Development Site
Site Name Designation OS Grid Brief Description/Reason for ~Distance from the Reference Designation Development Site
River Dee SAC NO493981 The Dee is a major Scottish river ~1.5km to the which flows uninterrupted for some northwest but no 130km. It supports populations of connectivity with the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera development site via margaritifera) and Atlantic salmon aquatic pathways. (Salmo salar) and offers suitable habitat for otter.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 117 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Site Name Designation OS Grid Brief Description/Reason for ~Distance from the Reference Designation Development Site
Kincorth Hill LNR NJ938027 The main habitats on site include ~2km to the southwest rough grassland, coniferous woodland, scrub and a pond.
Cove SSSI NJ953004, Located on the east coast, this is cited ~3km to the south NJ957007 for its maritime cliff and adjacent slopes with coastal grassland, wet flushes and coastal heath. Cliff ledges here support colonies of a rare plant, Dickie's bladder-fern Cystopteris dickieana, discovered here in 1838.
Findon Moor SSSI NO941974 An area of heathland on the 6.1km to the south Aberdeenshire coast. Coastal heathland is rare in Aberdeenshire and Findon Moor is one of the largest areas remaining and the best example
Scotstown Moor SSSI NJ935116 Notified for its fen-meadow, wet heath, 7.4km to the north springs and flushes. The mineral-rich springs and flushes provide habitats for a number of plant species now rare in the north-eastern lowlands, including black bog-rush Schoenus nigricans, lesser butterfly orchid Platanthera bifolia, greater sundew Drosera anglica and lesser tussock sedge Carex diandra
Corby, Lily and SSSI NJ922145 & Notified for it freshwater habitats 10.5km to the north Bishops Lochs NJ912143 (mesotrophic and eutrophic lochs) and fens (hydromorphological mire range and open water transition fen). These three lochs together with their fringing reedbeds and bogs provide one of the best and least disturbed wetland sites in the north-eastern lowlands. Corby and Lily lochs also show an excellent hydroseral progression from open water to woodland
Red Moss of SAC & SSSI NO860940 Presence of both active (priority 13.1km to the Netherley habitat) and degraded raised bog The southwest SSSI citation notes that this is the best example of a lowland raised bog in the Aberdeen area and one of the largest in the north-east.
8.3.2 The non-statutory nature conservation designations within 2km of the Development Site are shown on Figure 8.2 and described in Table 8.7 below.
Table 8.7 Non-statutory Designated Sites within ~2km of the Development Site
Site Name Designati OS Grid Brief Description/Reason for Designation ~Distance from the on Reference Development Site
Tullos Hill LNCS NJ 955 037 A fairly large site comprising a mixture of ~240m to the south broadleaved woodland, rank neutral grassland, scrub, woodland, bracken, acid grassland and dry heath. The Development Site is a good example of dry heathland close to the city.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 118 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Site Name Designati OS Grid Brief Description/Reason for Designation ~Distance from the on Reference Development Site
River Dee LNCS NO 493 981 The River Dee supports a diverse range of ~1.5km to the Corridor plants and animals. The river supports a northwest at its number of breeding and overwintering birds, nearest point but no with an interesting insect fauna. Shingle in the connectivity with the river provide spawning areas for salmon. development site via aquatic pathways.
Balnagask LNCS NJ 969 036 A variety of habitats including coastal cliffs and ~1.5km to the east to Cove caves, shingle beaches, coastal and neutral grassland, dry heath and coastal heath. These offer suitable habitat to interesting coastal plants, insects and coastal birds.
Kincorth Hill LNCS NJ 938 027 The Development Site is one of the largest ~1.8km to the remaining areas of semi-natural vegetation in southwest the Aberdeen City region. It is dominated by gorse/broom and willow scrub with dry heathland on the higher ground.
Deeside Old LNCS NJ 87 02 The Development Site is a disused railway line ~1.8km to the Railway Line which forms a wildlife corridor between Duthie northwest at its Park and Peterculter Station. The banks of the nearest point railway are a mixture of grassland, tall ruderal, small pockets of woodland, scattered trees and shrubs.
8.3.3 These sites are not considered to be within the zone of influence for construction related activities, due to being sufficiently separate from the Development Site and / or lack of connectivity (in relation to aquatic features), and are henceforth scoped out in respect of construction-related effects.
8.3.4 Operational activities affecting air quality need to be considered. SEPA’s Horizontal Guidance Note H1 (2003, accessed 2016) requires detailed dispersion modelling to be carried out to assess effects upon internationally and nationally-designated ecological sites (i.e. SPAs, SACs, SSSIs, Ramsar sites and NNRs) within 15km of the development, and locally-designated ecological sites within 2km of the Proposed Development (e.g. LNRs, ancient woodland, etc.). Accordingly all of these sites are considered in relation to operational phase air quality effects.
Habitat Features and Flora
8.3.5 Full details of the survey results are included within Appendix 8.A and the associated figures. The majority of the land within the Development Site consists of hardstanding with a large gas holder and associated buildings and structures. The bare ground and hardstanding present comprises access roads and storage areas around the gas holder and there are several single storey buildings/cabins present. There are a number of rocks and spoil piles in the southern part of the Development Site in areas of tall grassland and bare ground.
8.3.6 There are several smaller areas of species poor semi-improved grassland along the boundaries of the Development Site, with species present typical of those found in disturbed ground e.g. cocks-foot (Dactylis glomerata), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus).
8.3.7 Patches of scrub and tall ruderal vegetation were recorded around the boundaries of the Development Site and gas holder. Species include bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), buddleia (Buddleia sp.) and creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense).
8.3.8 The Development Site is bounded by scattered small/immature broad-leaved and coniferous trees with ornamental shrubs along fencelines and the northern and western boundaries of the Development Site. Species present include rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), willow (Salix sp.), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and hazel (Corylus avellana).
8.3.9 No habitats or species of notable ecological importance were recorded within the Development Site.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 119 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
8.3.10 Based upon this, the habitats present within the Development Site have been scoped out of the assessment of potential construction and operation effects.
Protected and Notable Species
Bats
8.3.11 A single storey flat-roofed disused building to the west of the Development Site was noted as offering “low” potential for roosting bats with boundary features such as fencelines and tree-lines potentially offering connectivity to higher quality commuting and foraging habitat outwith the Development Site.
8.3.12 No bats were recorded emerging from the disused building during the survey, whilst both common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) were recorded commuting along the boundaries of the Development Site.
8.3.13 As there is some potential for bats to be present within the disused building, in combination with the presence of connectivity between the Development Site and optimum foraging habitat for bats, bats are considered further in this assessment as there is potential for direct/direct impacts during construction. Although site lighting would be part of construction and operation of the Proposed Development, lighting is already present in and around the Development Site (on a 24 hour basis), therefore significant effects relating to lighting and bats are not anticipated and are therefore scoped out of the assessment.
Badger
8.3.14 No suitable habitat for sett building was recorded on the Development Site, though it was noted as providing suitable habitat for commuting or foraging badger and field signs were recorded during the survey (snuffle holes and a potential badger hair).
8.3.15 The habitats present within the Development Site were considered to have low-medium potential to support badger. However, given the presence of signs of badger activity within the Development Site and the adjacent optimal habitats, badgers are considered further in this assessment as there is potential for direct/direct impacts during construction. Significant effects are not anticipated during operation and are therefore scoped out of the assessment.
Otter and Water Vole
8.3.16 No suitable otter or water vole habitat was recorded within the Development Site.
8.3.17 A single ditch was identified within ~50m of the Development Site, however this was dry at the time of the survey and is presumed to remain dry for much of the year; and is therefore considered to be unsuitable for otter and water vole.
8.3.18 As habitats present within the Development Site were considered unsuitable to support otter or water vole, these ecological receptors have been scoped out of the assessment.
Breeding Birds
8.3.19 The scrub, trees, hedgerows and buildings on the Development Site provide potential nesting habitat for a small number of common bird species.
8.3.20 Given the presence of suitable habitat within the Development Site and the adjacent optimal habitats, breeding birds are considered further in this assessment as there is potential for direct/indirect impacts during construction. Significant effects are not anticipated during operation and are therefore scoped out of the assessment.
Reptiles
8.3.21 Habitats within the Development Site were assessed as providing low-medium suitability for reptiles with higher quality habitat existing outwith the site boundary (including directly adjacent to this).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 120 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Given the presence of good quality habitat directly adjacent to the site boundary, there is potential for direct/indirect impacts during construction and therefore reptiles are considered further in this assessment. Significant effects are not anticipated during operation and are therefore scoped out of the assessment.
Other Protected and / or Notable Species
8.3.22 No habitats were recorded on the Development Site which could offer potential to support other protected and/or notable species.
Value of Receptors
8.3.23 This section evaluates the nature conservation interest of the Development Site for its habitats and for the species in terms of its relative value in a geographical context. VERs are defined as those which have a value of at least District level. All other ecological receptors are henceforth not considered further in this chapter, apart from where legal considerations need to be taken into account (for example, where badgers are considered of Local value, but due to legal considerations need to be further assessed (such receptors are identified with an asterisk [*] in the value column in Table 8.8 below)).
Table 8.8 Value of Ecological Receptors
Receptor Rationale Value / Sensitivity
River Dee SAC European designated site International (High)
Red Moss of Netherley SAC European designated site International (High)
Cove SSSI Nationally designated site National (High)
Findon Moor SSSI Nationally designated site National (High)
Scotstown Moor SSSI Nationally designated site National (High)
Corby, Lily and Bishops Lochs SSSI Nationally designated site National (High)
Red Moss of Netherley SSSI Nationally designated site National (High)
Kincorth Hill LNR Local Nature Reserve Local (Low)
Tullos Hill LNCS Local nature conservation site Local (Low)
River Dee Corridor LNCS Local nature conservation site Local (Low)
Balnagask to Cove LNCS Local nature conservation site Local (Low)
Kincorth Hill LNCS Local nature conservation site Local (Low)
Deeside Old Railway Line Local nature conservation site Local (Low)
Badger Legally protected species under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Less than Local* (as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004). The majority of the Development Site is hardstanding which is suboptimal habitat for badgers and their setts. However, potential exists for the Development Site to be used by foraging and commuting badgers.
Breeding Birds The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) is the main piece of Less than Local* legislation that protects all wild birds in Scotland. Under this legislation, it is illegal to intentionally take, injure or kill any wild bird, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents. Species on Schedule 1 of the WCA are also protected from
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 121 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor Rationale Value / Sensitivity
intentional or reckless disturbance when at or close to an active nest or when with dependent young. Legal protection is given to the bird, not its habitat. Generally, nest sites receive legal protection only when in use. Suitable habitat for common species of nesting birds on the Development Site was limited to occasional areas of scrub, trees, hedgerows and buildings.
Reptiles Common lizard, slow-worm and adder are afforded limited protection Less than Local* under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Common toad is listed in the SBL. Habitat with low-medium potential for reptiles is present on site (i.e. rubble piles) and along the boundaries, including patches of scrub, grassland and hedgerows.
Bats All species of bats and their roosts are legally protected at European Less than Local* level through the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The SBL lists Daubenton’s bat, whiskered bat, Natterer’s bat, noctule, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat in respect of their importance for biodiversity conservation and international obligations. Two species of bats (common and soprano pipistrelle) were recorded along the Development Site boundary during baseline surveys. Population estimates/trends for these species considered to be present within the Development Site (based on Battersby et al, 2005 and BCT 2012 population trends18) are: Common pipistrelle: Native, common across the UK. UK 2,430,000 (positive trend); Soprano pipistrelle: Native, common across the UK. UK 1,300,000 (negative trend). Suitable roosting habitat was limited within the Development Site to a single, disused building which was subsequently surveyed and the overall assessment of its suitability to support for roosting bats was reduced. Likely bat activity within the Development Site is therefore limited to foraging and commuting which is likely to be restricted to the linear features and boundaries. Therefore the Development Site is assessed as being of Less than Local* value to all bat species.
8.3.24 Based on the evaluation described above, there are no VERs identified within the Development Site in the context of this assessment, though there are several designated sites in the wider area which may be affected as a result of the operation of the Proposed Development (Air Quality related). Although they are of low sensitivity/value, the local nature conservations site have been scoped into this assessment in respect of potential air quality effects, as a precautionary measure. The presence or potential presence of other species that are afforded legal protection has been identified in Table 8.8 and these have also been included in this assessment. Construction: Badger; Breeding birds; Reptiles and Bats. Operation: River Dee SAC; Red Moss of Netherley SAC; Cove SSSI; Findon Moor SSSI; Scotstown Moor SSSI; Corby, Lily and Bishops Lochs SSSI; Red Moss of Netherley SSSI; Kincorth Hill LNR; Tullos Hill LNCS; River Dee Corridor LNCS; Balnagask to Cove LNCS, Kincorth Hill LNCS and Deeside Old Railway Line LNCS.
Predicted Future Baseline
8.3.25 The Development Site will be subject to site clearance and remediation irrespective of whether the Proposed Development proceeds or not. The predicted future baseline therefore assumes the Development Site will be cleared and that mitigations measures will be adhered to that will pay due
18 www.bats.org.uk/publications...php/.../NBMP_Summary_2012_web.pdf
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 122 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
regard to national and European legislation regarding, inter alia, bats, breeding birds, badgers and reptiles.
8.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures
Design Evolution
8.4.1 In order to control and reduce emissions to air, the design of the Proposed Development includes a sophisticated flue gas treatment (FGT) plant to treat emissions before they are discharged to atmosphere (as described in Chapter 11 Air Quality). In addition to the FGT plant, the height of the chimney stack has been designed to ensure adequate dispersion of residual pollutant emissions using detailed modelling (as described in Chapter 11 Air Quality).
Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potentially Significant Effects
8.4.2 Significant effects are not anticipated during operation and mitigation measures therefore relate to the construction phase only (other than the embedded mitigation: FGT plant and the height of the chimney stack). Best practice mitigation measures will be adopted prior to and during construction to minimise potential effects on ecological receptors, as follows: If any vegetation is present after site clearance (or if it has established after site clearance), its removal would avoid the bird nesting season from March to August inclusive. If this is not possible, a survey by a suitably qualified or trained individual for the presence of birds would be carried out prior to clearance. This would involve a thorough check of vegetation to be cleared and may require extended observation and/or gradual supervised clearance of dense vegetation. If active nests are found, an appropriate exclusion zone would be established (as advised by an ecologist and dependant on the species) and clearance within this zone would be delayed until dependent young have fledged, or if appropriate, a licence obtained from SNH; If any piles of rubble or spoil exist after site clearance, a suitably qualified ecologist would check these for resting/hibernating reptiles prior to site removal/dismantling and the storage of equipment. Any animals found would be relocated away from such areas to more suitable receptor areas (as determined by the ecologist) where possible to avoid disturbance. For the duration of any earthworks, any trenches or excavations which are left open overnight would be inspected for the presence of reptiles (and amphibians) prior to infilling if dug during their active period (i.e. March – October). Any amphibians and reptiles found during works would be carefully removed and placed at a suitable receptor site away from the construction works; Prior to works commencing (in late 2017/early 2018), a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) or equivalent document, would be produced. The contents of the CEMP would be agreed with the Local Authority in advance of construction. The CEMP would define the specific mitigation measures to be applied to the Development Site, and would demonstrate application of the relevant pollution prevention guidelines; All works and associated activities would be strictly limited to clearly-defined working areas; Construction dust would be controlled via methods set out in Chapter 11 Air Quality, Table 11.28; Sites for storage of any materials or equipment would preferentially be on hard-standing or bare ground or alternatively would be agreed with a suitably qualified ecologist in advance of works; A suitable means for animals to escape from any exposed holes or trenches would be provided (such as a long wooden or metal plank). Any pipes being stored onsite would be open at both ends to allow animals to enter and exit. Where pipes are not open at both ends, they would be capped to prevent animals from entering/becoming trapped; All trenches and excavations would be covered over at the end of each working day, or fenced off, to prevent animals falling into them and becoming trapped/injured;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 123 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Watercourses (including drains) would be protected during construction through the adoption of a range of mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 7 which include provision of drains, silt traps and barriers to prevent silt-laden run-off from entering watercourses; All construction work would adhere to the SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs); and In the event of any protected species being found close to works whilst they are in progress, the works would be stopped and advice sought immediately from a suitably qualified ecologist.
Summary of Mitigation Measures
8.4.3 Table 8.9 lists the receptors that could be affected by the Proposed Development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent effects of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects.
Table 8.9 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures
Receptor Change(s) and Potential Incorporated Mitigation Effects
Construction
Badger Disturbance to commuting During site clearance, best practice guidelines would be adopted e.g. and/or foraging badger during excavations would be fenced off to prevent wildlife access. site clearance. If working at dusk/dawn/low light, artificial lighting would be directed away Injury to badger from boundaries and features which badger could use for commuting. Badger becoming trapped in All equipment, which could potentially trap/injure badger, would be contained excavations on site in a safe place overnight.
Breeding birds Killing/injury of breeding birds If any vegetation remains on site, or colonises after clearance, its removal (nests, eggs, young birds, would be not be undertaken during the breeding bird season i.e. between fledglings) during site clearance. March-August inclusive. Disturbance to nests If this is not possible, a survey by a suitably qualified or trained individual for the presence of birds would be carried out prior to clearance. This would involve a thorough check of vegetation to be cleared and may require extended observation and/or gradual supervised clearance of dense vegetation. If active nests are found, an appropriate exclusion zone would be established (as advised by an ecologist and dependant on the species) and clearance within this zone would be delayed until dependent young have fledged, or if appropriate, a licence obtained from SNH.
Reptiles Killing/injury of common lizards A suitably qualified ecologist would check any remnant piles of stone, rubble and/or other reptiles (within and rock for resting/hibernating reptiles prior to site clearance/dismantling isolated areas which could and the storage of equipment. Any animals found would be relocated away provide suitable habitat only) from such areas to more suitable receptor areas (as determined by the during site clearance. ecologist) where possible to avoid disturbance. For the duration of any earthworks, any trenches or excavations which are left open overnight would be inspected for the presence of reptiles prior to infilling, if dug during their active period (i.e. March – October). Any reptiles found during works would be carefully removed and placed at a suitable receptor site away from the construction works.
Operation
All ecological Disturbance/injury of species, FGT and minimum stack height included in design (as described in Chapter features. devaluation of habitats. 11 Air Quality).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 124 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects
8.4.4 The potential does exist for changes to baseline conditions and for species which have been scoped out of this assessment (or have been recorded in a limited capacity only) to colonise e.g. bats, otters. If evidence of previously unrecorded protected species is suspected or found during the active construction phase, work within the vicinity of the location (plus an appropriate buffer depending on the type of work being undertaken and the likely disturbance zone resulting from these activities) would immediately be halted, an ecologist informed, and the most appropriate course of action to ensure the welfare of the species concerned and the avoidance of any offences under protected species legislation would be agreed. For example, ecological surveys would be undertaken as required (as determined by the ecologist) prior to construction activities recommencing. If protected species or their signs are subsequently confirmed (e.g. badger setts), consultation would be undertaken with SNH to agree a mitigation strategy and to ensure that an offence is not committed.
8.5 Impact Assessment
8.5.1 The following assessment of potential effects is based on the construction and operation of the Proposed Development (detailed in Chapter 2 Project Description).
Predicted Construction Effects and their Significance
8.5.2 With the adherence to the design and mitigation measures identified in Section 8.4, predicted effects are negligible, therefore no significant construction-related effects on legally protected species (none of which were identified as VERs) have been identified.
Predicted Operational Effects and their Significance
8.5.3 Chapter 11 Air Quality presents the modelled results for concentrations in air of Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) at each of the identified designated sites19. The assessment in Chapter 11 incorporates a number of worst-case assumptions, which would likely result in an overestimation of the predicted ground level impact and also considers cumulative effects.
20 21 8.5.4 Many of the critical levels (CLEs ) and/or critical loads (CLs ) of these substances are exceeded already due to the existing baseline concentration (Tables 11.25 and 11.26, Chapter 11); therefore it is the significance of the additional contribution from the Proposed Development, i.e. the process contribution (PC22), as described in Tables 11.36, 11.37, 11.38, 11.40 and 11.41 of Chapter 11 that is of relevance in this ecological impact assessment. These tables also include the predicted environmental deposition rate (PEDR) which includes the PC plus the background level and also express the PC as a percentage of either the CLE or CL. In general, the results indicate that where the baseline levels exceed the CLE or CL, the additional contribution from the Proposed Development is very small by comparison (generally <1%).
8.5.5 Table 11.36 shows that there are exceedances of modelled NOx CLEs at the River Dee SAC and at Balnagask to Cove LNCS, but the PC contribution is very minor in both instances. At the River Dee SAC, the %PC of CLE is only 1% for annual mean concentrations and 2.8% for daily mean concentrations (at the worst-case location on the River Dee, i.e. location 4). At Balnagask to Cove LNCS, the %PC of CLE is less than 1% for annual mean concentrations and only 1.7% for daily means.
19 Although the Country Park designation in included in Chapter 11, it is excluded as a receptor from this chapter since it is not primarily a nature conservation designation. 20 CLE is generally defined as a quantitative estimate of exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge. 21 CL is the critical load, or deposition rate of pollutants to ground above which there is an increased risk of adverse effects occurring. This is the guideline deposition rate to which the modelled deposition rates are assessed against. 22 PC is the additional component above the existing baseline concentration/deposition rate.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 125 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
8.5.6 Table 11.37 shows that there are no exceedences of modelled SO2 and NH3 CLEs at ecological receptors. Table 11.38 shows that although there are exceedances of modelled HF impacts at each of the designated sites included in the model, the PC is only very minor in every instance. Table 11.40 indicates that there are exceedences of modelled nitrogen deposition rates at the designated sites under consideration in this chapter, however, the %PC of CLmin ranges from <0.1% to 0.4%, so the PC is a very minor contributor to the exceedances. Table 11.41 also indicates that there are exceedences of modelled acid deposition rates, however the %PC of CL ranges from <0.1% to 3.9%, so the PC is a very minor contributor to the exceedences and are within the usual fluctuation levels that may be expected.
8.5.7 Therefore, it is considered that this additional contribution from the Proposed Development would cause negligible impact on the designated sites under consideration in this assessment, resulting in effects that are Not Significant.
8.6 Cumulative Effects
8.6.1 With the exception of existing cumulative air quality baseline as set out in Chapter 11, no further proposed cumulative developments have been identified of relevance to this assessment.
8.7 Additional Mitigation
8.7.1 No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
8.8 Residual Effects
8.8.1 A summary of the residual effects is provided in Table 8.10.
Table 8.10 Summary of Residual Effects
Potential Effect Valued Ecological Magnitude Receptor Significance Summary Rationale Receptor / Legally of Change Value Protected Species
Construction
Disturbance to Badger Negligible Less than Not significant Specific construction mitigation legally protected Local* and application of best practice species would result in no significant effect.
Breeding birds Negligible Less than Not significant Specific construction mitigation Local* and application of best practice would result in no significant effect
Reptiles Negligible Less than Not significant Specific construction mitigation Local* and application of best practice would result in no significant effect
Bats Negligible Less than Not significant Specific construction mitigation Local* and application of best practice would result in no significant effect
Operation
Adverse effects on Designated Sites Negligible Local to Not significant Air quality changes are minor and designated site (and Internation would not be expected to result in features) due to al significant effects on the changes in air designated features. quality
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 126 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
8.9 Technical References
Battersby, J. (Edited and compiled) (2005). UK Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends, JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership 2005. Chanin, P. (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10. English Nature: Peterborough. CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Cresswell, W.J., Birks, J.D., Dean, M., Pacheco, W., Trewhella, W., Wells, D. and Wray, S. (2012). UK BAP Mammals: Interim Guidelines for Survey Methodologies, Impact Assessment and Mitigation. Mammal Society, Southampton. European Council and European Parliament (1992). European Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Council and European Parliament (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Froglife Advice Sheet 10 – Reptile Survey. http://www.devon.gov.uk/froglife_advice_sheet_10_- _reptile_surveys.pdf. Accessed January 2016. Gent, A.H., and Gibson, S.D. (eds.) (1998) Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Joint nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Great Britain Parliament (1981). Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c.69) (as amended). Great Britain Parliament (1992). Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51) (as amended). Great Britain Parliament (1994). The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (SI No. 2716) (as amended). Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. An Occasional Publication of the Mammal Society No. 9. Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust. JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Revised Reprint. Scottish Natural Heritage (2003). Best Practice Guidance - Badger Surveys. Inverness Badger Survey 2003. Commissioned Report No. 096. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (2001). European Protected Species, Development Sites and the Planning System Interim guidance for local authorities on licensing arrangements. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department Area, Edinburgh. SEPA (2003) H1 Horizontal Guidance Note: Assessment and Appraisal of BAT. SNH (2008). Otters and Development. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/wildlife/otters/default.asp. Accessed January 2016. SNH (2003). Inverness Badger Survey 2003. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 096. Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. and Gelling, M. (2011). Water vole conservation handbook. 3rd Edition. WildCru, Oxford. The Scottish Parliament (1997). The Surface Waters (Fishlife) (Classification) (Scotland) Regulations 1997 (as amended). The Scottish Parliament (2003). Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 3) (as amended). The Scottish Parliament (2004). Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (asp 6) (as amended). UK Biodiversity Action Plan. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukbap. Accessed January 2016.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 127 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9. Traffic and Transport
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 This chapter sets out the potential highways environmental effects arising from a Proposed Development in the East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen.
9.1.2 The Proposed Development would accept municipal residual waste from Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray councils following all efforts to recycle. The capacity of the Proposed Development is approximately 150,000 tonne per annum (tpa) and the preferred process is mass burn incineration using moving grate technology. No pre-treatment or significant storage onsite is proposed given the location of other existing waste management facilities. The nature of the Proposed Development means that it would operate for 24 hours per day and seven days per week. Chapter 2 Project Description should be referred to in reading this chapter.
9.1.3 Figure 9.1 shows the location of the Proposed Development in the context of the wider highway network with the Proposed Development shown in Figure 9.2.
Transportation Features of the Proposed Development
9.1.4 The Development Site has good access to the surrounding highway network. It is envisaged that heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) would access the Development Site from the wider transport network via the A956 Wellington Road, Greenbank Road and Greenbank Crescent.
9.1.5 The operational assumptions that relate to traffic and transport are as follows:
Initially the proposed delivery hours would be from 7am till 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am till 1pm on Saturdays 52 weeks of the year; In the future, it is anticipated that the delivery hours would change to 24 hours per day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year; It is anticipated that 85% of Aberdeen City Council vehicles would deliver between 7am and 11pm and the remaining 15% arriving between 11pm and 7am, seven days a week; and
Aberdeenshire and Moray councils vehicles would deliver between 7am and 7pm Monday to Sunday; The waste from Aberdeenshire and Moray councils would arrive in 22 tonne capacity vehicles; The waste from Aberdeen City Council would arrive in 6 tonne capacity vehicles; All vehicles would have an unladen return; The anticipated number of onsite staff is 20. During both operational scenarios, four staff would work from 8am till 4:30pm and the remaining 16 would be split into two shifts, eight working 8am till 8pm and eight working 8pm till 8am; and There would also be other hazardous vehicles arriving at the Development Site delivering/removing chemicals and incinerator bottom ash. It is assumed that these HGVs would arrive and depart between 7am and 7pm.
9.1.6 The physical transportation components that are a feature of the Proposed Development are as follows: A new driveway onto Greenbank Crescent accessing a staff and visitor car park, comprising 22 spaces (of which two would be allocated to the mobility impaired); A new footpath from Greenbank Crescent to the office building just north of the staff carpark; Widening of the existing driveway to allow inbound and outbound HGVs to pass unimpeded;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 128 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Removal of 35m of kerb which is currently unmarked and used as on-street parking, to facilitate the new driveway; Two weighbridges, one inbound and one outbound; Six bike racks, accommodating a total of 12 bikes; and A network of footpaths through the Development Site linking key areas.
9.2 Methodology and Approach
Policy and Guidance Context
9.2.1 Policy and guidance documents of relevance to the traffic and transport environmental effects of the Proposed Development are listed below: Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) publication Guidance Notes No. 1: Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993, hereafter referred to as the IEMA guidelines); Scottish Planning Policy including subject policy relating to Waste Management, Energy Infrastructure and Promoting Sustainable Transport and Active Travel;
Planning Advice Note 75: Planning for Transport; Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 Policy T2 – Managing the Transport Impact from Development and Transport and Accessibility Supplementary Guidance; Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 Policy T2 – Managing the Transport Impact from Development and Supplementary Guidance Transport and Infrastructure: Transport, Air Quality and Noise;
Local Transport Strategy (2016-2021); and Regional Transport Strategy Refresh (Nestrans, January 2014).
9.2.2 A more detailed overview of applicable planning policies are provided in Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context.
Technical Consultations
9.2.3 Amec Foster Wheeler has developed the methodology of assessment for the EfW facility, the Transport Statement (TS, Appendix 9.A) and this ES chapter through ongoing consultation with ACC. In relation to this ES chapter, specific consultation has been undertaken with ACC Traffic Officers and Transport Scotland. Table 9.1 sets out the summary of the consultation response.
Table 9.1 Summary of Consultation Response
Consultee Summary of Response
Aberdeen City In addition to the Scoping Report (September 2015), a further scoping note was submitted to Aberdeen City Council Council, outlining the nature of the proposals, receptor locations and their sensitivity and the anticipated traffic volumes. Aberdeen City Council confirmed that a Transport Statement would be acceptable. They further confirmed that this should include an analysis of the Wellington Road/ Greenbank Road junction due to capacity issues, and the potential for the development to add right turning traffic at the junction. Further consultation in relation to site access point, parking and removal of on street car parking spaces have taken place.
Transport In addition to the Scoping Report (September 2015), direct consultation with Transport Scotland was carried out Scotland and confirmation was received that they had no concern regarding the potential traffic generation of the Proposed Development. They further confirm that they had no road proposals that would be affect the proposals.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 129 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Baseline Establishment
Accident Data
9.2.4 The accident data included in this report comprises Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) that have been recorded by the police. PIAs categorise whether the accident is slight, serious or a fatal in nature and information on the location of the accident, the time it took place, the weather and light conditions, motorised and non-motorised users involved and casualty numbers. The data also sets out the causation factors of the accidents which were given by the police.
9.2.5 Records of the PIAs have been obtained from Aberdeen City Council for a five year period, dating from 2011 to 2015. Full details of the accidents records are provided in the TS (Appendix 9.A). This accident data assessment area is shown in Figure 9.3.
Survey Work
9.2.6 In order to understand the existing traffic conditions within the area, Amec Foster Wheeler commissioned Streetwise Services Ltd, to undertake a series of traffic counts. Traffic surveys were undertaken during the week beginning 23 November 2015 and included: Fully manual classified count (MCC1) undertaken on Monday 23 November 2015 between the hours of 06:00am and 19:00pm at the A956 Wellington Road / Greenbank Road junction; and
Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data collected for a period of one week covering the times of the turning count data collection between 23 November 2015 and 29 November 2015 at: Greenbank Road (ATC1), just west of the junction with Greenbank Crescent; and A956 Wellington Road (ATC2), just south of the junction with Greenbank Road.
9.2.7 This information provided base network flows which have been used to inform the future year traffic flows. Full details of the traffic counts are provided in the TS (Appendix 9.A).
Methodology for Establishment of Effects
Potential Significant Effects
9.2.8 The methodology (adopting that advocated by the IEMA guidelines) includes evaluating the items listed below, for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development: Potential effects on local roads and the users of those roads, including public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists; and
Potential effects on land uses and environmental resources fronting those roads, including the relevant occupiers and users.
9.2.9 The IEMA guidelines also identify groups, locations and areas which may be sensitive to changes in traffic conditions and which should be considered for assessment. These potentially affected parties are summarised in Table 9.2, with those of relevance to this assessment highlighted in bold text. The remaining issues are considered within other relevant chapters of the ES.
Table 9.2 Traffic Related Environmental Effects
Traffic Related Environmental Effects
Noise Fear and Intimidation
Vibration Accidents and Safety
Visual Effects Hazardous Loads
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 130 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Traffic Related Environmental Effects
Severance Air Pollution
Driver Delay Dust and Dirt
Pedestrian Delay Ecological Effects
Pedestrian Amenity Heritage and Conservation
Potential Receptors
9.2.10 The receptors selected for this assessment are based on the highways links that are likely to be subject to a change in traffic flows as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. The change in traffic characteristics and volumes on the local highway network would largely be as a result of traffic reassignment when the Proposed Development is opened. This change in flows would affect not only the local road users (motor vehicles/pedestrians/cyclists) but also is likely to affect land uses that front them.
9.2.11 Although traffic associated with the Proposed Development could be experienced across numerous local roads within Aberdeen City and strategic roads within Aberdeenshire and Moray, it is only when the widely spread traffic combines near to the facility that the change in traffic may become noticeable. The number and location of receptors reflect this and take into account not only links where traffic flows may change significantly, but where roads pass sensitive locations. Table 9.3 below sets out the receptors that have been considered as part of this assessment and Figure 9.4 shows the location of the receptors.
Table 9.3 Identified Receptors
Receptor Road Sensitivity Reasoning Number
1 Greenbank Road Not considered sensitive Industrial area, few pedestrians and high percentage of HGVs
2 A956 north of Greenbank Road Sensitive Adjacent residential properties, congested junction, future high footfall
3 A956 south of Greenbank Road Sensitive Adjacent residential properties, congested junction, future high footfall
Valuation of the Receptors
9.2.12 In terms of defining ‘sensitive’ areas according to the IEMA guidelines, some receptor points assessed are considered to be ‘sensitive’ due to the fact that they have residential properties fronting the congested signalised junction and they are likely to become areas of high footfall once a new school is opened off Redmoss Road. Therefore, a change of 10% or more in the peak hour traffic flows or the number of HGVs would trigger a detailed evaluation of the effects.
9.2.13 The Greenbank Road receptor which is not considered sensitive, is in the industrial area, have low pedestrian footfall, have a high percentage of HGV traffic and have a road environment suited to the proposed activity and its associated traffic.
Significance Evaluation Methodology
9.2.14 In order to define the scale and extent of this assessment, the IEMA guidelines identify the following rules by which to undertake an assessment of potentially significant traffic and transport related environmental effects:
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 131 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Rule One: Include roads where traffic flows are predicted to increase by more than 30% (or where the number of HGVs are predicted to increase by more than 30%); and Rule Two: Include any specifically ‘sensitive’ areas where traffic flows are predicted to increase by 10% or more.
9.2.15 The 10% threshold in Rule two considers daily variations in traffic levels which are typically around 10% meaning that an increase in traffic levels of less than 10% is not likely to have an undesirable effect and would not require assessment.
9.2.16 The IEMA guidelines identify general thresholds for traffic flow increases as identified above. Where the predicted increase in traffic flows is lower than the thresholds, the guidelines suggest the significance of effects can be stated to be low or insignificant and further detailed assessments are not required. Table 9.4 below summarises the significance criteria based on Rule One and Rule Two above.
Table 9.4 Traffic and Transport Environmental Assessment Significance Criteria
Parameter of Assessment Significance
Change in traffic flows and HGVs over 30% Significant
Change in total traffic flows over 10% in sensitive areas Significant
Change in traffic flows and HGVs below 30% Not significant
Change in total traffic flows less than 10% in sensitive areas Not significant
9.2.17 The significance of each effect will be considered against the criteria within the IEMA guidelines, where possible. However, the IEMA guidelines state that: “…for many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define the thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation and judgement on the part of the assessor, backed-up by data or quantified information wherever possible. Such judgements will include the assessment of the numbers of people experiencing a change in environmental impact as well as the assessment of the damage to various natural resources.”
9.2.18 The IEMA guidelines also state that: “…the detailed assessment of impacts is…likely to concentrate on the period during which the absolute level of an impact is at its peak, as well as the hour at which the greatest level of change is likely to occur.”
9.2.19 The criteria used to determine the magnitude of each of the traffic related environmental impacts described above is based on the advice provided within the IEMA guidelines and which is summarised below.
Severance
9.2.20 Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery and is used to describe the factors that separate people from other people and places. For example, severance may result from the difficulty of crossing a heavily trafficked road or a physical barrier created by the road itself. It can also relate to quite minor traffic flows if they impede pedestrian access to essential facilities.
9.2.21 The effects of severance can be applied to motorists, pedestrians or residents. The IEMA guidelines suggest that changes of traffic flow of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as producing ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and ‘substantial’ changes in severance respectively. However, there are no predictive formulae which give simple relationships between traffic factors and levels of severance.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 132 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.2.22 The IEMA guidelines state that marginal changes in traffic flow are unlikely to create or remove severance, but that consideration in determining whether severance is likely to be an important issue should be given to factors such as road width, traffic flow and composition, traffic speeds, the availability of crossing facilities and the number of movements that are likely to cross the affected route. Consideration should also be given to different groups such as the elderly and young children.
Driver Delay
9.2.23 Delays to non-development traffic can occur at several points on the local highway network as a result of the additional traffic that would be generated by a development. The IEMA guidelines state that delays are only likely to be significant when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system.
Pedestrian Delay
9.2.24 Changes in the volume, composition or speed of traffic may affect the ability of people to cross roads, and therefore, increases in traffic levels are likely to lead to greater increases in delay. Delays will also depend upon the general level of pedestrian activity, visibility and general physical conditions of the crossing location.
9.2.25 Given the range of local factors and conditions which can influence pedestrian delay, the IEMA guidelines do not recommend that thresholds be used as a means to establish the significance of pedestrian delay, but recommend that reasoned judgements be made instead. However the IEMA guidelines do note that, when existing traffic flows are low, increases in traffic of around 30% can double the delay experienced by pedestrians attempting to cross a road.
Pedestrian Amenity
9.2.26 Pedestrian amenity is broadly defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey and is considered to be affected by traffic flow, traffic composition and pavement width/separation from traffic.
9.2.27 The IEMA guidelines note that changes in pedestrian amenity may be considered significant where the traffic flow is halved or doubled, with the former leading to a beneficial effect and the latter an adverse effect.
Fear and Intimidation
9.2.28 The scale of fear and intimidation experienced by pedestrians is dependent on the volume of traffic, its HGV composition, its proximity to people or the lack of protection caused by such factors as narrow pavement widths, as well as factors such as the speed and size of vehicles.
9.2.29 There are no commonly agreed thresholds by which to determine the significance of the effect. However, the IEMA guidelines note previous work that has been undertaken which puts forward thresholds that define the degree of hazard to pedestrians by the average traffic flow, 18 hour/day heavy vehicle flow and average speed over an 18 hour day in miles per hour.
9.2.30 The IEMA guidelines also note that special consideration should be given to areas where there are likely to be particular problems, such as high speed sections of road, locations of turning points and accesses. Consideration should also be given to areas frequented by school children, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.
Accidents and Safety
9.2.31 Where a development is expected to produce a change in the character of the traffic on the local road network, as a result of increased HGV movements for example, the IEMA guidelines state the implications of local circumstances or factors which may elevate or lessen risks of accidents, such as junction conflicts, would require assessment in order to determine the potential significance of accident risk.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 133 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Hazardous Loads
9.2.32 Some developments may involve the transportation of dangerous or hazardous loads by road and this should be recognized within the assessment. The IEMA guidelines note that the number of movements should be calculated and if it is considered to be significant then a risk analysis should be undertaken.
9.2.33 The IEMA guidelines state that a risk assessment should be prepared to illustrate the potential of an accident to happen and the effect of such an event. It suggests that the number of accidents per million vehicle kilometres should be calculated. If the probability of an event exceeds 0.5 or 50% over the life of the development then further investigation is required with the HSE and the effects of a spillage are required.
Level and Significance of Effect
9.2.34 The criteria for evaluating the value and the magnitude of change are as follows: The number of receptors e.g. population, exposed to each impact, on a scale of High (e.g. at a regional or higher level), Medium (e.g. at a district level) or Low (e.g. only local populations); and The magnitude of change in relation to the frequency of the disturbance, using the scale High (e.g. hourly), Medium (e.g. daily) or Low (e.g. weekly).
9.2.35 The matrix of outcomes in Table 9.5 defines the significance.
Table 9.5 Establishing the Level of Effect
Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change High Medium Low
High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate
Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate
Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight
Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible
Information Gaps
9.2.36 No information gaps have been identified.
9.3 Baseline Information
Site Description
9.3.1 The Development Site is located within the established East Tullos Industrial Estate on the south side of Aberdeen. The surrounding area consists of industrial storage and distribution and offices; adjacent to the Development Site is a fish processing plant and a waste transfer station. The industrial estate lies south of the River Dee and is accessed via the A956 Wellington Road, which links Aberdeen with the A90 south of Charlestown. Greenbank Road is the main industrial estate road between the Development Site and the A956 Wellington Road and serves a number of industrial units. The railway runs to the north of the Development Site, with Tullos School and residential dwellings beyond. Altens Nursery is located to the west of the Development Site on Hillview Road, within the industrial estate. Loirston Country Park is located directly south and east of the Development Site.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 134 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.3.2 The Development Site is brownfield and currently comprises a large mothballed gas holder, associated structures and hard standing which are scheduled for demolition in 2016 followed by site remediation works by the current land owner SGN (formerly Scotland Gas Networks).
Existing Highways Network
9.3.3 All traffic from the Development Site would join the A956 (part of the strategic road network) from Greenbank Road. As part of the Proposed Development it is intended to re-use as much of the existing infrastructure as feasible, upgrading where appropriate. The existing highway network near to the Development Site is considered to be of reasonable quality and these roads make up the access to the Proposed Development.
9.3.4 Figure 9.1 shows the key transportation routes which are under consideration as part of the study area and illustrates the existing highway network local to the Development Site which is summarised below. Greenbank Crescent – This is a single carriageway road without central road markings. This road is lit and has a footway on either side. Industrial and commercial units front Greenbank Crescent and have access from it, there is also significant levels of informal on-street parking. Greenbank Road – Greenbank Road is the main spine road of the East Tullos Industrial Estate and connects several minor roads. It is a single carriageway road with a 30mph speed limit, street lighting and footways on both sides. Most sections of this road have no central road markings and significant levels of informal on-street parking. Industrial and commercial units are located along this road and have access from it.
A956 (Wellington Road) – The A956 runs north/south through Aberdeen City and connects with the A90 at both the ends. This road is a mix of a single and dual carriageway sections. In the vicinity of the Development Site, it is a dual carriageway with a central island, street lighting, footways on both sides of the road and a 40mph speed limit.
Existing and Future Baseline Traffic Flows
9.3.5 The traffic counts undertaken in November 2015 were analysed and entered onto a traffic flow network diagram of the local highways network. Table 9.6 sets out the two-way average AM Peak (07:00 – 08:00) and 24-hour traffic flows for all vehicles and HGVs recorded at each receptor location considered as part of this assessment.
Table 9.6 All Vehicles and HGVs: Two Way Average AM Peak and 24-hour Traffic Flows – 2015
Receptor Road AM Peak AM Peak %HGV 24 Hour 24 Hour %HGV Number All Vehicles HGV All Vehicles HGV
1 Greenbank Road 129 30 23% 2,018 562 28%
2 A956 north of Greenbank Road 1,481 298 20% 20,298 4,427 22%
3 A956 south of Greenbank Road 1,543 280 18% 20,334 4,242 21% * traffic flows were interpolated from the ATC data north of the junction and the MCC turning count data at the junction
9.3.6 To establish the 2018 and 2020 future baselines, the 2015 baseline traffic flows were factored by background traffic growth and the effects of committed developments were added.
9.3.7 The growth rates have been developed based on the National Trip End Model (NTEM) growth rates extracted from the DfT’s Trip End Model Presentation Program (TEMPRO) 6.2 software for the Scotland and Aberdeen City area. The daily background traffic growth expected between 2015 and 2018, and 2015 and 2020 has been calculated as 1.00625 and 1.00855 for total vehicles respectively. The AM Peak background traffic growth expected between 2015 and 2018, and 2015 and 2020 has been calculated as 1.00280 and 1.00245 for total vehicles respectively.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 135 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.3.8 The following approved or proposed developments were included in addition to background traffic growth: Proposed Motor Showroom on the former Glencraft site opposite Greenbank Road at the junction with Wellington Road; Approved City Park offices located off Hareness Road; Proposed South of the City Campus, a high school located off Redmoss Road; and Proposed Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project.
9.3.9 Consideration was given to the potential traffic effects of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) and it was concluded that in the main, the traffic flow situation would not change significantly. The exceptions to this would be traffic from the area surrounding the Development Site heading north or west and the reverse journey. In these four movements, the traffic flows would not increase, merely switch direction, i.e. traffic heading northbound from East Tullos on the A956 through the city centre would then head southbound on the A956 to the AWPR or traffic heading from the north to East Tullos instead of arriving on the A956 southbound would then arrive on the AWPR and the A956 northbound. These changes in direction could well cancel each other out. Therefore no explicit allowance has been made in this assessment for the traffic effects of the AWPR.
9.3.10 Tables 9.7 and 9.8 sets out the forecast two-way average AM Peak (07:00 – 08:00) and 24-hour traffic flows for all vehicles and HGVs at each receptor location considered as part of this assessment in 2018 and 2020 respectively.
Table 9.7 All vehicles and HGVs: Two Way Average AM Peak and 24-hour Traffic Flows (including 2018 plus Cumulative Development Proposals)
Receptor Road AM All AM Peak %HGV 24 Hour All 24 Hour %HGV Number Vehicles HGV Vehicles HGV
1 Greenbank 134 30 22% 2041 566 28% Road
2 A956 north of 1,641 306 19% 21202 4590 22% Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1,723 289 17% 21289 4405 21% Greenbank Road * traffic flows were interpolated from the ATC data north of the junction and the MCC turning count data at the junction
Table 9.8 All Vehicles and HGVs: Two Way Average AM Peak and 24-hour Traffic Flows (2020 plus Cumulative Development Proposals)
Receptor Road AM AM Peak 24 Hour 24 Hour Number All Vehicles HGV %HGV All Vehicles HGV %HGV
1 Greenbank 134 30 22% 2059 570 28% Road
2 A956 north of 1,641 306 19% 21377 4629 22% Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1,723 289 17% 21464 4441 21% Greenbank Road * traffic flows were interpolated from the ATC data north of the junction and the MCC turning count data at the junction
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 136 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Existing Accident Record
9.3.11 Records of all reported accidents have been obtained from ACC for the five year period from 2011 to 2015 for the local highway network.
9.3.12 The area of the accident study is shown in Figure 9.3, and covers all of the identified roads in the study area.
9.3.13 A total of eight accidents occurred within the assessment area, of which three resulted in injury; 13% accidents involved vulnerable road users; and 50% accidents involved HGVs. Table 9.9 summaries the number of accidents over the assessment period.
Table 9.9 Summary of Accident Records 2009-2014
Road Total Fatal Serious Slight Vulnerable HGVs Damage only
Greenbank 0 Crescent
Greenbank Road 1 1
Wellington Road 0
Wellington Road 3 1 1 2 2 / Greenbank Road
Greenbank Road 1 1 1 / Greenbank Crescent
Greenbank Road 3 1 1 2 / Hillview Road
Total 8 3 1 4 5
9.3.14 The low number of accidents recorded in the last five years and in particular the low rate of injury accidents suggest that there is no inherent safety problem.
9.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures
Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects
9.4.1 Prior to the construction of the Proposed Development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be prepared and submitted to the planning authority for consideration following consultation with key stakeholders. The operator and the appointed contractor would finalise this traffic management plan and adhere to its details during the construction of the plant. The traffic management plan would typically include consideration of the following: Consideration of any abnormal loads; Informative road signage warning other users of the construction and any short term diversions; Arrangements for regular road maintenance and cleaning, e.g. road sweeping in the vicinity of the Development Site access point as necessary; Specific timings to avoid peak traffic within the area; Wheel cleaning / dirt control arrangements at key stages of construction; and Provision of temporary signs and traffic control where necessary.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 137 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.4.2 The implementation of a traffic management plan would aim to minimise the movement of construction vehicles during the morning and evening peak traffic hours when the road network is typically at its busiest.
9.4.3 Statistics from the DfT’s National Travel Survey 2014 show typical car occupancy levels averages around 1.6 persons per vehicle; which, if applicable to Aberdeen and the construction industry would reduce the number of light vehicles to less than 100. In order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the construction of the Proposed Development, construction personnel would be encouraged to car-share or utilise company shuttles where practicable.
9.4.4 No mitigation measures are anticipated to be required during the operation of the Proposed Development, due to the low numbers of operational vehicle movements.
Summary of Mitigation Measures
9.4.5 Table 9.10 lists the receptors that could be affected by the Proposed Development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows: High certainty of effectiveness (full): The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment;
Medium certainty of effectiveness (substantial): The measure can reasonably be expected to be effective based on the available information (and so can be relied on in assessment), although additional data may require review of the measures; Uncertainty of effectiveness (partly): The measure may be beneficial but cannot necessarily be relied on and therefore should not influence the assessment of the effect. However, the measure has been incorporated into the design of the scheme on the basis that, despite its potential ineffectiveness, it is worthwhile.
Table 9.10 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures
Receptor Change(s) and Potential Effects Incorporated Mitigation Likely Effectiveness
1,2,3 Increased construction traffic CTMP Partly Key to predicted success of mitigation: Fully - Impact fully mitigated and no effects predicted. Substantially - Mitigation would be largely successful at reducing impact Partly - Mitigation would be successful at reducing impacts, but some effects likely
9.5 Impact Assessment
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase
9.5.1 The volume of construction traffic is difficult to quantify as it is dependent upon a set of variables and construction methods that have not been finalised. However, likely construction traffic levels have been estimated based on previous experience of comparable projects. It is assumed that the construction of the Proposed Development would take 30 months and key phases have been identified in Chapter 2 Project Description.
9.5.2 For each phase of construction the staff numbers and deliveries would vary, however it is expected that as a maximum there would be: 150 staff, generating 300 movements per day; and 50 HGVs, generating 100 movements per day.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 138 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.5.3 It should be noted that in calculating construction traffic generation, account is taken of the return journey of the delivery vehicle, and a desire that excavated soil would, as far as possible, be re- used onsite.
9.5.4 Table 9.11 takes these details and presents the estimated number of construction movements per hour. This is calculated by assuming that the construction would be carried out for 10 hours each working day.
Table 9.11 Construction Traffic Movements (arrival + departure) per Hour
Hour 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 Beginning
Staff 150 150
HGV 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9.5.5 The maximum traffic impact associated with the construction of the Proposed Development is predicted to occur in the AM and PM peak hours. During the peak hours it is predicted that there would be 160 total movements, in the morning this would be split into 155 arrivals and five departures, in the evening the split would be five arrivals and 155 departures on the highway network in the vicinity of the Development Site.
9.5.6 The above situation is considered to be a worst case scenario that would only occur during the peak of construction activity within the whole construction period. It is also noteworthy that the construction phase is only a temporary set of circumstances and that normal service would resume once it has finished. It is also possible with the implementation of a CTMP that personal vehicle trips to the Development Site could be reduced with car sharing, minibus use, half day Saturday working and longer working days.
Construction Assessment
9.5.7 To calculate the predicted effects of the construction of the Proposed Development and their significance, comparison of the traffic flows during the worst construction month are shown in Table 9.12.
Table 9.12 Predicted Percentage Impact during Construction
2018 Future Baseline 2018 Future with % Change in Traffic Flows Construction
AM Peak AM Peak AM Peak
Receptor Road All Veh HGV All Veh HGV All Veh HGV Number
1 Greenbank Road 134 30 294 40 120% 34%
2 A956 north of 1,641 306 1,686 311 3% 1% Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1,723 289 1,839 295 7% 2% Greenbank Road
9.5.8 The percentage impact shown in Table 9.12 predicts that there would be an increase in total traffic and HGVs during construction of less than 10% on Receptors 2 and 3. Therefore a formal assessment based on IEMA guidelines is only required on the potential effects during the construction phase on Receptor 1, Greenbank Road.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 139 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Severance
9.5.9 The 30% threshold is exceeded by all vehicles and HGVs on Greenbank Road as shown in Table 9.12. The results suggest that the change in severance could be classed as “substantial” according to the IEMA guidelines as it is over 90%. However, the future baseline flows are low and so any percentage change would seem large. The actual total traffic volumes (with the construction traffic) would still be low, less than 13% of the roads capacity (according to TA79/99 DMRB) and consequently there would be ample safe crossing opportunities.
9.5.10 Currently there is little severance displayed by Greenbank Road because traffic flows are low and pedestrian access to essential facilities are not impeded (because there are none). The land uses on either side of the road are standalone industrial units with little or no desire/need to cross from one to another. It is considered that this situation would not change in the future and so the increase in vehicle numbers would not represent an actual increase in severance. Therefore the effects of the construction traffic are not considered to be significant.
Driver Delay
9.5.11 Modest and temporary localised delays may occur during the delivery of some construction materials or during works to the existing highway network. However, on Greenbank Road it is considered that the construction traffic would not increase volumes beyond the capacity of the road and as such any change to driver delay would be in keeping with driver delay experienced on similar roads elsewhere.
9.5.12 Effects on driver delay are therefore not considered to be significant.
Pedestrian Delay and Amenity
9.5.13 The assessment of pedestrian delay and amenity is based on the change in total traffic. A 30% change is considered to double the delay experienced by pedestrian attempting to cross the road according to the IEMA guidelines. Receptor 1 is expected to experience a change in total traffic exceeding 30% which would lead to a noticeable increase in delay for pedestrians. However, as already noted the future baseline flows are low and so any percentage change would seem large. With ample spare capacity on the link and traffic platooned by the downstream signals, crossing opportunities should be plentiful.
9.5.14 Noise and Air Quality are also functions of pedestrian amenity and these aspects of the scheme are considered in Chapters 10 and 11 of this ES.
Fear and Intimidation
9.5.15 In accordance with the IEMA Guidelines the 18-hour traffic flows at each receptor has been estimated from the ATC data. These volumes are used to assess the impact on fear and intimidation according to the IEMA guidelines.
Table 9.13 Traffic Flows for the Fear and Intimidation Assessment
2018 Future Baseline 2018 Flows with Construction Traffic
Receptor Road 18hr traffic Total HGVs over an 18hr traffic Total HGVs over an Number volumes averaged 18hr day volumes averaged 18hr day per hour per hour
1 Greenbank Road 109 546 131 642
2 A956 north of 1137 4430 1148 4480 Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1141 4251 1152 4298 Greenbank Road
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 140 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.5.16 The IEMA methodology states that an average 18hr traffic flow of between 600 and 1,200 vehicles has ‘moderate’ levels of fear and intimidation. For HGV flows, between 1000 and 2000 HGVs per 18 hr is considered ‘moderate’ and over 3,000 HGVs per 18hr is ‘extreme’.
9.5.17 Table 9.13 shows that the traffic flows, both with and without the construction traffic, on Greenbank Road are below the lowest fear and intimidation category.
9.5.18 The results show that the receptors on the A956 already display ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ levels of fear and intimidation for vehicles per hour and HGVs respectively. This road is a major road intended to provide large-scale transport links within or between areas therefore these volumes would be expected. The effect of the construction traffic would be minimal with no change to the fear and intimidation classification. Therefore, the effect of the construction traffic on fear and intimidation is considered to be not significant.
Accidents and Safety
9.5.19 The potential effects of additional construction traffic on highway safety are not considered to be significant, given that traffic volumes are currently low and would remain so with the additional traffic. The potential effects on highway safety related to the transfer of dirt and debris from the Development Site onto the carriageway has the potential to be significant and would be dealt with through the CTMP.
9.5.20 In summary, it is considered that there are unlikely to be significant effects upon road safety and accident levels; furthermore the accident review indicated that there are no existing safety issues with the road network that would be exacerbated by the introduction of the Proposed Development.
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase
Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology
9.5.21 The TS (Appendix 9.A) sets out in detail the transportation characteristics of the Development site and the Proposed Development. The TS considers the transportation changes that would result with the Proposed Development by estimating the trip generation during each hour of the day and night whilst the Proposed Development is operating, and where those trips are likely to originate. Table 9.14 presents a summary of the anticipated trips (two-way) per hour with their estimated origin and destination. Details relating to the derivation of these values can be found in the TS (Appendix 9.A).
Table 9.14 Anticipated EfW Trips per Hour by Direction during a Typical Weekday23
Initial Operations Future Operations
HGV Light Vehicles HGV Light Vehicles
Hour % to/from %to/from % to/from %to/from % to/from %to/from % to/from %to/from Beginning north south north south north south north south
07:00 2 7 3 9 1 5 3 9
08:00 2 7 2 6 1 5 2 6
09:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
10:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
11:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
12:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
23 The hourly vehicle trips for each direction and each vehicle type are subject to rounding.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 141 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Initial Operations Future Operations
13:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
14:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
15:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
16:00 2 7 1 3 1 5 1 3
17:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
18:00 2 7 0 0 1 5 0 0
19:00 0 0 2 6 1 2 2 6
20:00 0 0 2 6 1 2 2 6
21:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
00:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
TOTAL 22 89 11 29 18 78 11 29
Assessment
9.5.22 To calculate the predicted effects of the Proposed Development and their significance, comparison of the traffic flows during the year of opening has been undertaken. This comparison has been undertaken for both the initial operation (5.5 days per week, 12 hr deliveries) and the future operation (7 days per week, 24hr deliveries). These results are set out in Table 9.15 and 9.16.
Table 9.15 AM Peak Traffic Flows (All Vehicles and HGVs) – 2020 Initial Operations
2020 Future Baseline 2020 Future with Initial Ops % Change in Traffic Flows AM Peak AM Peak AM Peak
Receptor Road All Veh HGV All Veh HGV All Veh HGV Number
1 Greenbank Road 134 30 163 39 22% 31%
2 A956 north of 1,641 306 1,648 308 0% 1% Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1,723 289 1,745 296 1% 3% Greenbank Road
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 142 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 9.16 AM Peak Traffic Flows (All Vehicles and HGVs) – 2020 Future Operations
2020 Future Baseline 2020 Future with Future % Change in Traffic Flows Ops AM Peak AM Peak AM Peak
Receptor Road All Veh HGV All Veh HGV All Veh HGV Number
1 Greenbank Road 134 30 160 36 20% 21%
2 A956 north of 1,641 306 1,647 307 0% 0% Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1,723 289 1,743 294 1% 2% Greenbank Road
9.5.23 The percentage impacts shown in Table 9.15 and 9.16 predicts that there would be a negligible change in total traffic flows and HGVs on the two A956 receptors during the assessment period, but a predicted increase in HGVs of more than 30% on Greenbank Road during the initial operations.
9.5.24 Therefore, according to the IEMA guidelines a formal assessment is required.
Severance
9.5.25 The 30% threshold is exceeded by HGVs on Greenbank Road during the initial operations, as highlighted in Tables 9.15. The results suggest that the change in severance could be ‘slight’ as it is just over 30%. However, the future baseline flows are low and so any change would seem large. In practice, the nine additional HGV movements would equate to an additional HGV every six minutes which give ample opportunity for crossing.
9.5.26 As noted in the construction traffic assessment, there is little severance displayed by Greenbank Road currently because traffic flows are low and pedestrian access to essential facilities are not impeded (because there are none). The land uses on either side of the road are standalone industrial units with little or no desire/need to cross from one to another. It is considered that this situation would not change in the future and so the increase in HGV numbers would not represent an actual increase in severance. Therefore the effects of the operational traffic are not considered to be significant.
Driver Delay
9.5.27 Modest and temporary localised delays may occur during the delivery of some construction materials or during works to the existing highway network. However, on Greenbank Road it is considered that the operational traffic would not increase volumes beyond the capacity of the road and as such any change to driver delay would be in keeping with driver delay experienced on similar roads elsewhere.
9.5.28 Effects on driver delay are therefore not considered to be significant.
Pedestrian Delay and Amenity
9.5.29 The assessment of pedestrian delay and amenity is based on the change in total traffic. A 30% change is considered to double the delay experienced by pedestrian attempting to cross the road according to the IEMA guidelines. None of the receptors are expected to experience a change in total traffic exceeding 30% and therefore there would be no noticeable increase in delay for pedestrians.
9.5.30 Noise and Air Quality are also functions of pedestrian amenity and these aspects of the scheme are considered in Chapters 10 and 11 of this ES.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 143 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Fear and Intimidation
9.5.31 In accordance with the IEMA Guidelines the 18-hour traffic flows at each receptor has been estimated from the ATC data. These volumes are used to assess the impact on fear and intimidation according to the IEMA guidelines.
Table 9.17 Traffic Flows for the Fear and Intimidation Assessment
2020 Future Baseline 2020 Flows with Initial Ops 2020 Flows with Future Ops
Receptor Road 18hr traffic Total HGVs 18hr traffic Total HGVs 18hr traffic Total HGVs Number volumes over an 18hr volumes over an 18hr volumes over an 18hr averaged day averaged per day averaged day per hour hour per hour
1 Greenbank Road 110 550 121 657 120 643
2 A956 north of 1146 4467 1148 4488 1148 4485 Greenbank Road
3 A956 south of 1151 4286 1159 4372 1158 4361 Greenbank Road
9.5.32 Table 9.17 shows that the traffic flows in all scenarios, on Greenbank Road, are below the lowest fear and intimidation category as outlined previously in relation to construction traffic. Therefore, the effect of the Proposed Development on fear and intimidation is considered to be not significant.
9.5.33 As with the construction traffic, the results show that the receptors on the A956 display ’moderate’ and ’extreme’ levels of fear and intimidation for vehicles per hour and HGVs respectively. This road is a major road intended to provide large-scale transport links within or between areas therefore these volumes would be expected. The effect of the Proposed Development would be minimal with no change to the fear and intimidation classification. Therefore this result is also not considered to be significant.
Accidents and Safety
9.5.34 The potential effects of the Proposed Development on highway safety are not considered to be significant, given that traffic volumes are currently low and would remain so with the additional traffic.
9.5.35 In summary, it is considered that there are unlikely to be significant effects upon road safety and accident levels; furthermore the accident review indicated that there are no existing safety issues with the road network that would be exacerbated by the introduction of the Proposed Development.
Hazardous Loads
9.5.36 To comply with the IEMA guidelines, the probability of accident risk on the proposed hazardous loads route has been analysed. Below is the list of hazards which have been assessed and their journey: Chemical Hazards – to the Development Site ; and Ash Hazards – from the Development Site.
9.5.37 Of the three roads within the study area, it was identified that Greenbank Road was the section which had the highest accident probability with 89 PIA per 100mvkm. Assuming the following number of journeys whilst the Proposed Development is operational, then the risk of an accident occurring on Greenbank Road with a hazardous load is as follow: Chemical Hazards – 1,560 (journeys), less than 1% (risk of accidents occurring); and Ash Hazards – 53,040 (journeys), 3% (risk of accidents occurring).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 144 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
9.5.38 The percentages above show that the risk of accidents occurring for each hazard is very low, and there is no indication that if an accident did occur there would be a spillage. Therefore, it is concluded that the risk of accident (hazards) is not significant along the route and as such no further catastrophe analysis needs to be undertaken.
Other Factors
9.5.39 It is also noteworthy that there would be areas of Aberdeen City (surrounding the existing Sclattie and East Tullos waste transfer sites where waste currently goes) where there would be a reduction in traffic due to the Proposed Development. Although both HWRC’s would remain for public use, in 2018 the majority of the waste received at these sites would transfer to a new facility in the Altens area with all the City’s non-recyclable waste eventually reverting to East Tullos when the Proposed Development is operational.
9.5.40 The existing East Tullos waste transfer site currently processes some 43,000 tpa over 5.5 days per week. By and large, the waste arrives in 6 tonne vehicles and leaves in 20 tonne vehicles. Therefore, the site adjacent to the Proposed Development generates some 50, 6t vehicle movements per day and 15, 20t vehicle movements per day all of which currently uses Greenbank Crescent and Greenbank Road and would no longer do so. There would also be the removal of some 20 staff trips from the existing operations.
9.5.41 If the Proposed Development was to be operational with waste transferring directly from Sclattie and East Tullos then this assessment would be analysing an increase of just 45 HGV movements per day and not the 110; making the traffic effects even less than assessed.
9.5.42 The effects at the Sclattie site would be similar, with the removal of some 65 HGV movements per day. This reduction in traffic would result in positive effects, meaning that users and adjacent land owners of these roads would notice and benefit from a reduction in traffic as a result of this Proposed Development.
9.6 Cumulative Effects
9.6.1 The impact assessment presented in Section 9.5 takes account of identified cumulative development.
9.7 Additional Mitigation
9.7.1 No additional mitigation measures to the ones presented in Section 9.4 is proposed.
9.8 Residual Effects
9.8.1 In accordance with the methodology described in Section 9.2, Table 9.18 summarises the potential effects of the Proposed Development.
Table 9.18 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance
Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance Rationale
Construction Certain Medium Low Not Significant The construction programme and proposed effects haulage route are such that temporary traffic volumes and HGV increases would not be intrusive on sensitive parts of the highway network.
Severance Possible Medium Low Not Significant The Proposed Development provides some negative effects and some positive effects which have been assessed as “not significant”.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 145 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance Rationale
Driver Delay Possible Medium Low Not Significant The Proposed Development provides some negative effects and some positive effects which have been assessed as “not significant”.
Pedestrian Possible Medium Low Not Significant The Proposed Development provides some Delay negative effects and some positive effects which have been assessed as “not significant”.
Pedestrian Possible Medium Low Not Significant The Proposed Development provides some Amenity negative effects and some positive effects which have been assessed as “not significant”.
Fear and Possible Medium Low Not Significant The Proposed Development provides some Intimidation negative effects and some positive effects which have been assessed as “not significant”.
Accidents Possible Medium Low Not Significant The Proposed Development provides some and Safety negative effects and some positive effects which have been assessed as “not significant”.
Hazardous Unlikely High High Not Significant The existing accident rate shows that the Loads likelihood of an accident is highly unlikely therefore is has been assessed as “not significant”.
Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significant Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None
9.9 Technical References
Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Aberdeen City Council (2015). Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan.
Aberdeen City Council (2016). Local Transport Strategy 2016-2021. Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993). Guidance Notes No. 1: Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. Horncastle: IEA. Nestrans (2014). Regional Transport Strategy Refresh.
Scottish Executive (2005). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 75: Planning for Transport. Scottish Government (2014). Scottish Planning Policy.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 146 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 147 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
10. Noise
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 This chapter sets out the results of an assessment of the noise and vibration effects associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 2 Project Description.
10.1.2 Relevant terminology for this chapter is detailed in Appendix 10.A for reference.
10.2 Methodology and Approach
Planning and Guidance
10.2.1 Relevant planning and guidance that have informed the scope of the assessment are summarised below. Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context should be referred to for a more detailed overview of applicable planning policies.
National and Local Planning Policy
10.2.2 The key national guidance document, which provides guidelines on the assessment of noise, is Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011 Planning and Noise (Scottish Government, March 2011) and the accompanying PAN 1/2011: Technical Advice Note Assessment of Noise (2011). PAN 1/2011 sets out a number of mitigation measures that can be used to control the source of, or limit exposure to, noise and states that: “such measures should be proportionate and reasonable. Possible measures include work sequencing - programming and phasing construction or extraction activities to limit noise impact; use of acoustic screens around plant; limiting vehicle noise through speed control, road surfacing and driving style.”
10.2.3 Advice on the assessment of construction impacts is given as “while planning conditions can be used to limit noise from temporary construction Development Sites, it is most effectively controlled through the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Pollution and Prevention Control Act 1999 for relevant installations. Notice can be served in advance of works and Development Site conditions set to control activities”.
10.2.4 The Technical Advice Note Assessment of Noise (2011, paragraph 2.6-2.7) gives guidance on issues relevant to Noise Impact Assessments and states that: “Issues which may be relevant when considering noise in relation to a development proposal include:
Type of development and likelihood of significant noise impact; Sensitivity of location (e.g. existing land uses, Noise Management Areas, Quiet Areas); Existing noise level and predicted change in noise level; Character (tonal, impulsivity etc.), duration, the number of occurrences and time of day of noise that is likely to be generated; and Absolute level and possible dose-response relationships e.g. health effects, if robust data available. When noise impact assessment are being prepared, the recommended approach is to consider both the likely level of noise exposure at the time of the application and any increase that may reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future using the most appropriate parameters. The extent to which it is possible to mitigate the adverse effects of noise should also be considered.”
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 148 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
10.2.5 Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 (LDP) and Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 (Proposed Plan) set out the following applicable policies: LDP Policy BI1 – Business and Industrial land; Proposed Plan Policy BI1 - Business and Industrial Land; Proposed Plan Policy T5 – Noise; and Proposed Plan Supplementary Guidance - Transport and Infrastructure: Transport, Air Quality and Noise.
British Standards and other Guidance Documents
10.2.6 Relevant British Standards and other guidance documents are summarised in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1 British Standards and other Guidance
Guidance Document Summary
BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for This document provides guidance on the assessment and control of noise noise and vibration control on construction and and vibration on construction and open sites, in two separate volumes, open Development Sites along with suggestions for the derivation of guideline noise and vibration limits.
BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing This British Standard is used to rate and assess sound of an industrial industrial and commercial sound nature including but not limited to assessing sound from proposed, new, modified or additional sources of industrial sound. It contains guidance on the monitoring and assessment of industrial and commercial sound sources (including fixed installations comprising mechanical and electrical plant and equipment) affecting sensitive receptors.
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (1988) Prediction methodology for road traffic noise.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 11 Contains advice on the assessment of noise from road traffic, particularly Environmental Assessment (2011) that from new/altered roads.
Technical Consultations
10.2.7 The methodology for the survey and assessment was agreed with Mark Nicholl, Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at Aberdeen City Council. It was suggested by the EHO that operational noise should comply with the following: Residential night-time: not to exceed a level equal to the existing LA90 background sound level during the night-time period, with reference to the BS 4142:2014 assessment; Residential daytime: WHO Community Guideline values for outdoor living areas; Commercial daytime: whichever of the following provides the most protection for the nearest commercial receptors: Not to exceed the existing background sound level at the nearest noise sensitive receptor; or Achieve BS 8233:2014 internal noise criteria limits for non-domestic buildings.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 149 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Proposed Scope of Assessment
Noise Sensitive Receptors
10.2.8 Noise predictions have been undertaken for the nearest sensitive receptors (NSRs) to the Development Site which have been identified as: Local residents in areas surrounding the Development Site potentially experiencing an increase in background sound levels in external amenity areas as a result of the Proposed Development; Local residents in areas surrounding the Development Site, and along road traffic routes potentially experiencing a change in road traffic noise levels as a result of the Proposed Development; and Commercial units within the industrial park potentially experiencing an increase in ambient sound levels.
10.2.9 The nearest residential receptors to the Development Site have been identified as those on Kirkhill Place (LT1) and Wellington Road (LT2) as detailed in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2 Nearest Residential Noise Sensitive Receptors
Receptor X (Easting) (m) Y (Northing) (m)
LT1 - Kirkhill Place 395333 804404
LT2 – Wellington Road 394692 803841
10.2.10 For the purposes of this assessment the non-domestic buildings detailed in Table 10.3 have also been included as NSRs.
Table 10.3 Nearest Non-domestic Noise Sensitive Receptors
Receptor X (Easting) (m) Y (Northing) (m)
Tullos Primary School 395436 804498
Altens Nursery 394776 803666
Commercial units within industrial park 395327 803988
Road Traffic noise receptors
10.2.11 NSRs in close proximity to the Development Site with the potential to be affected by changes in road traffic noise levels are primarily located along the proposed access routes to the Development Site, including: Greenbank Road; and Wellington Road.
10.2.12 For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that dwellings located on road segments predicted to undergo an increase in total two way traffic movements greater than 25% or a decrease of more than 20% (or a substantial change in the percentage of HGV traffic) may potentially be affected by changes in road traffic noise as a result of the Proposed Development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 150 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Data Gathering and Survey Work
10.2.13 A baseline sound survey was completed by Amec Foster Wheeler at two long-term (LT) locations between 6th and 13th October 2015, as agreed with the EHO. The main purpose of the survey was to determine the existing sound environment at the nearest NSR locations to the Development Site. Measurements were made during daytime (07:00-23:00) and night-time (23:00-07:00) periods.
10.2.14 Table 10.4 provides a summary of the sound monitoring locations which are shown on Figure 10.1.
Table 10.4 Sound Monitoring Locations
Location Easting (m) Northing (m) Description Measurements
LT1 395335 804396 External amenity area of 51 Kirkhill Place, approximately Long-term 7 day 310m north of the Development Site boundary. duration
LT2 394697 803831 External amenity area of 127 Wellington Road, approximately Long-term 7 day 685m west of the Development Site boundary. duration
10.2.15 The calibration of the sound level meters was checked before and after each measurement with no significant drift in calibration recorded. Windshields were fitted to the microphones to minimise the effects of any wind induced noise.
10.2.16 Details of the monitoring instrumentation (model/serial numbers etc.) are presented in Appendix 10.C. All measurements were conducted, where possible, in accordance with BS 7445-1:2003 Description and measurement of environmental noise. Guide to quantities and procedures.
10.2.17 The weather conditions during equipment deployment on 6th October 2015 were noted to be wet with some precipitation. Wind speeds were less than 5 ms-1. The average temperature was 15°C, with approximately 100% cloud coverage. Road conditions were wet.
10.2.18 A Davis Vantage Vue meteorological station was set up at LT2 throughout the long-term surveys. Any 15 minute periods where rain occurred or an average wind speed of 5 ms-1 or greater was measured have been removed from the data set. Approximately 10% of the data set has been excluded from the calculations. Nearly all of the rain occurred during the first 2 days of the monitoring, after which conditions became drier. It is therefore considered that a sufficient set of data was measured for five consecutive days during suitable weather conditions. A chart of the recorded weather data is provided in Appendix 10.D.
Survey Uncertainty
10.2.19 BS 4142:2014 requires consideration of the uncertainty associated with measured values. Measurement uncertainty was minimised for the background sound measurement using the following steps: The measurement location was representative of the external amenity areas of the dwelling; The measurement position was located away from reflecting surfaces and leafy vegetation; The measurements were undertaken using the minimum logging period suggested in BS 4142:2014 over a duration of seven days. This provides a large number of measurements to analyse; The measurements included weekday and weekend periods; The measurements were undertaken in weather suitable conditions as described in Section 6.4 of BS 4142:2014 where possible, and any periods of unsuitable conditions were removed; The measurements were rounded to the nearest one decimal place before calculation of averages, totals etc.; and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 151 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
The instrumentation is suitable according to Section 5 of BS 4142:2014.
Methodology for the prediction of effects
Construction noise (fixed and mobile plant on Development Site)
10.2.20 As a detailed construction programme is not available for this particular Development Site, predictions of construction noise emissions levels have been undertaken based on construction information as taken from assessments for similar sites. Based on the guidance contained in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014, appropriate noise limits for construction activities can be determined based on pre-construction ambient noise levels.
10.2.21 Noise limits for construction activities have therefore been determined based on the long term monitoring data obtained in the sound surveys (see Table 10.13), and in accordance with Example method 1 – The ABC method from BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 (Annex E (informative) Significance of noise effects).
Construction traffic
10.2.22 The methodology for assessing the change in road traffic noise levels due to construction traffic is based upon the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) (DfT, 1988) and guidance stated in DMRB (DfT 2011).
10.2.23 As a general guide, although not accounting for changes in the percentage of HGV’s, a 25% increase in traffic movements would only result in a 1dB increase in noise levels. Similarly a 58% increase would be required for 2dB and 100% increase for a 3dB increase. It should be noted that a 3dB increase in noise levels is generally barely perceptible to the average human.
10.2.24 The impact of construction traffic movements passing along Wellington Road and onto Greenbank Road has been considered as part of this assessment. No construction traffic would pass along Kirkhill Place.
24 10.2.25 Two-way, 18-hour traffic flows including cumulative traffic proposals are detailed in Table 10.5. Two scenarios are considered, comparing ‘with’ and ‘without’ construction traffic and are based on information provided in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport.
Table 10.5 Construction Traffic Figures
Road Link 2018 + Cumulative 2018 + Cumulative + % Change Due to Development, 18hr Two-way Construction Traffic, 18hr Construction Traffic Flows Two-way Flows
Greenbank Road 1970 (28% HGV) 2356 (27% HGV) +16
A956 Wellington Road 20462 (22% HGV) 20655 (22% HGV) +1 (north)
A956 Wellington Road 20546 (21% HGV) 20739 (21% HGV) +1 (south)
10.2.26 Table 10.5 shows that construction would result in less than a 25% increase in traffic movements (and no increase in % HGVs) which corresponds to a less than 1dB increase in noise levels. It is therefore considered that the magnitude of change would be negligible at receptors located adjacent to the local road network, and further assessment of construction traffic is therefore not necessary.
24 Committed developments included are detailed in the Traffic chapter (Section 9.3).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 152 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Operational road traffic noise
10.2.27 The prediction methodology for assessing the change in road traffic noise levels due to the Proposed Development is based upon the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) (DfT, 1988).
10.2.28 Calculations of potential percentage change in road traffic flows were undertaken based on road traffic and receptors identified in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport. For existing roads, only segments predicted to experience an increase in total traffic volumes of greater than 25% or a decrease of more than 20% (i.e. those advised in DMRB (DfT, 2011) to experience a noise level change of approximately +/- 1 dB LA10, 18hr), or with a substantial change in percentage of HGV traffic would require to be considered in more detail. Data provided for the 2020 + cumulative development (opening year) and ‘with’ and ‘without’ development scenarios for the opening year +15 years are detailed in Table 10.6.
Table 10.6 Operational Traffic Figures
Road Link 2020 + Cumulative 2035 + Cumulative 2035 + Cumulative % Change Due to Development Development Development + EfW Development
Greenbank Road 1987 (28% HGV) 2082 (28% HGV) 2406 (28% HGV) +16
A956 Wellington Road 20631(22% HGV 21589 (22% HGV) 21669 (22% HGV) 0 (north)
A956 Wellington Road 20715(21% HGV) 21675 (21% HGV) 21919 (21% HGV) +1 (south)
10.2.29 It has been demonstrated that no road links are expected to experience an increase of 25% or decrease of 20% therefore no further assessment of road traffic noise has been included as part of this assessment.
10.2.30 All traffic data considered as part of this assessment has included committed development movements. The cumulative effects of traffic generated as a result of other committed developments in the area has therefore been considered.
Operational onsite noise
10.2.31 In order to assess the operational noise impact at the NSRs to the Development Site, a comprehensive noise model was developed to include the effects of operational sound sources upon the acoustic environment across the Development Site.
10.2.32 LimA has been widely used in noise modelling and sound mapping projects throughout the UK and Europe. LimA can implement a number of methodologies for the calculation of sound levels, including ISO 6913-2 as used in the operational sound assessments presented in this chapter.
10.2.33 The LimA noise modelling suite allows a 3-dimensional environmental model to be constructed using digital mapping and topographic data. As part of this assessment, 3-dimensional models have been constructed for different operating scenarios for the Proposed Development using data highways design and topography data. This has allowed the assessments to incorporate changes in the topography of the Development Site and its surroundings as well as changes in location.
10.2.34 The noise modelling process is complex, but in simple terms it takes into account the following data: Sound source location – based on digital base mapping and layout plans for the Proposed Development; Sound emission data – sound power levels or sound pressure levels taken from published sources, field measurements or data supplied by manufacturers; Sound source on-time – this reflects the operational hours and duration of intermittently operating sound sources;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 153 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Road traffic data – detailing road traffic statistics such as existing and forecast flows, vehicle composition and speeds; Distance between sound source and receptor – based on the scheme designs and digital mapping data; Receptor locations – based on digital mapping data; Ground contours – from digital terrain data; Proposed building heights – as detailed in Appendix 10.B; Locations and dimensions of barriers between sound source and receptor; and Ground attenuation – related to the type of ground cover between the source and the receptor.
10.2.35 LimA allows the calculation of sound levels at specific points (e.g. at selected receptors) or on a grid basis at specified intervals.
10.2.36 In order to assess the potential effects of operational noise during daytime and night-time periods, free-field sound levels were calculated at the location of the NSRs. Calculation heights of 1.5m and 4m were used to represent ground floor and first floor habitable rooms, respectively, in the model.
10.2.37 The calculation methods given in ISO 9613 Parts 1 and 2 have been used to predict the sound propagation in the model as advocated within BS 4142:2014. The calculation results are considered to be worst case as they assume downwind propagation, which in reality would not occur at all times due to changes in wind direction. Predictions assume hard ground attenuation.
10.2.38 Calculated sound levels from the model have been used to determine the specific sound level at the NSRs for use in the BS 4142:2014 assessment.
10.2.39 BS 4142:2014 is used to rate and assess sound of an industrial nature including but not limited to assessing sound from proposed, new, modified or additional sources of industrial sound. It contains guidance on the monitoring and assessment of industrial and commercial sound sources (including fixed installations comprising mechanical and electrical plant and equipment) affecting sensitive receptors.
10.2.40 The methodology detailed for determining the effects of new or existing sound sources relies on comparing the operational rating level, LAr,Tr, with the background sound level, LA90,T (i.e. the level that would be present without the Proposed Development) over a representative time period. The representative time period depends on the time of day that the sound source operates, i.e. 1 hour during the daytime and 15 minutes during the night-time. It provides guidance on the measurement of background sound, the determination of specific sound and calculation of the rating level.
10.2.41 Certain acoustic features, for example tonality/impulsivity (see further information below), can increase the significance of effect over that expected from a basic comparison between the specific sound level and the background sound level. Where such features are present at the assessment location, a character correction should be added to the specific sound level to obtain the rating level.
10.2.42 The rating level is calculated by applying a rating penalty for sound, based on a subjective or objective assessment of its characteristics, to the specific sound level. The subjective method is appropriate where a new source cannot be measured because it is only proposed at the time of assessment or where one-third octave frequency data is not available. Therefore as the new source from the Proposed Development cannot be measured at this stage, the subjective method has been implemented for this assessment.
10.2.43 A penalty should also be applied to the specific sound level if a tone, impulsive or other characteristic occurs or is expected to be present for new or modified sound sources. Further information on such penalties is provided in the following sections.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 154 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Tonality
10.2.44 For sound ranging from not tonal to prominently tonal, the Joint Nordic Method gives a correction of between +1 dB and +6 dB for tonality. Based on a subjective assessment this can be interpreted as per Table 10.7.
Table 10.7 Subjective Method – Tonality Penalties
Penalty Source Condition
+2 dB Tone which is just perceptible at the noise receptor
+4 dB Tone is clearly perceptible at the noise receptor
+6 dB Tone is highly perceptible at the noise receptor
10.2.45 Based on experience of similar developments, the detailed design mitigation strategy would enable the Proposed Development to operate under normal operating conditions where tonal noise is unlikely to be significant at the Development Site, and imperceptible at the NSRs. No tonal penalty has therefore been included as part of this assessment.
Impulsivity
10.2.46 A correction of +9 dB can be applied for sound that is highly impulsive, considering both the rapidity of the change in sound level and the overall change in sound level. Based on a subjective assessment this can be interpreted as Table 10.8.
Table 10.8 Subjective Method - Impulsivity Penalties
Penalty Source Condition
+3dB Impulsivity which is just perceptible at the noise receptor
+6 dB Impulsivity is clearly perceptible at the noise receptor
+9 dB Impulsivity is highly perceptible at the noise receptor
10.2.47 For this assessment a penalty of +6dB has been applied to tipping hall activities. As all waste tipping occurs within the building when doors are closed, this is considered to be a conservative approach.
Assessment of Impacts
10.2.48 As shown in Table 10.9 the greater the rating level is above the background sound level, LA90,T the greater the significance of impact.
Table 10.9 BS 4142:2014 Assessment Guidance
Guidelines Comment
Rating level from Proposed Development operations of around An indication of significant adverse impact, depending on the +10 dB or more above the existing LA90,T background sound level context
Rating level from Proposed Development operations of around An indication of an adverse impact, depending on the context +5 dB above the existing LA90,T background sound level
Rating level from Proposed Development operations does not An indication of a specific sound source having a low impact, exceed the existing LA90,T background sound level depending on the context
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 155 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Significance Evaluation Methodology
Overview
10.2.49 Noise and vibration can have an adverse effect on the environment, and on the quality of life enjoyed by individuals and communities. This chapter addresses the potential effects of the Proposed Development in relation to noise (and, where relevant, vibration) levels affecting existing noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Development Site.
10.2.50 The assessment considers the magnitude of potential impacts with respect to relevant national and local policy, and guidance documents (e.g. British Standards etc.). An element of professional judgement is used to set the boundaries of magnitude criteria (e.g. high/medium/low) based on the content of these documents, as well as to determine appropriate sensitivity classes for the receptors (e.g. high/medium/low). The magnitude of predicted impacts is cross-referenced with the sensitivity of the receptor to determine the potential significance of the effect.
10.2.51 The determination of significance for each effect is largely based on relevant assessment criteria for the specific noise issue being addressed, as presented in relevant British Standards and other guidance documents. However, it should be noted that these assessment criteria are not directly related to the categories of ‘Significant’ or ‘Not Significant’ that underpin the EIA Regulations.
10.2.52 The Technical Advice Note associated with PAN 1/2011 provides a procedure suitable for assessing significance in the situation where you have a new potential noisy development affecting a noise sensitive building. The assessment is based on the principles described in BS 4142:1997, which has now been superseded by BS 4142:2014. The Technical Advice Note procedure is therefore not considered to be appropriate to use as a method when determining the significance of the Proposed Development. The operational noise assessment has been carried out in accordance with the amended BS 4142:2014 methodology, and the noise level criteria agreed with the EHO at Aberdeen City Council.
10.2.53 The determination of significance for this assessment considers both the magnitude of impact (based on relevant assessment criteria) and the sensitivity of the receptor(s).
Noise sensitivity
10.2.54 UK National policy and British Standards often focus on residential properties as being sensitive to the effects of noise, although other receptors such as offices, hospitals and schools are often also cited as potentially noise-sensitive. The WHO’s Guidelines for Community Noise (WHO, 1999) introduce the concept of differentiating between these receptors in terms of their degree of sensitivity to noise effects.
10.2.55 The significance evaluation methodology developed for this assessment recognises that receptors have differing sensitivities to noise. As no receptors with concentrations of vulnerable groups of people (e.g. hospices/hospitals etc.) have been identified, dwellings are considered, for the purposes of this assessment, to be of ‘Medium’ sensitivity, as are environments requiring suitable conditions for work requiring concentration (e.g. offices, schools etc.).
Noise magnitude
10.2.56 The magnitude of impact has been based on the noise predictions that have been undertaken. However, since these predictions have been based on worst-case assumptions, it would be inappropriate to conclude that a ‘high’ magnitude of impact has arisen simply because the relevant noise limits or guideline values are predicted to be breached. The amount by which these values are predicted to be breached, along with the duration of the effect, should also be taken into account. The allocation of a magnitude rating has therefore taken this into account by applying an element of professional judgement.
10.2.57 In terms of the amount of change in noise levels, this would only potentially become significant if the change is perceptible PAN 1/2011 states that “for noise of a similar character, a change of 3
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 156 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
dB(A) is the minimum perceptible under normal conditions, and a change of 10 dB(A) corresponds roughly to halving or doubling the loudness of a sound”.
10.2.58 With respect to the total amount of noise that would be potentially significant in a given situation, determination of magnitude takes into account noise levels and limits outlined in the relevant guidance documents. There follows a description of how these documents have been used to provide a basis for the assignment of magnitude of impact.
Construction noise impact on dwellings (fixed and mobile plant on Development Site)
10.2.59 The assessment of the significance of construction noise is based on the guidance in BS 5228- 1:2009+A1:2014. In accordance with the ‘ABC Method’ presented in Annex E of BS 5228- 1:2009+A1:2014, the determination of magnitude criteria for construction phase noise effects is based upon pre-existing levels of ambient noise at the receptors.
10.2.60 The ‘ABC Method’ requires an understanding of existing ambient noise levels at nearby dwellings and indicates that where existing ambient noise levels are less than 65 dB LAeq, 12hr (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB), a noise limit of 65 dB LAeq, 12hr (0700-1900hrs Monday-Friday/0700-1300hrs Saturday) should be considered for noise levels arising from construction activities at nearby sensitive receptors.
10.2.61 Based upon the sound monitoring data obtained during the survey undertaken by Amec Foster Wheeler (see Section 10.3.2 for further details), levels of pre-existing ambient noise in residential areas adjacent to the Development Site are well below 65 dB LAeq, 12hr for all receptors, hence a limit of 65 dB LAeq, 12hr (0700-1900hrs) for construction noise would be appropriate for all residential receptors.
10.2.62 Based on the above, the magnitude of construction noise impacts at nearby dwellings as a result of construction noise would be considered ‘High’ where the total construction noise level exceeds this specified noise limit of 65 dB LAeq, 12hr and therefore ‘Significant’. For a ‘Low’ magnitude of impact, the total construction noise level would not exceed a level 5 dB(A) below this limit, i.e. would not exceed 60 dB LAeq, 12hr. A ‘Medium’ magnitude of impact would fall between these two levels, i.e. total construction noise is between 60 and 65 dB LAeq, 12hr at the receptors.
Construction noise impact on commercial uses (fixed and mobile plant on Development Site)
10.2.63 BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 states that “for non-residential buildings of which the occupants are likely to be particularly sensitive to noise (these include commercial and educational establishment, hospitals and clinics will be subject to individual consideration by the developer or promotor, upon application by the affected party.” As such there is no set criteria given in the British Standard for commercial uses. For the purposes of this assessment, as commercial uses are typically considered to be less noise sensitive than dwellings, threshold values for the nearest commercial uses to the Development Site have therefore been set as 5 dB(A) higher than those set for dwellings.
10.2.64 Based on the above, the magnitude of construction noise impacts at nearby commercial operations would be considered ‘High’ where the total construction noise level exceeds this specified noise limit of 70 dB LAeq, 12hr and therefore ‘Significant’. For a ‘Low’ magnitude, the total construction noise level would not exceed a level 5 dB(A) below this limit, i.e. would not exceed 65 dB LAeq, 12hr. A ‘Medium’ magnitude of impact would fall between these two levels, i.e. total construction noise is between 65 and 70 dB LAeq, 12hr at the receptors.
Operational noise impact on dwellings (fixed and mobile plant on Development Site)
10.2.65 In accordance with the assessment methodology presented in BS 4142:2014, the determination of magnitude criteria for the effects of fixed and mobile plant sound are based on the categories described in the British Standard, i.e. a ‘Low’ magnitude results where the Rating Level does not exceed the existing Background Sound level, a ‘Medium’ magnitude results where the Rating Level is 5 dB(A) or lower above the Background Sound, and a ‘High’ magnitude results where the Rating Level is more than 5 dB(A) or more above the Background Sound level.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 157 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Operational noise impact on educational uses
10.2.66 Building Bulletin 93 (BB93) specifies acceptable levels of noise for internal and outdoor teaching areas e.g. playing fields. Although this guidance is meant to be used as design advice for new schools rather than the noise impact on existing schools, it has been used here as a point of reference when assessing the noise impact on the nearest educational uses to the Development Site. BB93 indicates that noise levels in external teaching areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq, 30mins.
Operational noise impact on commercial uses
10.2.67 BS 8233:2014 provides internal noise level criteria for a range of typical employment spaces. A summary of uses referred to in this assessment are detailed in Table 10.10.
Table 10.10 BS 8233:2014 Internal noise level criteria (non-domestic uses)
Typical Situation Lower Design Range LAeq, T Upper Design Range LAeq, T dB dB
Reasonable conditions for Open plan office 45 50 study and work requiring concentration
Staff/meeting room, training 35 45 room
10.2.68 Although this guidance is meant to be used as design advice for new offices rather than for assessing the noise impact on existing offices, this has been referred to as part of this assessment as the EHO has requested that BS 8233:2014 internal noise criteria limits should be achieved for the nearest non-domestic buildings to the Development Site.
Summary
10.2.69 Table 10.11 provides a summary of the noise magnitude of impact criteria used in this assessment.
Table 10.11 Summary of Noise Magnitude Criteria
Noise Issue Period Low Medium High
Construction phase
Increase in ambient noise Construction noise level Construction noise level due to construction (fixed Construction noise level Daytime (0700- does not exceed 60 dB does not exceed 65 dB and mobile plant on exceeds 65 dB L 1900) L (0700-1900hrs). L r (0700- Aeq, 12hr Development Site), affecting Aeq, 12hr Aeq, 12h (0700-1900hrs). 1900hrs). existing residential receptors
Increase in ambient noise due to construction (fixed Construction noise level Construction noise level Construction noise level and mobile plant on Daytime (0700- does not exceed 65 dB does not exceed 70 dB exceeds 70 dB L Development Site), affecting 1900) L (0700-1900hrs). L r (0700- Aeq, 12hr Aeq, 12hr Aeq, 12h (0700-1900hrs). existing commercial 1900hrs). receptors
Operational phase
Operational sound All Periods Industrial sound rating Industrial sound rating Industrial sound rating emissions from the levels are equal to or levels are 5 dB or less levels are greater than Proposed Development below existing above existing 5 dB above existing affecting residential background sound background sound background sound receptors in the vicinity of levels. levels. levels. the Development Site
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 158 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Noise Issue Period Low Medium High
Operational sound Daytime External noise levels External noise levels External noise levels do emissions from the (0700-2300) are 5 dB or more below comply with the not comply with the Proposed Development the requirements of requirements of BB93 requirements of BB93 affecting nearest educational BB93 in outdoor in outdoor teaching in outdoor teaching uses teaching spaces. spaces. spaces.
Operational sound Daytime Compliance with lower Compliance with upper Non-compliance with emissions from the (0700-2300) BS 8233:2014 criteria BS 8233:2014 criteria BS 8233:2014 criteria Proposed Development for internal noise levels for internal noise levels for internal noise levels operations affecting nearest in critical areas, e.g. 35 in critical areas, e.g. 40 in critical areas. commercial units dB LAeq, T for meeting dB LAeq, T for meeting rooms/executive rooms/executive offices. offices.
Significance evaluation
10.2.70 As stated previously, the determination of noise effect significance is informed by the relationship between the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of impact as a result of the Proposed Development. Table 10.12 presents a matrix which shows the interaction between sensitivity and magnitude, and how this has been used to determine the significance of noise effects.
Table 10.12 Noise Effects Significance Matrix
Magnitude Sensitivity
High Medium Low
High Significant Significant Not Significant
Medium Significant Not Significant Not Significant
Low Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
Final scope of the assessment
10.2.71 Assessment of each of the following potential effects has led to the conclusion that they either could potentially be significant, or there is insufficient information to conclude that they are unlikely to be significant, and hence require further assessment:
Potential effects on NSRs as a result of noise from construction activity; and Potential effects on NSRs as a result of operational activity associated with Proposed Development.
10.2.72 Assessment of each of the following potential effects has led to the conclusion that they are not likely to be significant and hence do not require further detailed assessment: Potential effects on dwellings as a result of vibration from construction activity as it is unlikely that significant vibration emitting plant would be used in close proximity to receptors. This can be confirmed once construction details have been finalised; Potential effects on dwellings as a result of changes in levels of road traffic noise during construction and operational stages; and Potential effects on dwellings as a result of operational vibration as no sources of significant vibration are expected as part of the Proposed Development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 159 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
10.3 Baseline Information
10.3.1 The baseline sound environment is of an industrial nature. The Development Site is located within an industrial estate adjacent to a fish processing plant and a waste transfer station. The surrounding area consists of industrial storage and distribution. Rail noise is also a contributor the existing baseline as a railway line runs approximately 260m north of the Development Site, with Tullos School and residential dwellings beyond. Altens Nursery lies approximately 550m to the west of the Development Site, within the industrial estate.
Baseline monitoring results
10.3.2 A summary of the baseline sound monitoring results is presented in Table 10.13 and the full results are presented graphically in Appendix 10.D for the long-term data. The results are reported for the different time periods required by the construction, and operational assessments (results are rounded to the nearest 1 dB).
Table 10.13 Summary of Baseline Sound Monitoring Results
Location Period Date Time LAeq T (dB) Average LA90 Mode LA90 T LAmax,T (dB) (hh:mm) T (dB) (dB)
LT1 Daytime 06/10/15 – 07:00-23:00 48 41 39 91 13/10/15
Night-time 06/10/15 – 23:00-07:00 39 34 34 68 13/10/15
Daytime 06/10/15 – 07:00-19:00 49 41 40 90 Construction 13/10/15 Mon- Hours Fri/07:00- 13:00 Sat
LT2 Daytime 06/10/15 – 07:00-23:00 54 50 53 88 13/10/15
Night-time 06/10/15 – 23:00-07:00 47 39 37 74 13/10/15
Daytime 06/10/15 – 07:00-19:00 56 51 53 88 Construction 13/10/15 Mon- Hours Fri/07:00- 13:00 Sat
Relevant Measured Sound Levels
10.3.3 As the Proposed Development would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it is necessary to look at the background sound level during each relevant time period. The worst case operating scenarios during the most noise sensitive time periods have been considered. A summary of the measured background sound levels for use in this assessment are shown in Table 10.14 and Table 10.15. The background sound levels used in the BS 4142:2014 assessment are shaded grey in these tables (the lowest value when comparing the average and modal levels has been selected as a worst case assessment).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 160 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 10.14 Relevant Background Measured Sound Levels at LT1
Time Period Monday-Friday Saturday Sunday
07:00-23:00 Average 41 36 36 LA90, 15min* (dB)
07:00 – 23:00 Mode 40 36 36 LA90, 15min (dB)
23:00 – 07:00 Average 35 30 35 LA90, 15min* (dB)
23:00 – 07:00 Mode 33 30 34 LA90, 15min (dB)
* Average LA90,15min is the arithmetic average of the measured LA90,15min
Table 10.15 Relevant Background Measured Sound Levels at LT2
Time Period Monday-Friday Saturday Sunday
07:00-23:00 Average 50 45 45 LA90, 15min*(dB)
07:00 – 23:00 Mode 53 47 47 LA90, 15min(dB)
23:00 – 07:00 Average 40 36 40 LA90, 15min* (dB)
23:00 – 07:00 Mode 39 36 39 LA90, 15min (dB)
* Average LA90,15min is the arithmetic average of the measured LA90,15min
10.3.4 In summary, the acoustic environment at LT1 – 51 Kirkhill Place consisted of road traffic noise from local roads and rail movements. Intermittent industrial sound was audible from the industrial park to the south including HGV movements and reversing alarms, loading/unloading. The acoustic environment at LT2 – 127 Wellington Road was dominated by road traffic noise from Wellington Road, with occasional HGV movements from roads entering/exiting the industrial estate being audible.
Information Gaps
10.3.5 Proposed construction plant details specific to the Development Site are not yet available therefore assessment has been based upon details from assessments completed for similar types of sites.
10.3.6 No specific data is available for the proposed operational plant at this stage therefore the assessment has been based upon details from assessments completed for similar types of sites.
10.4 Embedded Environmental Mitigation Measures
Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects
Construction
10.4.1 Mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Development are set out in Table 10.16.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 161 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 10.16 Rationale for Incorporation of Mitigation Measures
Potential receptors Potential changes and Incorporated measure effects
Dwellings in the vicinity of Disturbance from noise from The successful construction contractor for the scheme would be proposed construction construction plant, traffic and required to submit a noise management plan. Such a noise areas activities during construction management plan would include the following recommendations which represent good practice in minimising noise disturbance: The use of plant fitted with effective silencers and noise insulation; The use of SMART reversing alarms where practicable to reduce the noise generated by reversing bleepers on vehicles; All plant to be regularly serviced and maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions - plant that is intermittently used should be shut down in the intervening periods between work or throttled down to a minimum; Appointment of a contact to whom complaints/queries about construction activity can be directed - any complaints should be investigated and action taken where appropriate; All construction activity to be undertaken in accordance with good practice as described in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014; Local residents should be kept informed of general construction activities, including working hours; Construction works would be limited to 07:00-19:00hrs (Mon- Fri) and 07:00-13:00 on Saturdays ;
A noise limit of 65 dB LAeq, 12hr would be implemented; There should be adequate planning to ensure that lengthy operations can be completed within the agreed working hours; All reasonable steps should be taken to limit the number of vehicles waiting to deliver materials to the Development Site; Construction at the Development Site boundary (which would be closest to nearby residential receptors), should be undertaken as efficiently and quickly as reasonably possible; and With the exception of generators, pumps and electric plant, all plant and equipment should be shut down when not in use.
Operational The following mitigation measures are proposed for the operational phase:
No external storage is proposed in order to minimise external onsite activities. It is proposed that all building would be fitted with automatically closing doors which would only open briefly to allow a vehicle or personnel to enter/leave the building. For the purposes of this assessment it has therefore been assumed that all roller shutter doors are closed for all buildings. It is proposed that all operational activities would take place within buildings. It is proposed for the air cooled condensers to be low noise fans. Thermal/acoustic insulation would be applied to boiler and flue gas treatment plant It has been assumed that the material used for the walls and roof of all rooms/halls would be double cladded, providing a minimum sound reduction of Rw 35 (dB)
Additional measures incorporated to mitigate possible other effects
10.4.2 Piling methods have been assumed to be continuous flight auger (CFA) piling in order to minimise noise effects at the NSRs.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 162 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
10.5 Impact Assessment
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction phase
10.5.1 It is inevitable with any development that there would be some disturbance caused to nearby receptors during the clearance and construction phases. However, disruption due to construction is temporary, limited to the Development Site and is of medium-term duration. It is assumed that construction would take place over a 30 month period.
10.5.2 The predictions have followed the methodology contained within BS 5228:2009+A1:2014-1 and are in terms of the LAeq,T over the core working day, which is 07:00 to 19:00 hours Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. Assumptions regarding separation distances between noise sources and receptors are considered to represent an average, reasonable scenario.
10.5.3 Table 10.17 sets out a representative plant list for the construction of the Proposed Development. The table presents the typical plant type, number and assumed utilisation (percentage ‘on-time’) used in the prediction of noise levels during the key construction activities. The sound power levels for plant have been sourced from assessments completed for similar developments.
Table 10.17 Assumed Construction Plant Details
Activity Plant Type Sound Power Level No. Plant Assumed % ‘on-time’ (dB)
Earth works and Dozer 108 1 100 excavation
Excavator/loader 108 1 100
Dump Truck 107 1 100
8 Wheel Tipper 107 1 100
Piling Piling Rig CFA) 108 1 100
Lorry 103 1 20
General Development Excavator 104 1 100 Site activities
HGV 99 1 20
Dumper 104 1 100
Telehandler 105 1 100
Compressor 95 1 100
Generator 103 1 100
Infrastructure Asphalt Melter 103 1 100 Construction
Asphalt Spreader 96 1 100
Road Roller 102 1 100
Lorry 103 1 100
Poker Vibrator 106 1 100
Concrete Pump 103 1 100
Compressor 95 1 100
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 163 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Activity Plant Type Sound Power Level No. Plant Assumed % ‘on-time’ (dB)
Building Construction Excavator 106 1 100
Steelwork Erection 108 1 100
Concrete Pump 103 1 100
Concrete Vibrators 106 1 100
HGV 103 1 50
Cutting/Grinding 107 1 100
Hydraulic Pump 106 1 100
10.5.4 Noise predictions have been undertaken for the nearest residential receptors as displayed in Table 10.18 and Table 10.19.
Table 10.18 Predicted Construction Noise Levels for dwellings on Kirkhill Place
Activity Average Separation Distance** (m) Average Construction Noise Level, LAeq, 1hr (dB)
Earth works and excavation 380 48
Piling 380 43
General Development Site activities 380 45
Infrastructure Construction 380 46
Building Construction 380 49
Total* = 52 *Total noise level assuming all operations occur simultaneously with the exception of earth works and excavation **Assuming plant located in approximately centre of Development Site
Table 10.19 Predicted Construction Noise Levels for dwellings on Wellington Road
Activity Average Separation Distance** (m) Average Construction Noise Level, LAeq, 1hr (dB)
Earth works and excavation 730 41
Piling 730 36
General Development Site activities 730 38
Infrastructure Construction 730 39
Building Construction 730 42
Total* = 45 *Total noise level assuming all operations occur simultaneously with the exception of earth works and excavation **Assuming plant located in approximately centre of Development Site
10.5.5 It has been demonstrated that average construction noise levels fall below the 65 dB LAeq,T criterion adopted for this assessment at LT1 and LT2.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 164 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
10.5.6 The sensitivity of the receptors is categorised as ‘medium’ and the magnitude of impact is categorised as ‘low’ at LT1 and LT2. Accordingly the predicted effect is ‘not significant’ in accordance with the significance matrix as detailed in Table 10.12.
10.5.7 Construction noise predictions have also been undertaken for the nearest commercial units as indicated in Table 10.20.
Table 10.20 Predicted Construction Noise Levels for Nearest Commercial Units
Activity Average Separation Distance (m) Average Construction Noise Level, LAeq, 1hr (dB)
Earth works and excavation 100 63
Piling 100 57
General Development Site activities 100 59
Infrastructure Construction 100 60
Building Construction 100 63
Total* = 66 *Total noise level assuming all operations occur simultaneously with the exception of earth works and excavation
10.5.8 As detailed in Table 10.20, average construction noise levels at the nearest commercial units to the Development Site are predicted to be in the region of 66 dB(A).
10.5.9 The sensitivity of the receptors is categorised as ‘medium’ and the magnitude of impact is categorised as ‘medium’ at the nearest commercial units. Accordingly the predicted effect is ‘not significant’ in accordance with the significance matrix as detailed in Table 10.12.
10.5.10 The predicted construction noise has not been assessed specifically at Altens Nursery or Tullos School as they are not located along roads proposed to be used by construction traffic and are at a greater separation distance than the nearest commercial units. The predicted noise level would therefore be of a considerably lower level than that at the commercial units.
10.5.11 Vibration levels caused by plant would not be expected to be of an intolerable level for receptors; however the use of hydraulic piling methods would be recommended where necessary in order to minimise any potential effect.
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational phase
10.5.12 Detailed specifications of proposed plant have not been provided at this stage. Sound power levels for each proposed space or individual plant item (as detailed in Appendix 10.B) have been sourced from noise assessments for similar developments. The sound power level used to represent HGV movements has been sourced from BS 5228:2009+A1:2014. It has been assumed that the material used for the walls and roof of all rooms/halls would provide a minimum sound reduction of Rw 35 (dB). Proposed room dimensions were used to calculate the sound break-out for each building façade including any proposed vents/louvres (detailed in Appendix 10.B). These levels were then used to calibrate each façade in the noise model. Further details on assumptions made in the model are shown in Appendix 10.B.
10.5.13 The noise model has been used to calculate the specific sound level at the NSRs for both daytime and night-time periods. Calculations take into account any sound screening/reflection provided by intervening buildings between the Development Site and NSRs.
10.5.14 A full summary of the predicted sound levels for each NSR is detailed in Appendix 10.E (rounded to the nearest 1dB). Only sources which are predicted to produce sound levels of a magnitude high enough to contribute to the overall specific sound level at the NSR have been included. In order to present a robust assessment, a penalty of 6dB for impulsivity has been added to sources
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 165 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
relating to tipping activities within the tipping hall. This corresponds to activities being ‘clearly audible’ at the NSRs in accordance with BS 4142:2014 (see Table 10.8). The applied penalties are also detailed in Appendix 10.E, however sound produced by the tipping hall is of a very low level therefore the addition of penalties has made no change to the sound rating level. The rating level has been calculated as summarised in Table 10.21.
Table 10.21 Predicted Sound Levels
Location Period Specific Level (dBA) Rating Level (dBA)
LT1 Daytime 34 34
Night-time 30 30
LT2 Daytime 37 37
Night-time 33 33
10.5.15 As shown in Table 10.9, the greater the rating level is above the background sound level, LA90,T the greater the significance of impact. The background sound levels have been determined by comparing the mean and mode of the 15 minute measurements for each operational scenario period. Where these are different the lower of the two values has been used as a worst case assessment. The adopted background sound levels based on the sound survey are given Table 10.14 and Table 10.15.
10.5.16 Table 10.22 provides the assessment of sound from the Proposed Development during daytime and night-time periods for the NSRs. The background sound levels for Saturday have been used as a worst case as these were the lowest measured.
Table 10.22 BS 4142:2014 Assessment
Scenario LT1 - Daytime LT1 - Night-time LT2 - Daytime LT2 - Night-time
Rating level (LAr,1h dB) 34 30 37 33
Background sound 36 30 45 36 level (LA90,15 min dB)
Excess of rating over -2 0 -8 -3 background sound level (dB)
Assessment indicates Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact
10.5.17 As shown in Table 10.22, the assessment has determined that the rating level is predicted to be at most equal to the existing background sound level for all operating scenarios. This meets the EHO’s request that the rating level should not exceed the existing background sound level during the night-time. Predicted levels are also below the WHO guideline value of 55 dB LAeq, T for external amenity areas which was requested by the EHO.
10.5.18 The sensitivity of the receptors is categorised as ‘medium’ and the magnitude of impact is categorised as ‘low’ at the NSRs. Accordingly the predicted effect is ‘not significant’ in accordance with the significance matrix as detailed in Table 10.12.
Non-domestic Receptors
10.5.19 The predicted daytime sound levels (rounded to the nearest 1dB) at the nearest non-domestic receptor locations are detailed in Table 10.23.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 166 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 10.23 Predicted Sound Levels at Non-domestic Receptors
Location Predicted Sound Level LAeq, T(dB)
Tullos School 41
Altens Nursery 33
Nearest Commercial Units 60
10.5.20 BB93 indicates that sound levels in external teaching areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq, 30mins, and at least some areas should be provided where noise levels do not exceed 50 dB LAeq, 30mins.
10.5.21 Based on the predicted daytime sound levels at 1.5m height, external noise levels at Tullos School are not likely to exceed 41 dB LAeq,T and are therefore below the BB93 recommended levels. In the absence of any specific criteria for nurseries, predicted levels at Altens Nursery have been compared to that for external teaching areas for schools. Predicted levels at Altens Nursery are 33 dB LAeq,T and therefore below the BB93 recommended sound levels.
10.5.22 The predicted daytime external sound level at the nearest commercial unit to the Development Site is 60 dB LAeq, T. BS 8233:2014 recommends internal noise levels should not exceed 45 dB LAeq,T for staff/meeting/training rooms or 50 dB LAeq, T for an open plan office. According to BS 8233:2014, sound insulation would achieve ~15 dB if partially open windows were relied upon for background ventilation. Assuming this is the case for the nearest commercial units, the recommended internal noise criteria levels would be achieved based on the predicted sound level.
10.5.23 The sensitivity of the receptors is categorised as ‘medium’ and the magnitude of impact is categorised as ‘medium’ at the nearest commercial units. Accordingly the predicted effect is ‘not significant’ in accordance with the significance matrix as detailed in Table 10.12.
10.6 Cumulative Effects
10.6.1 Existing cumulative effects have been considered as part of the baseline. No proposed development which are likely to influence the noise environment of the Proposed Development have been identified.
10.7 Additional Mitigation
10.7.1 In order to provide further mitigation during the construction phase, solid hoarding is recommended to be erected around the Development Site boundary (of minimum 2m height) particularly adjacent to the closest commercial premises, this would aid in providing security for the Development Site as well as noise screening.
10.8 Summary of Predicted Effects
10.8.1 In accordance with the methodology described in Section 10.2, Table 10.24 summarises the potential effects of the Proposed Development and assesses their significance.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 167 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 10.24 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance
Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance
Level Rationale
Construction Phase
Increase in ambient Possible Medium Low Not Construction programme noise due to Significant undertaken in accordance construction (fixed with best practice guidelines / and mobile plant), registration with Considerate affecting nearest Constructors Scheme, etc. to dwellings meet BS 5228- 1:2009+A1:2014 emissions levels, i.e. total construction noise not to exceed 65dB LAeq, 12hr at nearest dwellings.
Increase in ambient Likely Medium Medium Not Construction programme noise due to Significant undertaken in accordance construction (fixed with best practice guidelines / and mobile plant), registration with Considerate affecting nearest Constructors Scheme, etc. to commercial units meet BS 5228- 1:2009+A1:2014 emissions levels, i.e. total construction noise not to exceed 70dB LAeq, 12hr at nearest commercial units.
Operational Phase
Proposed Industrial Unlikely Medium Low Not Low impact predicted in sound emissions Significant accordance with BS affecting nearest 4142:2014. The predicted dwellings sound rating level does not exceed the existing background sound level during the daytime or night- time. Predicted levels are also below the WHO guideline value of 55 dB LAeq, T for external amenity areas.
Proposed Industrial Unlikely Medium Low Not Based on the modelling sound emissions Significant results, sound levels in affecting nearest outdoor teaching areas would educational uses be compliant with BB93 recommendations.
Proposed Industrial Possible Medium Low Not Recommended BS sound emissions Significant 8233:2014 internal noise affecting nearest criteria likely to be achieved commercial units with an open window based on the modelling results
Key: Probability Value* Magnitude Significance
Certain High High Significant
Likely Medium Medium Not Significant
Possible Low Low
Unlikely None
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 168 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
10.9 Implementation of Mitigation Measures
10.9.1 Table 10.25 details the recommended mitigation measures, and the responsibilities for ensuring that the compliance mechanisms are incorporated in the final design, construction phase and during the lifetime of the Proposed Development.
Table 10.25 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals
Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism
Construction phase
Noise management and control measures, as Construction Contractor Planning condition and control listed in Section 10.4, including limitations to hours measures incorporated into the of operation and erection of Development Site Construction Environmental boundary hoardings etc. Management Plan (CEMP) Noise control measures to achieve noise emission levels as follows: Enrolment in Considerate Contractors Scheme. Construction noise not to exceed 65dB LAeq, 12hr (07:00-19:00) at the nearest dwellings
Construction noise not to exceed 70dB LAeq, 12hr (07:00-19:00) at the nearest commercial units
Operational phase
Noise control measures to achieve appropriate Development Site Operator Planning consent noise noise emission levels at nearest noise sensitive condition(s) and possible receptor locations including, e.g. automatically permitting consent noise closing roller shutter doors conditions
Noise management measures Development Site Operator Noise management plan for the Development Site including details of noise mitigation included in the Proposed Development and potential development of a noise monitoring scheme
10.10 Technical References
Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan.
Great Britain Parliament (1974) Control of Pollution Act, HMSO London. British Standards Institute (2003). BS 7445-1:2003 Description and measurement of environmental noise – Part 1: Guide to quantities and procedures. British Standards Institute (2014). BS 5228:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. British Standards Institute (2014). BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. British Standards Institute (2014). Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings. Building Bulletin 93 ‘Acoustic design of schools performance standards’ (2015). Department for Transport (1988). Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. HMSO, London. Department of Transport (2011). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 11 Environmental Assessment Part 7 Noise and Vibration (revision 1). HMSO, London.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 169 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
International Standards Organisation (1993). ISO 6913-2 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors’ (1993). Scottish Government (2011). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011: Planning and Noise. Scottish Government (2011). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011: Planning and Noise: Technical Advice Note Assessment of Noise (2011). World Health Organisation (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 170 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 171 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11. Air Quality
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 This chapter assesses the potential air quality effects associated with the Proposed Development described in Chapter 2 Project Description. The air quality assessment considers potential effects on human and ecological receptors due to combustion product emissions, in addition to evaluating potential effects on public amenity from emissions of dust and odour during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. The approach adopted for the assessment has been to: Evaluate existing environmental and meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the Development Site in order to define current baseline air quality conditions in the area and those that would prevail in the future in the absence of development; Quantitatively assess, by means of predictive dispersion modelling, the effects upon ambient air quality of point source combustion product emissions to atmosphere from the Proposed Development during normal and abnormal operation; Undertake a quantitative assessment using predictive dispersion modelling of potential odour emissions from the plant and their impact on public amenity during abnormal operation;
Undertake an assessment of fugitive emissions of dust and fine particulate matter associated with construction phase of the Proposed Development using the methodology developed by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM, 2014a); and Propose mitigation measures to minimise potential effects of the Proposed Development on local air quality.
11.2 Methodology and Approach
Relevant Terminology
11.2.1 There are a number of key terms that are referred to in this chapter and for ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows:
Air Quality Standards: Concentration based metrics for air pollutants in ambient air, set in UK regulations by statute, that are legally required to be complied with by specified dates where people are normally present. They are enforced either as a maximum concentration not be exceeded, or as a permitted number of exceedences of a specified concentration over the period of a calendar year. Ambient Air Quality: The condition of the air in the surrounding outdoors environment, excluding work places. Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling: A computer-based mathematical modelling procedure for estimating the potential effects of pollution sources on air quality. Dispersion modelling simulates atmospheric processes to estimate the likely pollutant concentrations arising at a particular geographical location from a site or activity. Background Air Quality: The concentration of atmospheric pollutants that would prevail if no local sources of air pollution, such as local road traffic and industrial sources, were present. Generally defined as being locations at least 50m away from major sources of pollution or at least 30m from a very busy road (Defra, 2009). Baseline Air Quality: The likely air quality prevailing in the future without the changes due to the Proposed Development. This includes the contribution of existing local roads and point sources in addition to Background Air Quality.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 172 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Diffusion Tubes: Diffusion tubes are used to monitor long term (annual mean) pollutant concentrations in ambient air; they are most frequently used in the monitoring of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air. Dust: Although there is no universally recognised definition of dust, it is usually considered to comprise particles with diameters ranging from 1 to 75 µm (millionths of a metre or thousandths of a millimetre). Dust Deposition: Standard documentation often refers to dust deposition in terms of a mass collected over a given area over a time period, and this is measured in mg m-2 day-1 (milligrams per square metre per day) over the period of a calendar month. Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive emissions refer to those emissions that do not occur from a stationary, finite point, such as a stack/chimney. In the context of this development, examples of fugitive emission sources would include wind blow across bare ground or stockpiles that raises and disperses dust.
Particulate Matter: These are some of the smallest particles of dust, which comprise of PM10 (< 10 µm in diameter) and PM2.5 (< 2.5 µm in diameter).
Legislation, Policies and Guidance
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)
11.2.2 Directive 2010/75/EU, the Industrial Emissions Directive, or IED, requires the Competent Authorities in European Union member states to control and reduce the impact of certain industrial emissions on the environment. Operators of activities listed in Annex I of the IED are required to apply for a permit to operate their installation to the relevant Competent Authority (the ‘Regulator’). Regulators must set conditions in this permit so as to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole, based on the use of the best available techniques (BAT).
11.2.3 Specific permit considerations for EfW facilities are detailed in Chapter IV and Annex VI of the IED. Annex VI sets emission limit values (ELVs) and monitoring requirements for point source (stack) emissions which must be met during normal plant operation, as shown in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1 IED Emission Limit Values for EfW Facilities
Substance Parameters Monitoring Units ½ Hour average for Average of ½ Periodic Samples Frequency 100% compliance or hour averages Requirements ½ hour average for over a 24 hr/day 97% compliance for 100% compliance
Particulate mgm-3 30 (10) 10 n/a CEM* and biannual Matter spot
VOCs as TOC mgm-3 20 (20) 10 n/a CEM and biannual spot
HCl mgm-3 60 (10) 10 n/a CEM and biannual spot
HF mgm-3 4 (2) (or n/a) 1 (or n/a) n/a (or 4) CEM and biannual spot
CO mgm-3 100 (150 for 95% of 10 50 (97% over a n/a CEM and biannual spot min averages) year)
-3 SO2 mgm 200 (50) 50 n/a CEM and biannual spot
-3 NOx (as NO2) mgm 400 (200) 200 n/a CEM and biannual spot
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 173 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Substance Parameters Monitoring Units ½ Hour average for Average of ½ Periodic Samples Frequency 100% compliance or hour averages Requirements ½ hour average for over a 24 hr/day 97% compliance for 100% compliance
Cadmium and mgm-3 n/a n/a 0.05 6 monthly sampling – Thallium and average value over their compounds sample period ½ - 8hrs
Mercury and its mgm-3 n/a n/a 0.05 6 monthly sampling – compounds average value over sample period ½ - 8hrs
Sb, As, Pb, Cr, mgm-3 n/a n/a 0.5 6 monthly sampling – Co, Cu, Mn, Ni average value over and V and their sample period ½ - 8hrs compounds
Dioxins and ng I-TEQ m3 n/a n/a 0.1 6 monthly sampling – furans average value over sample period ½ - 8hrs Notes: *CEM = Continuous Emissions Monitoring All concentrations expressed at reference conditions of 273l, 101.3kPa,11% O2 and on a dry gas basis.
11.2.4 Directive 2010/75/EU has been transposed in to Scottish legislation through the Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (PPC Regulations) with SEPA being the appropriate regulating authority (Scottish Statutory Instruments, 2012).
Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe
11.2.5 Directive 2008/50/EC (the ‘Directive’), which came into force in June 2008, consolidates existing EU-wide air quality legislation (with the exception of Directive 2004/107/EC) and provides a new regulatory framework for PM2.5 (Official Journal of the European Union, 2008).
11.2.6 The Directive sets limits, or target levels, for selected pollutants that are to be achieved by specific dates and details procedures EU Member States should take in assessing ambient air quality. The limit and target levels relate to concentrations in ambient air. At Article 2(1), the Directive defines ambient air as: “…outdoor air in the troposphere, excluding workplaces as defined by Directive 89/654/EEC where provisions concerning health and safety at work apply and to which members of the public do not have regular access.”
11.2.7 In accordance with Article 2(1), Annex III, Part A, paragraph 2 details locations where compliance with the limit values does not need to be assessed: “Compliance with the limit values directed at the protection of human health shall not be assessed at the following locations: a) Any locations situated within areas where members of the public do not have access and there is no fixed habitation; b) In accordance with Article 2(1), on factory premises or at industrial installations to which all relevant provisions concerning health and safety at work apply; and c) On the carriageway of roads; and on the central reservation of roads except where there is normally pedestrian access to the central reservation.”
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 174 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
The Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010
11.2.8 The Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (the ‘Regulations’) came into force on the 11th June 2010 and transpose Directive 2008/50/EC into UK legislation (HMSO, 2010). The Directive’s limit values are transposed into the Regulations as ‘Air Quality Standards’ (AQS) with attainment dates in line with the Directive.
11.2.9 These standards are legally binding concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere which can broadly be taken to achieve a certain level of environmental quality. The standards are based on the assessment of the effects of each pollutant on human health including the effects of sensitive groups or on ecosystems. The Regulations define ambient air similarly to Directive 2008/50/EC as outlined above.
The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
11.2.10 The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland provides a framework for improving air quality at a national and local level and supersedes the previous strategy published in 2000 (HMSO, 2007).
11.2.11 Central to the Air Quality Strategy are health-based criteria for certain air pollutants; these criteria are based on medical and scientific reports on how and at what concentration each pollutant affects human health (Table 11.2). The objectives derived from these criteria are policy targets often expressed as a maximum ambient concentration not to be exceeded, without exception or with a permitted number of exceedences, within a specified timescale. At paragraph 22 of the Air Quality Strategy, the point is made that the objectives are: “…a statement of policy intentions or policy targets. As such, there is no legal requirement to meet these objectives except where they mirror any equivalent legally binding limit values…”
11.2.12 The Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), based on a selection of the objectives in the Air Quality Strategy, were incorporated into Scottish legislation through the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000, as amended. Paragraph 4(2) of The Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 states: “The achievement or likely achievement of an air quality objective prescribed by paragraph (1) shall be determined by reference to the quality of air at locations – (a) which are situated outside of buildings or other natural or man-made structures above or below ground; and (b) where members of the public are regularly present
11.2.13 Consequently, compliance with the AQOs should focus on areas where members of the general public are present over the entire duration of the concentration averaging period specific to the relevant objective.
11.2.14 The Scottish Government has proposed a further draft amendment to the Air Quality (Scotland) -3 Regulations 2000 which if enacted would introduce a lower PM2.5 AQO of 10 µg m to be achieved by 31st December 2020, coming in to force on the 1st April 2016 (Draft Scottish SI, 2016).
Other Guideline Values
11.2.15 In the absence of statutory standards for the other prescribed substances that may be found in the emissions, there are several sources of applicable air quality guidelines.
Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, the World Health Organisation (WHO)
11.2.16 The aim of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe (WHO, 2005) is to provide a basis for protecting public health from adverse effects of air pollutants and to eliminate or reduce exposure to those pollutants that are known or likely to be hazardous to human health or well-being. These guidelines are intended to provide guidance and information to international, national and local authorities making risk management decisions, particularly in setting air quality standards.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 175 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs)
11.2.17 SEPA’s Horizontal Guidance Note H1 (SEPA, 2003) provides methods for quantifying the environmental impacts of emissions to all media to support permit applications made under the PPC Regulations (2012). The H1 guidance contains long and short-term Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) for releases to air derived from a number of published UK and international sources. For some of the pollutants considered in this study, these EALs are equivalent to the AQS and AQOs.
11.2.18 Table 11.2 details the AQOs and EALs that are relevant to this assessment.
Table 11.2 Air Quality Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels
Value Pollutant AQO/EAL Averaging Period (µg m-3)
AQO Annual mean 40
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 1-hour mean, not more than 18 exceedences a AQO 200 year (equivalent of 99.79 Percentile)
AQO Annual mean 30 Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) - Ecological Receptors EAL Daily mean 75
Carbon monoxide (CO) AQO Rolling 8-hour mean 10,000
AQO Annual mean 18
PM10 24-hour mean, not more than 7 exceedences per AQO 50 year (98.08 percentile)
PM2.5 AQO Annual mean (draft legislation) 10
1-hour mean not to be exceeded more than 24 AQO 350 times a year (equivalent to 99.73 percentile)
Sulphur dioxide (SO ) – Human 24-hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 3 2 AQO 125 Receptors times a year (equivalent to 99.18 percentile)
15-min mean, not to be exceeded more than 35 AQO 266 times a year (equivalent to 99.9 percentile)
20 (10 for Sulphur dioxide (SO ) – Ecological 2 AQO Annual mean lichens and Receptors bryophytes)
Volatile organic compounds AQO Annual mean 5 (as Benzene)
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) EAL 1-hour mean 750
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) EAL 1-hour mean 160
EAL 24-hour mean 5 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) – Ecological Receptors EAL Weekly mean 0.5
EAL Annual mean 5 (ng m-3) Group 1 Metals (Cd) EAL 1-hour mean 1.5
Group 2 Metals (Hg) EAL Annual mean 0.25
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 176 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Value Pollutant AQO/EAL Averaging Period (µg m-3)
EAL 1-hour mean 7.5
EAL Annual mean 3 (ng m-3) Group 3 Metals (As) EAL 1-hour mean 15
EAL Annual mean 5 Group 3 Metals (Sb) EAL 1-hour mean 150
EAL Annual mean 5 Group 3 Metals (Cr(III)) EAL 1-hour mean 150
Group 3 Metals (Cr(VI)) EAL Annual mean 0.2 (ng m-3)
EAL Annual mean 0.2 Group 3 Metals (Co) EAL 1-hour mean 6
EAL Annual mean 2 Group 3 Metals (Cu) EAL 1-hour mean 60
Group 3 Metals (Pb) EAL Annual mean 0.25
EAL Annual mean 1 Group 3 Metals (Mn) EAL 1-hour mean 1500
EAL Annual mean 20 (ng m-3) Group 3 Metals (Ni) EAL 1-hour mean 30
EAL Annual mean 5 Group 3 Metals (V) EAL 1-hour mean 1
PAHs (as B(a)P) EAL Annual mean 0.25 (ng m-3)
EAL Annual mean 180
Ammonia (NH3) EAL 1-hour mean 2500
3 (1 for lichens Ammonia (NH3) – Ecological Receptors EAL Annual mean and bryophytes)
The Environment Act 1995
11.2.19 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires that Local Authorities periodically review air quality within their individual areas. This process of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) is an integral part of delivering the Government’s AQOs.
11.2.20 To carry out an air quality Review and Assessment under the LAQM process, the Government recommends a three-stage approach. This phased review process uses initial simple screening methods and progresses through to more detailed assessment methods of modelling and monitoring in areas identified to be at potential risk of exceeding the AQOs.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 177 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.2.21 Review and assessments of local air quality aim to identify areas where national policies to reduce vehicle and industrial emissions are unlikely to result in air quality meeting the Government’s air quality objectives by the required dates. For the purposes of determining the focus of Review and Assessment, Local Authorities should have regard to those locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present and are likely to be exposed over the averaging period of the objective.
11.2.22 Where the assessment indicates that some or all of the objectives may be potentially exceeded, the Local Authority has a duty to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The declaration of an AQMA requires the Local Authority to implement an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) to reduce air pollution concentrations so that the required AQOs are met.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
11.2.23 Under Part III Section 79 (1)(d) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, dust and odour can both be statutory nuisances. However, there are no statutory standards for dust deposition or odour which can be used to assess whether a nuisance has occurred, principally due to the normal variability of atmospheric dust and odours.
11.2.24 In theory, receptors can potentially be affected by dust up to 1km from the source, although any dust emissions are more likely to be deposited much closer to the dust sources, generally within 100m, depending on size characteristics and in the absence of appropriate mitigation. The precise distance will depend on the nature of the activity on site, wind direction, wind speed, particle size distribution and moisture content, which all influence whether the potential for dust annoyance exists. The degree of annoyance depends on the rate of deposition, and is discernible at two levels: Annoyance experienced when the dust cover is sufficient to be visible when contrasted to an adjacent clean surface, such as when a finger is wiped across the surface. This is particularly annoying when it occurs regularly over long periods; and Severe annoyance experienced when the dust cover is perceptible without a clean reference surface for comparison.
11.2.25 Annoyance complaints are usually associated with periods of peak deposition, occurring during particular weather conditions. There is a ‘normal’ level of dust deposition in every community (i.e. the existing baseline) and it is only when the rate of deposition is considered high relative to the existing baseline that complaints tend to occur. The effect of dust on a community will therefore be determined by three main factors: Short term dust events/ emissions during periods of dry weather; The frequency or regularity with which these occur; and The duration of activities which contribute to dust emissions.
11.2.26 The smallest particles of dust (i.e. in the size range of 10-30 µm) have the potential to travel the furthest from where they are generated, but these normally make up only a small proportion of the dust that originates from mineral and waste sites. Furthermore these particles tend to fall out of the atmosphere within 100-250m of the point of release, although the smallest particles (PM10) can travel in excess of 1 km and sometimes hundreds of kilometres from the point of release.
11.2.27 The levels of dust that might be considered typical for a range of areas are given in Table 11.3. In this case deposition is measured using BS Deposit Gauges (BS1747 Part 1). Alternatively dust levels can be measured based in terms of its soiling (obscurance) of a surface. In such circumstance the unit used is based on effective area coverage of a white background in terms of the percentage covered per day (% EAC/day).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 178 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.3 Typical Levels for Deposition and Obscuration Dust Gauges
Situation Deposition (mg m-2 day-1) % EAC day-1
Rural 10-50 0.01-0.5
Suburban/ small town 30-80 0.2
Urban 0.3-0.4
Town Centre/ Industrial 80-160 0.8-1
Source: The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings, HMSO 1996.
11.2.28 The historical data demonstrates that a wide monthly variation in monitored results is relatively common in all environments. Short-term (daily) variations will be even greater and could be expected to extend to 2-5 times the upper monthly value and these factors tend to undermine the value of this type of monitoring.
-2 -1 11.2.29 In the UK, a criterion of 200 mg m day , based on monthly averages, has been used as a threshold for nuisance in the past. This is comparable with the ‘complaints likely’ guideline reported by Vallack and Shilitto (1998), as summarised in Table 11.4. However, as stated earlier, there is no accepted UK standard for nuisance dust deposition rates and this, combined with the limitations of the standard monitoring techniques, again undermines the value of the use of the criterion in air quality assessments.
Table 11.4 Suggested Likelihood of Nuisance Guidelines for Monthly Mean Dust Deposition as Insoluble Deposition (mg m-2 day-1)
Location British Standard Deposit Gauge Dry Frisbee Gauge Equivalent Complaints Possible Complaints Likely Complaints Possible Complaints Likely
90th %ile 95th %ile
Open country 80 100
Residential areas and 110 150 150 200 Outskirts of towns
Commercial centres 150 190 200 260 of towns Source: Vallack H W and Shilitto D E (1998). ‘Suggested Guidelines for Deposited Ambient Dust’ Atmospheric Environment, 32, 2737-2744.
11.2.30 The IAQM has produced guidance on the assessment of the effects of dust raised during construction and demolition activities (2014a), including suggestions for appropriate mitigation measures dependent upon the assessed risk of dust annoyance. The IAQM guidance presents a series of steps to be undertaken to determine whether dust effects associated with construction activities are likely to be significant. The IAQM guidance has been used in this assessment to determine the effects associated with dust during the construction phase.
11.2.31 With respect to odours, whether a particular odour will cause an annoyance reaction from human beings in their normal everyday environment is determined by a number of different but interacting factors, including: The concentration of the odour in the atmosphere; The nature of the odour (how objectionable it is perceived to be); and How frequently it occurs and for how long.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 179 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.2.32 Odour concentration is expressed as European odour units per cubic metre at standard conditions -3 for olfactometry (ouE m ) as compared to a European reference concentration of a known standard odorant in air (n-butanol). The odour concentration, in simple terms, is the number of times an odorous sample of air has to be diluted with odour free air to reach its odour threshold. Exposure is usually quantified in terms of a frequency of occurrence over a year of hourly average concentrations above a certain limit odour concentration.
11.2.33 Odours are not generally additive in the same way as other parameters such as decibels for noise. This reflects the way in which the brain responds to odour. The human brain has a tendency to “screen out” those odours which are always present or those that are in context to their surroundings. For example, an individual is more likely to be tolerant of an odour from a factory in an industrial area than in the countryside. The human brain will also develop a form of acceptance to a constant background of local odours.
11.2.34 With regard to the concentrations of odour in the atmosphere that can be detected and recognised by the human olfactory system, and the levels which would cause annoyance or give rise to complaint, there are clearly a number of factors involved. These factors are commonly associated with the FIDOL acronym: Frequency of detection - the number of exposures to an odour within a given time frame; Intensity as perceived - the magnitude of the perception of the odour; Duration - the time period during which the odour exposure occurs;
Offensiveness - this is a qualitative judgement to describe the odour; and Location – the type of receptor will determine its sensitivity to odour, e.g. residential properties are likely to be associated with greater sensitivity than industrial locations.
11.2.35 Specific guidance for assessing odour effects for installations subject to the provisions of the PPC Regulations (2012) is provided by the SEPA Odour Guidance 2010 document (SEPA. 2010), whilst the IAQM provides further guidance on the assessment of odour specifically for planning applications (IAQM, 2014b).
11.2.36 An olfactory response to an odorant will typically occur due to transient peaks or fluctuations in concentrations over very short periods of time, typically in the order of 1 minute or less. However, SEPA’s Odour Guidance 2010 document provides odour benchmarks based on achievement of a 1 hour mean concentration, not to be exceeded for more than 2% of a year (i.e. a 98th percentile 1- hour mean value).
11.2.37 Odour generating processes are grouped into three categories dependent upon their perceived offensiveness: Highly offensive - processes involving animal or fish remains, brickworks, creamery, fat and grease processing, wastewater treatment, oil refining, livestock feed factory; Moderately offensive - intensive livestock rearing, fat frying (food processing), sugar beet processing, these are odours which do not obviously fall within the HIGH or LOW categories; and Less offensive - chocolate manufacture, brewery, confectionery, fragrance and flavourings, coffee roasting, bakery.
th 11.2.38 Annoyance thresholds are then prescribed based on the 98 percentile of hourly averaged odour concentrations during the year and dependent upon the offensiveness of the process, as described above:
-3 Highly offensive = 1.5 ouE m ; of
-3 Moderately offensive = 3.0 ouE m ; and
-3 Less offensive = 6.0 ouE m .
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 180 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Environmental Protection UK/Institute of Air Quality Management Planning Guidance
11.2.39 The IAQM and Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) have developed guidance regarding the assessment of air quality effects of planned developments, which includes a summary of relevant legislation and a framework to support the assessment of significance (EPUK/IAQM, 2015). The guidance indicates that the weight given to air quality issues in determining planning applications depends on the following factors: The severity of impacts on air quality; The air quality in the area surrounding the development; The likely use of the development (relating to length of exposure at the location); and Positive benefits provided through other material considerations.
Planning Policy
11.2.40 Table 11.5 lists the relevant planning policies and issues that have been considered in assessing air quality effects.
Table 11.5 Planning policy documents and issues
Policy Reference Policy Issue
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP, In line with sustainable development, planning decisions should balance cost and benefits of 2014) developments long term. Focus on achieving the right development in the right location, considering protecting the amenity of new and existing development, and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality.
Aberdeenshire Local LDP Policy NE10 Air Quality states that planning applications for developments which have the Development Plan 2012 (LDP) potential to have a detrimental impact on air quality will not be permitted unless measures to and Supplementary Guidance mitigate the impact of air pollutants are proposed and can be agreed with the Planning Authority. Such planning applications should be accompanied by an assessment of the likely impact of development on air quality and any mitigation measures proposed (as mentioned in Aberdeen Council’s Air Quality Supplementary Guidance). LDP Air Quality Supplementary Guidance (2012) provides guidance on the way in which air quality and air pollution issues will be dealt with through the planning system.
Proposed Aberdeen LDP 2015 Proposed Plan Policy T4: Air Quality and supporting Supplementary Guidance – Transport and and Supplementary Guidance Infrastructure: Transport, Air Quality and Noise. Updated reference to the LDP.
Aberdeen Air Quality Action The AQAP (2011) details a series of measures to improve air quality in Aberdeen, particularly in Plan (Aberdeen City Council, the three designated Air Quality Management Area (AQMAs). The Proposed Development 2011) should not contradict the objectives of the AQAP.
Significance Evaluation Methodology
11.2.41 The following documents were used to determine the significance of the predicted effects of the Proposed Development on air quality: IAQM Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction (2014a); IAQM Guidance on the assessment of odour for planning (2014b); and IAQM/EPUK Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning For Air Quality (2015).
Air Quality
11.2.42 Using the EPUK/IAQM (2015) planning for air quality guidance, the magnitude of change due to an increase/decrease in concentrations of air pollutants due to a development is described using the criteria in Table 11.6. These criteria are based on the change in concentration of a pollutant at an existing receptor location due to new development, expressed as a percentage of an Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL) (e.g. an AQS). When describing the effect at a specific receptor, the
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 181 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
percentage change in concentration relative to the AQAL is considered in combination with the long term average concentration at receptor in the assessment year, using the approach detailed in Table 11.6. The table is intended to be used by rounding the change in percentage pollutant concentration to whole numbers, which then makes it clearer which cell the impact falls within. Changes of less than 0.5% will be described as negligible.
Table 11.6 Impact descriptors for individual receptors
Long term average % Change in concentration relative to Air Quality assessment Level (AQAL) concentration at receptor in assessment 1 2-5 6 - 10 >10 year
75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate
76-94 % of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
95 – 102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial
103 – 109 % of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial
110% or more of AQAL Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial
Table Notes: The total concentration categories reflect the degree of potential harm by reference to the AQAL value. At exposure less than 75% of this value, i.e. well below, the degree of harm is likely to be small. As the exposure approaches and exceeds the AQAL, the degree of harm increases. This change naturally becomes more important when the result is an exposure that is approximately equal to, or greater than the AQAL. It is unwise to ascribe too much accuracy to incremental changes or background concentrations, and this is especially important when total concentrations are close to the AQAL. For a given year in the future, it is impossible to define the new total concentration without recognising the inherent uncertainty, which is why there is a category that has a range around the AQAL, rather than being exactly equal to it.
11.2.43 Table 11.6 is strictly only applicable for long-term (annual mean) AQALs and not shorter-term AQALs.
11.2.44 The overall significance of a development is ultimately determined using professional judgement. One of the relevant factors to consider is the potential for cumulative impacts e.g. in cases where several ‘slight’ impacts on receptors individually could, taken together, be regarded as having a significant effect for the purposes of air quality management in an area. Conversely, a ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial’ impact may not have a significant effect if it is confined to a very small area and where it is not obviously the cause of harm to human health.
11.2.45 Any judgement on the overall significance of effect of a development will need to take into account such factors as: The existing and future air quality in the absence of the development; The extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts; and The influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impact.
11.2.46 Other factors may be relevant in individual cases, such as whether an exceedence of an objective or limit value is predicted to arise in a study area where none existed before or whether an exceedence area is substantially increased.
11.2.47 A judgement of the significance should be made by a competent, suitably qualified professional. The reasons for reaching the conclusions should be transparent and set out logically. Whilst the starting point for the assessment of significance is the degree of impact, as defined by Table 11.6, this should be seen as one of the factors for consideration, not least because the outcome of this assessment procedure applies to a receptor and not the overall impact.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 182 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Construction Dust
11.2.48 Construction dust significance criteria are obtained from the methodology developed by the IAQM (IAQM, 2014a). The assessment of significance is a three-stage process; construction sites are initially classified according to the risk of effects, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures are then identified and the significance of effects ultimately determined.
11.2.49 The risk evaluation of dust effects considers the impact of potential activities such as demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout on human and ecological receptors. Trackout is defined as “the transport of dust and dirt from the construction / demolition site onto the public road network, where it may be deposited and then re-suspended by vehicles using the network” (IAQM, 2014a). The assessment initially assumes no mitigation, except that required by legislation (such as certain equipment/processes on construction sites that are controlled under the PPC Regulations (2012). This defines the baseline against which the change in effect as a result of mitigation can be measured.
Table 11.7 Sensitivity of Receptors
Receptor To Dust Soiling Effects To Health Effects of PM10 To Ecological Effects Sensitivity
High Surrounding land where: • Locations where members of the • Locations with an international • Users can reasonably expect enjoyment of public are exposed or national designation and the a high level of amenity; or over a time period relevant to the designated features may be • The appearance, aesthetics or value of air quality objective for PM10 (in the affected by dust soiling; or their property would be diminished by case of the 24-hour objectives, a • Locations where there is a soiling; and relevant location would be one community of a particularly dust • The people or property would reasonably where individuals may be exposed sensitive species such as be expected to be present continuously, or for eight hours or more in a day). vascular species included in the at least regularly for extended periods, as • Indicative examples include Red Data List For Great Britain. part of the normal pattern of use of the land. residential properties. • Indicative examples include a • Indicative examples include dwellings, Hospitals, schools and residential Special Area of Conservation museums and other culturally important care homes should also be (SAC) designated for acid collections, medium and long term car parks considered as having equal heathlands or a local site and car showrooms. sensitivity to residential areas for designated for lichens adjacent the purposes of this assessment. to the demolition of a large site containing concrete (alkali) buildings.
Medium Users would expect to enjoy a reasonable • Locations where the people • Locations where there is a level of amenity, but would not reasonably exposed are workers, and particularly important plant expect to enjoy the same level of amenity exposure is over a time period species, where its dust as in their home; or relevant to the air quality objective sensitivity is uncertain or • The appearance, aesthetics or value of for PM10 (in the case of the 24- unknown; or their property could be diminished by soiling; hour objectives, a relevant location • Locations with a national or would be one where individuals designation where the features • The people or property wouldn’t may be exposed for eight hours or may be affected by dust reasonably be expected to be present here more in a day). deposition. continuously or regularly for extended • Indicative examples include • Indicative example is a Site of periods as part of the normal pattern of use office and shop workers, but will Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of the land. generally not include workers with dust sensitive features • Indicative examples include parks and occupationally exposed to PM10, places of work. as protection is covered by Health and Safety at Work legislation.
Low The enjoyment of amenity would not • Locations where human • Locations with a local reasonably be expected; or exposure is transient designation where the features • Property would not reasonably be • Indicative examples include may be affected by dust expected to be diminished in appearance, public footpaths, playing fields, deposition. aesthetics or value by soiling; or parks and shopping streets. • Indicative example is a local • There is transient exposure, where the Nature Reserve with dust people or property would reasonably be sensitive features. expected to be present only for limited periods of time as part of the normal pattern of use of the land. • Indicative examples include playing fields, farmland (unless commercially-sensitive horticultural), footpaths, short term car parks and roads.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 183 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.2.50 Table 11.8, Table 11.9 and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 184 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.2.52 Table 11.10 show how the sensitivity of the area to dust emissions may be determined for dust soiling, human health and ecosystem impacts respectively.
Table 11.8 Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property
Distance from the Source (m) Receptor Number of Sensitivity Receptors <20 <50 <100 <350
>100 High High Medium Low
High 10-100 High Medium Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low
Medium >1 Low Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low
Table 11.9 Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts
Receptor Annual Mean PM10 Number of Distance from the Source (m) Sensitivity concentration Receptors <20 <50 <100 <200 <350
High >32 µgm-3 (>18 µgm-3 >100 High High High Medium Low in Scotland) 10-100 High High Medium Low Low
1-10 High Medium Low Low Low
28 – 32 µgm-3 (16 – 18 >100 High High Medium Low Low µgm-3 in Scotland) 10-100 High Medium Low Low Low
1-10 High Medium Low Low Low
24 – 28 µgm-3 (14 – 16 >100 High Medium Low Low Low µgm-3 in Scotland) 10-100 High Medium Low Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low Low
< 24 µgm-3 (<14 µgm-3 >100 Medium Low Low Low Low in Scotland) 10-100 Low Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low Low
Medium - >10 High Medium Low Low Low
- 1-10 Medium Low Low Low Low
Low - >1 Low Low Low Low Low
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 185 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.10 Sensitivity of the Area to Ecological Impacts
Receptor Sensitivity Distance from the Source (m)
<20 <50
High High Medium
Medium Medium Low
Low Low Low
11.2.53 The matrices in Table 11.11, Table 11.12 and Table 11.13 provide a method of assigning the level of risk for each activity. This should be used to determine the level of mitigation that should be applied.
Table 11.11 Risk of Dust Impacts - Earthworks
Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude
Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 11.12 Risk of Dust Impacts - Construction
Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude
Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 11.13 Risk of Dust Impacts - Trackout
Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude
Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Odour
Odour Sensitivity
11.2.54 Guidance in respect of the sensitivity of potential odour sensitive receptors is taken from SEPA’s Odour Guidance (SEPA, 2010) and IAQM’s guidance on odour (IAQM, 2014b), summarised in Table 11.14 and Table 11.15 below.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 186 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.14 Examples of Odour Sensitive Receptors
High Medium Low
Suburban residential properties Offices and other commercial properties Farms
Hospitals Food retailers Light and heavy industry
Schools Rural residential properties Footpaths
11.2.55 For the sensitivity of people to odour, the IAQM recommends that the Air Quality Practitioner uses professional judgement to identify where on the spectrum between high and low sensitivity a receptor lies, taking into account the following general principles.
Table 11.15 Receptor Sensitivity to Odours
High sensitivity receptor Surrounding land where: Users can reasonable expect enjoyment of a high level of amenity; and People would reasonably expect to be present here continuously, or at least regularly for extended periods, as part of the normal pattern of use of the land. Examples may include residential dwellings, hospitals, schools/education and tourist/cultural.
Medium sensitivity receptor Surrounding land where: Users would expect to enjoy a reasonable level of amenity; but wouldn’t reasonably expect to enjoy the same level of amenity as in their home; or People wouldn’t reasonably be expected to be present here continuously or regularly for extended periods as part of the normal Pattern of use of the land. Examples may include places of work, commercial/retail premises and playing/recreation fields.
Low sensitivity receptor Surrounding land where: The enjoyment of amenity would not reasonably be expected; or There is a transient exposure, where the people would reasonably be expected to be present only for limited periods of time as part of the normal pattern of use of the land. Examples may include industrial use, farms, footpaths and roads.
Summary of Determination of Odour Significance
11.2.56 Table 11.16 presents a matrix from the IAQM’s odour guidance (IAQM, 2014b), which demonstrates the interaction between sensitivity and magnitude, and how this has been used to determine the significance of any odour effects during the operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Table 11.16 Significance Matrix for Operational Odour Effects
Odour Exposure Level Sensitivity C98,ouE/m3 Low Medium High
>10 Moderate Substantial Substantial
5-10 Moderate Moderate Substantial
3-5 Slight Moderate Moderate
1.5-3 Negligible Slight Moderate
0.5-1.5 Negligible Negligible Slight
<0.5 Negligible Negligible Negligible
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 187 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Proposed Scope of Assessment
Model domain
11.2.57 In addition to specific human and ecological receptor locations, a 4 km x 4 km Cartesian grid, centred on the main stack of the Proposed Development, with a receptor resolution of 40 m, was modelled to assess the impact of emissions on local air quality. This resolution is considered suitable for capturing the maximum process contribution from site emissions, and is within the generally accepted best practice guideline of adopting a model domain with a receptor resolution less than 1.5 times the stack height. This modelled grid was used for the purpose of producing concentration isopleths (contours) and identification of ground level concentrations at receptors which cover a relatively large spatial area in close proximity to the Development Site.
Potential Receptors
Air Quality (Human Receptors)
11.2.58 Guidance from the UK Government and Devolved Administrations makes clear that exceedences of the health based objectives should be assessed at outdoor locations where members of the general public are regularly present over the averaging time of the objective. Table 11.17 provides an indication of those locations that may be relevant for each averaging period.
Table 11.17 Examples of where the AQOs should apply
Averaging period Objectives should apply Objectives should not apply
Annual mean All locations where members of the public Building facades of offices or other places of work might be regularly exposed. where members of the public do not have regular access. Building facades of residential properties, schools, hospitals, care homes etc. Hotels, unless people live there as their permanent residence. Gardens of residential properties. Kerbside sites (as opposed to locations at the building façade), or any other location where public exposure is expected to be short term
24-hour mean and 8-hour All locations where the annual mean Kerbside sites (as opposed to locations at the mean objectives would apply, together with hotels building façade), or any other location where public exposure is expected to be short term. Gardens or residential properties
1-hour mean All locations where the annual mean and 24 Kerbside sites where the public would not be and 8-hour mean objectives would apply. expected to have regular access. Kerbside sites (e.g. pavements of busy shopping streets). Those parts of car parks, bus stations and railway stations etc. which are not fully enclosed, where the public might reasonably be expected to spend one hour or more. Any outdoor locations at which the public may be expected to spend one hour or longer.
15-minute mean All locations where members of the public might reasonably be expected to spend a period of 15 minutes or longer.
11.2.59 The human receptors considered in this assessment were chosen based on the above guidance by identifying places where people may be located, judged in terms of the likely duration of their exposure to pollutants, and proximity to the development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 188 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.2.60 Workplace locations where there is no access to the general public (i.e. those members of the public other than the workforce at that location) have been excluded from the assessment in accordance with Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 2 of the Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010. It is important to note that these Regulations do not differentiate between whether this is a workplace location under the control of the operator, or an off-site workplace location. However, there are certain businesses on the East Tullos Industrial Estate where members of the general public may be present for durations corresponding to certain shorter-term AQOs (e.g. car showrooms). There are also other areas (e.g. footpaths, golf courses etc.) where members of the public may be present for short periods of time. Such receptors have been included in the assessment for the purposes of assessing short-term impacts.
11.2.61 Receptors have also been included to represent the City Centre and Wellington Road AQMAs. The Anderson Drive/Haudagain roundabout/Auchmill Road AQMA has not been specifically assessed due to its greater distance from the Proposed Development and with the maximum impact on Aberdeen City Council’s AQMAs being adequately addressed by assessment of impact at the much closer City Centre and Wellington Road AQMAs. The locations of the AQMAs in relation to the Development Site are provided in Appendix 11.A, Figure 2.6 of the Technical Methodological Report of Point Source Emissions to Air (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016).
11.2.62 Taking into account the guidance summarised in Table 11.17, and that contained within the legislative instruments referenced in the legislation section of this chapter, Table 11.18 and Figure 11.1 provides details of the receptors considered for the assessment of human health related air quality effects and odour effects. It should be noted that this list of receptors is by no means exhaustive, with certain receptors grouped together to represent exposure over a wider area, rather than at specific residential properties, for example.
Table 11.18 Human Receptors included in the Air Quality and Odour Assessments
ID Receptor Name Easting (m) Northing (m)
1 Kirkhill Road 1 394744 804226
2 Kirkhill Road 2 394929 804288
3 Kirkhill Crescent 1 395100 804284
4 Kirkhill Crescent 2 395336 804383
5 Tullos Primary School 395450 804442
6 Balnagask Circle 395881 804697
7 Burnbanks 395792 802115
8 Caravan Park 395006 803142
9 West Tullos Road 394199 803545
10 Clockwork Nursery 394704 803200
11 Craigpark 394715 803328
12 Altens Nursery 394776 803668
13 Wellington Road 394675 803838
14 Balnagask Road 1 394831 804492
15 Balnagask Road 2 395106 804599
16 Farquhar Avenue 395438 804797
17 Torry Academy 394967 804747
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 189 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
ID Receptor Name Easting (m) Northing (m)
18 Torry Care Home 394876 804445
19 Torry Public Library 394866 805081
20 Beech House Nursery 394828 804427
21 Mansefield Place 395124 804853
22 Grampian Place 394562 804776
23 Balnagask Road 395777 805019
24 Abbey Place 395371 805132
25 Nigg Way 394480 803088
26 Abbotswell Crescent 394368 803227
27 Torry St Fittick’s Parish 394554 804894
28 Walker Road Primary School 394658 804910
29 East Tullos Recycling Centre 395387 803883
30 Doonies Farm 396528 803412
Loirston Country Park 31 (footpaths) 395532 803872
32 Nigg Bay Golf Club 396008 805236
33 Arnold Clark Volvo 394776 803666
34 Peter Vardy Land Rover 394607 804087
35 Town & County Porsche Ltd 394657 804088
36 Lochside Interiors 394657 804118
37 Carwash Greenbank Place 395037 803984
38 Airylea Motors 395065 803985
39 Car Clinic Hillview Road 394835 803643
40 Torry Sports Centre 394821 804919
41 Wellington Rd AQMA 1 394456 804350
42 Wellington Rd AQMA 2 394517 805037
43 City Centre AQMA 394734 805264 All receptors identified on Figure 11.1.
Air Quality (Ecological Receptors)
11.2.63 SEPA’s H1 guidance requires detailed dispersion modelling to be carried out to assess effects upon local ecological receptors. Using this guidance, internationally and nationally-designated ecological sites within 15 km of the Development Site, and locally-designated ecological sites within 2 km of the Development Site have been assessed. However, where receptors are designated solely on the basis of geological features of interest, these particular receptors have been excluded from the assessment since critical levels and loads are only prescribed for vegetation and ecosystems.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 190 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.2.64 Where designated sites cover a large area but are situated a large enough distance from the installation (generally >2 km), a single receptor point corresponding to the closest point of any part of the designated area to the installation has been input to the model. Where designated sites cover a large area but are situated in close proximity to the installation (generally <2 km), a series of receptor points have been used to represent that particular designated site, or with results obtained by analysing pollutant concentration contours, rather than concentrations at a specific point/series of points. As the River Dee Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Balnagask to Cove Local Nature Conservation Site (LNCS) are extensive sites and within 2km of the Development Site, a number of receptors have been chosen to allow for effects resulting from different wind directions to be established.
11.2.65 Following the above guidance, Table 11.19 details the receptors that have been included in the model (see Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2 for receptor location). However, whilst model predictions are provided in this chapter, the significance of resultant effects is assessed in Chapter 8 Nature Conservation.
Table 11.19 Location of Modelled Ecological Receptors
Receptor Name Easting (m) Northing (m)
River Dee SAC 1 392606 803094
River Dee SAC 2 394329 804370
River Dee SAC 3 394964 805415
River Dee SAC 4 395703 805427
River Dee SAC 5 396712 805730
Red Moss of Netherly SAC 386561 794188
Cove Site of Special Scientific Interest 395667 801133 (SSSI)
Findon Moor SSSI 394173 797907
Scotstown Moor SSSI 393580 811374
Bishop's Loch SSSI 391186 814208
Lily Loch SSSI 392082 814427
Corby Loch SSSI 392379 814260
Tullos Hill LNCS 395506 803902
Kincorth Local Nature Reserve (LNR) 394500 803073
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 1 396777 805664
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 2 396634 804351
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 3 396806 803598
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 4 396441 802741
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 5 396133 801837
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 191 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Dust
11.2.66 When identifying appropriate receptors for assessment of potential amenity effects related to fugitive dust emissions, cognisance has been given to the IAQM dust guidance document (IAQM, 2014a) and the research undertaken for the Department of Environment (DoE) by Ove Arup and Partners on the Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings (HMSO, 1995).
11.2.67 The IAQM dust guidance suggests human receptors could be at risk of loss of amenity due to fugitive dust emissions raised during construction activities when within 350 m of the dust generating source (or 500 m in the case of trackout), or ecological receptors at risk from the effects of dust soiling within 50m of the dust generating source.
11.2.68 The IAQM guidance defines a receptor as being: “...any location where a person may experience the annoyance effects of airborne dust or dust soiling, or exposure to PM10 over a time period relevant to the air quality objectives, as defined in the Government’s technical guidance for Local Air Quality Management. In terms of annoyance effects, this will most commonly relate to residential dwellings, but may also refer to industrial and commercial premises that have a particular sensitivity to dust impacts”
11.2.69 The 1995 DoE study advises that severe or continual concerns about dust are most likely to be experienced near to significant dust sources, generally within 100m. This distance can however vary considerably depending on the nature of the dust source, weather conditions and additional factors such as topography. The study suggests that it is preferable that continuous sources with a high or medium dust emission potential are separated by a stand-off distance from sensitive uses. The report suggests that, with respect to the PM10 component of dust, additional measures may be required if there is any receptor within 1km of any source of dust, with the qualification that these distances can be reduced if appropriate, and effective mitigation measures are identified and implemented. It is, however, more common to consider receptors within 500m of mineral sites as typical mitigation measures to control dust are effective in reducing the distance where dust effects may occur.
11.2.70 In the context of a dust assessment, it is can be appropriate to consider receptors as being representative of groups rather than as individual receptors. Accordingly, Table 11.20 and Figure 11.2 summarises the receptor groups which have been considered in the dust assessment and Figure 11.3 shows the assessment distances considered in the dust assessment.
Table 11.20 Location of Receptor Groups for Dust Assessment
Receptor Group Main Source(s) of Dust Potentially Distance to Closest Dust Generating Affecting Receptor Activity (m)
D1 – Kirkhill Place Residential Fugitive emissions from activities at the 313 Properties (North) Proposed Development
D2 – Arnold Clark Car Showroom Fugitive emissions from activities at the 722 (West) Proposed Development
D3 John Clark Motor Group – (East) Fugitive emissions from activities at the 338 Proposed Development
D4 – Balnagask Circle Residential Fugitive emissions from activities at the 775 Properties (North-East) Proposed Development
D5 – Kirkhill Road Residential Fugitive emissions from activities at the 423 Properties (North-West) Proposed Development
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 192 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Potential Significant Effects
11.2.71 The potentially significant effects relating to the Proposed Development, which are subject to further assessment in this chapter, are summarised below: Air Quality - quantitative assessment, by means of predictive dispersion modelling, of point source combustion product emissions from the Proposed Development. Assessment to be undertaken to assess incremental changes in pollutant concentrations at existing receptor locations; Dust (construction phase) - assessment of fugitive emissions of dust and fine particulate matter associated with construction of the infrastructure using the methodology developed by the IAQM (IAQM, 2014a); and Odour - quantitative assessment of potential odour emissions from the Proposed Development during abnormal operation and their impact on public amenity during abnormal operation.
11.2.72 The following elements have been scoped out of the assessment: Air Quality–Emissions from Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) during the construction phase have been scoped out of the assessment. Emissions from NRMM are regulated by the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations 1999, as amended, whilst the IAQM state “Experience of assessing the exhaust emissions from onsite plant and site traffic suggests that they are unlikely to make a significant impact on local air quality, and in the vast majority of cases they will not need to be quantitatively assessed”; Air Quality - The IAQM planning guidance (IAQM, 2015) suggests an assessment of vehicular emissions is required where the development traffic flows exceed the following metrics: Light Delivery Vehicle movements exceed 100 Annual Average Daily Traffic within or adjacent to an AQMA and 500 AADT elsewhere;
Heavy Delivery Vehicle movements exceed 25 Annual Average Daily Traffic within or adjacent to an AQMA and 100 AADT elsewhere; The traffic data summarised in Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport confirms these metrics are not met during the operational phase of the Proposed Development with 2020 HGVs and light vehicles 24 hour flows of 22 and 11, respectively, and 2035 24 hour flows of 18 and 11, respectively. Therefore, operational traffic movements have been scoped out from further assessment. Although these metrics are marginally exceeded during the construction phase, they have not been assessed further due to the temporary nature of construction activity; Dust (operational phase) - all waste deliveries to the Development Site would be in covered vehicles with all subsequent waste storage and processing taking place within an enclosed building; and Odour (normal operation) – the mitigation measures detailed in Section 11.4 are considered to be fully effective in preventing a detectable odour beyond the Development Site boundary in accordance with usual conditions contained within the PPC Permit which the Proposed Development must be in possession of before operation can commence.
Operational Scenarios
Normal Operation
11.2.73 Releases to air from EfW plants are regulated by SEPA and controlled by ELVs stipulated by the PPC Regulations (2012), which implement the requirements of Annex VI of Directive 2010/75/EU (the IED). The emissions assumed in this assessment are derived from those ELVs, although actual emissions from operational processes of this nature in the UK are typically much lower. The one exception to this approach is with regard to treatment of NOx emissions, where a design basis daily average emission concentration of 140 mg Nm-3 has been assumed due to the use of
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 193 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
advanced selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for control of NOx. This concentration would be proposed to SEPA as part of the PPC permit determination, and entered in the permit as a beyond IED requirement ELV not to be exceeded during normal operation. Where ELVs are not specified for certain pollutants, but it is known emissions of these pollutants may occur from EfW facilities (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - PAH), emissions data have been derived from manufacturer data or from typical levels monitored at other UK EfW facilities.
11.2.74 For several pollutants, the IED specifies ELVs as both daily averages and half-hourly averages (Table 11.1). Therefore, as an additional conservative measure, for assessment metrics based on averaging periods of at least 24 hours, the emission rate derived from the daily average ELV is used, whilst for assessment levels based on averaging periods of less than 24 hours, the emission rate derived from the half-hourly average ELV is used.
11.2.75 For PM10 and PM2.5, the emission rate is based on the ELV for total dust. In the absence of particle size distribution data, the assessment assumes, conservatively, that all particulate matter is emitted in the PM2.5 fraction.
11.2.76 The assessment assumes that the plant is emitting at these concentrations and at nominal load continually for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This will also provide a conservative estimate of annual mean impacts, since plants of this nature generally only achieve ~90-95% availability.
11.2.77 The pollutants covered by this assessment include:
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx as NO2);
Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); Carbon monoxide (CO);
Sulphur dioxide (SO2);
Hydrogen chloride (HCl); Hydrogen fluoride (HF); Group 1 metals (cadmium (Cd) and thallium (Tl));
Group 2 metals (mercury (Hg)); Group 3 metals (antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), nickel, (Ni) and vanadium (V)); Volatile organic compounds as total organic carbon (VOCs as TOC);
Ammonia (NH3); Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs); and Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
11.2.78 Given that the speciation of TOC and PAH is not known, it is assumed that all TOC are benzene and compared against the benzene AQO, whilst it is assumed that all PAH are benzo [a] pyrene (B[a]P) for comparison against the B[a]P EAL. Similarly, it is assumed that all particles are emitted in the PM10 and PM2.5 fractions for comparison against the PM10 and PM2.5 AQOs.
11.2.79 The stack height has been determined following a stack height assessment. This assessment, along with the modelled physical and process emission parameters for the main stack are provided in the main technical report Appendix 11.A (Technical Methodological Report of Point Source Emissions to Air). There are no other point source emission to air releases of pollutants during normal operation.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 194 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Abnormal Operation
11.2.80 Consideration of the short-term impacts on air quality during abnormal operating conditions has been made assuming theoretical failures in the following flue gas treatment (FGT) infrastructure: Failure of urea dosing pump; Failure of lime dosing pump; and Failure of the bag filtration plant.
11.2.81 Article 46(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU states ELVs must not be exceeded for more than 4 hours uninterrupted and up to 60 hours per annum during abnormal operation. In such scenarios, Annex VI, Part 3, Paragraph 2 specifies that the CO and TOC ELVs must not be exceeded and TPM concentrations must not exceed 150 mg Nm-3. However, for other pollutants, specific limits during abnormal operation are not provided.
11.2.82 Full details of the assumptions and model characteristics included in the modelled scenario for abnormal operation of the Proposed Development are included in the Appendix 11.A (Technical Methodological Report of Point Source Emissions to Air).
Technical Consultations
11.2.83 SEPA’s scoping response to the Scoping Report (September 2015) contained specific points in relation to air quality. In response to SEPA’s scoping response, a method statement was submitted (East Tullos Energy from Waste Plant: Method Statement Supporting the Air Quality Assessment) and further comments provided.
11.2.84 The key conclusions from these consultations that have been incorporated into the assessment are as follows: There are three AQMAs identified by Aberdeen City Council for exceedences of the AQOs for NO2 and PM10. The City Centre AQMA is within 2 km of the Development Site with both the remaining Anderson Drive/Haudagain roundabout/Auchmill Road AQMA and Wellington Road AQMA having sections within 3 km.
The cumulative effect of the point source emissions and fugitive emissions from the Proposed Development will need to be considered to ensure that no AQO is exceeded. Where an AQO is already exceeded, information should be provided that confirms that there will be no significant deterioration as a result of the Proposed Development, during both the construction and operating phases. Additional consideration will need to be given to the potential impact on the AQMA’s described. The information to be presented in the ES must demonstrate that emissions are unlikely to result in any significant environmental or human health impacts. This shall: Include a description of expected emissions during normal operation as well as during abnormal or non-routine operations;
Consider the impact from emissions including but not restricted to Total Dust (PM10 and PM2.5), Acid gases, TOC, NOx, CO, SOx, HCI, HF, Dioxins & Furans and Heavy Metals. The assessment should also be clear about how uncertainty is dealt with (for example with future emissions data); Be related to the specific wastes proposed to be accepted; Include identification of potential sensitive receptors, assessing impact at these receptors including ground level concentration of pollutants; Describe proposed mitigation measures and emissions standards to be achieved and; and Describe adequacy and appropriateness of stack height.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 195 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Sensitive receptors used in assessing the impact of emissions must be clearly identified. This should include: Consideration of the impact of humans living or working in any nearby tall buildings; The cumulative impact on local air quality in the area taking into account other significant emissions nearby; Emissions from traffic in the area both during the construction and operational phases of the project; Proposals for any new developments such as housing, industrial developments, wind turbines and agricultural developments; and Consideration of impacts on sensitive ecological sites. The guidance contained in the H1 methodology for PPC BAT and impact assessment indicates that an initial assessment of impacts in an area within a 15km radius of the Development Site may be appropriate. However, assessment of impacts on ecological sites may need to extend significantly beyond this. If any potentially negative effects on air quality are identified, appropriate mitigation measures should be proposed to deal with this.
11.2.85 Whilst no formal comment has been received from Aberdeen City Council, it is understood that the council’s Environmental Health Team reaffirmed SEPA’s position.
Baseline Establishment
11.2.86 Data to inform the air quality baseline has been gathered through a desk study. This has involved collating data regarding air quality in the area surrounding the Development Site from the following sources: Air quality monitoring data from the national Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN);
Estimated background pollution concentration maps compiled by the Scottish Air Quality Database (SAQD); Passive and continuous monitoring data from Aberdeen City Council; Aberdeen City Council’s LAQM Review and Assessment Reports;
Ordnance Survey (OS) maps and aerial photographs of the area to identify land use, sensitive receptor locations and other potential sources of pollutants; Defra’s Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website to obtain information on ecological receptors in the local area; The UK Air Pollution Information System (APIS) (http://www.apis.ac.uk/); and Consultation with SEPA.
11.2.87 No survey work has been deemed necessary in order to undertake this assessment.
Information Gaps
11.2.88 It is considered that there are no significant information gaps.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 196 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.3 Baseline Information
Current Baseline
11.3.1 Baseline air quality information has been obtained from the 2015 Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) produced by Aberdeen City Council as part of its obligation under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, and supplemented with data produced by Defra. Meteorological data has been obtained from Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport in Dyce, this being the closet synoptic station to the Development Site that offers data in suitable format to undertake the assessments.
Local Air Quality Management
11.3.2 Aberdeen City Council completed the first round of review and assessment in 2001. This process concluded that the AQOs for benzene, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, PM10 and 1,3-butadiene would be met, but that exceedences of the annual mean NO2 AQO were predicted in parts of the city centre. As a result, an AQMA centred on Market Street and Union Street was declared. Following subsequent Detailed Assessments in 2001 and 2002, the AQMA was slightly amended in March 2003 to include adjoining areas.
11.3.3 The second round of review and assessment confirmed levels of NO2 continued to exceed the annual mean objective in the city centre, including streets adjacent to the AQMA. Exceedences of the new annual mean objective for PM10 were also predicted in the city centre. The AQMA was amended in January 2005 to include all areas of current or predicted exceedences of both the NO2 and PM10 annual mean objectives in the city centre and the 1-hour NO2 objective on Market Street. The AQCP was also published in July 2006 detailing measures to improve the air quality in the AQMA.
11.3.4 Wellington Road was designated an AQMA in November 2008 as a result of the Detailed Assessment and annual mean NO2 and PM10 levels recorded in the 2008 Progress Report. The Haudagain roundabout/Anderson Drive corridor was also declared an AQMA for both pollutants. These AQMAs were extended in November 2011.
11.3.5 A new AQAP covering all three AQMAs was adopted in March 2011. The locations of the AQMAs in relation to the Development Site are provided in Appendix 11.A (Figure 2.6, Technical Methodological Report of Point Source Emissions to Air).
11.3.6 The 2015 Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) determined there were no exceedences of the AQOs outside of the AQMAs and the 2014 monitoring data did not identify a need to proceed to a Detailed Assessment for any pollutant.
Monitored data for LAQM Pollutants
Nitrogen Dioxide
11.3.7 ACC operates six continuous monitoring stations within its jurisdictional area. One of these monitoring stations is defined as an urban background monitoring location, with the remainder designated as roadside monitoring locations. The annual mean NO2 concentrations at the continuous monitors in 2014 are provided in Table 11.21.
Table 11.21 Aberdeen City Council Automatic Monitoring Results for NO2 in 2014
Monitoring Location Location Type Concentration (µg m-3) % Data Capture
Errol Place Background 21 94.1
Union street Roadside 47 93.6
Market Street Roadside 40 95.3
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 197 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Monitoring Location Location Type Concentration (µg m-3) % Data Capture
Anderson Drive Roadside 26a 76.2
Wellington Road Roadside 48a 76.6
King Street Roadside 17 94
Values in bold denote an exceedence of the AQO a Measured mean concentration is of data collected and therefore is a best estimate given the lower data capture
11.3.8 The nearest continuous monitoring station to the Development Site is located within the Wellington Road AQMA, where monitored annual mean NO2 concentrations between 2010 and 2014 were in −3 −3 the range 48–59 µg m , substantially exceeding the AQO of 40 µg m ; the hourly NO2 AQO was also exceeded in 2012. Monitored annual mean PM10 concentrations in the same period were in −3 −3 the range 21–24 µg m , exceeding the AQO of 18 µg m ; the daily PM10 AQO was exceeded in 2011 and 2012.
11.3.9 Aberdeen City Council currently operates a large network (57 monitoring locations) of passive monitoring locations throughout the city, monitoring concentrations of NO2 using diffusion tubes (Figure 11.4). Annual mean concentrations for five diffusion tube monitoring locations located within the domain of the air quality assessment are shown in Table 11.22.
Table 11.22 ACC Passive Monitoring Results (2014 Bias Adjusted Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations)
Monitoring Concentration Site ID Easting (m) Northing (m) Location Type Location (µg m-3)
86 Victoria Rd DT6 394764 805197 Roadside 35 Torry
DT7 Wellington Rd 394411 804407 Roadside 46
DT10 184/192 Market St 394530 805708 Roadside 54
115 Menzies DT36 394403 804799 Roadside 41 Rd/Wellington
137 Wellington DT37 394697 803735 Roadside 27 Road
Wellington Road / DT38 394719 803329 Roadside 31* 4 Nigg Kirk Road Values in bold denote an exceedence of the AQO *The annual mean concentration provided for tube DT38 represents the annual mean concentration in 2010/2011.
11.3.10 These data suggest that annual mean concentrations of NO2 are at or above the AQO at several roadside locations adjacent to the main arterial routes within the assessment domain. However, away from the main arterial routes, roadside concentrations remain below the AQO.
11.3.11 Figure 11.4 shows the automatic and passive monitoring locations in the Aberdeen City Council area.
Hydrogen chloride
11.3.12 Hydrogen chloride concentrations are routinely measured at 30 sites across the UK as part of the Acid Gas and Aerosol Network (AGANet). The closest monitoring site to the Development Site, Glensaugh, is situated approximately 38km to the south-west. However, this is a rural background location and unlikely to provide representative data for the more urbanised development location. The nearest urban background monitoring location is at Edinburgh St Leonards. The 2014 annual mean concentration of HCl monitored at this location was 0.31 µg m−3.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 198 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Ammonia
11.3.13 Ammonia (NH3) is measured at 85 sites across the UK under the National Ammonia Monitoring Network (NAMN). The nearest monitoring locations to the Proposed Development are situated at Glensaugh (~38km to the south-west), Oldmeldrum (~28km to the north-east) and Ellon (~28km to the north). The 2014 annual mean concentrations of NH3 monitored at these locations are as follows: Glensaugh = 0.21 µg m−3 Oldmeldrum = 0.88 µg m−3 Ellon = 0.85 µg m−3
Hydrogen fluoride
11.3.14 Hydrogen fluoride concentrations are not routinely measured in the UK. In heavily polluted urban areas, the WHO report that total fluoride concentrations in air can reach 3 μg m-3 (WHO, 2000).
Metals
11.3.15 Metal concentrations are measured in the UK by Defra under the Rural Heavy Metals Network and the Urban Heavy Metals Network. The nearest monitoring location to the Development Site is situated at Auchencorth Moss, approximately 165 km to the south-west. However, as this is a rural monitoring location, it may not necessarily provide representative data for the more urbanised development location. The closest urban background monitoring location is in Belfast.
11.3.16 Table 11.23 summarises the 2014 monitored data of individual metals from Belfast or, in the absence of data from Belfast, from Auchencorth Moss.
Table 11.23 2014 monitored metal concentrations at Belfast and Auchencorth Moss
Metal 2014 Annual Mean Concentration (ng m-3) Monitoring Station
Antimony 0.03 Auchencorth Moss
Arsenic 0.38 Belfast
Cadmium 0.09 Belfast
Chromium 0.99 Belfast
Cobalt 0.09 Belfast
Copper 6.61 Belfast
Lead 3.38 Belfast
Manganese 3.03 Belfast
Mercury 1.20 Auchencorth Moss
Nickel 1.04 Belfast
Vanadium 1.57 Belfast
The Heavy Metals Network monitors Chromium concentrations as total Cr. EPAQS report that ambient Cr(VI) concentrations may typically constitute 3-8% of total Cr. The higher value of this range has been used to derive a Cr(VI) background concentration from the total monitored Cr.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 199 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
PCDD/Fs
11.3.17 In the UK, Defra’s Toxic Organic Micropollutants Survey (TOMPS) is the principal source of data on the measured concentrations of PCDD/Fs, dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs in ambient air at five locations (one urban background site, and four rural background sites). The closest monitoring station to the Proposed Development is the rural background station at Auchencorth Moss, which may not necessarily provide representative data for the more urbanised development location.
11.3.18 The nearest urban background monitoring location is in Manchester. The most recent (2010) annual mean dioxin PCDD/F data measured at the Manchester monitoring location is 48.7 fg I-TEQ m-3. In line with decreasing PCDD/F emissions since 1990, data from the TOMPS survey has shown corresponding decreases in ambient concentrations of PCDD/Fs in urban locations since the early 1990s.
PAHs
11.3.19 PAHs are measured at 31 sites in the UK. The nearest urban background monitoring station to the Development Site which has recent data (post 2006) is Glasgow Townhead. The 2014 monitored PAH concentration (as B(a)P) was 0.10 ng m-3.
Mapped background concentrations
11.3.20 The Scottish Government maintains a database of air quality information for all areas of Scotland known as the Scottish Air Quality Database (SAQD). Through the Scottish Government’s contractor, Ricardo, the SAQD provides results from a nationwide model (the Pollution Climate Mapping (PCM) model) of existing and future background air quality concentrations at a 1 km grid square resolution. The PCM model is semi-empirical in nature; it uses data from the national atmospheric emissions inventory (NAEI) to model the concentrations of pollutants at the centroid of each 1km grid square but then calibrates these concentrations in relation to actual monitoring data. Similarly, the APIS database provides estimated background concentrations of NH3 but on a more coarse 5 km grid square resolution.
11.3.21 There are sufficient monitoring stations for modelled concentrations of NOx, NO2 and PM10 to be calibrated with Scottish monitoring data only. However, for other pollutants, such as SO2, CO and benzene, data has to be taken from the UK-wide model. The annual mean mapped background data for modelled human receptors and ecological receptors are detailed in Table 11.24 and Table 11.25 respectively. All concentrations are for the most recent full calendar year available.
Table 11.24 Mapped annual mean background concentrations at human receptors (µgm-3)
Receptor NO2 PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO Benzene NH3
Kirkhill Road 1 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Kirkhill Road 2 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Kirkhill Crescent 1 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Kirkhill Crescent 2 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Tullos School 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Balnagask Circle 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Burnbanks 14.42 12.69 8.03 3.81 225 0.26 0.49
Caravan Park 14.51 13.41 8.25 2.44 236 0.30 0.49
West Tullos Road 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Clockwork Nursery 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 200 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor NO2 PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO Benzene NH3
Craigpark 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Altens Nursery 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Wellington Road 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Balnagask Road 1 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Balnagask Road 2 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Farquhar Avenue 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Torry Academy 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Torry Care Home 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Torry Public Library 26.19 15.01 9.82 12.20 291 0.43 1.34
Beech House Nursery 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Mansefield Place 16.63 12.72 8.31 2.52 253 0.34 0.49
Grampian Place 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Balnagask Road 28.91 13.75 9.40 2.52 253 0.34 0.50
Abbey Place 28.91 13.75 9.40 2.52 253 0.34 0.50
Nigg Way 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Abbotswell Crescent 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Torry St Fittick’s Parish 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Walker Road Primary School 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Adjacent Recycling Centre 14.51 13.41 8.25 2.44 236 0.30 0.49
Doonies Farm 12.16 11.98 7.49 2.44 211 0.24 0.49
Loirston Country Park Footpath 14.51 13.41 8.25 2.44 236 0.30 0.49
Nigg Bay Golf Club 26.78 12.83 8.84 2.44 236 0.30 0.50
Arnold Clark Volvo 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Peter Vardy Land Rover 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Town & County Porsche Ltd 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Lochside Interiors 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Carwash Greenbank Place 14.51 13.41 8.25 2.44 236 0.30 0.49
Airylea Motors 14.51 13.41 8.25 2.44 236 0.30 0.49
Car Clinic Hillview Road 20.53 14.17 9.25 2.00 257 0.35 0.91
Torry Sports Centre 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Wellington Rd AQMA 1 22.95 14.29 9.37 2.58 280 0.40 0.91
Wellington Rd AQMA 2 26.19 15.01 9.82 12.20 291 0.43 1.34
City Centre AQMA 26.19 15.01 9.82 12.20 291 0.43 1.34
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 201 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.25 Mapped annual mean background concentrations at ecological receptors (µg m-3)
Receptor NOx SO2 NH3
River Dee SAC 1 15.66 2.58 0.91
River Dee SAC 2 33.47 2.58 0.91
River Dee SAC 3 39.30 2.52 1.34
River Dee SAC 4 45.15 2.52 0.50
River Dee SAC 5 41.26 2.52 0.45
Cove SSSI 11.40 3.81 0.49
Red Moss of Netherly SAC 4.38 2.52 1.13
Findon Moor SSSI 5.74 1.40 0.86
Scotstown Moor SSSI 16.08 1.75 1.38
Bishop's Loch SSSI 10.25 1.69 1.38
Lily Loch SSSI 8.58 1.38 1.38
Corby Loch SSSI 8.58 1.38 1.38
Tullos Hill/ LNCS 19.71 2.44 0.49
Kincorth LNR 12.20 2.00 0.91
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 1 41.26 5.40 0.50
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 2 22.94 2.40 0.49
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 3 16.21 2.40 0.49
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 4 12.07 2.40 0.49
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 5 9.09 2.40 0.49
Deposition rates
11.3.22 The Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website provides estimates of background deposition rates of nitrogen and sulphur. The background deposition rates from APIS for the ecological receptors considered in this assessment are detailed in Table 11.26.
Table 11.26 Background deposition rates
Nitrogen deposition Acid deposition of nitrogen Acid deposition of sulphur Receptor (kg N ha-1 y-1) equivalents (keq ha-1 y-1) equivalents (keq ha-1 y-1)
River Dee SAC 1 15.82 1.13 0.31
River Dee SAC 2 15.54 1.11 0.25
River Dee SAC 3 15.82 1.13 0.31
River Dee SAC 4 11.06 0.79 0.30
River Dee SAC 5 11.06 0.79 0.30
Red Moss of Netherly SAC 14.28 1.02 0.23
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 202 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Nitrogen deposition Acid deposition of nitrogen Acid deposition of sulphur Receptor (kg N ha-1 y-1) equivalents (keq ha-1 y-1) equivalents (keq ha-1 y-1)
Cove SSSI 11.62 0.83 0.47
Findon Moor SSSI 14.70 1.05 0.21
Scotstown Moor SSSI 17.08 1.22 0.20
Bishop's Loch SSSI 17.08 1.22 0.20
Lily Loch SSSI 13.02 0.93 0.20
Corby Loch SSSI 17.08 1.22 0.20
Tullos Hill/ LNCS 11.06 0.79 0.30
Kincorth LNR 21.00 1.50 0.33
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 1 11.62 0.83 0.47
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 2 11.06 0.79 0.30
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 3 11.06 0.79 0.30
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 4 11.06 0.79 0.30
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 5 11.06 0.79 0.30
Meteorological Data
11.3.23 Meteorological data has been obtained from Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport for the most recent five year period that complete data is available (2010-2014). Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport is situated approximately 11.5 km to the north-north-west of the Development Site and is the closest synoptic station that offers data in a suitable format for this assessment. Due to similarities in the land use surrounding the airport and Development Site, including a mixture of urban, suburban, industrial/commercial and open land use, and its proximity to the coast, data from Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport is considered to be representative of conditions local to the Development Site. Potential finer scale topographical effects on meteorological parameters, including wind speed and direction, between the monitoring station and the Development Site are taken into account by use of digitally mapped terrain data within the dispersion model which has been used to make predictions of ground level concentrations resulting from Development emissions. The dispersion model’s terrain module calculates the local change in wind speed, direction and other turbulent parameters based on the topography of the local area and would ensure that any deviation in parameters between the monitoring station and Development Site are adequately considered.
11.3.24 Localised flow patterns can result near to coastal areas due to the atmospheric pressure differential established between land and sea areas as a consequence of their different heat capacities (the heat capacity of the sea being much greater than that of the land). The land surface can exhibit a significant diurnal temperature variation whilst the variation in sea temperature remains fairly constant throughout the day, changing only on a monthly/seasonal basis.
11.3.25 When the land is warmer than the sea, an onshore breeze is established as the warm air above the land surface is heated and rises, forming a localised low pressure area above the land towards which the cooler, denser air over the sea flows. Due to the high heat capacity of liquid water, the boundary layer over the sea is most frequently neutral. However, as the air over the sea begins to flow inland, an internal convective boundary layer begins to grow as a function of distance inland. When this internal boundary layer reaches the height of a discharged plume, a coastal fumigation event can occur, whereby portions of the plume are rapidly mixed towards ground level due to the strong vertical motion in the internal boundary layer. This can cause transient, elevated ground level concentrations which may persist for 10-15 minutes.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 203 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.3.26 ADMS does have the capability of modelling coastal effects. In Appendix 11.A, Table 2.18 it is conclusively demonstrated that the effects of buildings and terrain are more dominant on dispersion than coastal effects, with the maximum process contribution with coastal effects considered but no buildings or terrain being 95% lower than the equivalent scenario.
11.3.27 The coastal effects module within the model used to predict dispersion in this assessment does not consider specific weather phenomena such as a sea haar. However, by using meteorological data from a monitoring station likely to be subject to the same coastal effects as those occurring at the development site, these phenomenon are already captured within the modelled meteorological data and are, therefore, intrinsic to the assessment. With specific reference to sea haar events, maximum ground level concentrations from an elevated emission source always occur during convective conditions when strong vertical turbulent motion resulting from heating of the land surface cause portions of the plume to be drawn towards ground level. During a haar, convective activity is completely diminished by the thick cloud cover, meaning concentrations during a haar would be less than those occurring at other times of the year when the weather is warm with clear skies. In essence, dispersion of stack emissions from the Proposed Development during a haar would be more favourable than during typical, average weather conditions.
11.3.28 Figure 11.5 presents the wind rose figures for the period 2010-2014 indicating the prevailing wind speed and directions in the area. The wind rose indicates a prevailing south-south-easterly wind with a north-westerly component. The majority of winds are of moderate wind speed, i.e. 5.1 to 8.2 m s-1 (10-16 knots). Strong winds/gales 8 m s-1 and above (over 17 knots) account for much of the north-westerly winds in 2010.
11.3.29 As previously discussed, the risk of adverse dust effects increases on dry days, since rainfall acts to dampen exposed surfaces, thus reducing the dust generation potential. Table 11.27 summarises the typical monthly variation in rainfall totals at Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport.
Table 11.27 Variation in Monthly Rainfall at Aberdeen (Dyce) Airport
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rainfall 77.5 69.8 44.8 46.4 48.4 66.2 81.6 94.2 47.6 94.6 70.2 74.0 (mm)
11.3.30 Table 11.27 indicates a relatively even distribution of monthly rainfall throughout the year with the period October to January displaying a marginally greater tendency for increased amounts of precipitation. The high monthly rainfall in August is likely to be as a result of convective activity associated with higher temperatures during the summer. This type of rainfall is likely to be more intense, but less frequent than other months, where more prolonged but less intense showers from frontal systems are likely to dominate.
Summary of Baseline Situation
11.3.31 Annual mean baseline concentrations of LAQM pollutants for the receptors have been derived from the data in Table 11.24 and Table 11.25. Baseline concentrations of the non-LAQM pollutants are taken from the data in Section 11.3, whilst background deposition rates are those detailed in Table 11.26.
11.3.32 An exception is made for the three receptors in the AQMAs, for which the monitoring data from the Wellington Road continuous monitoring station is used for NO2 and PM10, Receptor IDs 10 and 11, for which the monitored NO2 concentration from the DT38 diffusion tube is used, and Receptor IDs 12, 13, 34, 35, 36 and 39 for which the monitored NO2 concentration from the DT37 diffusion tube is used. Whilst the mapped background concentrations for these receptors, which are more influenced by emissions from road traffic than others, are lower than the monitored values, it should be noted that the annual mean NO2 measured at the urban background diffusion tube monitoring locations tends to be slightly lower than the mapped background concentrations. The adopted approach therefore enables a conservative estimate of impact.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 204 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.3.33 The annual average process contribution is added to the annual average baseline concentration to give a total concentration at each receptor location. It is not technically rigorous to add predicted short-term or percentile concentrations to ambient background concentrations, since peak contributions from different sources would not necessarily coincide at the same time or at the same location. Without hourly ambient background monitoring data available for the majority of pollutants it is difficult to make an assessment against the achievement or otherwise of the short- term assessment criteria. For the current assessment, conservative short-term baseline levels have been derived by applying a factor of two to the annual mean data as per the recommendation in SEPA’s H1 horizontal guidance note.
Predicted Future Baseline
11.3.34 Given the current uncertainty in future reductions in emissions, particularly from road traffic, the current baseline concentrations have not been projected to the future opening year of the Proposed Development. In essence, no reduction in existing baseline concentrations is assumed as a conservative approach.
11.3.35 It is understood that demolition and remediation of the existing site are to be undertaken during 2016 by the current landowner SGN (formerly Scotland Gas Networks). The assessment assumes that all demolition work to remove existing infrastructure within the Development Site has been completed before any activity subject of the planning application for the Proposed Development takes place.
11.4 Design Evolution and Embedded Mitigation
Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects
Point source emissions to air
11.4.1 In order to control stack emissions and ensure that the ELVs are complied with, the design of the Proposed Development includes a sophisticated flue gas treatment (FGT) plant to treat emissions before they are discharged to atmosphere. The FGT plant consists of the following infrastructure:
Advanced SNCR for reduction of NOx emissions to molecular nitrogen and water by means of injecting a urea solution into the combustion chamber at multiple injection points;
Semi-dry scrubbing using a lime solution in order to reduce acid gas (SO2, HCl and HF) emissions;
Carbon injection in order to reduce TOC, PCDD/F and Hg emissions; and Bag filtration plant in order to reduce emissions of particulate matter, including metals in the solid phase.
11.4.2 In addition to the FGT plant, the height of the stack has been designed to ensure adequate dispersion of residual pollutant emissions based on a stack height assessment using detailed modelling. This assessment is provided in the main technical report (Technical Methodological Report of Point Source Emissions to Air)
Dust
11.4.3 In order to control fugitive dust emissions during the operational phase of the Proposed Development, all waste deliveries to the Development Site would be in enclosed vehicles with subsequent storage and processing taking place within enclosed buildings.
11.4.4 Examples of dust mitigation measures proposed during the construction phase of the Proposed Development are provided in Table 11.28 based on the assessed risk following application of the IAQM dust guidance. As the Development Site is defined as ‘low risk’ of dust soiling for the
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 205 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
earthworks, construction and trackout phases, suitable dust and emission control measures suitable to this risk category should be applied during the construction phases of the Proposed Development. The measures shown are highly recommended by the IAQM for a ‘low risk’ site. Additional measures to be considered in the event of substantial dust complaints are also provided.
Table 11.28 Recommended mitigation measures for the construction phase
Mitigation area Mitigation measures to be incorporated Additional measures to be considered in the event of substantial dust complaints
Communications Display the name and contact details of person(s) Develop and implement a stakeholder communications accountable for air quality and dust issues on the plan that includes community engagement before work site boundary. This may be the environment commences on site. manager/engineer or the site manager. Display the head or regional office contact information.
Dust Develop and implement a Dust Management Plan The DMP may be extended to include monitoring of Management (DMP), which may include measures to control other dust deposition, dust flux, realtime PM10 continuous emissions, approved by the Local Authority. The monitoring and/or visual inspections. level of detail would depend on the risk, and should include as a minimum the recommended measures in this table.
Site management Record all dust and air quality complaints, identify Hold regular liaison meetings with other high risk cause(s), take appropriate measures to reduce construction sites within 500 m of the site boundary, to emissions in a timely manner, and record the ensure plans are coordinated and dust and particulate measures taken. matter emissions are minimised. It is important to Make the complaints log available to the local understand the interactions of the off-site transport/ authority when asked. deliveries which might be using the same strategic road network routes. Record any exceptional incidents that cause dust and/or emissions, either on- or off-site and the action taken to resolve the situation in the log book
Monitoring Carry out regular site inspections to monitor Undertake daily onsite and off-site inspection, where compliance with the DMP, record inspection results, receptors (including roads) are nearby, to monitor and make an inspection log available to the local dust, record inspection results, and make the log authority when asked. available to the local authority when asked. Increase the frequency of site inspections by the Agree dust deposition, dust flux, or real-time PM10 person accountable for air quality and dust issues continuous monitoring locations with the Local onsite when activities with a high potential to Authority. Where possible commence baseline produce dust are being carried out and during monitoring at least three months before work prolonged dry or windy conditions commences on site or, if it a large site, before work on a phase commences. Further guidance is provided by IAQM on monitoring during earthworks and construction.
Preparing and Plan site layout so that machinery and dust causing Fully enclose site or specific operations where there is maintaining site activities are located away from receptors, as far as a high potential for dust production and the possible. Development Site is active for an extensive period. Erect solid screens or barriers around dusty activities Keep site fencing, barriers and scaffolding clean using or the site boundary that are at least as high as any wet methods. stockpiles on site. Remove materials that have a potential to produce Avoid site runoff of water or mud. dust from site as soon as possible, unless being re- used on site. Cover, seed or fence stockpiles to prevent wind whipping.
Operating Ensure all vehicles switch off engines when Impose and signpost a maximum-speed-limit of 15 vehicle/machiner stationary – no idling vehicles. mph on surfaced and 10 mph on un-surfaced haul y roads and work areas. Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators Implement a Travel Plan that supports and and use mains electricity or battery powered encourages sustainable travel (public transport, equipment where practicable. cycling, walking and car-sharing).
Produce a Construction Logistics Plan to manage sustainable delivery of goods and materials.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 206 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Mitigation area Mitigation measures to be incorporated Additional measures to be considered in the event of substantial dust complaints
Operations Only use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted Ensure equipment readily available onsite to clean any or in conjunction with suitable dust suppression dry spillages, and clean up spillages as soon as techniques such as water sprays or local extraction reasonably practicable after the event, using wet e.g. suitable local exhaust ventilation systems. cleaning methods
Ensure an adequate water supply on the Development Site for effective dust/particulate matter suppression/mitigation, using non-potable water where possible and appropriate.
Use enclosed chutes and conveyors, and covered skips.
Minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading or handling equipment and use fine water sprays on such equipment wherever appropriate.
Waste Avoid bonfires and burning of waste materials Management
Earthworks Re-vegetate earthworks and exposed areas/soil stockpiles to stabilise surfaces as soon as practicable Use Hessian, mulches or trackifiers where it is not possible to re-vegetate or cover with topsoil, as soon as practicable Only remove the cover in small areas during work and not all at once.
Construction Ensure sand and other aggregates are stored in bunded areas and are not allowed to dry out, unless this is required for a particular process, in which case ensure that appropriate additional control measures are in place. Avoid scabbing if possible. Ensure bulk cement and other fine powder materials are delivered in enclosed tankers and stored in silos with suitable emission control systems to prevent the escape of material and overfilling during delivery For smaller supplies of fine powder materials, ensure bags are sealed after use and stored appropriately to prevent dust.
Trackout Ensure vehicles entering and leaving sites are Access gates to be located at least 10m from covered to prevent escape of materials during receptors where possible. transport. Consider continuous use of the dust sweeper
Use water-assisted dust sweeper(s) on the access Avoid dry sweeping of large areas. and local roads, to remove, as necessary any Record all inspections of haul routes and any material tracked out of the Development Site. subsequent action in a site log book. Implement a wheel washing system (with rumble grids to dislodge accumulated dust and mud prior to leaving the Development Site where reasonably practicable) Inspect onsite haul routes for integrity and instigate necessary repairs to the surface as soon as reasonably practicable. Install hard surfaced haul routes, which are regularly damped down with fixed or mobile sprinkler systems, or mobile water bowsers and regularly cleaned. Ensure there is an adequate area of hard surfaced road between the wheel wash facility and the Development Site exit, wherever site size and layout permits.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 207 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Odour
11.4.5 In order to control and reduce odour emissions during operation of the Proposed Development, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated in to the plant design: All waste deliveries to the Proposed Development would be made in enclosed vehicles; Documented waste acceptance procedures would be in place requiring all imported waste to be checked by an appropriate member of staff before being accepted. If any of the material does not meet the acceptance criteria, it would be rejected and immediately returned to the point of origin; All storage and processing of the waste would be in enclosed buildings maintained under negative pressure and with building air used to provide the combustion air requirement for the combustion process, thereby destroying any odorous compounds at the high combustion temperatures; When the combustion unit is not available, e.g. during a shutdown for maintenance, the waste bunker would be isolated from the remainder of the building and an extraction system would capture air above the bunker. This air would be treated in a carbon-based odour control unit before the treated air is discharged via a roof level vent; Vehicles would access and exit the buildings via fast-acting roller shutter doors; and As a permitted installation regulated by SEPA, an odour management plan (OMP) would be required to be developed ensure that operation of the Proposed Development does not result in detectable odours beyond the Development Site boundary. The OMP would set out, amongst others, who is responsible for managing odour effects and contain documented procedures for routine monitoring of off-site odour.
Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects
11.4.6 No further measures are incorporated to mitigate against other effects.
11.5 Impact Assessment
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase
Dust Effects
11.5.1 Information on likely dust generating activities for the construction activities outlined in the IAQM guidance (IAQM, 2014a) are assessed qualitatively to predict the air quality effects associated with dust and PM10 generated by the construction of the Proposed Development.
Earthworks
11.5.2 Potential sources of impacts associated with earthworks/ground preparation activities include fugitive dust/PM10 emissions resulting from disturbance of dusty materials by construction plant, the construction materials used, vehicle movements and wind action. Taking account the fact that the total site area is over 10,000 m2 and that there is potential for there to be 5-10 heavy earth moving vehicles active at one time, the dust emission magnitude for the earthworks phase of the Proposed Development is considered to be ‘large’.
Construction
11.5.3 Potential sources of impacts associated with construction activities include fugitive dust/ PM10 emissions resulting from disturbance of dusty materials by construction plant, the construction materials used, vehicle movements and wind action. The potential dust emission magnitude for
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 208 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
construction activities associated with the Proposed Development and supporting infrastructure is considered to be ‘large’, given that the total building volume would be over 100,000 m3.
Trackout
11.5.4 Dust emissions during trackout from the Development Site may occur from the transport of dust and dirt from the construction site onto the public road network, where it may be deposited and then re-suspended by vehicles using the network. The dust emission magnitude for of trackout is considered to be ‘medium’ as a result of the estimation that there would be 10 - 50 HDV (>3.5 tonne) outward movements in any one day, and given the likely short unpaved road length and moderately dusty surface material.
Summary
11.5.5 The magnitude of change from the four activities is summarised in Table 11.29 below.
Table 11.29 Construction dust emission magnitude
Source Dust Emission Magnitude
Earthworks Large
Construction Large
Trackout Medium
Sensitivity of area
11.5.6 There are no residential properties located within 300 m of the Development Site boundary, which is mainly industrial in nature. Greenbank Road and other likely routes for construction vehicles are mainly industrial in nature. The sensitivity of the area with respect to dust soiling effects on people and property is therefore considered to be ‘low’.
-3 11.5.7 The estimated existing background PM10 concentration is 13.4 µg m . Given that there are 10 - 100 receptors within 350 m of the Development Site boundary and within 500 m from the Development Site entrance on the public highway, the sensitivity of the area with respect to human health impacts is considered to be ‘low’.
11.5.8 The nearest statutory ecological receptor is located approximately 1.2 km from the Development Site; the River Dee SAC, whilst the nearest non-statutory ecological receptor (Tullos Hill/Loirston Country Park) is approximately 60m away. Given the distance from the Development Site and from the proposed construction traffic routes, the sensitivity of the area with respect to dust soiling effects on ecological receptors is considered to be ‘low’.
11.5.9 The sensitivity of the surrounding area is summarised in Table 11.30 below.
Table 11.30 Sensitivity of surrounding area to dust impacts
Sensitivity of the Surrounding Area Potential Impact Earthworks Construction Trackout
Dust Soiling Low Low Low
Human Health Low Low Low
Ecological Low Low Low
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 209 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Risk of dust impacts
11.5.10 The risk of dust impacts is defined using Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the IAQM guidance for earthworks, construction and trackout respectively. The dust emission magnitude classes combined with the sensitivity of surrounding area classes, result in the Development Site risk categories shown in Table 11.31.
Table 11.31 Construction dust summary of dust risk
Risk Potential Impact Earthworks Construction Trackout
Dust Soiling Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk
Human Health Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk
Ecological Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk
Summary
11.5.11 The significance of effects for the three activities are summarised in Table 11.32 below taking in to account implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the IAQM guidance for a low risk site. Overall, potential amenity effects with respect to dust raised during the construction phase is considered to be not significant and can be effectively mitigated.
Table 11.32 Construction Dust Significance of Effects
Source Significance of effects of activity with mitigation
Earthworks Not significant
Construction Not significant
Trackout Not significant
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase - Normal Operations
11.5.12 This section of the assessment provides the results of the detailed dispersion modelling assessment of emissions to air during normal operation of the Proposed Development. The significance of potential air quality effects during the operational phase of the Proposed Development has been determined using detailed dispersion modelling to predict concentrations at receptors of key pollutants emitted from development related activities (point sources). The tabular results for all receptors presented in Appendix 11.B.
Concentrations in Air: Human Receptors
25 11.5.13 Table 11.33 details the results of the impact assessment for the specific human receptor considered in this assessment that experiences the maximum impact in terms of the process contribution (PC – the increment arising from emissions from the Proposed Development alone) and the predicted environmental concentration (PEC – the PC added to the background concentration). Results tables for all receptors included in the assessment are contained within Appendix 11.B, while process contribution isopleths are contained in Figures 11.6 to 11.16.
25 Excluding AQMA receptors which are assessed in section 11.5.19 below.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 210 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.5.14 Of note, due to the use of a spatially varying baseline concentration for certain pollutants, the maximum PC and PEC results do not necessarily relate to the same receptor. In all cases, concentrations at all other receptors are lower than those reported in Table 11.33 below.
Table 11.33 Summary model results for human receptor experiencing maximum impact
Pollutant AQO/EAL Max PC Max PEC Max PC Max PEC % Max PEC (µg m-3) Receptor Receptor (µg m-3) (µg m-3) of AQO/EAL
A A NO2 Annual mean 40 Tullos School Craigpark 0.76 32.08 80.2%
NO2 99.79 Percentile 1- 200 Airylea Motors Craigpark 13.15 70.14 35.1% hour mean
CO 8-hour mean 10,000 Airylea Motors Torry Public 9.0 585 5.9% Library
PM10 Annual mean 18 Tullos School Torry Public 0.08 15.04 83.5% Library
PM10 98.08 percentile 24- 50 Tullos School Torry Public 0.41 30.18 60.4% hour mean Library
PM2.5 Annual mean 10 Tullos School Torry Public 0.08 9.84 98.4% Library
SO2 99.73 percentile 1- 350 Airylea Motors Torry Public 18.56 31.90 9.1% hour mean Library
SO2 99.18 percentile 24- 125 Airylea Motors Torry Public 3.79 25.41 20.3% hour mean Library
SO2 99.9 percentile 15- 266 Airylea Motors Torry Public 20.62 34.15 12.8% minmean Library
VOCs (as Benzene) 5 Tullos School Torry Public 0.08 0.45 9.1% Annual mean Library
HCl 1-hour mean 750 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 6.05 6.68 0.9%
HF 1-hour mean 160 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 0.40 6.40 4.0%
Group 1 Metals (Cd) 5 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.39 (ng m-3) 0.48 (ng m-3) 9.5% Annual mean
Group 1 Metals (Cd) 1,500 (ng m-3) Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.04 (ng m-3) 5.22 (ng m-3) 0.4% 1 hour mean
Group 2 Metals (Hg) 250 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.39 (ng m-3) 1.59 (ng m-3) 0.6% Annual mean
Group 2 Metals (Hg) 7,500 (ng m-3) Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.04 (ng m-3) 7.44 (ng m-3) 0.1% 1 hour mean
Group 3 Metals (Cr III) 5,000 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 1.42 (ng m-3) <0.1% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (Cr III) 150,000 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 7.59 (ng m-3) <0.1% 1 hour mean (ng m-3)
Group 3 Metals (Cr VI) 0.2 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.001 (ng m-3) 0.08 (ng m-3) 40.2% Annual mean B
Group 3 Metals (Ni) 20 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 1.47 (ng m-3) 7.4% Annual mean
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 211 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Pollutant AQO/EAL Max PC Max PEC Max PC Max PEC % Max PEC (µg m-3) Receptor Receptor (µg m-3) (µg m-3) of AQO/EAL
Group 3 Metals (Ni) 30,000 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 7.68 (ng m-3) <0.1% 1 hour mean (ng m-3)
Group 3 Metals (As) 3 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.02 (ng m-3) 0.40 (ng m-3) 13.5% Annual mean B
Group 3 Metals (As) 15,000 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 6.36 (ng m-3) <0.1% 1 hour mean (ng m-3)
Group 3 Metals (Sb) 5,000 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 0.46 (ng m-3) <0.1% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (Sb) 150,000 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 5.66 (ng m-3) <0.1% 1 hour mean (ng m-3)
Group 3 Metals (Co) 200 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 0.52 (ng m-3) 0.3% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (Co) 6,000 (ng m-3) Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 5.77 (ng m-3) 0.1% 1 hour mean
Group 3 Metals (Cu) 2,000 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 7.04 (ng m-3) 0.4% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (Cu) 60,000 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 18.83 (ng m-3) <0.1% 1 hour mean (ng m-3)
Group 3 Metals (Pb) 250 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 3.81 (ng m-3) 1.5% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (Mn) 1,000 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 3.46 (ng m-3) 0.4% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (Mn) 1,500,000 Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 11.66 (ng m-3) <0.1% 1 hour mean (ng m-3)
Group 3 Metals (V) 5,000 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School 0.43 (ng m-3) 2.00 (ng m-3) <0.1% Annual mean
Group 3 Metals (V) 1,000 (ng m-3) Airylea Motors Airylea Motors 5.60 (ng m-3) 8.74 (ng m-3) 0.9% 1 hour mean
PAHs (as B(a)P) Annual 0.25 (ng m-3) Tullos School Tullos School <0.001 0.10 (ng m-3) 40.0% mean (ng m-3)
NH3 Annual mean 180 Tullos School Torry Public 0.08 1.36 0.8% Library
NH3 1-hour mean 2500 Airylea Motors Torry Public 1.51 3.30 0.1% Library Notes: PC = Process contribution from EfW facility; PEC = Predicted environmental concentration (= PC+ baseline concentration). A This PEC occurs at a receptor where the PC is 0.08 µg m-3. By contrast, the PEC at the receptor which experiences the highest PC is 17.39 µg m-3 or 43.5% of the AQO. B Modelled values using the third tier of assessment in the EA Group 3 metals guidance
11.5.15 Table 11.33 shows that there are no predicted exceedences of the relevant AQOs/EALs at modelled human receptor locations. The modelled results for annual mean PM2.5 indicate that the maximum PEC of the draft AQO is 98.4% at Torry Public Library. However, the baseline concentration at this location accounts for 98.2% of the draft AQO with the Proposed Development contributing just 0.2% of the AQO. The maximum PM2.5 contribution from the Proposed Development at any receptor is 0.8% of the AQO with all receptors assessed as having a ‘negligible’ impact under IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 212 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.5.16 The maximum predicted increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations associated with the Proposed Development at any existing receptor location is 0.76 µg m-3. This maxima occurs at Tullos Primary School where the PEC is 17.39 µg m-3 or 43.5% of the AQO. At the location of maximum PEC (Craigpark), the contribution from the Proposed Development is 0.08 µg m-3, or 0.2% of the AQO. There are no receptors outside of the AQMAs where baseline NO2 concentrations are predicted to exceed the AQO and the impact of annual mean NO2 concentrations at all receptors is considered to be ‘negligible’ under IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance.
11.5.17 With regard to annual mean cadmium concentrations, the Proposed Development is predicted to have ‘slight adverse’ impacts at two of the modelled receptor locations under IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance. However, all other receptors are predicted to experience ‘negligible’ impacts with regard to cadmium emissions.
11.5.18 The impact of all other modelled long-term pollutant concentrations is considered to be ‘negligible’ under IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance. With regard to shorter-term concentrations, there are no predicted exceedences of any AQO/EAL.
Concentrations in Air: AQMAs
11.5.19 Table 11.34 presents the modelled annual mean NO2 and PM10 PCs and PECs at the defined AQMA receptors in the Wellington Road and City Centre AQMAs. As discussed in Paragraph 11.2.60, the Anderson Drive/Haudagain roundabout/Auchmill Road AQMA has not been specifically assessed due to its greater distance from the Development Site and with the maximum impact on Aberdeen City Council’s AQMAs being adequately addressed by reference to the assessment of impact at the much closer City Centre and Wellington Road AQMAs.
11.5.20 Only annual mean process contributions are provided in Table 11.34; these being the metrics which have resulted in the declaration of the AQMAs and continued exceedences based on the most recent monitoring data.
Table 11.34 Modelled NO2 and PM10 impacts at AQMA receptors
Annual mean NO2 (µg m-3) Annual mean PM10 (µg m-3) Receptor %PC of %PC of AQO PC PEC AQO PC PEC AQO AQO
Wellington Rd AQMA 1 40 0.19 48.19 <0.5% 18 0.02 21.02 <0.5%
Wellington Rd AQMA 2 40 0.17 48.17 <0.5% 18 0.02 21.02 <0.5%
City Centre AQMA 40 0.18 48.18 <0.5% 18 0.02 21.02 <0.5% Exceedences of the AQO are shown in bold.
11.5.21 The Proposed Development is predicted to have a ‘negligible’ impact on all three of the modelled AQMA receptor locations under IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance with respect to NO2 and PM10. The annual mean NO2 and PM10 concentrations at each of the AQMA receptors exceed the annual mean AQOs in the current baseline, before the impacts of the Proposed Development are included in the assessment. However, the %PC of the AQO for annual mean NO2 and PM10 is less than 0.5%, with the IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance stating that changes in concentrations relative to an Air Quality Assessment Level of less than 0.5% can be described as ‘negligible’ regardless of the total overall concentration.
Concentrations in Air: Ecological Receptors
11.5.22 Table 11.35 presents the modelled results for concentrations in air of NOx at the ecological receptors, whilst Table 11.36 and 11.37 presents the equivalent results for SO2, NH3 and HF. The significance of the results is discussed in the Nature Conservation chapter of this document (Chapter 8).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 213 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.5.23 In relation to the daily mean NOx critical level (CLE), it should be noted that the WHO background research document that contains this recommended level states: “Experimental evidence exists 3 3 that the CLE decreases from around 200 μg/m to 75 μg/m when in combination with O3 or SO2 at or above their critical levels.”
11.5.24 Given that neither O3 nor SO2 is likely to be at or above their respective critical levels, it is considered that application of a daily mean NOx CLE of 75 μg m-3 is overly-conservative.
Table 11.35 Modelled NOx impacts at ecological receptors
Annual Mean NOx (µgm-3) Daily mean NOx (µgm-3) Receptor CLE PC PEC %PEC of CLE CLE PC PEC %PEC of CLE
River Dee SAC 1 30 0.03 15.69 52.3% 75 0.80 32.12 42.8%
River Dee SAC 2 30 0.23 33.70 112.3% 75 3.30 70.23 93.6%
River Dee SAC 3 30 0.32 39.63 132.1% 75 2.62 81.22 108.3%
River Dee SAC 4 30 0.29 45.44 151.5% 75 2.09 92.38 123.2%
River Dee SAC 5 30 0.14 41.39 138.0% 75 1.14 83.65 111.5%
Cove SSSI 30 0.08 11.48 38.3% 75 0.88 23.68 31.6%
Red Moss of Netherley 30 0.01 4.40 14.7% 75 0.37 9.14 12.2% SAC
Findon Moor SSSI 30 0.04 5.77 19.2% 75 0.47 11.95 15.9%
Scotstown Moor SSSI 30 0.04 16.12 53.7% 75 0.34 32.50 43.3%
Bishop's Loch SSSI 30 0.03 10.28 34.3% 75 0.30 20.80 27.7%
Lily Loch SSSI 30 0.03 8.61 28.7% 75 0.29 17.45 23.3%
Corby Loch SSSI 30 0.03 8.61 28.7% 75 0.27 17.44 23.3%
Tullos Hill LNCS 30 1.41 21.13 70.4% 75 16.90 56.33 75.1%
Kincorth LNR 30 0.08 12.28 40.9% 75 2.06 26.46 35.3%
Balnagask to Cove 30 0.13 41.39 138.0% 75 1.27 83.78 111.7% LNCS 1
Balnagask to Cove 30 0.24 23.18 77.3% 75 2.49 48.38 64.5% LNCS 2
Balnagask to Cove 30 0.28 16.49 55.0% 75 2.56 34.98 46.6% LNCS 3
Balnagask to Cove 30 0.36 12.43 41.4% 75 2.41 26.54 35.4% LNCS 4
Balnagask to Cove 30 0.17 9.26 30.9% 75 1.51 19.68 26.2% LNCS 5
%PEC exceeding 100% is shown in bold.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 214 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.36 Modelled SO2 and NH3 impacts at ecological receptors
Receptor Annual mean SO2 (µg m-3) Annual mean NH3 (µg m-3)
CLE PC PEC %PEC of CLE CLE PC PEC %PEC of CLE
River Dee SAC 1 20 0.01 1.91 9.6% 3 <0.01 0.91 30.4%
River Dee SAC 2 20 0.08 2.66 13.3% 3 0.02 0.93 30.9%
River Dee SAC 3 20 0.12 12.32 61.6% 3 0.02 1.36 45.4%
River Dee SAC 4 20 0.10 12.30 61.5% 3 0.02 0.52 17.4%
River Dee SAC 5 20 0.05 5.45 27.2% 3 0.01 0.46 15.3%
Cove SSSI 20 0.03 2.43 12.2% 3 0.01 0.50 16.6%
Red Moss of 20 0.01 1.01 5.0% 3 <0.01 1.13 37.7% Netherley SAC
Findon Moor SSSI 20 0.01 1.41 7.2% 3 <0.01 0.86 28.8%
Scotstown Moor SSSI 20 0.02 1.77 8.8% 3 <0.01 1.38 46.1%
Bishop's Loch SSSI 20 0.01 1.70 8.5% 3 <0.01 1.38 46.1%
Lily Loch SSSI 20 0.01 1.39 6.9% 3 <0.01 1.38 46.1%
Corby Loch SSSI 20 0.01 1.39 6.9% 3 <0.01 1.38 46.1%
Tullos Hill LNCS 20 0.52 2.96 14.8% 3 0.10 0.59 19.7%
Kincorth LNR 20 0.03 2.03 10.1% 3 0.01 0.92 30.5%
Balnagask to Cove 20 0.05 5.45 27.2% 3 0.01 0.51 17.0% LNCS 1
Balnagask to Cove 20 0.09 2.49 12.4% 3 0.02 0.51 16.9% LNCS 2
Balnagask to Cove 20 0.10 2.50 12.5% 3 0.02 0.51 17.0% LNCS 3
Balnagask to Cove 20 0.13 2.53 12.6% 3 0.03 0.52 17.2% LNCS 4
Balnagask to Cove 20 0.06 2.46 12.3% 3 0.01 0.50 16.7% LNCS 5
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 215 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.37 Modelled HF impacts at ecological receptors
Receptor Daily mean HF (µg m-3) Weekly mean HF (µg m-3)
%PEC of %PEC of CLE PC PEC CLE PC PEC CLE CLE
River Dee SAC 1 5 0.01 6.01 120.1% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1201%
River Dee SAC 2 5 0.02 6.02 120.5% 0.5 0.01 6.01 1202%
River Dee SAC 3 5 0.02 6.02 120.4% 0.5 0.01 6.01 1202%
River Dee SAC 4 5 0.01 6.01 120.3% 0.5 0.01 6.01 1201%
River Dee SAC 5 5 0.01 6.01 120.2% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1201%
Cove SSSI 5 0.01 6.01 120.1% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1201%
Red Moss of Netherley SAC 5 <0.01 6.00 120.0% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Findon Moor SSSI 5 <0.01 6.00 120.1% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Scotstown Moor SSSI 5 <0.01 6.00 120.0% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Bishop's Loch SSSI 5 <0.01 6.00 120.0% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Lily Loch SSSI 5 <0.01 6.00 120.0% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Corby Loch SSSI 5 <0.01 6.00 120.0% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Tullos Hill LNCS 5 0.12 6.12 120.2% 0.5 0.06 6.06 1212%
Kincorth LNR 5 0.01 6.01 120.3% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 1 5 0.01 6.01 120.2% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 2 5 0.02 6.02 120.4% 0.5 0.01 6.01 1201%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 3 5 0.02 6.02 120.4% 0.5 0.01 6.01 1201%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 4 5 0.02 6.02 120.3% 0.5 0.01 6.01 1201%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 5 5 0.01 6.01 120.2% 0.5 <0.01 6.00 1200% %PEC exceeding 100% is shown in bold.
Deposition: Metals
11.5.25 Table 11.38 presents the results of the impact assessment of metal deposition at the specific human receptor considered in this study that experiences the maximum deposition rate associated with process emissions from the Proposed Development.
Table 11.38 Maximum modelled metal deposition rates at human receptors
Metal MDR (mg m-2 d-1) PC (ng m-3) PDR (mg m-2 d-1) %PDR of MDR
Cadmium 0.09 0.39 0.0010 1.1%
Mercury 0.004 0.39 0.0010 25.0%
Chromium 1.5 0.43 0.0011 0.1%
Nickel 0.11 0.43 0.0011 1.0%
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 216 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Metal MDR (mg m-2 d-1) PC (ng m-3) PDR (mg m-2 d-1) %PDR of MDR
Arsenic 0.02 0.43 0.0011 5.6%
Copper 0.25 0.43 0.0011 0.4%
Lead 1.1 0.43 0.0011 0.1%
MDR = maximum deposition rate (as defined by H1 guidance); PC = process contribution of metal in air; PDR = predicted deposition rate to ground
11.5.26 As maximum predicted metal deposition rates in Table 11.38 are well below the MDR in the H1 guidance document, potential effects on human health associated with deposition of metals are considered not significant.
Deposition: Nitrogen and Acid
11.5.27 Table 11.39 and Table 11.40 present the results of the assessment of nitrogen deposition and acid deposition rates against the established critical loads for the relevant ecological receptors where such critical loads are prescribed by the APIS website. Certain receptors, such as the River Dee do not have established critical loads. The significance of these impacts is determined in Chapter 8 Nature Conservation.
Table 11.39 Modelled nitrogen deposition rates at ecological receptors
Receptor CLmin PC PEDR %PC of %PEC of (kg N ha-1 y-1) (kg N ha-1 y-1) (kg N ha-1 y-1) CLmin CLmin
Red Moss of Netherley SAC 5 0.001 14.28 <0.1% 285.6%
Findon Moor SSSI 10 0.004 14.70 <0.1% 147.0%
Scotstown Moor SSSI 10 0.004 17.08 <0.1% 170.8%
Bishop's Loch SSSI 10 0.003 17.08 <0.1% 170.8%
Lily Loch SSSI 10 0.003 13.02 <0.1% 130.2%
Corby Loch SSSI 10 0.003 17.08 <0.1% 170.8%
Tullos Hill LNCS 10 0.14 15.54 1.4% 155.4%
Kincorth LNR 5 0.001 21.01 0.2% 420.2%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 1 10 0.02 11.63 0.14% 116.3%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 2 10 0.02 11.08 0.2% 110.8%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 3 10 0.03 11.09 0.3% 110.9%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 4 10 0.04 14.74 0.4% 147.4%
Balnagask to Cove LNCS 5 10 0.02 11.08 0.2% 110.8% CL = Critical load – the CL selected for each designated site relates to its most N-sensitive habitat (or a similar surrogate) listed on the site citation for which data on Critical Loads are available and is also based on a precautionary approach using professional judgement. PC = process contribution PEDR = predicted environmental deposition rate (= PC + background)
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 217 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.40 Modelled acid deposition rates at Ecological Receptors
Nitrogen Sulphur Total Receptor Parameter deposition deposition deposition % of CL (keq ha-1 y-1) (keq ha-1 y-1) (keq ha-1 y-1)
Red Moss of Netherley SAC Process contribution 0.0001 0.0006 0.0007 <0.1%
Background 1.02 0.23 1.25 230.2%
Predicted 1.02 0.23 1.25 230.2% environmental deposition rate
Findon Moor SSSI Process contribution 0.0003 0.001 0.001 0.4%
Background 1.05 0.21 1.26 53.8%
Predicted 1.05 0.21 1.26 53.8% environmental deposition rate
Scotstown Moor SSSI Process contribution 0.0003 0.002 0.002 <0.1%
Background 1.22 0.2 1.42 190.3%
Predicted 1.22 0.2 1.42 190.3% environmental deposition rate
Bishop’s Loch SSSI Process contribution 0.0002 0.001 0.001 <0.1%
Background 1.22 0.2 1.42 190.3%
Predicted 1.22 0.2 1.42 190.3% environmental deposition rate
Lily Loch SSSI Process contribution 0.0002 0.001 0.001 <0.1%
Background 0.93 0.2 1.13 151.5%
Predicted 0.93 0.2 1.13 151.5% environmental deposition rate
Corby Loch SSSI Process contribution 0.0002 0.001 0.001 <0.1%
Background 1.22 0.2 1.42 190.3%
Predicted 1.22 0.2 1.42 190.3% environmental deposition rate
Tullos Hill LNCS Process contribution 0.01 0.06 0.07 9.2%
Background 1.10 0.34 1.44 189.5%
Predicted 1.11 0.40 1.52 199.5% environmental deposition rate
Kincorth LNR Process contribution 0.0006 0.003 0.004 <0.1%
Background 1.5 0.33 1.83 157.8%
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 218 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Nitrogen Sulphur Total Receptor Parameter deposition deposition deposition % of CL (keq ha-1 y-1) (keq ha-1 y-1) (keq ha-1 y-1)
Predicted 1.5 0.33 1.83 157.8% environmental deposition rate
Balnagask to Cove 1 Process contribution 0.0001 0.006 0.007 1.5%
Background 0.83 0.47 1.30 120.5
Predicted 0.83 0.48 1.31 123.1 environmental deposition rate
Balnagask to Cove 2 Process contribution 0.001 0.01 0.01 2.6%
Background 0.3 0.79 1.09 76.9%
Predicted 0.31 0.79 1.1 76.5% environmental deposition rate
Balnagask to Cove 3 Process contribution 0.002 0.01 0.01 3%
Background 0.3 0.79 1.09 76.9%
Predicted 0.31 0.79 1.10 76.5% environmental deposition rate
Balnagask to Cove 4 Process contribution 0.002 0.02 0.02 3.9%
Background 0.3 0.79 1.09 57.7%
Predicted 0.32 0.79 1.11 61.5% environmental deposition rate
Balnagask to Cove 5 Process contribution 0.001 0.007 0.008 1.4%
Background 0.3 0.79 1.09 57.7%
Predicted 0.31 0.79 1.1 59.6% environmental deposition rate
Abnormal Operation
Concentrations in Air
11.5.28 Table 11.41 presents the summary model results during abnormal operating conditions of the combustion unit and associated FGT infrastructure for the specific receptor experiencing the maximum PC and PEC. Where ELVs are not specified for abnormal operating conditions, emission rates from the main stack during abnormal operation have been derived from those occurring during normal operation based on the FGT efficiency.
11.5.29 As Article 46(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU states ELVs must not be exceeded for more than 4 hours uninterrupted, only those pollutants with an AQO averaging period less than this duration are considered as part of the abnormal emissions assessment. After a period of four hours, the plant would have entered a complete shutdown if exceedences of the ELVs had persisted.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 219 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.41 Summary model results for human receptor experiencing maximum process contribution during abnormal operation
Pollutant AQO/EAL (µg m-3) Max PC (µg m-3) Max PEC (µg m-3) % Max PEC of AQO/EAL
NO2 99.79 Percentile 1-hour mean 200 26.29 70.60 35.3%
SO2 99.73 percentile 1-hour mean 350 185.64 190.52 54.4%
SO2 99.18 percentile 24-hour 125 37.89 42.77 34.2% mean
SO2 99.9 percentile 15-min mean 266 206.21 211.09 79.4%
HCl 1-hour mean 750 60.49 61.12 8.1%
HF 1-hour mean 160 4.03 10.03 6.3%
Group 1 Metals (Cd) 1 hour mean 1,500 (ng m-3) 25.20 (ng m-3) 25.38 (ng m-3) 1.7%
Group 2 Metals (Hg) 1-hour mean 7,500 (ng m-3) 25.20 (ng m-3) 27.60 (ng m-3) 0.4%
Group 3 Metals (Cr III) 1 hour 150,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 29.99 (ng m-3) <0.1% mean
Group 3 Metals (Ni) 1 hour mean 30,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 30.09 (ng m-3) 0.1%
Group 3 Metals (As) 1 hour mean 15,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 28.77 (ng m-3) 0.2%
Group 3 Metals (Sb) 1 hour mean 150,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 28.06 (ng m-3) <0.1%
Group 3 Metals (Co) 1 hour mean 6,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 28.18 (ng m-3) 0.5%
Group 3 Metals (Cu) 1 hour mean 60,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 41.23 (ng m-3) <0.1%
Group 3 Metals (Mn) 1 hour mean 1,500,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 34.07 (ng m-3) <0.1%
Group 3 Metals (V) 1 hour mean 1,000 (ng m-3) 28.00 (ng m-3) 31.15 (ng m-3) 3.1%
11.5.30
11.5.31 Table 11.41 shows that during abnormal operation, essentially a complete failure of the FGT infrastructure, there are predicted to be no exceedences of the relevant short-term AQOs/EALs.
Odour
th 11.5.32 Table 11.42 presents the modelled 98 percentile 1-hour mean odour concentrations at receptors during the abnormal operational scenario whereby the combustion unit is shut down and air above the waste bunker is extracted and treated in a carbon based odour control unit instead of being used as combustion air for the combustion process itself.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 220 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 11.42 Predicted Odour Effects during the Operational Phase of the Proposed Development (Abnormal Operation)
Threshold 98th Process Contribution, Percentage of Receptor Percentile 1-hour 98th Percentile 1-hour Impact Descriptor Threshold Mean (ouE m-3) Mean (ouE m-3)
Kirkhill Road 1 1.5 0.07 5.0% Negligible
Kirkhill Road 2 1.5 0.11 7.4% Negligible
Kirkhill Crescent 1 1.5 0.18 11.9% Negligible
Kirkhill Crescent 2 1.5 0.23 15.6% Negligible
Tullos Primary School 1.5 0.22 14.9% Negligible
Balnagask Circle 1.5 0.07 4.7% Negligible
Burbank 1.5 0.05 3.1% Negligible
Caravan Park 1.5 0.06 3.8% Negligible
West Tullos Road 1.5 0.02 1.5% Negligible
Clockwork Nursery 1.5 0.03 2.1% Negligible
Craigpark 1.5 0.03 2.2% Negligible
Altens Nursery 1.5 0.05 3.5% Negligible
Wellington Road 1.5 0.05 3.4% Negligible
Balnagask Road 1 1.5 0.08 5.3% Negligible
Balnagask Road 2 1.5 0.11 7.2% Negligible
Farquhar Avenue 1.5 0.09 6.2% Negligible
Torry Academy 1.5 0.07 4.8% Negligible
Torry Care Home 1.5 0.09 6.0% Negligible
Torry Public Library 1.5 0.05 3.4% Negligible
Beech House Nursery 1.5 0.09 5.9% Negligible
Mansefield Place 1.5 0.08 5.3% Negligible
Grampian Place 1.5 0.05 3.3% Negligible
Balnagask Road 1.5 0.04 3.0% Negligible
Abbey Place 1.5 0.07 4.5% Negligible
Nigg Way 1.5 0.02 1.6% Negligible
Abbotswell Crescent 1.5 0.02 1.5% Negligible
Torry St Fittick’s 1.5 0.05 3.2% Negligible Parish
Walker Road Primary 1.5 0.05 3.3% Negligible School
East Tullos Recycling 1.5 0.36 23.9% Negligible Centre
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 221 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Threshold 98th Process Contribution, Percentage of Receptor Percentile 1-hour 98th Percentile 1-hour Impact Descriptor Threshold Mean (ouE m-3) Mean (ouE m-3)
Doonies Farm 1.5 0.04 2.6% Negligible
Loirston Country Park 1.5 0.35 23.2% Negligible (footpaths)
Nigg Bay Golf Club 1.5 0.03 2.1% Negligible
Arnold Clark Volvo 1.5 0.05 3.5% Negligible
Peter Vardy Land 1.5 0.05 3.6% Negligible Rover
Town & County 1.5 0.06 3.9% Negligible Porsche Ltd
Lochside Interiors 1.5 0.06 4.0% Negligible
Carwash Greenbank 1.5 0.15 9.7% Negligible Place
Airylea Motors 1.5 0.16 10.8% Negligible
Car Clinic Hillview 1.5 0.05 3.6% Negligible Road
Torry Sports Centre 1.5 0.05 3.5% Negligible
11.5.33 Table 11.42 demonstrates that there are no exceedences of the most stringent odour benchmark during abnormal operation at the Development Site.
11.5.34 Furthermore, potential odour effects when the Development Site is operating normally can be mitigated successfully by the controls detailed in Section 11.4 and these are considered to be effective at reducing the intensity and/or frequency of odours emitted from the Development Site.
11.5.35 Taking the above considerations into account, effects associated with emissions of odour during the operational phase of the Proposed Development are considered to be not significant.
Conclusions
11.5.36 Detailed dispersion modelling of point source emissions to air has demonstrated that predicted increases in concentrations of relevant pollutants at existing receptor locations would be considered not significant on the basis of the Proposed Development’s negligible contribution to baseline concentrations when the facility is operating normally. Outside of the AQMAs, no exceedences of the relevant AQOs are predicted at the human receptor locations in either the normal or abnormal operation scenarios.
11.5.37 The Proposed Development is predicted to have a ‘negligible’ impact on all three of the modelled AQMA receptor locations under IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance with respect to NO2 and PM10. The annual mean NO2 and PM10 concentrations at each of the AQMA receptors exceed the annual mean AQOs in the current baseline, before the impacts of the Proposed Development are included in the assessment. However, the %PC of the AQO for annual mean NO2 and PM10 is less than 0.5%, with the IAQM/EPUK (2015) guidance stating that changes in concentrations relative to an Air Quality Assessment Level of less than 0.5% can be described as ‘negligible’ regardless of the total overall concentration.
11.5.38 The dust and odour assessment concludes that, with appropriate mitigation measures in place, any potential adverse effects associated with development related emissions of dust and/or odour are considered to be not significant.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 222 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.6 Cumulative Effects
11.6.1 There are several existing Part A(1) installations on the East Tullos Industrial Estate regulated by SEPA and it is important that due consideration be given to the potential in-combination impacts of their associated emissions to air. Consultation with SEPA has been undertaken to identify whether data is available to allow these emission sources to be explicitly modelled within the same model runs as emissions from the proposed EfW facility.
11.6.2 Unfortunately, this consultation process has identified that there is insufficient data to allow these off-site emission sources to be explicitly modelled.
11.6.3 However, there is an extensive air quality monitoring network in the area and, as these are all long- term existing processes, emissions from other industry on the industrial estate would already be captured and recorded in these data. Furthermore, the background mapped estimates from the Scottish Air Quality Database (SAQD) include contributions from point source emissions form all Part A(1) activities regulated by SEPA. Consequently, there are no grounds to suggest that the cumulative impact of emissions from the Proposed Development and existing industry have been underestimated in this assessment by the use of either monitored or mapped background data.
11.6.4 With regard to odour, given that the Proposed Development is predicted to have a negligible impact well below the most stringent odour benchmark in relevant guidance, any cumulative effect with existing odour emission sources would also be considered negligible and not significant.
11.7 Additional Mitigation
11.7.1 No mitigation above that identified in Section 11.4 is considered necessary to prevent significant adverse air quality effects.
11.8 Summary of Predicted Effects
Table 11.43 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance
Receptor/Issue Probability Value Magnitude Significance
Level Rationale
Air Quality Effects – Certain High Low Not There are isolated ‘slight adverse’ impacts Normal Operation Significant predicted under normal operation of the Proposed Development but negligible impacts are predicted at the majority of receptors and pollutants under normal operation of the facility. The annual mean NO2 and PM10 concentrations at each of the AQMA receptors exceed the AQOs in the current baseline, before the impacts of the Proposed Development are included in the assessment. However, the process contributions at all modelled receptor locations within the AQMAs are less than 0.5% of the AQO and considered ‘negligible’ under IAQM guidance.
Air Quality Effects – Possible High Medium Not There may be some short-term elevated Abnormal Operation significant concentrations at modelled receptors should the Development Site operate abnormally under the theoretical failure conditions assumed in the assessment. However, these would be temporary and short-term in nature. Furthermore, the assessment indicates that no AQO would be exceeded during these theoretical events.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 223 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor/Issue Probability Value Magnitude Significance
Level Rationale
Odour – Normal Unlikely High Low Not Negligible impact beyond the Development Operation Significant Site if the Proposed Development is operating normally and all mitigation measures are implemented
Odour – Abnormal Possible High Low Not Negligible impacts at receptor locations. All Operation Significant predicted concentrations well the most stringent odour benchmark.
Construction Dust Likely Medium Low Not Negligible impacts if all mitigation measures Significant are implemented
Key: Probability Value* Magnitude Significance
Certain High High Significant
Likely Medium Medium Not Significant
Possible Low Low
Unlikely None
11.9 Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Table 11.44 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals
Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism
Development of dust management plan for the Contractor Planning condition construction phase of the Proposed Developments
Development of odour management plan Plant operator Condition in the PPC Permit
Compliance with all IED ELVs, including enhanced Plant operator/SEPA Condition in the PPC Permit NOx mitigation (advanced SNCR) with ELV lower than that required by IED
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 224 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
11.10 Technical References
Amec Foster Wheeler (2016a). East Tullos Energy from Waste Plant: Technical Methodological Report of Point Source Emissions to Air. Amec Foster Wheeler (2016b). East Tullos Energy from Waste Plant: Method Statement Supporting the Air Quality Assessment. DEFRA (2009). Local Air Quality Management - Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09). DEFRA in partnership with The Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Department of the Environment Northern Ireland (2007). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. European Council and European Parliament (2004). Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air. Official Journal of the European Union. European Council and European Parliament (2008). Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air in Europe. Official Journal of the European Union. European Council and European Parliament (2010). Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). Great Britain Parliament (1995). Environment Act 1995 (c.25). Great Britain Parliament (1990). Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43). HMSO (1991). The Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings. HMSO (1995). The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings. Report for the Department of Environment by Ove Arup and Partners. HMSO (2007) Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 64 Environmental Protection – The Air Quality Standards Regulation 2007. IAQM (2014a). Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction. IAQM (2014b). Guidance on the assessment of odour for planning. IAQM/EPUK (2015). Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning For Air Quality Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2003). Horizontal guidance Note IPPC H1, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Odour Guidance 2010. The Stationery Office Limited (2010). Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1001 Environmental Protection – The Air Quality Standards Regulation 2010. The Scottish Parliament (2000). The Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000 No 97). The Scottish Parliament (2002). The Air Quality (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002 No 297). The Scottish Parliament (2010). The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010 No 204). The Scottish Parliament (2012). The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012, (SSI 2012 No.360). The Scottish Parliament (2016). The Air Quality (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 (Draft SSI). Vallack H. W. and Shilitto, D. E. (1998). Suggested Guidelines for Deposited Ambient Dust. Atmospheric Environment, 32, 2737-2744. World Health Organisation (2005). Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update 2005 - Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 225 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
12. Landscape and Visual
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) considers the proposed Energy from Waste (EfW) facility (the Proposed Development) on land at Greenbank Crescent, East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen (the Development Site). In accordance with the European Landscape Convention and Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute and IEMA, May 2013) the term ‘landscape’ encompasses both built-up areas of ‘townscape’ and coastal areas of ‘seascape’ which have been included in this assessment due to the location of the Development Site, within the southern part of Aberdeen City and close to the coastline, and the associated Study Area for the Proposed Development.
12.1.2 The Development Site is approximately 2 hectares in size and is located within the established East Tullos Industrial Estate on the south side of Aberdeen. The Proposed Development is described in Chapter 2 Project Description.
12.1.3 The LVIA has been produced by chartered landscape architects at Amec Foster Wheeler. The objective of this assessment has been to determine the landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development on the existing landscape resource and visual amenity. The following landscape and visual receptors have been assessed: landscape/townscape/seascape character, key characteristics, and elements;
designated landscapes; and views and visual amenity experienced by residents, tourists, visitors, recreational and road users.
12.1.4 The LVIA has included design iteration and the re-assessment of residual effects with the aim of achieving an acceptable compromise between energy from waste production, environmental considerations and an acceptable design in terms of landscape and visual effects, which proactively seeks to achieve quality placemaking with a Proposed Development that can be appreciated locally as a new landmark in architectural terms.
12.1.5 A number of figures are provided to illustrate this chapter and they are contained within Volume 2 and include plans and visualisations of the Proposed Development.
12.2 Planning and Guidance
12.2.1 The LVIA has taken account of relevant planning policy at a national level (NPF3, SPP and other Scottish Government Planning Policies, Advice and Guidance); as well as at a local level within the Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan, Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 (LDP) and the Proposed Aberdeen LDP 2015 (Proposed Plan). Relevant LDP and Proposed Plan policies and guidance are listed below and outlined in more detail in Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context: Aberdeen Local Development Plan (LDP): Policy D1: Architecture and Placemaking; Policy D2: Design and Amenity; Policy D5: Built Heritage; and Policy D6: Landscape. Aberdeen LDP Statutory Supplementary Guidance:
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 226 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Design Review Panel Supplementary Guidance; Landscape Guidelines Supplementary Guidance; Landscape Conservation Supplementary Guidance; and Trees and Woodland Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen LDP 2016 Proposed Plan: Policy D1: Quality Placemaking by Design; Policy D2: Landscape; Policy NE1 Green Space Network; Policy NE5: Trees and Woodlands; and Policy NE9: Access and Informal Recreation. Proposed Plan Draft Supplementary Guidance: Design: Townscape and Landscape Natural Environment: Land and Water
12.3 Assessment Approach
12.3.1 The methodology for the LVIA has been undertaken in accordance with best practice guidance and is based on the GLVIA 3 (Landscape Institute and IEMA, May 2013). Additional guidance has been taken from, but not limited to, the following key publications: Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, produced by the University of Sheffield and Landuse Consultants for the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002); and An Approach to Seascape Character Assessment, produced by LDA for Natural England (2012).
12.3.2 The approach to visualisations follows the Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute, 2011) and Visual Representation of Wind Farms (SNH, Version 2.1, December 2014) have been followed in relation to the production of photomontages illustrating the view from each of the five assessment viewpoints.
Defining the Study Area
12.3.3 Based on a combination of desk based analysis, site survey and our professional experience in assessing similar tall / large scale development within an urban / industrial setting it was considered that significant landscape and visual effects (including effects on townscape and seascape character) are unlikely to occur beyond 2-5km distance from the Development Site. This hypotheses has been checked and verified as part of the assessment process through further Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and wireframe analysis from various assessment viewpoints and wider site survey.
12.3.4 On this basis a wider 5km Study Area (5km radius from the site boundary) and a local 2km Study Area (2km radius from the site boundary) have been established for this assessment and agreed with consultees through the scoping process. It is intended that the 2km Study Area will be used to assess local receptors (including for example, townscape character and Core Paths) at a more detailed scale.
12.3.5 It is important to note that the boundary of the Study Area is not the limit of potential visibility in clear weather conditions. Rather it is an area defined, on the basis of desk-based analysis and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 227 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
field study, as a suitable Study Area for the assessment of the Proposed Development, which would contain all of the potentially significant landscape and visual effects.
Landscape and Visual Assessment Methodology
12.3.6 Landscape Effects (which in this assessment also include effects on townscape and seascape) are defined by in GLVIA 3 (paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2) as follows:
“An assessment of landscape effects deals with the effects of change and development on landscape as a resource. The concern ... is with how the proposal will affect the elements that make up the landscape, the aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape and its distinctive character ... The area of landscape that should be covered in assessing landscape effects should include the site itself and the full extent of the wider landscape around it which the proposed Development may influence in a significant manner.”
Landscape Character
12.3.7 GLVIA 3 (paragraph 5.4) advises that Landscape Character Assessment should be regarded as the main source for baseline studies and identifies the following factors which combine to create areas of distinct landscape character:
“the elements that make up the landscape in the study area including: physical influences – geology, soils, landform, drainage and water bodies; landcover, including different types of vegetation and patterns and types of tree cover; and
the influence of human activity, including landuse and management, the character of settlements and buildings, and pattern and type of fields and enclosure. The aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape – such as, for example, its scale, complexity, openness, tranquillity or wildness; The overall character of the landscape in the study area, including any distinctive Landscape Character Types or Areas that can be identified, and the particular combinations of elements and aesthetic and perceptual aspects that make each distinctive, usually by identification as key characteristics of the landscape.”
Townscape
12.3.8 Townscape is defined in GLVIA 3 (paragraph 2.7) as, “areas where the built environment is dominant”. It also identifies the following different factors which together determine townscape character (paragraph 5.5): “the context or setting of the urban area and its relationship to the wider landscape; The topography and its relationship to urban form; The grain of the built form and its relationship to historic patterns; The layout and scale of the buildings, density of development and building types; The patterns of land use, both past and present; The contribution to the landscape of water bodies, watercourses and other water features; The nature and location of vegetation;
The types of open space and the character and qualities of the public realm; and Access and connectivity”.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 228 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Seascape
12.3.9 GLVIA 3 (paragraph 5.6) advises that where LVIA is carried out in coastal or marine locations baseline studies must take account of seascape. Seascape is defined in the UK Marine Policy Statement as “landscapes with views of the coast or seas, and coasts and the adjacent marine environment with cultural, historical and archaeological links with each other” (Scottish Government, 2011). Natural England (2012) gives a fuller definition of seascape as follows: “Seascape, like landscape is about the relationship between people and place and the part it plays in forming the setting to our everyday lives. Seascape results from the way that the different components of our environment – both natural and cultural – interact together and are understood and experienced by people.”
12.3.10 GLVIA 3 (paragraph 5.6) identifies the following different factors which together determine seascape character:
“coastal features; views to and from the sea; particular qualities of the open sea; the importance of dynamic changes due to weather and tides; changes in seascapes due to coastal processes; cultural associations; and
contributions of coastal features to orientation and navigation at sea.”
Landscape Effects
12.3.11 The potential Landscape Effects, which include effects on townscape and seascape character, occurring during the construction and operational periods of the Proposed Development include, but are not restricted to the following: Changes to landscape / townscape / seascape elements: the addition of new elements or the removal of existing elements such as trees, vegetation and buildings and other characteristic elements of the landscape character type; Changes to landscape / townscape / seascape qualities: degradation or erosion of elements and patterns and aesthetic or perceptual characteristics, particularly those that form key characteristic elements or contribute to the landscape / townscape / seascape value; and
Changes to landscape / townscape / seascape character: character may be affected through the incremental effect on characteristic elements, patterns and qualities (including aesthetic or perceptual characteristics) and the cumulative addition of new features, the magnitude of which is sufficient to alter the overall landscape character type of a particular area.
12.3.12 Development may have a direct (physical) effect on the landscape / townscape / seascape as well as an indirect effect which would be perceived from wider areas, outside the immediate site and associated ‘host’ character type or area within which the development is located.
12.3.13 The sensitivity of the landscape / townscape / seascape to a particular development considers the susceptibility of the landscape to the development and its value. The overall sensitivity is described as high, medium or low, This is assessed by taking into account the existing landscape quality, landscape value and landscape capacity or susceptibility to change, which often varies in response to both the type of development proposed and the particular site location, such that landscape sensitivity needs to be considered on a case by case basis. This should not be confused with 'inherent sensitivity' where areas of the landscape may be referred to as inherently of 'high' or 'low' sensitivity. For example, a National Scenic Area may be described as inherently of high sensitivity on account of its designation, although it may prove to be less sensitive to particular development and/or the design of that development. Alternatively an area of undesignated landscape may be of
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 229 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
high sensitivity to a particular type of development and/or the design of that development regardless of the lack of local or national designation.
12.3.14 Examples and further guidance on the evaluation of landscape sensitivity that are based on the criteria set out in Paragraphs 5.39 – 5.47 of the GLVIA3 are described in Table 12.1:
Table 12.1 Landscape sensitivity
Landscape Factors influencing landscape value Factors influencing landscape susceptibility Sensitivity Category
High Designations: Internationally and nationally Pattern, complexity and physical susceptibility to designated landscapes and landscape features change: A landscape with a strong and distinctive and their setting pattern or a simple but distinctive landscape. Some of Condition/Quality: A landscape whose features its landscape features are highly valued and/or its are intact and/or in good condition characteristic landscape features are entirely or Scenic Quality: A landscape of high aesthetic substantially intact. appeal Visual susceptibility to change: A landscape whose Rarity: A landscape that contains rare landscape topography and land cover result in it being partly enclosed and/or with relatively frequent availability of features or that is rare in a regional or national partial and/or framed views resulting in varying levels context of visibility internally and/or to surrounding landscapes. Conservation Interest: A landscape with rich Landmarks have a prominent role in the landscape. and/or diverse cultural and/or nature conservation Experiential susceptibility: A landscape with high features levels of tranquillity, wildness and/or remoteness with Recreation Value: A landscape that makes a little or no sense of visual intrusion. A sense of deep large contribution to the public’s recreational time depth and/or maturity. A landscape where light experience intrusion is low and dark night time skies are present. Perceptual Aspects: A landscape that has a high level of wildness and/or tranquillity Associations: A landscape with a high level of historic and/or cultural associations
Medium Designations: Locally designated landscapes Pattern, complexity and physical susceptibility to and landscape features change: A landscape with a pattern that is mostly Condition/Quality: A landscape with some intact or possessing some complexity. Some of its features or sub-areas that are intact and/or in landscape features are valued and/or its characteristic good condition landscape features are generally in reasonable condition. Scenic Quality: A landscape of moderate aesthetic appeal Visual susceptibility to change: A landscape whose topography and land cover result in it being partly Rarity: A landscape that contains distinctive enclosed with screening elements often present landscape features or that is replicated elsewhere in a regional or national context resulting in a moderate level visibility internally and/or to surrounding landscapes. Landmarks have a limited Conservation Interest: A landscape with some role in the landscape. cultural and/or nature conservation features Experiential susceptibility: A landscape with Recreation Value: A landscape that makes a moderate levels of tranquillity, wildness and/or moderate contribution to the public’s recreational remoteness with only limited examples of visual experience intrusion. A limited or partial sense of deep time depth Perceptual Aspects: A landscape that has a and/or maturity. A landscape where some light limited level of wildness and/or tranquillity but also intrusion is a night time characteristic. contains some detractive elements Associations: A landscape with a limited level of historic and/or cultural associations
Low Designations: Non-designated landscapes and Pattern, complexity and physical susceptibility to landscape features change: A landscape with a simple or monotonous Condition/Quality: A landscape whose features pattern or a degraded landscape. It contains no highly are rarely intact and/or are in poor condition valued features and/or any characteristic landscape features have been lost with remaining landscape Scenic Quality: A landscape of little or no features being indistinct and/or alien. aesthetic appeal Visual susceptibility to change: A landscape whose Rarity: A landscape that contains few if any, topography and land cover result in it being large distinctive landscape features or is extensive in a regional or national context scale, open or possessing a sense of exposure resulting in a relatively high and consistent degree of Conservation Interest: A landscape with few, if visibility. Landmarks have minimal or no role in the any, cultural and/or nature conservation features landscape.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 230 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Landscape Factors influencing landscape value Factors influencing landscape susceptibility Sensitivity Category
Recreation Value: A landscape that makes little Experiential susceptibility: A landscape with low or or no contribution to the public’s recreational minimal levels of tranquillity, wildness and/or experience remoteness with many examples of visual intrusion. Perceptual Aspects: A landscape that has a little No sense of deep time depth and/or maturity. A or no level of wildness and/or tranquillity landscape where light pollution levels are moderate or high and dark night time skies are absent. Associations: A landscape without historic and/or cultural associations
12.3.15 The ‘magnitude’ or ‘degree of change’ resulting from a particular development is described as high, medium, low, or negligible. This is assessed by considering the scale and extent of the development, which may include the loss or addition of particular features, and changes to quality and / or character. The landscape effects are also described in terms of their geographical extent, duration / reversibility and subsequently whether the effect would be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.
12.3.16 Examples and further guidance on the evaluation of the magnitude of landscape change are described in Table 12.2:
Table 12.2 Magnitude of Landscape Change
Magnitude Key determining criteria of landscape change
High Size and/or scale: the extent and relative proportion of the existing landscape element(s) to be lost would be large and/or the lost landscape element(s) makes a key contribution to landscape character and/or value. Introduction of new landscape elements that would be likely to be perceived to be a dominant landscape characteristic. Large scale alteration to the aesthetic and perceptual characteristics of the landscape. Geographical extent: effects would be discernible across a large majority or the entirety of the landscape designation or character area. Duration and reversibility of effects: effects of the introduction of new landscape features would be long- term i.e. will last for over 15 years or will be permanent. Loss of landscape features that are irreplaceable or can only be replaced in the long-term.
Medium Size and/or scale: the extent and relative proportion of the existing landscape element(s) to be lost would be moderate and/or any lost landscape elements make a moderate contribution to landscape character and/or value. Introduction of new landscape elements that would be likely to be perceived to be a prominent landscape characteristic. Moderate scale alteration to the aesthetic and perceptual characteristics of the landscape. Geographical extent: effects would be discernible across a moderate proportion of the landscape designation or character area. Duration and reversibility of effects: effects of the introduction of new landscape features would be medium-term i.e. will last for between 5 and 15 years. Loss of landscape elements that can be fully replaced within the same time period.
Low Size and/or scale: the extent and relative proportion of the existing landscape element(s) to be lost would be minor and/or any lost landscape elements make only a minor contribution to landscape character and/or value. Introduction of new landscape elements that would be likely to be perceived to be a small-scale landscape characteristic. Small scale alteration to the aesthetic and perceptual characteristics of the landscape. Geographical extent: effects would be discernible across a small proportion of the landscape designation or character area and/or restricted to the close vicinity of the development site. Duration and reversibility of effects: effects of the introduction of new landscape features would be short- term i.e. will last for between 1 and 5 years. Loss of landscape elements that can be fully replaced within the same time period.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 231 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Magnitude Key determining criteria of landscape change
Negligible Size and/or scale: the extent and relative proportion of the existing landscape element(s) to be lost would be barely perceptible and/or any lost landscape elements make a minimal or no contribution to landscape character and/or value. Introduction of new landscape elements that will be likely to be imperceptible. Minimal alteration to the aesthetic and perceptual characteristics of the landscape. Geographical extent: effects would only be discernible within the development site or immediately alongside it. Duration and reversibility of effects: effects of the introduction of new landscape elements would last for less than a year. Any loss of landscape elements can be fully replaced immediately.
Visual Effects
12.3.17 Visual Effects are concerned wholly with the effect of the development on views, and the general visual amenity and are defined in GLVIA 3 (paragraph 6.1) as follows: “An assessment of visual effects deals with the effects of change and development on views available to people and their visual amenity. The concern ... is with assessing how the surroundings of individuals or groups of people may be specifically affected by changes in the context and character of views.”
12.3.18 Visual effects are identified for different receptors (people) who will experience the view at their places of residence, during recreational activities, at work, or when travelling through the area. The visual effects may include the following: A change to an existing static view from one location; Changes to sequential views experienced from a route; and
Changes to the wider visual amenity as a result of development or the loss of particular landscape / townscape / seascape elements or other features already present in the view.
12.3.19 The sensitivity of the visual receptor to a particular development considers the susceptibility of the receptor and the value of the view which is described as high, medium or low. The main factors to consider are the activity of the receptor (people) at the viewpoint location and the importance or popularity of the view and / or typical numbers of viewers. Other factors include the location and context of the viewpoint (in terms of the landscape value, quality, and capacity of the area within the view).
12.3.20 Examples and further guidance on the evaluation of visual sensitivity are described in Table 12.3:
Table 12.3 Visual Receptor sensitivity
Examples of visual receptor sensitivity
High This category generally covers: people in residential properties; people undertaking outdoor recreational activities within nationally designated landscapes (National Scenic Areas); visitors to outdoor tourist attractions; people walking, cycling or riding on sections of national trails, long distance footpaths and Public Rights of Way (PRoWs); national Sustrans cycle routes; users of open access land and receptors at specified viewpoints i.e. those marked on road atlases and maps, are signed and/or have interpretation boards. The location of the viewpoint/receptors, the frequency of use and the visual context of the viewpoint, would be high in terms of landscape sensitivity and scenic quality.
Medium This category generally covers: people travelling through the landscape as rail passengers and road users on minor rural roads; and people undertaking recreational and sporting activities where it is likely that their surroundings have some influence upon their enjoyment (e.g. angling). The location of the viewpoint/receptors, the frequency of use and the visual context of the viewpoint, would be medium in terms of landscape sensitivity and scenic quality due, for example, to the occurrence of some detractive landscape features in views.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 232 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Examples of visual receptor sensitivity
Low This category generally covers: people for whom their surroundings are unlikely to be a primary concern or affect how they undertake their current activity. Receptors are likely to include people at their place of work, people travelling on main roads or motorways or taking part in activities not involving an appreciation of the landscape (e.g. playing team sports).
12.3.21 The magnitude of change is described as high, medium, low, or negligible, and is assessed by taking into account possible changes caused by the development, which may affect the view. In those instances where the development would not be visible and there would be no change to the view, the magnitude has been recorded as 'zero' and the level of effect as 'no view' of the development. The visual effects are also described in terms of their geographical extent, duration / reversibility and subsequently whether the effect would be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.
12.3.22 Further guidance on the evaluation of the magnitude of visual change in provided in Table 12.4:
Table 12.4 Magnitudes of Visual Change
Examples of magnitude of visual change
High A major change or obstruction of a view that may be directly visible, appearing as a dominant or prominent feature and/or appearing in the foreground.
Medium A moderate change or partial view of a new element within the view that may be readily noticed, seen in front of the receptor directly or obliquely visible including glimpsed, partly screened or intermittent views, appearing as a noticeable feature in the middle ground.
Low A low level of change, affecting a small part of the view that may be obliquely viewed or partly screened and or appearing in the background landscape – this may include views that change rapidly from fast-moving road vehicles or trains.
Negligible A small or intermittent change to the view that may be obliquely viewed and mostly screened and/or appearing in the distant background or viewed at high speed over short periods and capable of being missed by the casual observer.
12.3.23 Various graphics such as visual envelope and ZTV maps and computer generated visualisations are used to assist the assessment process.
Evaluating Landscape and Visual Effects
12.3.24 The level of effect relating to landscape and visual effects is determined by the combination of receptor sensitivity (ranging from high to low) and magnitude of change resulting from the development (ranging from high to zero), which is assisted through the guidance of a matrix table illustrated in Table 12.2.
12.3.25 The resulting effect is also described in terms of its geographical extent, duration / reversibility and whether it would be direct or indirect, positive / neutral or negative, and / or cumulative; and subsequently whether the effect would be significant in terms of the relevant EIA Regulations.
12.3.26 Predicted effects resulting from the development, which in the assessor’s opinion are likely to be significant are highlighted in bold in the text and unless otherwise stated, relate to all those effects that result in a ‘Substantial’ or a ‘Substantial / Moderate’ effect as indicated in Table 12.5. In some circumstances, ‘Moderate’ levels of effect also have the potential, subject to the assessor’s opinion, to be considered as significant. Whilst being aware of this possibility the assessors have confirmed that there are no examples where this has occurred in this case. Also in accordance with the relevant EIA Regulations the nature of the effects are described in terms of whether they would be direct or indirect and positive / neutral or negative.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 233 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 12.5 Evaluation of Landscape and Visual Effects
Magnitude of Change Landscapes and Visual Sensitivity
High Medium Low
High Substantial Substantial / Moderate Moderate
Medium Substantial / Moderate Moderate Slight
Low Moderate Slight Slight / Negligible
Negligible Slight Slight / Negligible Negligible
Zero None / No View
Consultation and Scope of Assessment
12.3.27 Consultation has been undertaken with Aberdeen City Council and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) as part of a formal scoping process. The advice from consultees has been used to agree and define the scope of the assessment and assist the design and assessment process.
Viewpoint Selection
12.3.28 At scoping three viewpoints were proposed and these had been selected to represent the Proposed Development at its most visible, as experienced by a range of receptor groups, from a spread of different directions, and over varying distances. Whilst no comment on viewpoints were received from consultees, a further three viewpoints were identified during field survey work. Table 12.6 provides an overview of viewpoints considered and reasoning for their selection. Five of the six viewpoints have been further illustrated, see Figure 12.1 for viewpoint locations and Figures 12.5 to 12.9.
Table 12.6 Viewpoint Location Selection Process
Assessment Viewpoint Name and Distance Reason for Selection No. (m)
1. Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) 437 Baron’s cairn trip point within the Loirston Country Park. Likely (Figure 12.5) receptors would include walkers and other recreational users of the country park.
2. Ladywell Place (Figure 12.6) 554 Provides clear view of Proposed Development adjacent to local primary school and local residential properties. Likely receptors would include residents and school children.
3. Wellington Road Bridge (Figure 928 Provides clear view of Proposed Development from A956. Likely 12.7) receptors would include road users.
4. St Fittick’s Road (St Fittick’s 1,337 Representative of views from Core Path 78 running along the coast Church) (Figure 12.8) of Nigg Bay to the east. Likely receptors would include walkers.
5. Kincorth Hill (Figure 12.9) 1,955 Summit of Kincorth Hill. Likely receptors would include walkers.
Other Potential Viewpoints Distance Reason for Rejection (m)
Duthie Park 1,625 Garden and Designed Landscape and recreational/tourist destination to the northwest of the Development Site. Scoped out after field survey confirmed that potential views would be heavily screened by mature trees and woodland, even during the winter months.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 234 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Information Gaps
12.3.29 The LVIA has been undertaken to accord with the guidance set out in the GLVIA 3 and as a result there are no known information gaps.
12.4 Baseline Information
12.4.1 Information on the existing landscape resource or baseline conditions included in this assessment has been collected from local plans, OS maps, and relevant literature, as well as information gathered from field surveys conducted in the autumn and winter 2015. The baseline information is set out as an inventory of the existing landscape and visual resource and focuses on those receptors with most potential to be significantly affected.
12.4.2 The baseline inventory is set out as follows: Baseline Landscape Receptors: Landscape Character; Seascape Character; Townscape Character;
Designated Landscapes; Landscapes of Recreational and Environmental Value; and Landscapes of Cultural and Historic Value.
Baseline Visual Receptors: Settlements and Residential Properties; Transport Routes;
Recreational Routes; and Recreational and Tourist Destinations.
Baseline Landscape Receptors
12.4.3 The landscape assessment has been focused on those landscape and seascape receptors within the 5km Study Area. In addition an assessment of townscape character has been completed for those areas within the 2km Study Area.
Townscape Character
12.4.4 The Development Site is located in the ‘Urban Area’ Landscape Character Type (LCT) identified within the Aberdeen City Landscape Character Assessment (SNH, 1996). There is no detailed description or guidance for this LCT and no townscape character assessment. As a consequence a localised Townscape Character Assessment has been undertaken for those areas within the 2km Study Area and an inventory of that baseline assessment is reported in Table 12.7 and is illustrated on Figure 12.2A.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 235 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 12.7 Summary of Townscape Character Assessment within the 2km study area
No. Townscape Character Type Townscape Character Area (TCA)
Townscape Character Assessment, undertaken by Amec Foster Wheeler in 2015
1 Industrial Estate 1a East Tullos Industrial Estate 1b West Tullos Industrial Estate 1c Altens Industrial Estate
2 Post War Housing Estate 2a Balnagask Post War Local Authority Housing 2b Redmoss Post War Housing 2c Kincorth Post War Housing
3 Docks 3a River Dee Docks
4 Shopping District 4a Union Square Shopping District
5 Pre War Stone Built Housing 5a Torry Pre War Stone Built Housing 5b Ferryhill 19th c. and 20th c. Stone Built Housing
6 Historic Fishing Village 6a Footdee 19th c. Fishing Village Housing
Landscape Character
12.4.5 Landscape character within the 5km Study Area is classified within the following SNH documents: Aberdeen City Landscape Character Assessment, SNH (1996); and
South and Central Aberdeenshire: Landscape Character Assessment, SNH (1998).
12.4.6 Each of the above landscape character reports divides the landscape into broad LCT and / or more localised Landscape Character Areas (LCA) or units. Drawing from these assessments, the landscape character within the 5km Study Area is reported in Table 12.8 below and is illustrated in Figure 12.2.
Table 12.8 Summary of LCA within the 5km study area
No. Landscape Character Type Landscape Character Area
Aberdeen City Landscape Character Assessment (SNH, 1996)
- Urban Area (Host LCA) -
8 Coast Aberdeen Links
11 Valley Lower Don Valley
21 Wooded Farmland Countesswells / Milltimber / Kennerty
22 Valley Dee Valley
23 Coast Girdle Ness/ Nigg Bay
24 Open Farmland Kincorth and Tullos Hills
25 Coast Doonies to Cove Coast
26 Open Farmland Den of Leggart
27 Open Farmland Loirston
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 236 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
No. Landscape Character Type Landscape Character Area
South and Central Aberdeenshire: Landscape Character Assessment (SNH, 1998)
2 Coastal Strip Kincardine Cliffs
12 Agricultural Heartlands Central Wooded Estates
13 Agricultural Heartlands Kincardine Plateau
Seascape Character
12.4.7 Seascape classification within the 5km Study Area is provided by the Assessment of the Sensitivity and Capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to Windfarms, SNH (2005). Drawing from this assessment, the seascape character within the 5km Study Area is reported in Table 12.9 below and illustrated on Figure 12.2.
Table 12.9 Summary of Seascape Character Areas within the 5km study area
No. Seascape Character Type Seascape Character Area
Assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to windfarms (SNH, 2005)
4 Type 2: Mainland Rocky Coastline with Open Sea Views North East Coast
4 Type 3: Deposition Coastline with Open Views North East Coast
Designated Landscapes
12.4.8 The Development Site is not subject to any landscape designations. Designated landscapes or locally valued landscapes within the 2km Study Area are illustrated on Figure 12.3A and include: Green Belt.
Landscapes of Recreational and Environmental Value: Country Parks (Loirston Country Park); and Urban Greenspace.
Landscapes of Cultural and Historic Value: Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL); and Conservation Areas.
12.4.9 The Green Belt designation covers area to the southeast of the Development Site and LDP Policy NE2 seeks to restrict development within the Green Belt. As the Proposed Development is not located within the Green Belt, no further assessment has been undertaken.
Landscapes of Recreational and Environmental Value
12.4.10 The Loirston Country Park is located immediately to the southeast of the Development Site and is entirely within the area of Green Belt identified above. It has been assessed as a visual receptor as part of the Visual Assessment.
12.4.11 Areas of Urban Greenspace have been mapped on Figure 12.3A and their planning purpose is defined in LDP Policy NE3 which restricts redevelopment of these area “for any use other than recreation or sport, unless an equivalent and equally convenient and accessible area for public access is laid out and made available in the locality by the applicant for urban green space purposes”. Further, it protects against “significant loss to the landscape character and amenity of
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 237 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
the site and adjoining areas”. Where these are open to the public as tourist or visitor destinations or form an attractive component of the public realm and townscape character these have been assessed as visual receptors.
Landscapes of Cultural and Historic Value
12.4.12 Gardens and Designed Landscapes (GDL) and Conservation Areas have been assessed as visual receptors as part of the Visual Assessment where these are open to the public as tourist or visitor destinations or form an attractive component of the public realm and townscape character.
12.4.13 Where relevant the characterising influence of these areas is also considered as part of the character assessments.
Visual Receptors and Existing Views
12.4.14 The visual assessment draws upon the ZTV, site visits and viewpoint analysis and assesses the potential visual effects on views and visual amenity likely to be experienced by receptors (people) within the landscape as follows: Views from residential properties and settlements; Views experienced whilst travelling through the landscape (road users, walkers, horse riders and cyclists for example); and Views from tourist and recreational destinations.
12.4.15 Viewpoint analysis indicates that significant visual effects could extend to approximately 350m from the Development Site and taking a precautionary approach, the visual assessment has been focused on those receptors within the detailed 2km Study Area.
Visual Receptors: Settlements and Residential Properties
12.4.16 The Development Site is located within the settlement of Aberdeen and there are no other settlements (defined by the relevant development plans) within the study area. The assessment of visual effects likely to be experienced from settlements includes consideration of residential areas, the public realm, and public open spaces within the settlement boundaries that would be frequented by people.
Residential Visual Amenity Assessment
12.4.17 In addition to the visual assessment a Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) has been undertaken in respect of those properties within 1km of the Development Site and reported in Appendix 12.B. The RVAA considers the effects of the Proposed Development on visual amenity and living standards considering factors such as the ability of the Proposed Development to visually ‘dominate’, ‘overwhelm’, ‘surround’, ‘overshadow’ or ‘block light’ to the extent that the property may become an unattractive place to live when judged objectively and in the public interest. A summary of this assessment is provide in Section 12.7.
12.4.18 The assessment has been conducted from public roads and paths with the aid of wireframes, maps and aerial photographs.
Visual Receptors: Transport Routes
12.4.19 The ‘A’ and ‘B’ class roads and main railway lines which make up the main transport routes within the 2km Study Area have been included in the assessment and listed as follows: A956 Wellington Road; A945 (Riverside Drive); B9077; and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 238 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Aberdeen to Dundee railway line.
Visual Receptors: Recreational Routes
12.4.20 The visual assessment has considered the potential visual effects likely to be experienced by people (walkers / cyclists / and others) on recreational routes within the 2km Study Area as illustrated in Figures 12.3 and 12.3A.
12.4.21 There are two national level recreational routes within the 2km Study Area as follows: National Cycle Route (NCR) 1; and NCR 195 (Deeside Heritage Trail follows the same route within the 2km Study Area).
The Core Path Network within 2km
12.4.22 The local Core Path Network sourced from the Aberdeen City Core Paths Plan has been assessed within the 2km Study Area. Core Path Plans aim to establish and designate a reasonable network of paths to provide access throughout local authority areas in which individual paths may be chosen because they meet at least one objective from a range of purposes, including linking communities, providing access to places of interest and for recreation.
12.4.23 Core Paths included in the assessment are listed as follows: CP103 North Balnagask Road to Wellington Road;
CP104 Balnagask; CP108 Torry – Coastal Path, Nigg Bay; CP78: Coastal Path South;
CP95 Cove – the Coast; CP83 Souter Head Road to Cove Crescent; CP81 Cove Road;
CP79: Kincorth Hill; CP105 Kincorth Hill to Stonehaven Road; CP59 Stonehaven Road to Auldearn Road;
CP85 Abbotswell Road to Bridge of Dee; CP69 Duthie Park; CP97 City Centre – Duthie Park; CP70 River Dee Path (north bank); CP19 Beach Esplanade; CP66 Deeside Way; and CP102 The Green.
Visual Receptors: Recreational and Tourist Destinations
12.4.24 Recreational and tourist destinations included in this assessment, within the 2km Study Area includes areas of landscape / seascape / townscape and features which may form part of the public realm (such as a town square, cemetery, precinct, school grounds, community garden, golf courses, local parks / Country Park, allotments or other area of public open space. In this respect it may form part of Aberdeen’s Urban Greenspace or Greenspace Network or fall within a
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 239 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Conservation Area or Country Park where the activity of people within that space is likely to be focused on an appreciation of the landscape. Landscape features, such as popular hill tops and sites of cultural and natural heritage importance, which are open and accessible to the public and / or promoted for tourism purposes including GDLs are also included in this category of visual receptors.
12.4.25 The assessment however, excludes locations for sports such as team sports (football grounds / stadiums) where the focus of activity is not on the landscape and other recreational / tourist destinations where the focus of activity is indoors, for example museums, libraries, and gift shops.
12.4.26 Recreational and tourist destinations within 2km of the Development Site include the following: Loirston Country Park - Tullos Hill. Areas of Urban Greenspace: Loirston Country Park - Tullos Hill (assessed separately); Playing fields adjacent to Tullos School; St Fittick’s Community Park; Balnagask (Nigg Bay) Golf Course (assessed separately); North Grampian Circle Play Area; Pocket Park next to Greenwell Road; Recreational Area south of River Dee;
Coastal Recreational Area; Duthie Park (assessed separately); Recreational Area north of River Dee;
Loirston Country Park - Kincorth Hill (assessed separately); Pocket Park west of Wellington Road; Woodland Area east of Wellington Road;
Valley Crescent Pocket Park; Provost Watt Pocket Park; Kincorth Circle Open Space; and Allenvale Cemetery. Duthie Park GDL. Footdee Conservation Area. Marine Terrace Conservation Area. Ferryhill Conservation Area. Balnagask Golf Course. Kincorth Hill. Aberdeen beach.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 240 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
12.5 Design Statement and Embedded Mitigations
12.5.1 The design measures outlined in this section have contributed to the wider environmental and technical design for the Proposed Development. The submitted DAS should also be referred too.
Description of Proposed Development
12.5.2 The core elements of the Proposed Development comprise the following: Waste Reception Hall; Waste Storage Bunker; Bottom Ash Hall; Boiler Hall; Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) ; Turbine Generator Hall; Air Cooled Condensers (ACC); Workshop & Maintenance Rooms;
Control Room; Reception Area; Offices and Meeting Rooms;
Staff Welfare and Changing Facilities; and Stack.
12.5.3 These elements would be enclosed within the main building and only the outer shell of this would be visible from publically accessible locations.
12.5.4 Further, ancillary, buildings and infrastructure would include: District Heating Enclosure; Weighbridges (one for incoming vehicles, the other for outgoing vehicles) and a Bypass Lane for incoming vehicles;
Staff and Visitor Car Park (with cycle storage shelter); Hard Standing Areas for the manoeuvring of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs); Substation; Step-up Transformer; and Fire Water Storage Tank.
12.5.5 All of these elements, except for the staff and visitor car park (with cycle storage shelter) would be enclosed by 2.4m high security fencing or walls.
Design Strategy and inherent mitigation
12.5.6 Working with the architects the design team identified a number of key constraints to guide the design of the Proposed Development. A number of these related to minimising potential effects on landscape and visual receptors as follows: Minimise the building footprint and landtake;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 241 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Minimise the vertical extents of the building; Minimise the horizontal spread of the building in views from the elevated residential area of Torry to the north to minimise potentially adverse effects on residential visual amenity; Limit landscape and visual effects on visual receptors including local residents, roads, recreational routes and visitor / tourist destinations; and Ensure that the massing and scale of the Proposed Development was developed such that it did not adversely affect existing townscape character.
12.5.7 The Development Site is located within the East Tullos Industrial Estate. The Proposed Development would replace existing industrial development, however would be visually more prominent than existing development within the industrial estate. In recognition of this the design team sought to create a positive and confident architectural statement such that the Proposed Development could become a new visual and civic landmark. In effect, whilst the magnitude of change for some landscape and visual receptors might be high, the nature of this change could be viewed as neutral to positive with the Proposed Development appreciated in architectural terms.
12.5.8 As part of the design process a range of alternative site layouts and architectural design concepts were identified (see DAS for further explanation and illustration). These were modelled from key viewpoints (assessed in Table 12.13) to identify the optimum layout and design. Two of these design iterations were illustrated and presented at public exhibition and comments received from the public were collated which resulted in the choice of a curved approach rather than a rectilinear design which also improved views from the east, northeast, west and southwest where there is a backdrop of curved landform.
Landscape Strategy
12.5.9 In addition to the design of the buildings a landscape strategy was prepared which incorporated two areas of the Development Site: Staff and Visitor Car Park (with cycle storage shelter); and A soft-landscaped detention basin.
12.5.10 The staff and visitor car park would not be fenced along its western edge where it adjoins Greenbank Crescent creating an open edge for staff and visitors. Instead, low formal hedgerows have been proposed to delineate the Development Site from the footway and road.
12.5.11 To either side of the open edge decorative, multi-stemmed flowering trees have been proposed to create seasonal interest and to formalise the entrance to the Development Site. These would be under-planted with simple, evergreen, understorey planting to accentuate the form of the trees and to minimise maintenance.
12.5.12 To allow safe pedestrian and car user access to the Development Site, permeable paving is proposed around the edges of the car park area and to allow access to the Development Site by pedestrians from Greenbank Crescent without them entering the car parking area itself.
12.5.13 Drawing from the existing character of the Industrial Estate a formal row of avenue trees has been proposed at the back of the car park adjacent to the security fencing to lead pedestrians through to the access gate at the north-eastern corner of the car park.
12.5.14 In order to maintain a green edge to the Development Site, climbers have been proposed to screen security fencing. Along the security fence facing on to Greenbank Road climbers have been proposed to either side of the security fence to ensure that both users of the Development Site and the general public view a green edge treatment. Similarly, along the security fencing which divides the carpark from the access road through the Development Site, climbers have been proposed to either side of the fence.
12.5.15 Within the fenced area of the Development Site a central area has been designed as a soft- landscape detention basin to increase drainage and to provide an attractive out-door recreational
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 242 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
area for staff. The detention basin would be planted with a wild-flower meadow mix suitable for wet conditions which would both create seasonal floral interest and minimise maintenance requirements.
12.5.16 On the level areas around the detention basin amenity grass is proposed, planted with a matrix of trees. Along the north-south axis of the detention basin area these echo the formal avenue of trees within the car park. In the southern end of this area the tree planting takes on a more organic layout.
12.5.17 Pedestrian crossings have been provided to allow easy access into this area and benches would be provided to encourage use of this area by staff.
12.6 Residual Landscape Effects
12.6.1 The residual landscape effects assessed here are those effects remaining after all of the embedded design measures and mitigation (see Section 12.5) has been taken into account.
Effects on Townscape Character
12.6.2 The Townscape Character within 2km of the Development Site has been assessed in Table 12.10 and illustrated in Figure 12.2A.
12.6.3 In summary, none of the surrounding TCAs would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development, although one of these the East Tullos Industrial Estate ‘host’ TCA would be directly affected be the Proposed Development.
12.6.4 The nature of these effects would be permanent and could be regarded as neutral to positive since the Proposed Development has been architecturally designed to create a new, local landmark feature which can be appreciated in architectural terms. The Proposed Development would add visual interest to the view and a high-quality landscape design, including tree planting, has been included in the design to contribute to green infrastructure in the local area.
Table 12.10 Effects on Townscape Character within 2km
Townscape Townscape Assessment Character Area (TCA)
Townscape Character Assessment
1a East Tullos The key characteristics of the East Tullos Industrial Estate TCA include: Industrial Urban industrial area adjacent to the A956; Estate (Host Mix of industrial buildings, silos and large chimney stacks with associated service yards, security fences TCA) and lighting; and
Mature broadleaf trees (and some coniferous screening) surrounding many of the individual development units. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The scenic quality is low due to the large industrial nature of the area. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be low as there are no formal recreational areas within the immediate vicinity, although there is informal access to the Loirston Country Park footpath network from the edge of the industrial estate. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Low. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since the Proposed Development replaces existing industrial development The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Low. Assessment: Proposed Development
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 243 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Townscape Townscape Assessment Character Area (TCA)
The Proposed Development would replace an existing industrial development. It should be noted however, that the scale of the Proposed Development is greater than that of the existing development, albeit, the architectural design of the Proposed Development and the materials specified are of higher quality. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the townscape area. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to intervening built form, there would be limited, short-range views of the Proposed Development available from parts of the immediate townscape area and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this townscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
1b West Tullos The key characteristics of the West Tullos Industrial Estate TCA include: Industrial Urban industrial area adjacent to the A956; and Estate Mix of industrial buildings with associated service yards, security fences and lighting. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The scenic quality is low due to the industrial nature of the area. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be low as there are no formal recreational areas within the immediate vicinity. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Low. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since the TCA is formed by existing industrial development The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Low. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 800m to the east of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the TCA. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form within the industrial estate, limited views of the upper parts of the stack and associated plume only would be available from parts of this TCA and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
1c Altens The key characteristics of the Altens Industrial Estate TCA include: Industrial Urban industrial area adjacent to the A956; and Estate Mix of industrial buildings, silos and large chimney stacks with associated service yards, security fences and lighting. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The scenic quality is low due to the large industrial nature of the area. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be low as there are no formal recreational areas within the immediate vicinity. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Low. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since the TCA is formed by existing industrial development The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Low. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 600m to the south of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the TCA. The ZTV indicates that there is theoretical visibility of the stack with very limited theoretical visibility of the main building present along the western edge of the TCA. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form within the industrial estate views of the of the stack and associated plume would be limited by intervening screening of built form and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
2a Balnagask The key characteristics of the Balnagask Post War Local Authority Housing TCA include: Post War Local
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 244 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Townscape Townscape Assessment Character Area (TCA)
Authority Residential area north of the Proposed Development comprising mix of predominantly post-war Local Housing Authority and private housing; Low rise residential terraced properties, semi-detached properties and high-rise flats; and Narrow street pattern. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be low as there are few formal recreational areas. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Low. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since existing industrial development is already present in many views. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be High. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 380m to the south of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across much of the TCA. The ZTV indicates that there is theoretical visibility of both the stack and associated plume and the main building. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form, coupled with narrow streets, views would be limited by the intervening screening of built form and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
2b Redmoss The key characteristics of the Redmoss Post-war Housing TCA include: Post-war Residential area adjacent to the A956; Housing Mix of one and two-storey properties with gardens; and Mature broadleaf trees (and some coniferous screening) and street trees. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be medium with access to the Loirston Country Park - Kincorth Hill to the north of the TCA. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since existing industrial development is already present to the south and east of the TCA. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 1.2m to the northeast of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across much of the TCA. The ZTV indicates that there is theoretical visibility of both the stack and associated plume and the main building. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening industrial built form and the screening effects of intervening street tress and trees along the edges of the TCA, views would be limited and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight/Negligible and non-significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
2c Kincorth The key characteristics of the Kincorth Post War Housing TCA include: Post War Residential area adjacent to the River Dee; Housing Predominantly, widely spaced, two-storey properties with gardens; Views across the City of Aberdeen to the north; and Mature broadleaf trees (and some coniferous screening) and street trees. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The TCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be medium with access to a number of formal recreational areas within the TCA. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this TCA. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 245 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Townscape Townscape Assessment Character Area (TCA)
The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since existing industrial development is already present to the east of the TCA. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 1.3km to the east of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is fragmented but across much of the TCA. The ZTV indicates that there is theoretical visibility of both the stack and associated plume and the main building. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening residential built form, the industrial built form present within the West Tullos Industrial Estate to the east and the screening effects of intervening street trees, views would be limited and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight/Negligible and non-significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
3a River Dee The key characteristics of the River Dee Docks TCA include: Docks Urban industrial area; and Quayside mix of industrial buildings and silos with associated service yards, security fences and lighting. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The TCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be low as this is a working industrial area. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this TCA. The overall value is considered to be Low. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since this is a changing industrial area. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Low. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 1.5km to the south of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the TCA. The ZTV indicates that there is theoretical visibility of the stack with very limited theoretical visibility of the main building present along the eastern edge of the TCA. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form views of the of the stack and associated plume would be limited by intervening screening of built form and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
4a Union The Development Site is located approximately 1.3km to the northwest at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of Square the Proposed Development (Stack and associated plume only is present across a small section of the LCA within Shopping the 5km study area. The ZTV does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to District intervening trees and built form no views of the Proposed Development would be available. The magnitude of change would be Zero and the level of effect on landscape character would be None. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
5a Torry Pre The key characteristics of the Torry Pre War Stone Built Housing TCA include: War Stone Built Residential area to north of Balnagask Road; Housing Mix of two-storey and tenement stone built properties with gardens; and Mature broadleaf trees and some street trees. Value The area is not designated for landscape or townscape reasons. The TCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be medium as there are a number of formal recreational areas within and adjacent to the TCA. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this TCA. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since as industrial development is already present in many views. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 700m to the south of the TCA.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 246 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Townscape Townscape Assessment Character Area (TCA)
Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development, both the stack and associated plume and the main building) is fragmented across the TCA. In addition, the ZTV does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form views of the Proposed Development would be limited by intervening screening of built form and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight/Negligible and non-significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
5b Ferryhill The key characteristics of the Ferryhill 19thc. and 20thc. Stone Built Housing TCA include: th th 19 c. and 20 c. Residential area to north of Balnagask Road; Stone Built Mix of two-storey and tenement stone built properties with gardens; and Housing Mature broadleaf trees and some street trees. Value Part of the area is designated as a Conservation Area and part as a locally valued GDL. The recreational value is considered to be high due to the presence of Duthie Park GDL. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this TCA. The overall value is considered to be High. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since as industrial development is already present in many views. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be High. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 1.3km to the southeast of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development, both the stack and associated plume and the main building is fragmented across the TCA. In addition, the ZTV does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form and substantial tree cover views of the Proposed Development would be limited and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
6a Footdee The key characteristics of the Footdee 19th c. Fishing Village Housing TCA include: 19th c. Fishing Stone built low rise residential properties; and Village Housing Long views to the east across the sea and to the north and south along the coast. Value The area is designated as a Conservation Area. The recreational value is considered to be high with access to the coast. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this TCA although the area was designed as a ‘model village’ by architect John Smith in 1809 and has strong links and social importance to local fishing history. The overall value is considered to be High. Susceptibility The overall susceptibility to change as a result of the Proposed Development is considered to be Low since as industrial development is already present in many views especially to the west with views into the River Dee docks. The overall sensitivity of this TCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be High. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 1.8km to the south of the TCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development, both the stack and associated plume and the main building is present across the TCA. However, the ZTV does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form views of the Proposed Development would be limited and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and non- significant effect. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 247 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Effects on Landscape Character
12.6.5 Each of the surrounding LCAs located within 5km of the Development Site have been assessed in Table 12.11 and illustrated in Figure 12.2.
12.6.6 None of these landscapes would be directly affected as the Proposed Development would not be located within them and there would be no change to their physical characteristics. Instead, potential effects on these landscapes would be limited to indirect effects on the visual or key perceptual characteristics of these landscapes, resulting from views of the Proposed Development.
12.6.7 In summary, none of the surrounding landscape character areas would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development.
Table 12.11 Indirect Effects on Surrounding Landscape Character within 5km
Landscape Landscape Assessment Character Area (LCA)
Aberdeen City Landscape Character Assessment (SNH, 1996)
8 Coast: Aberdeen The key characteristics of the Coast: Aberdeen Links LCA include: Links “The coastal topography and features - dunes, beach, links; A strong contrast with the adjacent urban edge (which is rather cluttered and abrupt); Recreational facilities and buildings, some with typical seafront architecture; and Lengthy coastal views”. Value There are no landscape designations in this LCA within the 5km study area. The scenic quality is high due to lengthy coastal views to the north, the east and to the south towards Girdleness. The LCA is considered to be a distinctive and unique landscape resource of high local value because, although there are long stretches of sandy beaches with dunes along much of the northeastern coast of Scotland, there are not many which have recreational facilities. The recreational value is considered to be high due to the area’s location next to the city and the presence of various recreational facilities, such as the esplanade, the beach leisure centre, the golf course, Ice Arena, cafes, restaurants, multiplex cinema and a fun fair. The LCA is considered to have strong perceptual qualities due to its wide and open spatial character. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA although it is a locally valued landscape and a tourist attraction. The overall value is considered to be High. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change could potentially be high due to the scenic nature of the LCA and the presence of long views along the coast. The overall sensitivity of this LCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be High. Assessment: proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 2.2km to the south of the LCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the LCA except for the southern part of Kings Links Golf Course and the low level beach areas. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form of the city of Aberdeen, limited views of the upper parts of the stack and associated plume only would be available from parts of this LCA and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight and not significant level of effect on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
11 Valley: Lower Don The key characteristics of the Lower Don Valley LCA include: Valley “The large-scale valley landform; The amount and diversity of woodland and tree planting, particularly the shelterbelts; The balance between open and built-up areas; The occasional use of stone dykes as field boundaries; Transport and industrial uses associated with the valley and the river; Visibility of parts of the open valley slopes from within the city; and Views along the valley”. Within the 5km Study Area the key characteristics are identified as the balance between open and built up areas, the transport and industrial uses associated with the valley and the river and the views along the valley.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 248 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Landscape Landscape Assessment Character Area (LCA)
Value There are no landscape designations in this LCA within the 5km study area. The scenic quality is of high local value with the green open space of the River Don. The LCA is considered to be of medium rarity as there are other areas of valley LCT within the 5km study area. The recreational value is considered to be high due to the presence of numerous playing fields and the golf course. The LCA is considered to have medium perceptual qualities due to the wide, open views across the playing fields and the golf course towards the sea. There are no notable cultural associations with this LCA other than two books namely: the ‘Picturesque Donside’ by Alex McConnochis, published by W. J. Middleton of Aberdeen (undated but thought to be circa 1910) and Dee and Don Inspiration by Michael Pegler, NGT Publishing, Aberdeen (2007). The overall value is considered to be High. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change is considered to be low due to the dominating presence of adjacent high rise blocks and the distance from the proposed Development. The overall sensitivity of this LCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 4.4km to the south of the LCA at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across most of the small section of the LCA within the 5km study area. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation, which can significantly reduce the area and extent of actual visibility in the field. In practice, due to intervening built form only limited views of the upper parts of the stack may be available from parts of the LCA and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible to Zero and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight / Negligible to Zero and not significant level of effect on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
21 Wooded The Development Site is located at approximately 4.8km to the east of the Wooded Farmland: Farmland: Countesswells / Milltimber / Kennerty LCA at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Countesswells / Development is present across part of the small section of the LCA within the 5km study area. Milltimber / Kennerty The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to intervening trees and built form no views of the Proposed Development would be available. The magnitude of change would be Zero and the level of effect on landscape character would be None.
22 Valley: Dee Valley The Development Site is located approximately 2.7km to the east of the Dee Valley LCA at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is fragmented and very limited to small areas on the edges of Garthdee and Braeside and to the east of Inchgarth Reservoir. The ZTV does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to intervening built form and woodland no views of the Proposed Development would be available from these areas other than a rare glimpse of the upper parts of the stack. The magnitude of change would be Negligible to Zero at most and the level of effect on landscape character would not be significant.
23 Coast: Girdle The key characteristics of the Coast: Girdle Ness/Nigg Bay LCA include: Ness/Nigg Bay “Distinctive coastal landform; The open character of the landscape, particularly close to the coast; The large expanse of mown grassland between the railway and Balnagask; Occasional but distinctive buildings - e.g. mined chapel, sewage treatment works; and Views of the city and coast”. Value There are no landscape designations in this LCA. The scenic quality is high due to the open coastal views to the north, south and east. The recreational value is considered to be high due to the presence of Balnagask (Nigg Bay) Golf Course and Greyhope Road which is part of the European, National and local networks for cycling and recreation including the North Sea Cycle Route doubling up as NCR 1, Core Path CP78 and CP104 which joins Greyhope Road along St Fittick’s Road as well as CP108 which branches off St Fittick’s Road. The LCA is considered to have strong perceptual qualities due to wide, open views, the craggy shoreline and the smooth grassy expanses of the golf course although it is noted that new development is planned within Nigg Bay (Aberdeen Harbour Expansion) which would change the nature of these views and add
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 249 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Landscape Landscape Assessment Character Area (LCA)
industrial development in a new area of the view. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be High. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change could potentially be high due to the scenic nature of the LCA and the presence of long views along the coast. The overall sensitivity of this LCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be High. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located at approximately 320m to the southwest of the LCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the LCA except for the northern edge along the coast. ES Viewpoint 4: St Fittick’s Road (St Fittick’s Church) is located within this LCA. The Proposed Development has been designed so that the roofline responds to the rolling horizon line. Where views would be available, the Proposed Development would appear mostly below the horizon line and in the context of other structures such as the adjacent existing industrial building and the large, four-storey office building in the distance. The magnitude of change is assessed to be Low and the Proposed Development would lead to a Moderate and not significant level of effect on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
24 Open Farmland: The key characteristics of the Open Farmland: Kincorth and Tullos Hills LCA include: Kincorth and Tullos “The hill topography forms a distinctive edge to the city and screens some industrial Hills development from parts of Aberdeen; It has an open character and is dominated by heath vegetation; and It allows wide views over the city”. Value There are no landscape designations within this LCA within the 5km Study Area. The scenic quality is judged to be medium due to the close range views of industrial infrastructure from some locations which reduce the scenic quality of panoramic views across the city and the sea. The recreational value is considered to be high due to the Loirston Country Park and two Core Paths (CP79 and CP103) pass which through the LCA. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA although Tullos Hill and Kincorth Hill are locally known as ‘the Gramps’ as together they form part of the very lowest coastal fringe of the Grampian Mountains. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change could potentially be high due to the presence of long views along the coast and its recreational value. The overall sensitivity of this LCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium to High. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 40m to the north and northeast of the LCA at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is present across the majority of the LCA except for the western part of the Kincorth Hill area. ES Viewpoints 1: Tullos Hill and 5: Kincorth Hill are located within this LCA. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation and in this case views from most areas would be screened by intervening vegetation, except for the high points where ES Viewpoints 1 and 5 are located. The Proposed Development has been designed so that the building would be an attractive feature, with the roofline responding to the skyline formed by this LCA in views from the city towards the south. Although some close up views would be available, notably from Tullos Hill, the modern design of the main building could be perceived as an attractive feature in itself. The magnitude of change would range from None to Low and the Proposed Development would lead to a level of effect ranging from None to Slight and not significant on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
25 Coast: Doonies to The Development Site is located approximately 920m to the southeast of the Doonies to Cove Cove Coast Coast LCA at its closest point and there would be no direct effects on the landscape as a result of the Proposed Development. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development would be fragmented and very limited to small areas located on the edges of the intervening Altens and Peterseat industrial estates. The ZTV does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening industrial buildings no views of the Proposed Development would be available other than a potential glimpse of the upper parts of the stack.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 250 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Landscape Landscape Assessment Character Area (LCA)
The magnitude of change would be Negligible at most and the level of effect on landscape character would not be significant.
26 Open Farmland: The key characteristics of the Open Farmland: Den of Leggart LCA include: Den of Leggart “Shallow valley landform; Stone dykes dividing land into small fields; Sparse traditional settlement; Views northwards to the city”. Value There are no landscape designations within this LCA within the 5km Study Area. The scenic quality is medium due to presence of some long views over the sloping farmland. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be low to the lack of recreational routes or facilities. There are no notable literary or cultural references are associated with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Low. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change would be medium due to its small-scale agricultural quality. The overall sensitivity of this LCA is therefore considered to be Medium to Low. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located at approximately 2.7km to the northeast of the LCA at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development would be fragmented and limited mainly to the southern edge of the LCA. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening distance and vegetation, in particular roadside vegetation along the A90, limited views of the upper parts of the stack only may be available from parts of the LCA and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight / Negligible to Negligible and not significant level of effect on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
27 Open Farmland: The key characteristics of the Open Farmland: Loirston LCA include: Loirston “The presence of Loirston Loch; The presence of nearby large scale industrial development; Major roads traversing the area; The open character of the landscape, with few trees and little variety of vegetation; The frequently abrupt edge of the urban area”. Value There are no landscape designations in this LCA within the 5km Study Area. The scenic quality is considered medium due to the presence of tranquil views across Loirston Loch. The LCA is not considered to be rare. The recreational value is considered to be medium due to a number of Core Paths crossing the LCA and the use of Loirston Loch for angling. The Lochinch Farm Nature Reserve and Interpretation Centre is also present within the LCA. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change is considered to be low due to the presence of existing industrial development in adjoining areas. The overall sensitivity of this LCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium to Low.
Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 1.3km to the northeast of the LCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is fragmented and present across large parts of the LCA except for the area around Loirston Loch. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to intervening built form and vegetation, limited views of the upper parts of the stack only may be available in parts of the LCA and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight / Negligible to Negligible and not significant level of effect on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 251 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Landscape Landscape Assessment Character Area (LCA)
South and Central Aberdeenshire: Landscape Character Assessment (SNH, 1998)
2 Coastal Strip: Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is absent in this LCA. Kincardine Cliffs The magnitude of change would be Zero and level of effect None.
12 Agricultural The key characteristics of the Open Farmland: Loirston LCA include: Heartlands: Central “Rolling landscape of low hills and wide valleys; Wooded Estates Strong woodland structure associated with numerous estate policies, adding rich and diverse texture; Clumps of trees atop mounds and hillocks, often bounded by circular stone walls, mature shady beech avenues, conifer plantations distributed amongst broadleaves; Mixed farmland with varying size and pattern of fields; Mosses within lowland hollows where birch and Scots pine predominate; Numerous and varied archaeological features, including henges, carved stone balls, recumbent stone circles and pictish monuments; Numerous towns and villages, many subject to recent residential expansion; Frequent settlement with a variety of sizes and styles of architecture ; local vernacular stone buildings with conversions and extensions, modem bungalows and houses; Long views across open farmland contrast with sudden enclosure by woodland as one passes through area”. All of these key characteristics are present within the 5km Study Area with the exception of residential expansion. Value There are no landscape designations within this LCA within the 5km Study Area. The scenic quality is considered to be medium since the picturesque pattern of woodland and farmland is often interrupted by pylons and distant views of tower blocks. The recreational value is considered to be low with no walking or cycling routes and little evidence of other recreational activity. There are no notable literary or cultural associations with this LCA. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the landscape character to change would be medium due to its wooded, agricultural quality. The overall sensitivity of this LCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 3km to the northeast of the LCA. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is fragmented and present across large parts of the LCA within the 5km study area. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening distance built form and vegetation, notably the broadleaved woodlands, only limited views of the upper parts of the stack only may be available for parts of the LCA. This has been confirmed by field survey to be the case after leaf-drop. It is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this landscape. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a No View to Negligible and not significant level of effect on landscape character. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
13 Agricultural The Development Site is located approximately 4.3km to the northeast of the LCA. Heartlands Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is fragmented and limited in this LCA. Kincardine Plateau Due to the intervening distance the magnitude of change would be Negligible at most and the Proposed Development would not lead to a not significant level of effect on landscape character.
Effects on Seascape Character
12.6.8 Each of the surrounding SCAs located within 5km of the Development Site have been assessed in Table 12.12 and illustrated in Figure 12.2.
12.6.9 None of these seascapes would be directly affected as the Proposed Development would not be located within them and there would be no change to their physical characteristics. Instead,
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 252 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
potential effects on these landscapes would be limited to indirect effects on the visual or key perceptual characteristics of these landscapes, resulting from views of the Proposed Development.
12.6.10 In summary, none of the surrounding seascape character areas would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development.
Table 12.12 Indirect Effects on Surrounding Seascape Character within 5km
Seascape Character Area Seascape Assessment
Assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to windfarms (SNH, 2005)
4 Type 2: Mainland Rocky The key characteristics of the Mainland Rocky Coastline with Open Sea Views: North East Coastline with Open Sea Coast seascape character unit include: Views: North East Coast “Long, east-facing generally ‘straight’ coastline with many small indentations and few significant headlands and with open views out to North Sea; Mix of long broad sandy beaches backed by dunes and low cliffs/rocky coastline; Farmland predominantly backs coast; flat and low lying against deposition coast; gently rolling against rocky headlands/cliffs – some remnant heathland in places e.g. Findon Moor; Frequent fishing villages and harbours and several sizeable urban settlements i.e. Aberdeen; and Industry is infrequent but large scale where it occurs e.g. St Fergus and Peterhead power stations are highly visible features within the lower lying north east”. Within the 5km Study Area the key characteristics include the long east-facing coastline with a few significant headland (Girdle Ness) and areas of industry. Value There are no landscape designations associated with this seascape character area within the 5km Study Area. The scale of the landscape is large. The quality and condition of the seascape area is considered to be medium. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the seascape character to change could potentially be Low due to the large scale built development and infrastructure already present in the view. The overall sensitivity of this SCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located at approximately 1.2km to the west of the seascape character area at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is very limited and only present along one stretch of the coast between Girdle Ness and the middle of Nigg Bay near St Fittick’s Road. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening distance and broadleaved woodland on the slopes of Tullos Hill which would screen the base of the main building, it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this seascape. The Proposed Development has been designed so that the building could be appreciated as a new architectural feature in its own right. The upper parts of the main building and the stack would be visible from a short stretch of the seascape character area, with the main building fitting in with the horizon line and providing an attractive focal point. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the Proposed Development would lead to a None to Slight and not significant level of effect on this seascape character area. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
4 Type 3: Deposition The key characteristics of the Mainland Rocky Coastline with Open Sea Views: North East Coastline with Open Coast seascape character unit include: Views: North East Coast “Long, east-facing generally ‘straight’ coastline with many small indentations and few significant headlands and with open views out to North Sea; Mix of long broad sandy beaches backed by dunes and low cliffs/rocky coastline; Farmland predominantly backs coast; flat and low lying against deposition coast; gently rolling against rocky headlands/cliffs – some remnant heathland in places e.g. Findon Moor; Frequent fishing villages and harbours and several sizeable urban settlements i.e. Aberdeen; and Industry is infrequent but large scale where it occurs e.g. St Fergus and Peterhead power stations are highly visible features within the lower lying north east”.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 253 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Seascape Character Area Seascape Assessment
Within the 5km Study Area the key characteristics include the long east-facing coastline with a long sandy beaches. Value The scale of the landscape is large with long coastal views available. The seascape backs onto the large city of Aberdeen. There are high levels of light pollution from the adjacent urban area. The quality and condition of the seascape area is considered to be medium. The overall value is considered to be Medium. Susceptibility The susceptibility of the seascape character to change could potentially be Low due to urban and industrial development and infrastructure already present in the view. The overall sensitivity of this SCA to the Proposed Development is therefore considered to be Medium. Assessment: Proposed Development The Development Site is located approximately 2.2km to the south of this seascape character area at its closest point. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development is absent from the southern edge of the seascape character area and continuous north of the Beach Leisure Centre. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development and vegetation. In practice, due to the intervening built form of the city of Aberdeen, limited views of the upper parts of the stack only may be available for parts of the seascape character area and it is not considered that the Proposed Development would significantly alter the key characteristics of this seascape from which views of numerous built structures are already present. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the Proposed Development would lead to a Slight / Negligible and not significant level of effect on this seascape character area. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Effects on Designated Landscapes
12.6.11 The Development Site does not lie within any locally or nationally designated areas and there are no designated landscapes within the 5km Study Area.
12.6.12 Locally valued landscapes, where these are open to the public as visitor or tourist destinations or form an attractive component of the public realm and townscape character these have been assessed as visual receptors.
12.7 Residual Visual Effects
The visual assessment draws from the site visits and viewpoint analysis and assesses the potential visual effects on views and visual amenity likely to be experienced by receptors (people) within the landscape. The visual assessment has been set out as follows: Visual Effects on Views from Settlements and Residential Properties; Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes; Visual Effects on Views from Recreational Routes; and Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations. The ZTV and viewpoint analysis indicates that the assessment should be focused on a detailed Study Area of approximately 2km from the Development Site.
Viewpoint assessment
12.7.1 The viewpoint assessment has been conducted from 5 locations as illustrated in Figure 12.1 and the views from these locations are illustrated at a 53.5° angle of view in Figures 12.5 to 12.9 with photomontages.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 254 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 12.13 Viewpoint Assessment
Viewpoint 1 : Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) (Figure 12.5)
Description This viewpoint is located on the Baron’s Cairn, beside the trig point, within the Loirston Country Park to the south of the Development Site. The view is orientated north with views across the city of Aberdeen. Land cover consists of gorse and grassland in the foreground and built form. It is noted that on the visitors board at the entrance point that tree planting is proposed within the area in front of the cairn. The upper parts of the Proposed Development would appear at a close range with the lower parts screened by the intervening landform and vegetation.
Distance to Development Site 437m
Sensitivity The viewpoint would be experienced by walkers and other recreational users of the country park and is considered to be of High sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change Medium
Level of Visual Effect Substantial / Moderate and Significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Viewpoint 2 : Ladywell Place (Figure 12.6)
Description This viewpoint is located at the junction of Girdleness Road and Ladywell Place to the north of the Proposed Development. The view is orientated south with views along Ladywell Place, which also acts as Core Path CP103, towards the elevated landform of Loirston Country Park. Land cover consists of built form interspersed with mostly deciduous trees in the foreground and grassland in the background. The Proposed Development would appear prominently, at a relatively close range, with the base screened by the intervening broadleaved trees.
Distance to Development Site 544m
Sensitivity The viewpoint would be experienced by road users and the local community and is considered to be of High sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change Medium
Level of Visual Effect Substantial / Moderate and Significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Viewpoint 3 : Wellington Road Bridge (Figure 12.7)
Description This viewpoint is located on A956 Wellington Road above the Aberdeen to Dundee railway line to the northwest of the Proposed Development. The view is orientated southeast with views along the railway tracks towards the elevated landform of Loirston Country Park. Land cover consists of built form interspersed with mostly deciduous trees in the foreground and grassland in the background. The upper parts of the Proposed Development would appear prominently with the base largely screened by the intervening vegetation and built form. It would appear as part of an existing industrial area and has been architecturally designed to complement the backdrop of rolling hills.
Distance to Development Site 928m
Sensitivity The viewpoint would be experienced by road users and is considered to be of Medium sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change Low
Level of Visual Effect Slight and not Significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 255 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Viewpoint 4 : St Fittick’s Road (St Fittick’s Church) (Figure 12.8)
Description This viewpoint is located on St Fittick’s Road, which doubles up as Core Path CP104 to the northeast of the Proposed Development. The view is orientated southwest with views across undulating grassland and scrub towards Kincorth Hill. Land cover consists of young coniferous trees in the foreground and grassland, built form, scrub and deciduous woodland in the background. The Proposed Development would appear in the distance with the base of the building screened by the intervening vegetation within the existing industrial area. The elevation of the Proposed Development has been architecturally designed to complement the backdrop of rolling hills.
Distance to Development Site 1,337m
Sensitivity The viewpoint would be experienced by road users and walkers and is considered to be of High sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change Low
Level of Visual Effect Moderate and not Significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Viewpoint 5 : Kincorth Hill (Figure 12.9)
Description This viewpoint is located on the summit of Kincorth Hill (105 mAOD) to the southwest of the Proposed Development. The view is orientated northeast with views across the southern edge of Aberdeen towards Nigg Bay. Land cover consists of grassland in the foreground, broad-leafed woodland, built form and grassland in the mid-ground and the sea in the background. The upper parts of the Proposed Development would appear in the distance with the lower parts screened by the intervening broad-leafed trees and built form.
Distance to Development Site 1,955m
Sensitivity The viewpoint would be experienced by walkers and is considered to be of High sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change Negligible
Level of Visual Effect Slight and not Significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Effects on Views from Settlements: Aberdeen City
12.7.2 The Development Site is located in the south-eastern edge of Aberdeen City within the existing East Tullos Industrial Estate and replaces existing industrial development.
12.7.3 ZTV analysis and ground-truthing has confirmed that the Proposed Development would be screened from many areas of the settlement by existing industrial development, mature trees and the railway embankment.
12.7.4 There are a number of conservation areas to the north of the Development Site. Field survey was undertaken and confirmed that there would be no views of the Proposed Development from these areas due to dense, intervening built form. In addition, the LDP Landscape Conservation 2: Valued Views Supplementary Guidance (2012) identifies a number of key views. Desk-based and field survey confirmed that there would be no views of the Proposed Development from any of these Valued Views.
12.7.5 The Proposed Development has been architecturally designed to create a new, local landmark feature which can be appreciated in architectural terms. The Proposed Development would add visual interest to the view and a high-quality landscape design, including tree planting, has been included in the design to contribute to green infrastructure in the local area.
12.7.6 The magnitude of visual change experienced by residents would be low to zero. The visual effect on Aberdeen would be Moderate to None/No View and not significant and the nature of these effects would be permanent, direct and neutral to positive.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 256 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Visual Effects on Views from Residential Properties
12.7.7 A full assessment of the views from residential properties is provided in Appendix 12.A.
12.7.8 Field survey confirmed that localised landform and intervening built form screened views of the Proposed Development from properties north of the Balnagask Road (old Torry). These properties are detailed in Table 12.A1, Appendix 12.A. 12.1.1 In summary, it has been assessed that the views from two groups of properties would be significantly affected as a result of the Proposed Development. These comprise the following groups: 145-163 Girdleness Road; and 1-18 Balnagask Road.
12.7.9 The experience of a significant change in view as a result of the Proposed Development is not the same as an unacceptable effect in the public interest. In the view of the assessor none of the properties would be affected in terms of their living standards or in a manner that would render any of these properties as an unattractive place to live (as opposed to less attractive) when judged objectively and in the public interest as a result of the addition of the Proposed Development. This is because of the intervening distances, screening by localised built form, topography and vegetation and combinations of the property setting, orientation and the visual composition and manner in which the Proposed Development would be experienced, such that the Proposed Development would not visually ‘dominate’, ‘overwhelm’, ‘surround’, ‘overshadow’ or ‘block light’. The nature of these effects would be indirect, permanent and neutral.
Effects on Views from Transport Routes
12.7.10 This section of the assessment considers the visual effects on the views from key transport routes within the 2km Study Area, which are overlapped by the ZTV. The assessment is set out in Table 12.10.
12.7.11 The views of the Proposed Development from these routes would be experienced sequentially and transiently by road users (mainly drivers and where appropriate cyclists and walkers) and railway passengers who would experience the Proposed Development as part of the changing sequence of views experienced from the route.
12.7.12 The sensitivity of transport routes is generally considered to be medium, due mainly to the speed of travel and/or the activity of driving, although it is recognised that some of the roads may be of higher sensitivity, particularly if the road is part of a promoted route or lower sensitivity if the road is for example located in a land solely used for industrial purposes, and some of the roads may be of lower sensitivity, particularly if the road is located entirely within an industrial area.
12.7.13 In summary, there would be no significant visual effect on the views from transport routes within 2km as a result of the Proposed Development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 257 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 12.14 Visual Effects on Views from Transport Routes
Transport Route Description of Effect
A956 Wellington Road The A956 is located to the west of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 720m at its closest point. It starts at the A90 near Charlestown and runs north until it re- joins the A90 at Bridge of Don. The sensitivity of this route is considered to be Medium. The section of the route within the 2km study area is approximately 4km in length. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from southern half of the route. Field survey confirms that the built form and vegetation would screen the vast majority of views, except for the Wellington Road Bridge over the railway line, illustrated in Viewpoint 3: Wellington Road Bridge (Figure 12.7). The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Medium and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
A945 (Riverside Drive) The A945 is located to the west and northwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.2km at the closest point. It starts on the A9013 north of Bridge of Dee, and runs along the River Dee to the A956 next to the Queen Elizabeth Bridge. The sensitivity of this route is considered to be Medium. The route within the 2km study area is approximately 1.5km in length. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the southwestern half of the route. Field survey confirms that the majority of the views of the Proposed Development would be screened by the intervening mature trees. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight / Negligible and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
The B9077 The B9077 is located to the west of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.7km at the closest point. It links the A90 with the A9013. The sensitivity of this route is considered to be Medium. The route within the 2km study area is approximately 700m in length The ZTV coverage is widespread within the 2km study area but fragmented. In practice, clear views of the Proposed Development would only be available from King George the VI Bridge over River Dee. Other views from the route would be screened by the intervening built form and vegetation, with glimpses of the stack available occasionally in the distance. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be long-term, indirect and neutral.
Aberdeen to Dundee railway The Aberdeen to Dundee railway line is located to the north and west of the Development line Site at a distance of approximately 270m at the closest point. It runs broadly north from Cove Bay, then west passing the Proposed Development to the north and then north to its terminus. The sensitivity of this route is considered to be Medium. The length of the route within the 2km study area is approximately 6.2km. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be mainly available only from the section to the north of the Proposed Development. Field survey confirms that the intervening railway embankments, built form and vegetation would screen the vast majority of views of the Proposed Development The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight / Negligible and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Effects on Views from Recreational Routes
12.7.1 The visual assessment has considered the potential visual effects on the views and visual amenity likely to be experienced by people on recreational routes and includes two National Cycle Routes (NCR), a Heritage Path and Core Paths. The sensitivity of the receptors on these routes (walkers, cyclists and joggers) has been assessed as High. Detailed assessment is provided in Tables 12.11 and 12.12 and the routes are illustrated on Figure 12.2.
12.7.2 In summary, there would be a significant effect on the views likely to be experienced from parts of one Core Path CP103: North Balnagask Road to Wellington Road, affecting 100m length.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 258 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 12.15 Visual Effects on Views from Core Paths
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
CP103 North Balnagask CP103, which links the communities of Torry, Balnagask and Kincorth is formed mostly by Road to Wellington Road paved roads and is approximately 3km in length. The route passes immediately to the north and west of the Development Site. ES Viewpoint 2: Ladywell Place (Figure 12.6) illustrates a short stretch of the Core Path where clear views are available at approximately 440m distance to the Proposed Development. The rest of the route, although within the ZTV, would only experience partial views and glimpses of the Proposed Development between the built form and dense vegetation. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Medium (where the route passes through Ladywell Place) and the level of effect would range from No View to Substantial/Moderate and significant. Approximately 100m of the Core Path would be significantly affected and the nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP104 Balnagask The CP104 links Torry with the Coastal Path and Balnagask greenspace following St Fittick’s Road. The route is approximately 880m long and is located at a distance of approximately 1.2km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development would be available from the majority of the route. Field survey confirms that open views of the Proposed Development would be available from the southern end of St Fittick’s Road. ES Viewpoint 4: St Fittick’s Road (Figure 12.8) illustrates the stretch of the Core Path where clear views are available. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP108 Torry – Coastal The CP108 provides links between Torry and the coastal path and is formed mostly by Path, Nigg Bay paved paths of approximately 1.3km length. The route is located at a distance of approximately 800m from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available only from southern section Greyhope Road. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP78: Coastal Path South The CP78 Links Cove and Torry and onwards to the city centre and is formed mostly by unpaved paths of approximately 12.5km length, of which 8.7km lie within the 2km study area. The route is located at a distance of approximately 1.1m from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from approximately half of the route. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP95 Cove – the Coast The CP95 links residential areas of Cove and Burnbanks with Altens Industrial Estate. The off-road route is approximately 1.8km long and is located at a distance of approximately 1.5km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available only from a short section to the east of the industrial estate. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form and vegetation. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP83 Souter Head Road to The CP83 is a mixture of tarmac and trodden earth and it links the north and south of Cove. Cove Crescent The route is approximately 1.8km long and is located at a distance of approximately 2km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from short sections of the route, however they would be screened by intervening built form. The magnitude of change would be Zero and the level of effect would be No View and not significant.
CP81 Cove Road The CP81 tarmac path in Cove is approximately 1.7km long and is located at a distance of approximately 1.7km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from short sections of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form and vegetation.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 259 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP79: Kincorth Hill The CP79 circular route consisting of trodden earth and tarmac is approximately 3.6km long and is located at a distance of approximately 1.2km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from the eastern sections of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening vegetation and built form with clear and open views available from the high point. ES Viewpoint 5: Kincorth Hill (Figure 12.9) illustrates the view from the summit of Kincorth Hill just off the Core Path. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP105 Kincorth Hill to The CP105 partly paved route is approximately 1.2km long and is located at a distance of Stonehaven Road approximately 1.8km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from short sections around Kincorth School. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
CP59 Stonehaven Road to The CP59 urban route is approximately 1km long and is located at a distance of Auldearn Road approximately 1.6km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from the majority of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
CP85 Abbotswell Road to The CP85 riverside route is approximately 3km long and is located at a distance of Bridge of Dee approximately 1.1km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from the majority of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening vegetation. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
CP69 Duthie Park The CP69 circular tarmac route is approximately 1.3km long and is located at a distance of approximately 1.3km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from the entire route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening mature deciduous trees. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low in the winter time and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
CP97 City Centre – Duthie The CP69 circular paved route is approximately 1.8km long and is located at a distance of Park approximately 1.7km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the proposed Development may be available from the majority of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form and mature vegetation. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
CP70 River Dee Path The CP70 is an off-road path alongside the River Dee. The route is approximately 6.9km (north bank) long (within the 5km study area) and is located at a distance of approximately 1.2km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available only from section south and southwest of Duthie Park. In practice, most views would be screened by the intervening mature trees along the river bank. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low in the winter time and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 260 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
CP19 Beach Esplanade – The CP19 Beach Esplanade – Bridge of Don to Footdee is partially overlapped by the ZTV. Bridge of Don to Footdee However, only approximately 30m of it lies within the 2km study area and this stretch would receive no views of the Proposed Development due to screening by built form and has therefore been excluded from the assessment.
CP66 Deeside Way The CP66 follows the route of the old Deeside Railway Line from Duthie Park to the City boundary, west of Peterculter. The route is approximately 4.7km long (within the 5km study area) and is located at a distance of approximately 1.6km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from the majority of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
CP102 The Green The CP102 cobblestone path links the train station and bus station to the city centre. The route is approximately 1.4km long and is located at a distance of approximately 1.6km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available only from a few short stretches of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Table 12.16 Visual Effects on Views from National Recreational Routes and Heritage Paths within 2km
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
NCR 1 The NCR 1 is a long distance cycle route connecting Dover and the Shetland Islands. Within the 2km study area, the route runs broadly south-north and largely along the coast, initially through Cove Bay, then following the same route as Coast Road assessed under Transport Routes and Core Path CP78: Coastal Path South assessed above as well as CP21 beyond the 2km Core Path study area. The route passes to the south, east and north of the Development at a distance of approximately 1.1km from the Proposed Development at the closest point and is approximately 9.7km in length within the 2km study area. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be limited to the southern part of Cove Bay and the northern side of Nigg Bay. In practice, views from Cove Bay would be screened by intervening built form with clear views available only from the section near Nigg Bay. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
NCR 195 (Heritage Path: The NCR 195 is a long distance cycle route is known as the Deeside Way and following the line of the Deeside Way) Deeside Railway between Aberdeen to Ballater. The route is approximately 4.7km long (within the 2km study area) and is located at a distance of approximately 1.6km from the Development Site at its closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that views of the Proposed Development may be available from the majority of the route. In practice, most views would be screened by intervening built form. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Recreational and Tourist Destinations
12.7.3 Recreational and tourist destinations within the 2km Study area are assessed in Table 12.14.
12.7.4 The sensitivity of receptors has been assessed as High.
12.7.5 In summary, there would be significant effects on some views from Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) and from the St Fittick’s Community Park. No other recreational or tourist destinations assessed within the 2km Study Area would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 261 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 12.17 Visual Effects on Views from Recreational and Tourist Destinations
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
Loirston Country Park Loirston Country Park is located immediately south of the Development Site and also further southwest around Kincorth Hill (assessed below) beyond the A956. This part of the Country Park is an elevated area of heathland, scrub and new tree planting with the highest point being Tullos Hill (83 mAOD). Wide views over the city of Aberdeen are available from this high point. The area also contains a former landfill site which is under ongoing restoration. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the stack and main building would be available from the norther slopes and potential views of the stack only would be available from some areas of the southern part of the country park. Field survey has confirmed that views from the closest parts of the country park would be screened by trees. ES Viewpoint 1: Tullos Hill (Figure 12.5) illustrates the view from the high point within this part of the Country Park. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to High (in very limited areas of the country park where clear views of both the stack and the main building would be available) and the level of effect would range from No View to Substantial, where views are available, and significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
St Fittick’s Community St Fittick’s Community Park is a new community park located to the northeast of the Development Park Site at a distance of approximately 550m at the closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the most areas within the park. In practice, some views would be screened by the intervening built development to the east of Greenwell Road. The magnitude of change would range from Negligible to Medium (where clear views of the stack and main building would be available) and the level of effect would range from No View to Substantial/Moderate and significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Pocket Park next to Pocket Park next to Greenwell Road is a small area of green open space with some trees located on Greenwell Road the corner of Greenwell Road and Wellington Road to the west of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 670m at the closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the park. In practice, all views would be screened by the intervening built development except for glimpses of the stack. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral
North Grampian Circle North Grampian Circle Play Area is a public open space located in Torry to the northeast of the Play Area Development Site at a distance of approximately 680m at the closest point. The ZTV coverage is limited and fragmented. Any potential views of the Proposed Development would be the intervening built form along North Grampian Circle. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Recreational Area south of Recreational Area south of River Dee is a large riverside area of green open space with recreational River Dee facilities located the west and northwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1km at the closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that there would be no views of the Proposed Development from the river bank northeast of the railway line. Views of the Proposed Development would theoretically be available from the southwestern part of the area, north of Abbotswell Road and West Tullos Road. In practice, all views would be screened by the intervening built development except for glimpses of the stack. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral
Woodland Area east of The Woodland Area east of Wellington Road comprises dense mixed woodland with recreational Wellington Road paths. It is located to the southwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.2km. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the entire area, however, in practice, all views would be screened by the woodland itself and the adjacent intervening built form. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Duthie Park GDL Duthie Park GDL is located to the northwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.2km at the closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the most areas within the park. In practice, most views would be screened by the intervening mature broadleaved trees. This was confirmed by field survey after leaves had dropped in November 2015.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 262 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low in the winter time and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Balnagask Golf Course Balnagask Golf Course is located to the northeast of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.2km at the closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the most areas within the golf course however, the localised topography of the golf course would screen some views. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Loirston Country Park – This part of Loirston Country Park containing Kincorth Hill (105 mAOD) is located southwest of the Kincorth Hill Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.2km. It is separated from the eastern part of the Country Park by the A956. This part of the Country Park is an elevated area of heathland, mixed woodland, gorse and broom scrub and is designated as a Local Nature Reserve. The disused granite quarry is also located within this part of the Country Park. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available mainly from the areas to the north and east of Kincorth Hill. In practice, clear partial views of the Proposed Development would only be available from the area around the summit of Kincorth Hill, with views from the other locations screened by the intervening vegetation and localised built form. ES Viewpoint 5: Kincorth Hill (Figure 12.9) illustrates the view from this location. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Low and the level of effect would range from No View to Moderate and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral to positive.
Valley Crescent Pocket Valley Crescent Pocket Park is a small park on the eastern fringe of Kincorth residential area. It is Park located to the southwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.3km. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the park, however, in practice, all views would be screened by the intervening built development. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Pocket Park west of Pocket Park west of Wellington Road is an oblong park on the eastern fringe of Redmoss residential Wellington Road area. It is located to the southwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.4km. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the park, however, in practice, all views would be screened by the intervening mature woodland on the eastern side of Wellington Road. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Ferryhill Conservation Ferryhill Conservation Area is a predominantly residential area located to the northwest of the Area Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.5km at the closest point. It is an example of mid to late 19th century suburban expansion in Aberdeen characterised by villas, semi-detached and terraced residential properties as well as numerous late 20th century flatted developments. The ZTV coverage within the 2km detailed study area is fragmentary and very limited. Views of the Proposed Development theoretically available from Polmuir Road would be screened by the intervening street trees. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Footdee Conservation Footdee (“Fittie”) Conservation Area is a small residential area located to the east of Aberdeen Area harbour and broadly to the north of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.6km at the closest point. It is an example a ‘model north east fishing village’ with a regular plan form, courtyards and ‘fishers sheds’. The ZTV coverage is extensive although fragmentary. The ZTV, however, does not take account of built development. In practice, due to the intervening built form no views of the Proposed Development would be available from within the village except for part of the area along Pocra Quey. From there, due to the built form of Torry and Balnagask across the River Dee no views of the Proposed Development would be available other than a potential glimpse of the upper parts of the stack. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Marine Terrace Marine Terrace Conservation Area is a predominantly residential area set on a hill located to the Conservation Area northwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.6km at the closest point. It is an example of 19th century middle and upper middle class suburban residential expansion. The ZTV coverage within the 2km detailed study area is fragmentary and very limited. All views of the
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 263 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Local Recreational Route Description of Effect
Proposed Development would be screened by the intervening mature trees and a wooded bank to the east of Marine Terrace. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Provost Watt Pocket Park Provost Watt Pocket is a continuous group of green spaces on both sides of Provost Watt Drive in the northern part of Kincorth residential area. It is located to the west of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.6km. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would only be available from a limited number of locations, however, in practice, all views would be screened by the intervening built development and trees. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Aberdeen beach Aberdeen beach is located to the north of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.7km at the closest point. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the proposed Development would be available from long stretches of the beach. In practice, the embankments and built form to the west and south of the beach would screen most views of the Proposed Development. The magnitude of change would range from Zero to Negligible and the level of effect would range from No View to Slight and not significant. The nature of these effects would be permanent, indirect and neutral.
Kincorth Circle Open Kincorth Circle Open Space is medium-sized green space with a playing field acting as the village Space green. It is located to the southwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.8km. The ZTV analysis indicates that some potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the green space, however, in practice, all views would be screened by the intervening built development surrounding the area. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
Allenvale Cemetery Allenvale Cemetery is located immediately to the west of Duthie Park and to the northwest of the Development Site at a distance of approximately 1.8km. The ZTV analysis indicates that potential views of the Proposed Development would be available from the park, however, in practice, all views would be screened by the large number of cherry trees growing within the cemetery. The magnitude of change would be from Zero and the level of effect would be No View.
12.8 Summary and Conclusions
12.8.1 The assessment conforms to the GLVIA and has been undertaken by chartered landscape architects. The assessment process has encompassed the construction and operation of the Proposed Development and has included design iteration and assessment of residual effects.
12.8.2 The Development Site is located in the East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen on a site of existing industrial development.
12.8.3 Consultation on the landscape and visual assessment was undertaken with SNH and ABC at scoping, although no comments were received on landscape and visual matters.
Landscape Effects
12.8.4 Landscape effects are concerned with how the Proposed Development would affect the elements that make up the landscape, the aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the landscape and its distinctive character.
12.8.5 There would be no significant effects on townscape, landscape or seascape character. This is largely because the location of the Proposed Development has been carefully chosen to locate new industrial development within a site which already features industrial buildings and is within a larger industrial estate. Further, whilst the main building within the Proposed Development is larger in scale than the existing industrial development, it has been architecturally designed to respond to the surrounding landscape character, elements and features of the area and to appear as an attractive, modern, landmark building, with dynamically designed lighting.
12.8.6 There would be no significant effects on the special qualities and integrity of any locally or nationally designated landscapes.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 264 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
12.8.7 The nature of effects would be permanent and neutral to positive.
Visual Effects
12.8.8 The viewpoint assessment indicates that there would be potential significant visual effects as a result of the Proposed Development from two viewpoints (Viewpoint 1: Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) and Viewpoint 2: Ladywell Place).
12.8.9 The zone or extent of theoretical visibility (ZTV) for the Proposed Development is fairly extensive across the 5km study area, however this ignores the effects of screening by intervening built for, vegetation and localised landform. Field surveys were undertaken in the summer and autumn (after leaf-drop) of 2015. These confirmed that actual visibility was much more limited due to densely spaced built form and extensive mature tree cover in open spaces.
12.8.10 There would be no significant effects on settlements.
12.8.11 There would be significant effects on the views from two groups of properties: 145-163 Girdleness Road; and 1-18 Balnagask Road.
12.8.12 But these properties would not be affected in terms of their living standards or in a manner that would render any of these properties as an unattractive place to live (as opposed to less attractive) when judged objectively and in the public interest as a result of the addition of the Proposed Development.
12.8.13 There would be no significant effects from the main transport routes within 2km of the Development Site.
12.8.14 There would be significant visual effects on the views from approximately 100m of Core Path CP103: North Balnagask Road to Wellington Road. There would be no other significant visual effects on recreational routes resulting from the Proposed Development.
12.8.15 There would be significant effects on some views from Loirston Country Park (Tullos Hill) and from parts of the St Fittick’s Community Park. No other recreational or tourist destinations within the 2km Study Area would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development
Conclusions
12.8.16 The Proposed Development would replace existing industrial development on the Development Site, within the existing East Tullos Industrial Estate.
12.8.17 A range of site layouts and architectural design concepts have been considered as part of an iterative design process. As part of this process, the design has been considered from key viewpoints, guided by desk-based analysis of the ZTV and confirmed through field survey, to ensure that potential effects on sensitive landscape and visual receptors have been minimised through the design process.
12.8.18 A landscape strategy has been prepared to ensure the Proposed Development fits with the existing townscape character with provision of green edges and rows of trees to echo the boundary treatment of adjacent sites.
12.8.19 The Proposed Development has been architecturally designed to create a positive and confident architectural statement such that the Proposed Development could become a new, high quality, visual and civic landmark. In effect, whilst the magnitude of change for some landscape and visual receptors might be high, the nature of this change could be viewed as neutral to positive with the Proposed Development appreciated in architectural terms.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 265 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
12.9 Technical References
Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Aberdeen City Council (2012). Design Review Panel Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen City Council (2012). Landscape Guidelines Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen City Council (2012). Trees and Woodland Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen City Council (2015). Design: Townscape and Landscape Draft Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen City Council (2015). Design: Townscape and Landscape Draft Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen City Council (2015). Natural Environment: Land and Water Draft Supplementary Guidance. Aberdeen City Council (2015). Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan. Environmental Resources Management on behalf of SNH (1998). South and Central Aberdeenshire: Landscape Character Assessment SNH Review No 102. Grant, A on behalf of SNH (2008). Guidance on Landscape/Seascape Capacity for Aquaculture. Ian Nicoll, Anne Johnston, Laura Campbell on behalf of SNH (1996). Aberdeen City Landscape Character Assessment SNH Review No 80. Landscape Institute, 2011, Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
LDA Design on behalf of Natural England (2012). An Approach to Seascape Character Assessment. Scott, K.E., Anderson, C., Dunsford, H., Benson, J.F. and MacFarlane, R. on behalf of SNH (2005). An assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish seascape in relation to windfarms: SNH Commissioned Report 103. SNH SiteLink and interactive mapping facility (http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/snhi- information-service/map/).
SNH (2012). Offshore renewable – guidance on assessing the impact on coastal landscape and seascape: Guidance for scoping an Environmental Statement. SNH (2014) Visual Representation of Wind Farms, Version 2.1.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 266 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 267 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
13. Historic Environment
13.1 Introduction
13.1.1 This chapter considers the potential impact of the Proposed Development on the ‘historic environment’ following Scottish Planning Policy (SPP, 2014) and Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP). The historic environment includes standing buildings, earthwork monuments, industrial features, sub surface archaeological remains and artefact scatters. It also includes landscapes and their constituent features which have been shaped by human occupation, from planned features such as gardens and designed landscapes (GDL), field boundaries and plantations, to areas that have historical significance for their location such as battlefields. Tangible cultural heritage features can be described as ‘assets’, ‘heritage assets’ or ‘historic assets’, although not all physical remains of cultural heritage interest will constitute an asset. A broad definition of cultural heritage or the historic environment also encompasses less tangible cultural aspects, such as traditions, customs, beliefs and language.
13.1.2 The applicant is proposing to build an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility at East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen (see Figure 13.1). The Development Site (Figure 13.2) covers approximately 2 hectares (ha) and is bounded to the west, north and east by further industrial developments and associated roads within the East Tullos Industrial Estate and, to the south, by further industrial buildings and Loirston Country Park.
13.1.3 Direct effects on features and deposits of historic environment interest were scoped out due to the lack of records and previous development within the Development Site. This chapter therefore considers the potential for the Proposed Development to affect the setting of designated assets within the surrounding area. The agreed scope for considerations of indirect effects includes all designated assets within 2km of the red line boundary and south of the River Dee, and indirect effects on Girdleness Lighthouse, just beyond 2km from the red line boundary, together with Duthie Park, Allenvale Cemetery and Ruthrieston South Church located to the north of the River Dee.
13.1.4 Figure 13.1 shows an overview of the Development Site and the location of the historic environment assets contained within this assessment scope (see Appendix 13.A – Historic Environment Index for a list of assets). Records of previous archaeological events and non- designated assets within 1km of the red line boundary are contained in Appendix 13.A and Figure 13.2, although these are provided for reference only.
13.1.5 All work has been carried out in line with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Code of Conduct (CIfA 2014a) and standard and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment (CIfA 2014b).
13.2 Methodology and Approach
Policy and Legislative Context
13.2.1 Certain assets that are deemed to be of particular importance are given legal protection. The importance of heritage assets and the protection of these and their settings is recognised in legislation as well as national, regional and local planning policy. Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context provides a detailed overview of applicable planning policy, with that applicable to the historic environment provided below.
Statutory Provisions
13.2.2 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended) (AMAAA) provides for a schedule of monuments which are protected. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) provides for the definition and protection of a list of
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 268 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
buildings and areas of architectural and historical interest, including Conservation Areas. The Act sets out a requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the integrity and setting of listed buildings and conservation areas in considering any development.
13.2.3 Both of the aforementioned Acts are amended by the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2011 which aligns aspects of the historic environment legislation with the planning regime. This act also provides a statutory basis for the inventory of gardens and designed landscapes and for the creation of a new inventory of historic battlefields.
13.2.4 In addition, the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014 established Historic Environment Scotland (HES) as a new Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) which took over the functions of Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS).
National Planning Policies
13.2.5 As detailed in Table 13.1, the Subject Policy Valuing the Historic Environment within the SPP (2014) provides the national planning policy context for the historic environment encompassing designated heritage assets (scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas, designated wreck sites, world heritage sites, inventory battlefields and inventory gardens and designed landscapes) together with non-designated heritage assets.
Table 13.1 Relevant provisions within the SPP’s Subject Policy Valuing the Historic Environment
Policy Area Overview
Listed Buildings The SPP states that “where planning permission and listed building consent are sought for development to, or affecting, a listed building, special regard must be given to the importance of preserving and enhancing the building, its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest…” (paragraph 141).
Scheduled Ancient The SPP states that “where there is potential for a proposed development to have an adverse effect on Monuments a scheduled monument or on the integrity of its setting, permission should only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances...” (paragraph 145).
Gardens and Designed The SPP states that ”planning authorities should protect and, where appropriate, seek to enhance Landscapes gardens and designed landscapes included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes and designed landscapes of regional and local importance” (paragraph 148).
Archaeology The SPP states that “planning authorities should protect archaeological sites and monuments as an important, finite and non-renewable resource and preserve them in situ wherever possible”. In situ preservation is encouraged, but in cases where this is not possible, conditions or legal obligations should be used to ensure archaeological assets are recorded and analysed before development proceeds.
Non Statutory Historic In relation to historic assets which are not afforded statutory protection, the SPP states that “planning Assets authorities should protect and preserve significant resources as far as possible, in situ wherever feasible” (paragraph 151).
13.2.6 Detailed advice on the implementation of SPP is provided in Planning Advice Notes (PAN) 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology, and in the Historic Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment series of guidance notes.
Development Plan Policies
13.2.7 The adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 (LDP) and Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP Proposed Plan) policies and Supplementary Guidance of relevance to this Historic Environment technical assessment are listed below: LDP Policy D5 - Built Heritage and Archaeology and Planning Supplementary Guidance; and LDP Proposed Plan Policy D4 - Historic Environment.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 269 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Scope of Assessment
Scoping Report
13.2.8 To establish the baseline for the assessment of effects, a scoping report, which included details of the aspects of the historic environment that were considered to be sensitive to the Proposed Development, was submitted to Aberdeen City Council (Application Reference: 151515) in September 2015.
13.2.9 During the production of the scoping report, data was collected for designated heritage and non- designated heritage assets within 5km and 1km from the Development Site respectively. These data provided the basis for an initial baseline appraisal which formed part of the scoping report and were obtained from the following sources:
National-based registers of designated heritage assets through the HES datasets26; and County-based registers of known non-designated archaeological and historical sites through the RCAHMS27, also now part of HES, and their PastMap online mapping (hereafter referred to as Canmore) 28.
Direct Effects
13.2.10 The initial baseline appraisal noted that no heritage assets were recorded within the Development Site by HES or Canmore. The absence of indications of past activity coupled with disturbance caused by previous development of the Development Site meant that no significant direct effects on heritage assets were anticipated. Consequently, it was proposed that direct effects on the historic environment should be scoped out of any further assessment.
Indirect Effects
13.2.11 The scoping report noted that while the scale of the Proposed Development suggests that it is likely to be widely visible, the densely developed nature of much of the study area means that visibility from many areas would be restricted. In addition, the setting of many heritage assets within the area surrounding the Development Site is defined by their immediate surroundings, especially for those assets within the centre of Aberdeen. Consequently, it was proposed that indirect effects on all designated heritage assets within 2km of the Development Site and south of the River Dee together with Girdleness Lighthouse, which lies just beyond 2km, would be assessed. It was considered that other heritage assets south of the Dee would not be affected as they were either outside the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) or close to woodland that would screen any long- distance views of the Proposed Development. These heritage assets were therefore proposed to be scoped out of any further assessment.
13.2.12 To the north of the River Dee, it was proposed that Listed Buildings within the designated Duthie Park Garden and Designed Landscape and Allenvale Cemetery together with the Category B Ruthrieston South Church would be assessed as the Proposed Development may be visible in views to or from these assets. All other assets north of the Dee would be screened by intervening structures and/or within urban/industrial settings which would result in, at most, restricted visibility of the Proposed Development. As any visibility of the Proposed Development in these views would be insufficient to give rise to significant effects, it was therefore proposed that other heritage assets to the North of the River Dee (i.e. with the exception of those named) would not be assessed further.
13.2.13 The initial baseline appraisal did not identify any non-designated assets that had the potential to be significantly affected by the Proposed Development. As a result further assessment of indirect effects on non-designated assets was scoped out.
26 http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/ 27 http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/canmore.html 28 http://pastmap.org.uk/
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 270 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
13.2.14 All designated assets that are included within the scope of this EIA are listed within Appendix 13.A, which also contains records of previous archaeological events to have taken place within 1km of the red line boundary. Non-designated assets within 1km of the Development Site have also been listed although this is for reference only as they have been scoped out of further assessment.
Consultation
13.2.15 Confirmation of the assessment scope was received after consultation with the County Archaeologist for Aberdeenshire on 26th October 2015. No additional assets were requested for inclusion.
th 13.2.16 HES provided a response on the 30 October 2015 confirming that they were content with the scope as outlined in the scoping report submitted (see Appendix 4.A). HES did highlight the consideration required for both singular and cumulative effects upon Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126), Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060), Tullos Cairn (SM 4055), Loirston County Park Cairn and Consumption Dyke (SM 12342) together with Cat Cairn (SM 4125).
13.2.17 The receptor visits noted that Category C listed Loirston House (LB 15636) did not appear to be present. It was confirmed with HES that the structure appears to have been demolished (informal communication with Andrew Stevenson, HES November 25, 2015).
Baseline Establishment
Desk-Based Assessment
13.2.18 In order to supplement the data gathered to inform the initial baseline appraisal and allow a thorough understanding of the historic environment around the Development Site to be gained, further research has been undertaken. Further sources of information consulted included (but were not limited to):
Cartographic documents available online through the National Library of Scotland29; Aerial photography available online through the RCHMS National Collection of Aerial Photography (NCAP)30; Geological mapping;
Published sources; and Internet sources.
13.2.19 This information together with the data collected as part of the initial baseline appraisal was processed in line with the guidance Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting (Historic Scotland, 2010) and the 2014 draft update. The results of the desk study are presented within Section 13.4 below.
Baseline Surveys
th 13.2.20 A walkover and receptor survey was carried out on 26 August 2015 by Amec Foster Wheeler Historic Environment Consultant Amy Roberts BSc, ACIfA, AEECW. The survey aimed to ground- truth recorded heritage assets that had the potential to be affected by the Proposed Development, as well as to further assess the potential for any as yet unknown heritage assets to occur within the Development Site.
29 http://www.nls.uk/ 30 http://ncap.org.uk/
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 271 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
13.2.21 A visit was also made to each of the cultural heritage receptors ‘scoped in’ to clarify their setting, understand how these assets are experienced and to further assess the potential visibility of the Proposed Development from these.
Methodology for Establishment of Effects
Indirect Effects
13.2.22 Not all heritage assets are considered to be of equal value and it is important to identify the importance of these assets with reference to legislation, policy guidance and professional judgement.
13.2.23 The methodology adopted for the assessment of effects on setting follows the approach set out in Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (Historic Scotland, 2010) and the 2014 draft update. This assessment follows SPP’s definition of setting as a perceptual and experiential relationship between the asset and the specific values which contribute to the importance of that asset (as reflected by Historic Scotland 2010).
13.2.24 The potential for change to the setting of heritage assets is most likely to occur as a result of intervisibility or direct views between an asset and a development or change to views of an asset from a third viewpoint. It is possible that even where there is no direct intervisibility between a development and an asset, the setting may still be effected. In addition to purely visual considerations, other effects of a development, such as noise, may also have an effect on the setting of an asset.
13.2.25 Historic Scotland (2014) sets out a range of factors which might form part of the setting of a heritage asset. These include the: Current landscape or townscape context;
Views to, from and across or beyond the historic asset or place; Key vistas, (for instance, a ‘frame’ of trees, buildings or natural features) that give an asset or place a context, whether intentional or not; The prominence of a historic asset or place in views throughout the surrounding area;
Character of the surrounding landscape; General and specific views including foregrounds and backdrops; Relationships between both built and natural features;
Aesthetic qualities; Non-visual factors such as historical, artistic, literary, linguistic, or scenic associations, intellectual relationships (e.g. to a theory, plan or design), or sensory factors; and The ‘Sense of Place’ provided by the overall experience of an asset which may be formed by a combination of the above factors.
13.2.26 There are three stages in assessing the impact of a development on the setting of a historic asset or place as set out by Historic Scotland (2011). These are summarised as: Stage 1: identify the historic assets that might be affected by a development. This stage was fulfilled through the initial baseline appraisal and the desk-based assessment undertaken during this study; Stage 2: define and analyse the setting by establishing how the surroundings contribute to the ways in which the historic asset or place is understood, appreciated and experienced (as set out in Section 13.5 of this chapter); and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 272 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Stage 3: evaluate potential impact of changes; whether or how far the proposed change would impact upon that setting. The potential for any negative effects to be mitigated has also been taken into account.
Sensitivity of Receptor
13.2.27 The sensitivity of a receptor is largely dependent upon the importance of the asset in question, as informed by legislation and policy. The policy importance of assets discussed in this section has been assessed using professional judgement with reference to defined categories which are summarised at Table 13.2.
Table 13.2 Categorisation of Importance
Importance Rationale
National and World heritage sites are designated on the basis of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ and would normally be International considered of international importance. By legal definition, scheduled monuments are considered as being of national importance. As the process of scheduling is ongoing and as scheduling is a representative designation, there are further assets which are not scheduled but which may be of equivalent importance. Category A listed buildings are described by SHEP (2011) as of national or international importance. Sites recorded in the inventories of historic battlefields and gardens and designed landscapes are, by legal definition, of national importance. Conservation areas rated by Historic Environment Scotland as of Outstanding quality (where such appraisals have been made) could be considered as being of national importance.
Regional These include archaeological sites which do not merit scheduling, but which are nevertheless of interest or which could make a substantial contribution to established regional research agendas. Category B listed buildings are described by SHEP (2011) as of regional or more than local importance. The principles of selection for designation of conservation areas do not explicitly include valuations of national, regional or local importance, although most examples would be of importance on a regional level.
Local Category C(S) listed buildings are described SHEP (2011) as of local importance and lesser examples of any period, style or building type. The majority of non-designated assets would normally be considered of local importance.
Lesser These include those features which are no longer extant, where there are no further known or surviving remains (e.g. locations of previous archaeological work), or where assets may have minimal importance, such as modern quarries. Categorisation of the relative importance of those assets which are of less than national importance relies on professional judgement.
Magnitude of Change
13.2.28 The potential magnitude of change upon a receptor is assigned to one of four classes, as defined in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3 Definition of Magnitude of Change
Magnitude Definition
High Total or substantial change to an asset or complete alteration of the characteristics of an asset’s setting.
Medium Partial alteration of an asset. Substantial change to the key characteristics of an asset’s setting, or a more total alteration which is temporary and / or reversible.
Low Minor alteration of an asset. Changes to a setting which do not affect the key characteristics, or which is short term and/or reversible.
Negligible Minor alteration of an asset. Very minor or minor and short term/reversible changes to its setting which do not affect the key characteristics.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 273 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Level and Significance of Effect
13.2.29 The assessment of significance of any effect is largely a product of the importance of an asset, as informed by legislation and policy, and the magnitude of change. The level and significance of effect on this basis has been judged according to the matrix set out in Table 13.4. It should however be noted that this matrix is used as a guide only and the assessment of the significance of an effect on a heritage asset or its setting is dependent on the exercise of professional judgement as previously noted.
Table 13.4 Establishing the Level of Effect
Importance of receptor
Magnitude of Change National/International Regional Local Lesser
High Very Substantial Substantial Moderate Low
Medium Substantial Moderate Low Negligible
Low Moderate Low Low Negligible
Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Negligible
13.2.30 Only a substantial or very substantial level of effect (shaded grey) would be considered significant in terms of EIA Regulations.
13.3 Baseline Information
Site Description and Geology
13.3.1 The Development Site is located within the East Tullos Industrial Estate, c. 1.3km south of the River Dee and c. 2.5km north of Cove Bay. The Development Site covers approximately 2ha and is bounded to the west, north and east by further industrial developments and associated roads within the East Tullos industrial estate and to the south by further industrial buildings and Loirston Country Park. At the time of the walkover survey the Development Site was comprised of existing structures, areas of hardstanding and scrubland. Evidence of terracing and numerous services were also noted throughout the area.
13.3.2 The bedrock geology immediately underlying the Development Site and the majority of assets included within this assessment consists of the Aberdeen Formation group of semipelite and psammite. The superficial deposits which overlie the bedrock within the red line boundary are formed by the Banchory Till Formation of diamicton (British Geological Survey website).
Current Baseline
13.3.3 Assets within the study area and referred to in this section are shown on Figure 13.1 (listed in Appendix 13.A) and can be summarised as follows: There are seven scheduled monuments within the scope of assessment. The closest scheduled monument is Baron's Cairn (SM 4126), located c. 325m southeast of the Development Site;
There are 34 listed buildings within the scope of assessment. These comprise a mixture of urban residential, industrial, transport and ecclesiastical buildings together with structures relating to the Duthie Park Garden and designed landscape and the Girdleness Lighthouse. The closest is the Category B listed Tullos Primary School (LB 49995), an example of 1930s modernist architecture that has undergone little alteration since it was finished in 1950. This is located to the south of Torry, c. 375m from the Development Site; and
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 274 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
A single inventory garden and designed landscape (GDL), Duthie Park, is included within the scope of assessment, located to the north of the River Dee, 1.2km to the north west of the Development Site. This park was opened on September 27, 1883 and still retains its 19th century layout.
13.3.4 There are no designated assets within the Development Site and there are no World Heritage Sites, conservation areas or designated historic battlefields within the study area.
Archaeological and Historical Background
13.3.5 This section provides a general overview of the study area within which the Development Site is located.
Prehistoric and Early Historic Periods
13.3.6 There is evidence for occupation of the study area stretching back for at least 10,000 years with the earliest traces dating from the Mesolithic period with shell middens (Canmore 20244) recorded at Nigg Bay. Flint tools, hearths, buildings and other vestiges of human activity have been found in many areas along the banks of the River Dee, demonstrating that the Dee valley was settled and exploited during prehistory (Aberdeen City Council, 2013).
13.3.7 The importance of Tullos Hill as a place of burial in the Bronze Age is evidenced by records of former monuments such as cairns, cists (Canmore entries 118226 and 132977) barrows (Canmore 240307) and standing stones (DBA 1) together with spot finds of flint (Canmore 281370) and associated cremations and occupation remains (Canmore 311002). Many monuments still survive as scheduled cairns, located to the south and east of the Development Site with the closest being Baron’s Cairn located c. 330m to the south of the site boundary. The other scheduled cairns are known individually as Cat Cairn (SM 4125 and Canmore 20241), Loirston Country Park, cairn and dyke (SM 12342 and Canmore 240306), Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060 and Canmore 20240) and Tullos Cairn (SM 4055 and Canmore 20238).
Medieval and Post Medieval Periods
13.3.8 There is little evidence of activity relating to these periods in close proximity to the Development Site and most records that do exist do not have definite locations. The only asset to survive in any meaningful form from this period is the Category B St Fittick’s Church (LB 19955), located c. 1.2km northeast of the Development Site. This structure, although altered and added to over the intervening years, originated in the 17th century and the area surrounding it is also scheduled (SM 10400) as there may also be remains of the former parish church of Nigg, founded between 1189 and 1199, thought to have occupied the same site.
13.3.9 Further entries that are present within the area surrounding the Development Site relate to the defence of the city and the harbour with a watch tower (Canmore 77017) possibly dating to the 14th century and later 17th-century battery (Canmore 104075). Four stone balls (Canmore 19988) attributed to the 16th century have also been recovered from this general area.
Industrial and Modern Periods
13.3.10 The majority of records within the area surrounding the Development Site relate to this period including all bar one (the aforementioned St. Fittick’s Church) of the listed buildings which are reported within Appendix 13.A and illustrated on Figure 13.1. These records consist of a mixture of assets ranging from early agricultural improvements through to modern blocks of flats.
31 13.3.11 Early agricultural improvement activity such as consumption dykes (SM 12342 and Canmore entries 240306 and 347807) and farmsteads (Canmore entries 173630, 173640, 173757, 207516, 207525, 207535, 207544, 207548 and 207735) have been recorded throughout the area surrounding the Development Site although the majority of these features no longer survive except
31 Consumption dykes were built to ‘consume’ the rocks that were cleared from the neighbouring agricultural land.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 275 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
for the dykes still present upon Tullos Hill. Further quarries (Canmore entries 207526, 207527, 207529 and 207550) together with sand and gravel extraction pits (Canmore 207536) evidenced through early Ordnance Survey mapping are also likely to relate to these settlements. Further early industrial activities such as salt works (Canmore 20237) and mills (Canmore entries 173669 and 314466) are also evidenced through historic mapping but these earlier structures are no longer extant.
13.3.12 More modern industrial structures including offices and warehouses (Canmore entries 125332, 173034, 257002 and 257012) together with urban residential developments, particularly blocks of flats (Canmore entries 172993, 172998, 173038 and 173789) dominate the records in the local area. There are also numerous associated structures and assets such as schools (Canmore entries 173669 and 346109), religious buildings (Canmore 112963) and the inventory Duthie Park, which form an integral part of the surrounding communities. This aspect of the area’s development is more concentrated to the north of the Development Site where the urban fringes of the city of Aberdeen are clearly visible and incorporate numerous industrial areas such as the East Tullos Industrial Estate.
13.3.13 Military remains and transport features relating to road, rail and sea are further aspects of the modern period present within the area. Military remains include batteries (SM 9215 and Canmore 304850), together with former military and prisoner of war camps (Canmore 119951). With regards to transport, former signal boxes (Canmore entries 174143 and 174144) are recorded in connection to the railway that runs from east to west to the north of the Development Site. The majority of the bridges that cross the River Dee are listed including the Category A listed Wellington Suspension Bridge (LB 20073) located c. 1.3km to the northwest of the Development Site, and these carry existing railways and roads. Transport links with the sea are most clearly demonstrated by the Category A Girdleness Lighthouse (LB 20078) located to the south of the current harbour and c. 2.1km to the northeast of the Development Site.
Other Data Sources
Historical mapping
13.3.14 Cartographic sources were viewed online through the National Library of Scotland Map Library, a full list of maps studied is included within Section 13.11. The general area around the Proposed Development is shown on county mapping of the Aberdeen dating back to Timothy Pont’s manuscript of c. 1583-96. A summary of notable features is provided below.
13.3.15 The first map to show any detail of the Development Site is Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland, 1747-1752. Here the Development Site is illustrated as uncultivated moorland at the base of a north-facing slope. A settlement entitled ‘Tullocks’ is annotated c. 520m to the west of the Development Site.
13.3.16 James Robertson’s map of 1822 shows the settlement now named ‘Tullos’, in the same location. This map also displays the name of Middleton within the northern extent of the Development Site although there is no accompanying annotation to show buildings. There is however a symbol depicting the ‘remains of a Druid temple of standing stones’ (DBA1) c. 50m north of the Development Site boundary. There is no surface evidence for this feature within the industrial estate. There is a negligible potential for remains of these features to have survived the subsequent development of the Development Site and, as such, they have not been considered further.
13.3.17 First edition Ordnance Survey 6-inch mapping shows the settlement of Middleton (Canmore 207548) c. 30m to the northwest of the Development Site and an associated well and sluice (DBA2) located within the Development Site itself. This feature is labelled as a mill dam by the time of second edition mapping in 1899. There is a negligible potential for any remains of these features to have survived the subsequent development of the Development Site and, as such, they have not been considered further.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 276 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
13.3.18 The first mapping to display the gas works which occupies the Development Site is the Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 mapping of 1957. At this time Middleton still survives and the gas holder that recently occupied the Development Site is also now visible.
Aerial Photography
13.3.19 A review of available aerial photography was undertaken using the NCAP online catalogue. These images did not provide any further information on the historic environment.
Walkover Survey
13.3.20 The walkover revealed no indication of as yet unrecorded heritage assets and confirmed that the Development Site appeared to have been heavily disturbed through a combination of terracing, former development and the installation of below ground services. As such, there is a negligible/low potential for as yet unknown archaeological remains to survive in any meaningful form within the Development Site and its immediate surroundings.
Heritage Receptor Baseline
13.3.21 Table 13.5 summarises the heritage receptor baseline and fulfils the Stage 2 assessment as set out by Historic Scotland guidance (Historic Scotland, 2014). Each heritage asset included within the assessment scope was visited in order to define and analyse its setting and assess how this contributes to its importance. The visits were also used to further clarify the potential visibility of the Proposed Development from these locations.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 277 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 13.5 Heritage Receptor Baseline
Receptor & Baseline
Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape of Duthie Park (GDL 00166) and 12 associated Category B and C listed buildings
Current Setting The park itself provides the primary setting for many of the listed buildings within. Views out to the south across the River Dee are also a contributing factor, particularly with regards to the listed structures located towards the southern extent of the designated area. The park is bounded to the south by the A945 carriageway and River Dee, to the west by Allenvale Cemetery and to the north and east by residential urban development, resulting in this GDL now being considered a city park.
Aspects of Importance Duthie Park GDL is considered to have outstanding historical, horticultural, arboricultural and silvicultural value together with having a high value as a work of art. In contrast, it is considered to have some scenic value, little architectural and nature conservation value and no archaeological value. The historical value is derived from the well-documented history and development of the park together with the involvement of the designer Mr William R McKelvie. The limited scenic value of the park is due to some views available into the park from the south. Most of the views that contribute to the park are, however, self-contained views across the central green open space.
Receptor Visit The site visit confirmed that the self-contained nature of the park is very evident and that views from the park to the south are also restricted by intermittent trees planted along the southern extents. The majority of listed buildings within the park do not have views to the south beyond the park itself, and only four had the potential to be seen in conjunction with the Proposed Development. These were the Category C McGrigor Obelisk (LB 20010), Fountainhall Cistern House (LB 20080), the Category B Footbridge over Upper Lake (LB 46780) and the Duthie Park Fountain (LB 46781). At the time of the site visit the foliage of the trees was full, which largely screened potential views of and from the southern listed buildings from the Proposed Development; any views that may occur during winter months would still be heavily filtered by this planting. Occasional glimpsed views towards the Development Site were visible in limited areas of the southern fringes of the park but these views were not easily seen.
Three Category B Listed buildings within Allenvale Cemetery - Allenvale Road, Allenvale Cemetery, Including Lodge And James Saint Monument (LB 46473)
Current Setting Allenvale cemetery is a late 19th-century walled cemetery bounded to the south by the A945 carriageway and adjacent River Dee, to the east by Duthie Park and to the north and west by residential urban development. Due to the walled construction, this space is self-contained and longer views from the cemetery are only available to the south over the River Dee. The setting of individual monuments contained within the cemetery is defined by their relationship with each other and the neighbouring community.
Aspects of Importance These structures are considered important for numerous reasons including their historical and architectural interest, their cultural and archaeological aspects and, to some degree, the scenic nature of the cemetery when seen with the neighbouring Duthie Park and views across the River Dee. The historical aspect of the cemetery is demonstrated by the development of the site being clearly mapped on Ordnance Survey mapping. Its architectural importance derives from many individual structures, most importantly the James Saint Monument, which was the last work of Aberdeen-born architect John Bridgeford Pirie. The human burials within are clearly of cultural importance and also provide the cultural aspect and links to the surrounding settlements.
Receptor Visit The site visit confirmed that views towards the Proposed Development were predominantly screened by the cemetery wall and the planting within the neighbouring Duthie Park to the east. The only location where the Proposed Development may be seen from the cemetery is at its southern edge where it is terraced down to meet the level of the A945 carriageway. The boundaries along the southern edge of the cemetery, where low walls and railings are present, allow clear views out over the River Dee and are more open than the walls present in other directions. These views are drawn towards a more south to southeast field of view by the alignment of the boundaries and the open spaces present on the opposite banks of the Dee at this location. Where possible, views towards the Proposed Development from the southern extent of the cemetery would be partial and further broken by the street lighting present along the carriageway which would be more prominent vertical elements of the view.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 278 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor & Baseline
St. Fittick's Church and Churchyard, St. Fittick's Road: Category B listed building (LB 19955) and Scheduled monument (SM 10400)
Current Setting The remains of St Fittick's Church and Churchyard lies on open ground, adjacent to Balnagask golf course, overlooking Nigg Bay, at a height of about 10.5m OD. Longer views to the urban and industrial development of Torry and the existing East Tullos Industrial Estate are seen to the west and southwest together with the Kelda Water Services water treatment plant to the south. These longer views across the open ground from St. Fittick’s Road provide a sense of transition and displacement.
Aspects of Importance This heritage asset is important for its historical, cultural and archaeological aspects. This former parish church of Nigg, founded between 1189 and 1199, was dedicated to St Fittick. The structure was rebuilt and enlarged in the eighteenth century before being abandoned in 1829, but parts of the walls date to the thirteenth century.
Receptor Visit The existing industrial structures already present on the Development Site are visible directly behind this asset as it is approached from the entrance on St. Fittick’s Road. Standing within the area of the graveyard, views outwards are dominated by the urban development of Torry to the west where three point blocks overshadow the surrounding structures. This urban development does however provide some link to community which does lessen the sense of displacement. The residential development at Torry, industrial development at East Tullos and Nigg Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) to the south mean that longer views from the monument towards the northwest and southwest are largely disrupted. Views to the northeast are obscured by landscaping associated with the neighbouring golf course and the natural topography.
Tullos Hill Scheduled Cairns - Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126), Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060), Tullos Cairn (SM 4055), Loirston County Park Cairn and Dyke (SM 12342) and Cat Cairn (SM 4125)
Current Setting These monuments are all located within scrubland on Tullos Hill where numerous public footpaths allow access to the cairns locations. Industrial developments to the northwest and southeast are clearly visible from the majority of these assets and from the intervening open spaces.
Aspects of Importance These monuments have importance individually for their archaeological features provided by the material remains and cultural associations connected to burial; and together have importance as a relict prehistoric landscape. The associated consumption dyke attached to the Loirston County Park cairn also provides historical, archaeological and cultural importance associated with 19th-century agricultural improvement works.
Receptor Visit Although many footpaths are present across Tullos Hill, the monuments themselves were not obvious within the landscape due to areas of heavy vegetation and modern fencing. Views from the majority of these monuments with the exception of Tullos Cairn to the east (SM 4055) had clear views out over the industrial and residential developments to the north across the intervening open space. These elevated viewpoints across the fringes of Aberdeen meant that many of the closer structures were backgrounded by those set further away. Due to the layout of the footpaths these monuments could not be readily viewed in conjunction with the industrial estates and were only visible looking towards the south. Tullos Cairn (SM 4055), in contrast, had no clear view of the Development Site at the time of the survey as the topography and the vegetation that bordered the public footpaths largely screened the lower lying industrial estate.
Torry Battery (SM 9215)
Current Setting This monument consists of the remains of a military battery, constructed over the period 1857-1861 in response to the perceived threat of a French invasion. It was manned permanently through both the First and Second World Wars and briefly occupied again during the Suez Crisis of 1956 before its partial demolition in 1959. The views available from the perimeter wall of this monument allow for extensive views across the coast line and the harbour to the north which still allows a sense of its defensive nature to be experienced.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 279 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor & Baseline
Aspects of Importance The importance of the asset and its setting are connected to the neighbouring coast line and harbour due to its defensive nature. It does have historical importance due to its use during a number of periods of conflict and there is a significant archaeological potential for further below ground elements of the battery to survive.
Receptor Visit Longer views to the south and west of this monument are largely screened by the monument itself and the surrounding landscaping and topography with no clear views of the Development Site being apparent at the time of the site visit. It was noted that the key views from this monument were looking away from the Proposed Development.
Balnagask Motte (SM 10403)
Current Setting This monument consists of a medieval motte that survives as a grassy mound, now entirely surrounded by modern residential development. It is bounded by an early-modern wall which stands 2m higher than the street level around it. The motte itself rises a further c. 6m.
Aspects of Importance The HES listing states that ‘the monument is of national importance as an impressive motte, a rare survival of a castle mound in Aberdeen, which has the potential to contribute to an understanding of the organisation, settlement and economy of the feudal landscape in the immediate hinterland of an important medieval town’.
Receptor Visit Views of this monument are screened in all directions in close views by the neighbouring housing and views from the street level looking out from the scheduled area are similarly screened. Slightly more visibility is available from the top of the motte, yet longer views towards the Development Site which lies c. 1km to the SSW are partially screened by planting on the edge of the monument at this location. Further residential development including point blocks located to the south of the motte also means that sequential views of the Proposed Development would be possible as the viewer moved around the motte.
Burnbanks village Category C listed Buildings (LB 15620, LB 15634 and LB 15635)
Current Setting This group of structures is set within a cul-de-sac that contains landscaped ground with views out to the east over the coast and a strip of agricultural land. Some planting is present to the north and scrubland and industrial developments surround the settlement to the west.
Aspects of Importance This complex of buildings was formerly used as an agricultural museum although little information on their history is contained within the HES list entry. Their historic importance is evident through their presence on first edition Ordnance Survey mapping although this does suggest that a number of building may have been altered in the intervening decades.
Receptor Visit These structures appear to have been modernised and the landscaping and views out to the east provide the predominant setting for what is now a residential cul- de-sac. The intervening industrial developments and planting screen this complex from the Development Site in any longer views (c. 1.8km) that may once have been available to the north.
Category C listed Loirston House (LB 15636)
Current Setting The asset’s location is within a modern industrial area fronting onto Wellington Road.
Aspects of Importance This building would have been a lodge located at the entrance to the former Upper Kirkhill House as shown on first edition Ordnance Survey mapping; as such it would have value for its historical importance.
Receptor Visit The site visit noted that this structure did not appear to be present with the only historic structure present being a small lodge entitled ‘Kimberley’. It was confirmed with Andrew Stevenson from HES that this lodge was not the listed building and that the Loirston House structure appears to have been demolished (personal communication, November 25, 2015).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 280 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor & Baseline
Category B listed Nigg Parish Church (LB 19945)
Current Setting This structure’s setting is predominantly provided by the area contained in the listing as marked by the boundary walls. The surrounding residential structures to the north, south and west do provide some contribution to the setting by providing a visual link to the community, but these all appear clearly separated in character and location through building styles and topography.
Aspects of Importance This church was constructed in 1828-29 and has architectural, historical, archaeological and cultural importance due to the links to community and the inherent nature of this type of heritage asset.
Receptor Visit This church and graveyard has a very clearly defined and self-contained setting provided by the graveyard and surrounding perimeter wall. Views towards the Proposed Development with the heritage asset in view are screened by the asset itself as are views from within the churchyard. Views available at the north-eastern corner of the asset where there is an entrance onto the A956 footpath are also screened by Shell Office Complex on the opposite side of the carriageway.
Category B listed Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart and Presbytery House, Torry (LB 19952)
Current Setting This building’s setting is provided by the surrounding residential area. This church is still in use and these links to the community provide the building with a sense of place.
Aspects of Importance This church was constructed in 1911 and has architectural, historical, and cultural importance due to the links to community and the inherent nature of this type of heritage asset.
Receptor Visit This church is at the base of a northwest facing hill which screens the heritage asset from any visibility of the Proposed Development.
Category B listed St. Peter's Court (LB 19972)
Current Setting This asset comprises the church and hall (19th Century) which were converted into sheltered housing in the 20th Century. The setting is provided by the residential settlement around this asset.
Aspects of Importance This heritage asset has architectural, historical, and cultural importance due to the links to community and the inherent nature of this type of heritage asset.
Receptor Visit St. Peter’s Court is screened from the Development Site by the elevated terraced housing on the opposite side of the road.
Category B listed King George VI Bridge (LB 20070)
Current Setting This asset forms part of the B9077 carriageway providing passage over the River Dee. The setting is predominantly linked to the river. When seen with Duthie Park (GDL 00166), Allenvale Cemetery (LB 46473) and the open recreational spaces available on the southern banks of the Dee, however, the setting does also extend to these areas for their scenic value. The urban developments that can be seen beyond these also provide a sense of transition that contributes to the asset’s understanding.
Aspects of Importance This asset is important for its historical and architectural value. Designed by Sir Frank Mears, King George VI was present when the foundation stone of the bridge was laid in 1938, and Queen Elizabeth (then Princess) named and opened the bridge.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 281 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor & Baseline
Receptor Visit This asset, by its very nature, is experienced whilst traveling within the area. Views of the bridge are available along the banks of the Dee and from the southern extent of Allenvale Cemetery (LB 46473). These views take in the river in the foreground and neighbouring roads and green spaces with a backdrop of urban development in the distance. At a distance of c. 1.8km away, the Proposed Development would be seen as part of, and in proportion with, the existing urban/industrial background. As a result, any visibility in views of or from the King George VI Bridge would be in keeping with its current setting.
Category B listed Victoria Bridge (LB 20072)
Current Setting This asset forms part of the Victoria Road carriageway providing passage over the River Dee. The setting is predominantly linked to the river and the neighbouring industrial developments as well as the quays that are situated to the east of the monument.
Aspects of Importance The listing for this asset states that ‘Victoria Bridge was a major factor in allowing the increasingly busy industrial 19th century Aberdeen to expand to the south’, it is located on a section of river that was diverted in 1868 to the south in order to expand the existing harbour and create the Albert Quay. The bridge itself was not built until 1881 after a fatal ferry accident prompted this new transport link to be built.
Receptor Visit This asset is located it what is still a busy and bustling industrial area of Aberdeen. The views along the river are brief as you pass through the area with warehouses, cranes and further industrial structures screening and dominating views very quickly on either side of the river at this location. The Proposed Development is in keeping with the industrial nature of the area and is therefore in keeping with the asset as an industrial feature to the south of the River Dee.
Category A listed Wellington Suspension Bridge (LB 20073)
Current Setting The setting of this asset is largely defined by the River Dee and settlements on the neighbouring banks. The structure itself provides a landmark feature within the immediate area and views of the asset are particularly good from the western banks of the Dee.
Aspects of Importance The Wellington Suspension Bridge is an important example of an early suspension bridge and the sole survivor of four of its kind that crossed the River Dee in the early 19th century.
Receptor Visit This bridge is now in use as a pedestrian and cycle route across the River Dee. The views towards the Proposed Development are largely screened by terraced housing located close to the eastern bank of the River Dee. These buildings hold an elevated position and if any visibility of the Proposed Development occurs, it is likely that only the tip of the stack would be visible.
Category A listed Girdleness Lighthouse (LB 20078)
Current Setting This heritage asset is a prominent feature within the landscape of the Greg Ness headland. Its setting is defined by its coastal location and the offshore area together with the harbour to the northwest.
Aspects of Importance This lighthouse has value for its historical and architectural aspects. Designed by Robert Stevenson, the lighthouse was built in 1833 and was later considered the best lighthouse to be seen by the Royal Commission during their report of 1860.
Receptor Visit Views towards the Proposed Development from ground level are screened by the intervening topography within the Balnagask golf course to the west. Access was not available to the lighthouse itself and although views could be expected from the top of the structure, the key views from this asset would not be in the direction of the Development Site.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 282 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor & Baseline
Category C listed buildings on Victoria (No’s 53, 55 and 57) and Sinclair Road (No’s 4, 6 and 8) (LB 20824)
Current Setting These properties form an Edwardian Baroque corner tenement with broad curved corner and interesting curvilinear-gabled roofline. Their current setting is defined by the residential area and associated high street on Victoria Road in which they are situated.
Aspects of Importance These buildings have importance for their architectural qualities and the listing states that if the glazing on the upper floors were to be restored to their original form these structures would warrant a Category B listing.
Receptor Visit These buildings are in keeping with their immediate surroundings and due to the surrounding residential development, views towards the Development Site are screened from this location.
Category C listed Ferryhill Railway Viaduct (LB 46800)
Current Setting This setting of this structure is by its very nature closely linked with the River Dee and the neighbouring urban areas.
Aspects of Importance The viaduct his importance for its historical and architectural qualities. Built in 1848, this viaduct formed part of what was later known as the Caledonian railway, which in turn linked London to Aberdeen. The introduction of this route changed the travelling and commercial habit of the town in the space of a few years (Reid, 1990).
Receptor Visit Views of this structure are clearest from the western banks of the Dee with the asset spanning the water to meet an elevated ground level on the eastern side. The Proposed Development would be screened in these views by topography to the east. Views from the bridge itself can only be experienced whilst travelling by rail but they would be expected to look out over the river with urban development being clearly visible on either side. The route continues to the east of the river to pass along the northern extent of the East Tullos Industrial Estate which further links the railway to industry as well as commuting.
Category B listed Edward VIII Pillar Box at Gregness Gardens (LB 47266)
Current Setting The current setting of this asset is primarily provided by the surrounding residential development of Torry although structures contained within the East Tullos Industrial Estate are also visible in the background.
Aspects of Importance This heritage asset is important due to its historical value. The listing explains that this is ‘one of very few post boxes cast in the short reign of Edward VIII bearing his cipher "EVIIIR". A total of 271 letter boxes were made in 1936, 161 of which were pillar boxes’.
Receptor Visit The key views of this asset are from Girdleness Road and the adjacent footpath looking towards the south. Although the Proposed Development would be visible in these views it would not appear directly behind the heritage asset.
Category B listed Tullos Primary School (LB 49995)
Current Setting This asset is located on the southern edge of Torry with residential development to the north forming the primary setting for the heritage asset. Views towards the school from Girdleness Road do contain elements of the existing East Tullos Industrial Estate. A tall tapered brick chimney projecting from the centre of the school’s roof does lend itself to forming a local landmark when travelling from east to west along Girdleness Road.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 283 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor & Baseline
Aspects of Importance This listed building has importance for its historic, cultural and architectural elements. The school, designed by J Ogg Allen, is a good example of 1930s modernist architecture, little altered and displaying many of period's most advanced concepts in educational architecture. These concepts were largely concerned with the importance of providing a clean, healthy, bright environment and the best way of achieving this was considered to be the creation of buildings which gave access to fresh air and sunshine. Allen sited Tullos Primary School close to its northern perimeter, thus maximising the south facing area of the Development Site. To the south elevation, the ground floor rooms were given glazed walls which could fold back to allow pupils to enjoy clement weather.
Receptor Visit It was noted during the site visit that the Proposed Development would be visible in views towards the school from Girdleness Road. The present structures within the East Tullos Industrial Estate are currently backgrounded by Tullos Hill. It was noted that the proposed stack would likely extend to a height that meant the structure would rise above this backdrop.
Category B listed John Ross Junior Smoke House (LB 50621)
Current Setting This asset is located within a busy and densely occupied fish processing and industrial area. This building is screened by more recent development on all sides and the setting is defined by this dense and bustling industrial area together with harbour on the opposite side of Sinclair Road.
Aspects of Importance This structure is important for its historical and architectural value. It is the sole surviving, rectangular-plan, traditional red brick smoke house in Torry. Originally constructed in the mid-20th-century, this survival is also accompanied by the building still being used for its original purpose using the traditional methods for smoking.
Receptor Visit This structure was difficult to locate during the site visit due to the more recent industrial developments surrounding it in all directions. The structures that screen the building from view also screen the Development Site.
Category C listed Capstan Jetty (LB 51752)
Current Setting The setting of this asset is defined by the harbour in which it sits and the surrounding structures that are visible across the water.
Aspects of Importance This structure has architectural and historical importance. It was originally constructed in c. 1796 and includes what is a rare example of an early cast-iron capstan wheel. The HES entry for this asset states that the harbour at Aberdeen is one of Britain's oldest industries and of central significance to the city's continued prosperity.
Receptor Visit The site visit noted that the jetty is only visible from the very northern edge of the headland at this location due to a sharp rise in ground level. This topography effectively screens any views towards the Proposed Development from the jetty.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 284 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Predicted Future Baseline
13.3.22 The existing site is scheduled for demolition and remediation during 2016 by the current landowner SGN. In the absence of the Proposed Development, piecemeal change to the baseline can be expected as industrial estates continue to evolve and the fringes of Aberdeen City continue to develop.
13.4 Design Evolution
13.4.1 In terms of response to the historic environment, design has considered visual impacts of the Proposed Development upon the wider area. A curved roof was selected to reduce the contrast of the structure with the surrounding landscape and a silver/grey cladding for the upper levels of the structure was selected to better colour blend with the sky and therefore reduce its silhouette against the sky. These design factors are discussed in further detail within the Chapter 12: Landscape and Visual.
13.5 Impact Assessment
13.5.1 This section fulfils the Stage 3 assessment as set out by Historic Scotland guidance (Historic Scotland, 2010, 2014) for the heritage assets within the assessment scope. The assessment has followed a phased approach whereby a preliminary assessment of potential impact which identifies the potential for significant harm to occur as set out in Table 13.6; followed by a more in depth assessment for any assets identified as being at risk of significant harm. The preliminary assessment takes into consideration the findings of the Stage 2 assessment (Table 13.5), in particular the receptor visits that formed part of this.
13.5.2 The Stage 3 assessments have considered a number of ways in which the Proposed Development may impact upon the setting of the assets. These include the potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Development and its cumulative impact in relation to the surrounding developments.
13.5.3 The construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development all have the potential to affect the experience of the asset not only through the visual aspects (Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual) but also through contributing factors such as traffic (Chapter 9 Traffic) or noise (Chapter 10 Noise).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 285 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 13.6 Preliminary Stage 3 Assessment
Heritage Asset Importance Rationale of Potential Impact Based on the Stage 2 Assessment Potential as set out Magnitude in Table of Change 13.3
Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape of Duthie National Due to the limited visibility of the Proposed Development from within the park, change to the views Low Park (GDL 00166) and 12 associated Category B and C at a distance of c. 1.2km, are likely to have a negligible impact upon the Duthie Park GDL and its listed buildings. associated listed buildings.
The three Category B Listed buildings within Allenvale Regional As views of the Proposed Development are only available from the southern extent of the cemetery Negligible- Cemetery: Allenvale Road, Allenvale Cemetery, at a distance of c. 1.8km away, it would be seen as part of, and in proportion with, the existing Low Including Lodge And James Saint Monument (LB 46473). urban/industrial background and any impact would be of a low magnitude at most.
St. Fittick's Church and Churchyard, St. Fittick's Road: National The Proposed Development would appear within views of the historic asset from the entrance to Low- Category B listed building (LB 19955) and Scheduled the church/churchyard. There could also be an adverse cumulative effect when the Proposed medium monument (SM 10400). Development is seen with the existing industrial and residential developments in the area. There is a possibility that the Proposed Development may have a low-medium impact upon the monument.
Tullos Hill Scheduled Cairns: Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126), National Due to the proximity of these monuments, the closest being Baron’s Cairn (SM4126) c. 350m to Low-High Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060), Tullos Cairn (SM 4055), Loirston the southeast of the Development Site, the clear views from the majority of locations and the need County Park Cairn and Dyke (SM 12342) and Cat Cairn to consider the Tullos Hill landscape as a whole the Proposed Development has the potential to (SM 4125). have a low-medium magnitude of change.
Torry Battery (SM 9215). National Due to the screening provided by the landscaping and topography to the southwest of the Low monument, the Proposed Development is likely to have at most a low change upon Torry Battery, especially with key views from the monument being directed in the opposite direction.
Balnagask Motte (SM 10403). National Due to the current setting of this monument being residential development, including visually Negligible dominant point blocks in the local area, any partial views of the Proposed Development from the top of the motte would give rise to incremental change and are likely to have a negligible change upon the heritage asset.
Burnbanks village Category C listed Buildings (LB Local Due to the screening between these listed buildings and the Development Site, the Proposed Negligible 15620, LB 15634 and LB 15635). Development is expected to have at most a negligible change and has not been considered further.
Category C listed Loirston House (LB 15636). Local Due to the lack of survival of this structure, this asset has not been considered further. Negligible
Category B listed Nigg Parish Church (LB 19945). Regional Due to the screening provided by intervening commercial structures, the Proposed Development is Negligible expected to have at most a negligible change upon the Nigg Parish Church and, as such, this asset has not been considered further.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 286 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Heritage Asset Importance Rationale of Potential Impact Based on the Stage 2 Assessment Potential as set out Magnitude in Table of Change 13.3
Category B listed Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Regional Due to the screening provided by the surrounding topography, the Proposed Development is Negligible Heart and Presbytery House, Torry (LB 19952). expected to have at most a negligible change upon the church and, as such, this asset has not been considered further.
Category B listed St. Peter's Court (LB 19972). Regional Due to the screening provided by the adjacent terraced housing, the Proposed Development is Negligible expected to have at most a negligible change upon the church.
Category B listed King George VI Bridge (LB 20070). Regional Due to the current setting of this asset, the Proposed Development is likely to have a negligible Negligible change upon King George VI Bridge.
Category B listed Victoria Bridge (LB 20072). Regional As the Proposed Development is in keeping with the nature of the area and the reasons for the Negligible bridges construction, the change is expected to be negligible at most.
Category A listed Wellington Suspension Bridge (LB National Due to the screening provided by terraced housing within Torry, the Proposed Development is Low 20073). expected to have a negligible change upon the Wellington Suspension Bridge at most and, as such, this asset has not been considered further.
Category A listed Girdleness Lighthouse (LB 20078). National Due to the topographical screening at ground level and the dominance of the lighthouse, views Low looking down onto the Proposed Development at a distance of c. 2.1km from the top of this structure would be expected to have a low magnitude of change at most.
Category C listed buildings on Victoria (Nos 53, 55 and Local Due to the screening provided by the surrounding structures, the Proposed Development is Negligible 57) and Sinclair Road (Nos 4, 6 and 8) (LB 20824). expected to have at most a negligible change upon these structures.
Category C listed Ferryhill Railway Viaduct (LB 46800). Local Due to the existing industrial nature of this asset and the Proposed Development being screened Negligible- within key views, it is expected to have a low magnitude of change at most. Low
Category B listed Edward VIII Pillar Box at Gregness Regional Due to the nature of the asset and the current setting already containing views of the East Tullos Negligible- Gardens (LB 47266). Industrial Estate, the Proposed Development is considered to have a low change at most upon the Low pillar box’s setting.
Category B listed Tullos Primary School (LB 49995). Regional As the Proposed Development would appear behind this structure, together with the design Low-High aspects of open space to the south of the school and the chimney being a notable part of the structure, it is considered that it has the potential to have a low-high change upon this asset.
Category B listed John Ross Junior Smoke House (LB Regional Due to the current setting of this smoke house, and the screening provided by further industrial Negligible 50621). buildings in all directions, the Proposed Development is expected to have a negligible change upon this heritage asset at most.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 287 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Heritage Asset Importance Rationale of Potential Impact Based on the Stage 2 Assessment Potential as set out Magnitude in Table of Change 13.3
Category C listed Capstan Jetty (LB 51752). Local Due to the screening provided by the natural topography at this asset’s location, the Proposed Negligible Development is expected to have a negligible change upon its setting at most.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 288 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
13.5.4 With reference to Table 13.4, assets of Regional importance that may be subject to a high magnitude of change and assets of National/International importance that may be subject to a medium or high magnitude of change could be significantly affected by the Proposed Development. On this basis, assets identified as having the potential to be subject to a significant adverse effect as a result of the Proposed Development are: St. Fittick's Church and Churchyard: Category B listed building (LB 19955) and Scheduled monument (SM 10400); Tullos Hill Scheduled Cairns and Consumption Dyke: Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126), Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060), Tullos Cairn (SM 4055), Loirston County Park Cairn and Dyke (SM 12342) and Cat Cairn (SM 4125); and Tullos Primary School: Category B listed building (LB 49995).
13.5.5 Further assessment in regards to these assets is presented below.
St. Fittick's Church and Churchyard: Category B Listed Building (LB 19955) and Scheduled Monument (SM 10400)
Enhanced Stage 2 Assessment – The setting, understanding, appreciation and experience of the asset.
13.5.6 St. Fittick’s Church and Churchyard is located c. 1.2km to the northeast of the Development Site on open ground, adjacent to Balnagask golf course and overlooking Nigg Bay at a height of about 10.5 mAOD. This area occupies a relatively level plateau sloping slightly to the southeast that provides longer views towards the southeast out across the neighbouring sea. Views to the west and the south are limited to mid-range views with Tullos Hill and the development of Torry, the current East Tullos Industrial Estate and the Kelda Water Services water treatment plant screening longer views. Only short views are available out to the northeast where hillocks contained within Balnagask golf course obscure any further views in this direction.
13.5.7 The church and associated churchyard do not appear as prominent features within the wider landscape due to the topography to the northeast and the larger scale development to the west and south, particularly the point blocks on the edge of Torry which are a dominant feature within the area. The slight southeast facing slope on which the church is located also allows the asset to further blend into its surroundings from the approach to the northwest.
13.5.8 The scale of this asset as an example of a church and graveyard is quite modest, with the bell-cote only minimally increasing the height and prominence of the structure. The churchyard is also of quite a small scale, perhaps representing the community of the time and largely originating from the 19th century with no marked burials dating from before the 17th century. This later burial ground and the 18th-century reconstruction work mask the earlier origins of the church, which without the public information board, would not be readily apparent through visiting the asset. There is easy and clear access to the Development Site available from St. Fittick’s Road.
13.5.9 The importance of the formal design of the church resides in its potential to contribute to an understanding of medieval and later ecclesiastical history and architecture although importance is also supplied by the cultural aspects of ritual and religion that are attached to the physical remains. The assets location within the current setting has a sense of transition and displacement due to its contrast with the densely occupied modern urban areas to the west and south. Due to the walled nature of the churchyard and the now blocked-up windows of the church the asset appears quite self-contained although the perimeter walls are not high enough to screen it from the surrounding areas. This is particularly evident to the southeast where a lower wall and wire fencing allows clear views out that are dominated by Nigg Waste Water Treatment Works.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 289 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Stage 3 Assessment – Predicted Effects
Construction
13.5.10 In the case of St. Fittick’s church, the construction phase of the Proposed Development is not expected to increase traffic along St. Fittick’s Road due to its location. Any associated visual changes that may affect the appreciation and experience of the asset above the appearance of the new building itself would be short term in nature. The construction and associated, occurring at a distance of c. 1.2km from the asset, would not affect the appreciation and experience of the asset or the understanding of the monument. As a result, the construction phase of works is expected to have a low magnitude of change upon St. Fittick’s Church and Churchyard leading to a moderate effect on its setting that is not significant.
Operation
13.5.11 The Proposed Development would be visible in views of the church from the entrance off St. Fittick’s Road. These views would present the Proposed Development in close proximity to the industrial structures already present and concealing some of the more prominent structures currently visible within the East Tullos Industrial Estate which can be seen between the gable ends of the church where the roof of the church should be. As the viewer moves towards the churchyard’s entrance on the northwest corner, the Proposed Development would be visible, over the churchyard walls. Within these views, the Proposed Development would be partially screened by intervening woodland with only the top of the building and the chimney expected to show above this planting. These aspects would also rise slightly above the current horizon and backgrounding provided by Tullos Hill as do some elements of the existing East Tullos Industrial Estate. Although the Proposed Development would be of a larger scale than the existing structures surrounding the Development Site, the curved roof provides a more coherent response to the hills behind and it would replace the current view with a view similar in nature and consistent with the industrial nature of the current setting. This increase in visibility of industrial structures would not affect the key characteristics of the asset. Noise resulting from the operation of the Proposed Development is not expected to reach levels above existing background noise that would be clearly audible from St. Fittick’s Church or churchyard, leaving the cultural aspect of quiet respect associated with such assets intact. The Proposed Development would not affect the understanding of this asset during its operation.
13.5.12 It is considered that the Proposed Development would not affect the understanding of St. Fittick’s Church and Churchyard, but its location means that it appears within key views of the asset from the entrance off of St Fittick’s Road, although this visibility would be consistent with the current setting. Given the current setting and the partial screening provided by intervening woodland, the Proposed Development would have an incremental effect on these views leading to a low magnitude of change and would have a moderate effect on its setting that is not significant.
Cumulative Effects
13.5.13 The Development Site is located within an existing industrial estate that is already visible from St. Fittick’s Church and Churchyard. The Proposed Development, although increasing visibility of the existing estate, would not encroach upon any of the more open views seen towards the south and east. The addition to the views looking southwest, which include both the industrial developments and the residential development of Torry, in particular the point blocks, would be expected to have a low cumulative magnitude of change upon St. Fittick’s Church and Churchyard leading to moderate effect that is not significant.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 290 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Tullos Hill Scheduled Cairns and Consumption Dyke: (SM 4055, SM 4060, SM 4125, SM 4126 and SM 12342)
Enhanced Stage 2 Assessment – The setting, understanding, appreciation and experience of the asset.
13.5.14 Tullos Hill is one of the local landmark hills of Aberdeen City and a valuable amenity for the surrounding community, providing not only an open space used for walking but also a rich historic and archaeological resource (Aberdeen City Council, 2013). Amongst the archaeological elements visible on the hill are a group of scheduled cairns, one of which has a later consumption dyke also contained within the scheduling. This group consists of: Tullos Cairn (SM 4055), measuring c. 20m in diameter and c. 2m high, located c. 410m to the east of the Development Site; Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060), measuring c. 14m in diameter and c. 1.5m high, located c. 840m to the east of the Development Site; Cat Cairn (SM 4125), measuring c. 20m in diameter and c. 2.5m high, located c. 650m to the south-southwest of the Development Site; Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126), measuring c. 18m in diameter and c. 1.5m high, located c. 320m to the southeast of the Development Site; and
The Loirston County Park cairn and dyke (SM 12342), with this asset the cairn measures c. 18m in diameter and c. 3m in height, located c. 475m to the south of the Development Site. The associated consumption dyke is in two sections, adjoining the northwest and southwest quadrants of the cairn, measuring c. 4m wide, 5m long and 1.5m high.
13.5.15 The importance of these scheduled cairns is provided by their contribution to a number of prehistoric funerary remains which may form part of a relict prehistoric landscape within Tullos Hill. They each have potential to provide important information about prehistoric funerary and ritual practices. The two sections of dyke adjoining the Loirston County Park cairn are each formed by two inwards-leaning retaining walls, joined by a rubble core. These sections are part of a longer, isolated consumption dyke whose overall length is roughly 50m, although this area is now largely incorporated into the boundaries of the modern developments to the southeast. The dyke would have originally been constructed in the post-medieval period during a time of ‘agricultural improvement’ in which boulders were cleared from the land and used to form boundaries and enclosures for the freshly cleared and drained land (Turnock, 1982). This activity forms an important phase of Scotland’s history and reflects the way that farming moved from small-scale tenant farming to larger scale enclosures and the keeping of livestock.
13.5.16 The cairns and dyke occupy the elevated position of Tullos Hill, particularly Cat Cairn and Baron’s Cairn which each occupy the highest points of this landscape feature. As such, views looking out from the majority of the monuments allow long range views.
13.5.17 The views available from Cat’s Cairn, Baron’s Cairn and the intervening Loirston County Park cairn and dyke all share long views to the north looking out over the Development Site and across Aberdeen City to the open areas beyond. Tullos Cairn was visible in views to the southeast from public footpath although it was surrounded by thick gorse which inhibited access to the monument itself. Views towards the Development Site from this path were screened by trees that were planted on the south facing slope and a slight rise in ground level towards the west. Views over the site of Tullos Cairn towards the northwest were possible at some locations higher up the hill, providing similar views to those described for Cat’s Cairn, Baron’s Cairn and the intervening Loirston County Park cairn and dyke. Views towards the Development Site from Crab’s Cairn were similarly screened by the intervening topography occupied by Baron’s Cairn. Views of Crab’s cairn were heavily restricted by the surrounding vegetation and this asset was difficult to appreciate with the current setting detracting through the presence of further stone mounded in close proximity within its location on the north-eastern corner of Altens Industrial Estate.
13.5.18 A public notice board showing the locations of Cat Cairn, Baron’s Cairn, Tullos Cairn and Crab’s Cairn and providing a very brief description of the archaeological features on Tullos Hill was
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 291 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
present on a footpath leading up to Tullos Hill from the southeast. However, no further explanations of the monuments were present at the individual locations. It was also noted during the site visit that the setting of Cat’s Cairn, Baron’s Cairn and the intervening Loirston County Park Cairn and dyke have substantially changed since the publication of A Guide to the History, Archaeology and Natural History of Tullos Hill by Aberdeen City Council in 2013 as a result of further industrial development on the north-western side of Peterseat Drive. These more recent developments mean that industry is now viewed directly adjacent to many of the scheduled cairns and detract from the relationship between each of them as the land is partitioned by the introduction of large steel fencing panels along many of the southern footpaths on Tullos Hill.
13.5.19 The interrelationship of archaeological features on Tullos Hill is not immediately apparent and a mixture of modern industrial fencing, set footpaths and intervening planting, including large swathes of gorse, all affect the experience of how this landscape may have been traversed before the current routes were set in place.
Stage 3 Assessment – Predicted Effects
Construction
13.5.20 The construction phase of the Proposed Development may detract from the appreciation and experience of the Tullos Hill assets due to the noise associated with construction; this is particularly the case for Baron’s Cairn and Tullos Cairn which are both within 500m of the Proposed Development. No further aspects of the assets’ settings are expected to be affected by the construction phase of works due to the Development Site occurring within an existing industrial estate which forms part of the current setting to many of the archaeological assets contained on Tullos Hill.
13.5.21 Any increase in noise resulting from the construction of the Proposed Development would be short term in nature and would therefore be expected to have low magnitude of change leading to a moderate level of effect that is not significant.
Operation
13.5.22 The Proposed Development would be visible in views from the cairns, although this would appear in congruity with their current setting appearing within the existing industrial estate from the lower monuments and the hill itself would provide partial screening of the Proposed Development from the top of the hill. Looking out towards Aberdeen, the Proposed Development would appear more prominent than the existing surrounding industrial development but the views of the point blocks in Tullos and to the east of Old Aberdeen provide a series of vertical structures that break the skyline and provide a sense of inclusion of the Proposed Development into the wider area. The visibility of the Proposed Development whilst moving around Tullos Hill would not affect the relationship between the cairns and the use of space, which is largely defined by the existing paths and fencing found on Tullos Hill. The Proposed Development would appear as a peripheral feature to these. Views expected from individual monuments are as follows: Tullos Cairn (SM 4055) – views of the Proposed Development from this location are expected to reveal the building set below the monument as a prominent building in the foreground of views of the wider Aberdeen area. The Proposed Development would be seen in context with the surrounding East Tullos Industrial Estate development which together would appear on the opposite side of the closest footpaths and as a peripheral feature when looking west towards the associated cairns to the west. Where the Proposed Development would be seen behind Tullos Cairn from further to the south east, partial screening of the building would be expected from the hill itself and from trees planted along the footpaths in this direction. The increased visibility of the industrial development from Tullos Cairn would be expected to have a low magnitude of change on the setting of this cairn leading to a moderate level of effect that would not be significant. Crab’s Cairn (SM 4060) - views towards the Proposed Development from Crab’s Cairn are expected to be largely screened by the intervening topography of Tullos Hill and the structure
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 292 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
would be seen as a more distant feature beyond the existing industrial development that neighbours the cairn’s location. This recent industrial development at Altens Industrial Estate now provides a significant portion of the current setting for this particular monument and as such further industrial structures bounding the open spaces are in keeping with this. As a result of the existing setting and the screening at this location the Proposed Development is expected to have a negligible magnitude of change on the setting of Crab’s Cairn and therefore a low level of effect which would not be significant. Cat Cairn (SM 4125) – views of the Proposed Development from this location are expected to be partially screened by Tullos Hill. The roof and chimney would be visible in conjunction with the settlement of Aberdeen in the background, although the smaller industrial buildings surrounding the Proposed Development would not be visible. These views, although increasing the visibility of industrial development in this direction, show the Proposed Development as a more distant feature separated by a larger area of open ground due to the cairns location being c. 800m away. This would lead to a low magnitude of change due to the increased visibility of industry in views to the north and northeast leading to a moderate level of effect which would not be significant. Baron’s Cairn (SM 4126) – this monument is the closest to the Proposed Development and is located on the higher levels of Tullos Hill. As such, views towards the Proposed Development are expected to be partially screened by the hill itself, although the roof and chimney of the structure would be visible as a much closer structural element than that of the urban settlement beyond. The surrounding industrial buildings within East Tullos Industrial Estate would not be visible in connection with the Proposed Development from this location. Although the Proposed Development would raise the visibility of industrial development from this location it would only appear as a peripheral feature in views looking towards the surrounding monuments to the southwest and northeast and therefore it would not affect the key characteristics of the current setting given the industry that already neighbours the location to the south. The appearance of the Proposed Development in views to the NNW are expected to have a low magnitude of change on the setting of the cairn leading to a moderate level of effect which would not be significant.
The Loirston County Park cairn and dyke (SM 12342) - views of the Proposed Development from this location are expected to be partially screened by Tullos hill with the roof and chimney being visible in conjunction with the settlement of Aberdeen in the background although the smaller industrial buildings surrounding the Proposed Development would not be visible. These views, although raising the visibility of industrial development in this direction would show the Proposed Development as a more distant feature beyond a larger area of open ground. These views could only be achieved through looking away from the monument with the cairn and dyke behind due to the dyke itself separating this monument from the public land to the north and the industrial development to the south. This would lead to a low magnitude of change due to the increased visibility of industry in views to the north and northeast leading to a moderate level of effect which would not be significant.
13.5.23 The operational noise would present a negligible increase in the magnitude of change above that predicted as a result of the change in visibility which would not affect the overall assessment of significance.
Cumulative Effects
13.5.24 As the Development Site would be located within an existing industrial estate, the Proposed Development would be in congruity with the current views available of this, particularly from the area around Tullos Cairn. Where the existing East Tullos Industrial Estate is currently screened from the individual monuments such as at Baron’s Carin, the Proposed Development would raise the visibility of industry in this direction although views of this would not interfere with the understanding of the monuments themselves and their relationship to each other as this relies more on views looking towards the northeast and southwest where the Proposed Development would only appear as a peripheral feature. This increase of industrial visibility to the northwest of Tullos Hill in conjunction with the already substantial visibility to the southeast provided by the
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 293 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Altens Industrial Estate would be expected to have a low cumulative change upon the Tullos Hill scheduled cairns and consumption dyke leading to moderate level of effect that is not significant.
Tullos Primary School: Category B Listed Building (LB 49995)
Enhanced Stage 2 Assessment – The setting, understanding, appreciation and experience of the asset.
13.5.25 Tullos Primary School is located c. 400m to the north of the Development Site on the southern edge of Torry. The school is located on a terrace at the base of a slight north-west facing slope. These slopes mean that the surrounding residential developments screen longer views to the north and west, providing a sense of enclosure to the school. Views to the east are available down the slope but are screened after c. 500m by further residential development including the point blocks present at Balnagask Circle. From this point, Tullos Hill begins to rise, continuing to provide a backdrop to the school to the south and sloping back down to re-join the urban development to the west. Views of the asset are available from Girdleness Road, although these views are filtered by a series of small trees planted on the northern boundary of the school grounds. Some of the structures within the East Tullos Industrial Estate are visible behind the school although they are largely screened by the asset itself, and the highest parts of the school and its chimney rise above the backgrounding Tullos Hill.
13.5.26 This school is important for its historic, cultural and architectural elements and was designed to provide a clean, healthy and bright environment for students. With this in mind, the school building itself was sited close to the northern perimeter of the school grounds in order to maximise the open areas to the south and the rear ground floor walls were originally glazed and could fold back to allow pupils to enjoy good weather. However, the rear walls no longer function as they did in the original design and some of the openings to the east have now been blocked up.
13.5.27 The school grounds to the south of the building were bounded by a road and the railway, as is still the case. The railway embankment in this location largely screens views towards the Proposed Development and the surrounding industrial estate from the rear of the school with only small elements of the highest structures visible. This screening is further strengthened by planting along the northern edge of the embankment.
13.5.28 The understanding of the asset is clearly evident as it still functions as a school and this is evident when visiting the area with the surrounding residential development contributing to the sense of the community for which the building was created.
Stage 3 Assessment – Predicted Effects
Construction
13.5.29 The construction phase of the Proposed Development is unlikely to detract from the appreciation and experience of Tullos Primary School due to the noise associated with construction. No further aspects of the schools setting is expected to be affected by the construction phase of works due to the Development Site occurring within an existing industrial estate which forms part of the current setting of the school.
13.5.30 Any increase in noise resulting from the construction of the Proposed Development would be short term in nature and would therefore be expected to have negligible magnitude of change leading to a negligible level of effect that is not significant.
Operation
13.5.31 The Proposed Development would be visible in views of the school from the north, although as with existing structures, these views would be largely screened by the asset itself and further filtered by the planting along its northern boundary. The top of the building and the stack are expected to be visible behind the school, although at a distance of c. 375m this visibility is expected to appear as a more distant element of the background and would not detract from the school’s chimney as a landmark from the north of the school.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 294 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
13.5.32 It is considered that the Proposed Development would not change upon the understanding or experience of Tullos Primary School and although being visible in some views, it would be an incremental change to the current views of the industrial estate that would not affect the key characteristics of the asset. This would lead to a low magnitude of change that would have a low effect that is not significant.
13.6 Cumulative Effects
13.6.1 As the Proposed Development would be located within an existing industrial estate that is already visible from Girdleness Road, although increasing visibility of the existing estate, it would not affect the key characteristics or understanding of the asset. The addition to the views looking south which include the industrial developments that surround the Development Site would be expected to have a low cumulative change upon Tullos Primary School leading to low level of effect that is not significant.
13.7 Additional Mitigation
13.7.1 As no significant effects are expected as a result of the Proposed Development, no further mitigation measures are proposed.
13.8 Summary of Residual Effects
Table 13.7 Summary of Residual Effects
Potential Magnitude Receptor Significance Cumulative Summary Rationale Receptor and of Change Sensitivity Significance Effect
Effect on Low National Not Not Significant Although increasing visibility of the current character and Significant East Tullos Industrial Estate, the Proposed setting of the Development would not affect the designated St. understanding or key characteristics of the Fittick's Church asset. The Proposed Development would be in and Churchyard keeping with the current setting of the asset.
Effect on Negligible- National Not Not Significant As the Proposed Development would be character and Low Significant located within an existing industrial estate, it setting of the would be in keeping with the current setting Tullos Hill and would not affect the understanding, Scheduled Cairns appreciation or key characteristics of the and Consumption assets. Dyke
Effect on Negligible- Regional Not Not Significant Although increasing the visibility of the current character and Low Significant East Tullos Industrial Estate, the Proposed setting of the Development would not affect the Category B listed understanding or key characteristics of the Tullos Primary asset. The Proposed Development is in School keeping with the current setting of the asset.
13.9 Technical References
Documentary Sources Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Aberdeen City Council (2013). A Guide to the History, Archaeology and Natural History of Tullos Hill. Themed trail pamphlet, Aberdeen City Council.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 295 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Amec Foster Wheeler (2015). Aberdeen Recycling and Energy, Energy for Waste, East Tullos, Scoping Report. Unpublished document. CIfA (2014a). Code of Conduct. Reading, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. CIfA (2014b). Standard and Guidance for Commissioning Work or Providing Consultancy Advice on Archaeology and the Historic Environment. Reading, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. Historic Scotland (2010). Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting. Edinburgh, Historic Scotland. Historic Scotland (2011). Scottish Historic Environment Policy. Edinburgh, Historic Scotland. Historic Scotland (2014). Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting - 2014 Update (Draft). Edinburgh, Historic Scotland. Great Britain Parliament (1979). Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c.46). Great Britain Parliament (1997). Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.9). HMSO. The Scottish Parliament (2011). Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2011 asp 3. The Scottish Parliament (2014). The Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014, 2014 asp 19. Reid, J. S. (1990). Mechanical Aberdeen. Keith Murray Publishing/JSR. Scottish Government (2011) Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology.
Scottish Government (2014). Scottish Planning Policy. Turnock, D. (1982). The Historical Geography of Scotland since 1707. Cambridge University Press.
Online Sources British Geological Survey – (http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html) Accessed 16/10/2015 Historic Environment Scotland – (http://portal.historic-scotland.gov.uk/) Accessed 16/10/2015 National Library of Scotland Map Images – (http://maps.nls.uk/) Accessed 16/10/2015 PastMap – (http://pastmap.org.uk/) Accessed 16/10/2015 Canmore – (https://canmore.org.uk/) Accessed 16/10/2015 NCAP – (http://ncap.org.uk/) Accessed 05/01/2015
Cartographic Sources The maps studied as part of this report are as follows: 1640 – Robert Gordon - Aberdeen, Banf [sic], Murrey [sic] & c. to Inverness: [and] Fra the north water to Ross / Robertus Gordonius a Strathloch describebat 1640. 1654 – Robert Gordon and Joan Blaeu - Duo Vicecomitatus Aberdonia & Banfia, una cum Regionibus & terrarum tractibus sub iis comprehensis / Auctore Roberto Gordonio à Straloch. Description of the two Shyres Aberdene and Banf, with such Countreys and Provinces as ar comprehended un. 1745 – Herman Moll - The Shires of Bamf and Aberdeen 1747-55 - William Roy - Military Survey of Scotland 1822 - James Robertson - Topographical and military map of the counties of Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine. 1826 – John Thomson and William Johnson - Northern Part of Aberdeen & Banff Shires. Southern Part.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 296 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
1850-1856 - Ordnance Survey - Six-inch 1st edition maps of Scotland 1858 – Alexander Gibb - Map of the North Eastern Districts of Aberdeenshire. 1892-1948 - Ordnance Survey - Six-inch 2nd edition maps of Scotland 1892-1943 - Ordnance Survey – 25-inch 2nd edition maps of Scotland 1957 – Ordnance Survey - 1:25,000 maps of Great Britain
Aerial Photography The aerial photographs studied as part of this report are as follows: 1945, March 20th - Sortie: M/113/NLA/096 - Frame: 03003 1945, March 20th - Sortie: M/113/NLA/096 - Frame: 03004 1946, April 16th - Sortie: 106G/Scot/UK/0021 - Frame: 5081 1973, August 17th - Sortie: FSL/7343/07 - Frame: 0665
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 297 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
14. Socioeconomics
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1 This chapter identifies and assesses socio-economics, land use and recreation effects as a result of the proposed East Tullos Energy from Waste facility (hereafter referred to as ‘the Proposed Development’). The Proposed Development may result in socio-economic effects at the regional level, for example, in relation to economic development, and also at the district/local level, principally affecting those who live in or visit the surrounding area.
14.1.2 The Proposed Development would be located on an existing industrial site within the East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen. Owing to the location of the Development Site, this assessment is focused on Aberdeen City and the council ward areas of Kincorth/Loirston and Torry/Ferryhill as detailed on Figure 14.1.
14.1.3 This chapter should be read with reference to the scheme description in Chapter 2 Project Description and in conjunction with other relevant ES chapters, as identified throughout this chapter.
14.2 Methodology and Approach
Policy and Guidance
14.2.1 Relevant Policy and Guidance considered for this socio-economic assessment are outlined below.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Legislation and Guidance
14.2.2 Whilst acknowledging there are no specific methodological guidelines or requirements for socio- economic assessments within the context of EIA, a number of documents do provide methodological advice and those considered in undertaking this assessment were: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011;
IEMA. (2004) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment; Morris, P and Therivel, R. (2009) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment; and Scottish Natural Heritage. (2014) A handbook on environmental impact assessment: Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Scotland.
The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (as amended)
14.2.3 The Proposed Development would be constructed and operated by or on behalf of Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Councils, which are all statutory public bodies. Under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (as amended) and associated guidance, there is an expectation that Community Benefit clauses should be considered by public bodies in procurement contracts wherever there is an appropriate legal basis to do so. This can result in potential community benefits from the construction and potentially also the operation of the Proposed Development (depending on the procurement and operational model selected by the Applicant, e.g. Design & Build or Design, Build and Operate).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 298 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Planning Policy and Other Guidance
14.2.4 All relevant Development Plan, national and other planning policies and other material considerations are outlined in Chapter 5 Planning Policy Context. Socio-economic related planning related policies and guidance of relevance to this assessment are listed below in Table 14.1.
Table 14.1 Relevant Policy Guidance
Document Relevant Provisions and Policies
Legislation The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011
National Policy, Advice and Guidance Scottish Planning Policy (SPP, 2014) National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3, 2014) Scotland’s Economic Strategy (2015) Online Planning and Waste Management Advice Online Renewables Planning Advice: Energy from Waste Scottish Government’s Chief Planner letter regarding Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy (November 2015) Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2013: Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Circular 3/2011: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 Community Benefits in Public Procurement (Scottish Government, 2008) Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (2010) SEPA’s Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014 Making Things Last: Consultation on creating a more circular economy in Scotland (2015) Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2014-2025
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic The SDP identifies two main aims in regards to providing a strong framework for Development Plan (SDP) investment, seeking to grow and diversify the regional economy, and take on the challenges of sustainable development and climate change.
Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012 The LDP’s Spatial Strategy prioritises the redevelopment of brownfield sites; and (LDP) and Supplementary Guidance identifies Torry as a Priority Regeneration Area. Policies of relevance include: Policy R3: Waste Management Facilities; Policy R5: Energy from Waste; Policy I1: Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions; Policy BI1: Business and Industrial Land; Policy NE9: Access and Informal Recreation; Policy R7: Low and Zero Carbon Buildings; and Policy R8: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments. Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Manual Supplementary Guidance Low and Zero Carbon Buildings Supplementary Guidance.
Proposed Aberdeen LDP 2015 Policy R3: New Waste Management Facilities (Proposed Plan) and proposed Policy R4: Sites for New Waste Supplementary Guidance Policy R5: Energy from Waste Policy I1: Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Obligations Policy B1: Business and Industrial Land Policy NE9: Access and Informal Recreation Policy R7: Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, and Water Efficiency Policy R8: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments Resources: Energy and Resources - Resources for New Developments
Other Guidance Nestrans Regional Transport Strategy Refresh 2013 Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Regional Economic Strategy (2015) Draft Nigg Bay Development Framework and Baseline Report (2015)
14.2.5 The planning policy framework identified above highlights the importance of considering net socio- economic impacts, including supply chain effects, as material planning considerations. Increases in renewable energy generation capacity, the deployment of district heating networks, impacts on local communities, including on recreation, and the contribution of the Proposed Development to sustainable development are also material planning considerations of relevance to this assessment.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 299 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Proposed Scope of Assessment
Scoping Report and Consultation
14.2.6 In the EIA Scoping Report (September 2015) submitted to Aberdeen City Council the Applicant proposed to entirely scope out socio-economics as a matter requiring consideration within this ES. This was on the grounds that no likely significant socio-economic effects were predicted to occur as a result of the Proposed Development.
14.2.7 It should be noted that no scoping responses have been received in relation to socioeconomic matters. However, in the absence of a formal EIA Scoping Opinion having been issued in respect of the Proposed Development, on a precautionary basis an assessment of pertinent socio- economic effects has been carried out herein.
Potential Effects
14.2.8 The potential effects resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Development are outlined below.
Economic Effects Direct effects on economic activity (e.g. construction expenditure); Indirect and induced effects on economic activity (e.g. supply chain, multiplier effects, economic stimulus generated from the expenditure of additional employment income); Direct effects on employment levels (e.g. construction and operational workers); and
Direct effects on land use within the Development Site (i.e. redevelopment of brownfield land).
Social Effects Direct effects on the land use of the Development Site;
Potential indirect and/or induced regeneration effects resulting from the redevelopment of the Development Site; Indirect effects on recreational activities; and Induced effects relating to the potential establishment of a district heating network as a result of the Proposed Development (e.g. effects on residential heating sources, fuel poverty, etc.).
14.2.9 It is pertinent to note that from a socio-economic context, the Proposed Development would enable Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Councils to comply with the ban on the landfilling of municipal waste by 2021 as prescribed within the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (as amended). The Proposed Development would therefore inter alia contribute to the implementation of Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan (2010) across the North East of Scotland. In addition, through the generation of low carbon electricity and heat, the Proposed Development would make a contribution towards climate change mitigation. From a socio-economic perspective, all of these positive effects are supported by policy frameworks and can be considered as beneficial and important, however for the purposes of this assessment it is not possible to objectively assign significance levels.
Effects Scoped Out of the Assessment
14.2.10 The following areas are scoped out of the socio-economic assessment: Operational expenditure effects. Financial modelling supporting the Proposed Development’s Business Case indicates the level of operational expenditure (OPEX) necessary to continuously and efficiently operate the Proposed Development. This would not be of a sufficient level (thus magnitude of change) to represent a likely significant economic effect.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 300 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Operational effects on employment. Approximately 20 Full-Time Equivalent [FTE] roles, working over shift patterns are anticipated during the operational phase. While any new job creation is beneficial, this level of employment would not be of a sufficient magnitude of change to represent a likely significant employment effect. Individual effects on local residents and the local community due to noise (Chapter 9), traffic (Chapter 10), air quality (Chapter 11) and visual impact (Chapter 12). These potential effects have already been fully considered in the relevant ES chapter as noted. The Proposed Development is not expected to result in any changes to housing accommodation needs. Demographic effects, due to the relatively short construction period and the low magnitude of local employment generated. Owing to the relatively stable working age populations recorded in all relevant geographies, it is predicted that any local demographic changes would be of negligible magnitude and there would be no discernible effects at regional and national levels. Effects on public access. By virtue of its urban location and fenced nature, the Development Site is not subject to the ‘right to roam’ normally enjoyed on open rural land under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (as amended), and the Proposed Development would not affect public access to any Public Rights of Way or adopted Core Paths. Effects on the visitor attractiveness of locations for sport such as quad biking and team sports (football grounds / stadiums) or other recreational / tourist destinations where the focus of activity is indoors, for example museums, libraries, and gift shops. For these receptors, it is considered that the visual influence of the Proposed Development on the surrounding environment would be unlikely to result in effects on visitor attractiveness.
Effects on the visitor attractiveness of all transport and recreational routes located: Outwith 2km of the Development Site; Within 2km of the Development Site, but where no significant traffic or visual effects are identified. Owing to the urban and industrial situation of the Development Site, built form and topographical screening is considered likely to provide substantial screening of the Proposed Development from many routes; and
Within 2km of the Development Site and not having already been scoped out by the above criterion, but where the primary purpose of the individual route is to provide pedestrian and/or cycle connectivity and permeability rather than to facilitate leisure or recreational activities. Owing to the urban and industrial situation of the Development Site, many of the Core Paths and other recreational routes identified within 2km are designated in order to safeguard connectivity rather than due to any recreational value. Only recreational routes located within 2km of the Development Site which are predicted to experience significant visual effects and which have a recreational value are considered in this assessment. Effects on the visitor attractiveness of identified recreational receptors located: Outwith 2km of the Development Site; and Within 2km of the Development Site and which are assessed in the LVIA (Chapter 12) or Chapter 13 Historic Environment as not experiencing significant adverse effects.
14.2.11 In all of the case listed above, due to the urban and industrial setting of the Proposed Development potential recreational receptors would experience no or only limited and ‘not significant’ adverse landscape and visual effects. It is therefore considered that there is no possibility that such receptors could experience any significant effects in terms of visitor attractiveness. On this basis, these receptors have been scoped out of the recreational assessment provided in this Environmental Statement (ES) chapter.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 301 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Baseline Establishment
14.2.12 An extensive desk based review of publicly available information sources to establish the baseline conditions relating to local population levels, key components of the local economy, existing land uses, and potential tourism and recreational receptors have been carried out. The assessment uses standard socio-economic and demographic data from available datasets including the 2011 Census, NOMIS and the Office for National Statistics website, standard sources of visitor data found on Visit Scotland’s website, and other relevant publications.
Assessment Study Areas
14.2.13 The socioeconomic Study Area used within this assessment is based on the administrative boundary of Aberdeen City Council, in particular the Kincorth/Loirston council ward which the Development Site is located and the adjacent Torry/Ferryhill council ward.
14.2.14 The recreation Study Area used within this assessment is derived from the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) reported within Chapter 12 and the historic environment assessment reported within Chapter 13. A 2km Study Area has been applied to recreational and tourism receptors.
Methodology for Establishment of Effects
14.2.15 Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (referred to as the EIA Regulations) identifies likely significant effects on ‘population’ as a factor to be addressed within ESs. In addition, section 3A of the EIA Regulations requires EIAs to “identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in light of the circumstances relating to the proposed development, the direct and indirect effects of the proposed development on…human beings…and material assets”. However, no specific guidelines or requirements for socio-economic (including and recreational) assessments within EIAs are either set out in the EIA Regulations or in any other statutory or advisory guidance.
14.2.16 The method adopted is therefore one of determining the existing circumstances (the baseline) through desk-based analysis, and drawing on a range of statistical information and consultations with relevant stakeholders. The predicted effects of the Proposed Development on this baseline are then assessed using quantitative analysis and/or professional judgement (as appropriate to the effect under consideration) to assess the magnitude of change and significance of residual socio- economic effects (i.e. after mitigation is taken into account).
14.2.17 The Proposed Development has the potential to generate a range of socio-economic, tourism and recreational effects. The method adopted for this assessment draws on publicly available information and is based upon the following approach: Establishing the baseline to determine the existing socio-economic characteristics of the Development Site and its surrounding area (receptors); Defining receptor sensitivity to the development type proposed (an EfW facility) where possible; Identifying any necessary or otherwise proposed mitigation and/or enhancement measures; and Identifying the residual potential change that the receptor would experience as a result of the Proposed Development and assessing the significance of residual effects (i.e. taking account of mitigation). Consideration is also given to the magnitude, duration (e.g. short/long term, temporary/permanent) and valency (i.e. adverse/beneficial) of predicted effects.
14.2.18 Predicted economic and employment effects from the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development have been calculated using the following sources: Scottish Annual Business Statistics Publications (latest available edition is for 2013); Addendum to Energy from Waste Business Case (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2015), presented to Aberdeen City Council’s Zero Waste Subcommittee on 1st December 2015;
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 302 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Aberdeen Waste Project VFM - Business Case Update: August 2015. Ernst & Young (2015); and The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government and Associated Guidance (as amended). HM Treasury (2015).
14.2.19 The guidance used to assess effects on recreational activities accords with guidance contained within Appendix 5 of ‘A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment, 4th edition’ (SNH, 2013). The assessment of predicted effects on leisure and recreational interests takes account of relevant findings detailed other ES chapters herein.
14.2.20 The construction employment impacts within the study area are defined in terms of full time equivalent (FTE) jobs associated with predicted capital expenditure. The assessment has therefore focused on the following impact categories: Direct economic impacts: jobs and capital spend that are wholly or largely related to construction, operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development; Indirect economic impacts (positive and negative): jobs and capital spend generated in the economy of the economic study area (Aberdeen City) in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities; Induced economic impacts: jobs and capital spend created by direct and indirect employees’ spending in the study area or in the wider economy; and Wider economic (catalytic) impacts (positive and negative): employment and income generated in the economy related to the Proposed Development. This would include the effects on inward investment elsewhere within the construction sector, (e.g. as a result of worker supply) and on other sectors of the economy.
Sensitivity of Receptor
14.2.21 For employment effects, the availability of labour and skills is critical in accommodating the demands, needs and requirements of the Proposed Development. Adequate labour and/or skills capacity results in a low sensitivity, while limited labour and/or skills capacity results in a high sensitivity. Sensitivity criteria in terms of employment are shown below in Table 14.2.
Table 14.2 Economic Sensitivity
Sensitivity Definition
High Where there is a low / limited availability of labour and skills. Data zones within top 5% of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012
Medium Where there is a constrained supply of labour and skills. Data zones within top 5-15% of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012
Low Where there is a readily available labour force and skills. Data zones not included within top 15% of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012
14.2.22 Recreational receptors would only be adversely affected where the physical impacts (landscape, visual, noise, land-use, etc.) of the Proposed Development adversely affects visitor/user experience, visitor/user numbers or associated levels of expenditure. As such, any potential variation in expenditure or visitor/user numbers affecting individual receptors, and consequent effects on business turnover or employment, are of key importance.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 303 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
14.2.23 Recreational behaviour could be affected where a development potentially leads to a change in recreational habits or activities. Guidance from SNH32 notes that factors which might lead to changes in recreational behaviour include loss, closure, or diversion of access routes; obstructing access routes; enhancing access; reduction in amenity or intrusion; enhancement in amenity; and changes in the setting of recreational receptors.
14.2.24 The potential effect on recreational users is likely to be a factor of the proximity of the Proposed Development to receptors, the receptor/resource type and usage (e.g. a town centre indoor recreational facility compared to a hill top view point), visibility of the Proposed Development from receptors, and the need for any public access diversion due to the Proposed Development’s presence.
14.2.25 The main factors considered relevant when defining the sensitivity of receptors relating to public access and recreation are outlined in Table 14.3.
Table 14.3 Sensitivity of Recreational Receptors
Sensitivity Definition
High Where the receptor or resource is defined as being of International or National status or has high visitor/user numbers.
Medium Where the receptor or resource is defined as being of regional status or has medium visitor/user numbers.
Low Where the receptor or resource is defined as being of local status or low visitor/user numbers.
Magnitude of Change
14.2.26 The magnitude of potential changes/impacts on socio-economic receptors are assessed as defined in Table 14.4. In the case of employment effects, this is based on participants within the labour force; and the level of occupational skills available in the study area (see Table 14.2).
Table 14.4 Industry and Economic Magnitude of Change
Magnitude of Change Definition
High Changes as a result of the Proposed Development that are of greater than local scale or which exceed recognised standards.
Medium Changes as a result of the Proposed Development that are likely to be noticeable at a local scale.
Low Slight change as a result of the Proposed Development.
Negligible No discernible change as a result of the Proposed Development.
14.2.27 The magnitude of change on recreational receptors is gauged by estimating the level of change on the receptor as a result of the Proposed Development. This magnitude of change is assigned in line with the criteria detailed in Table 14.5.
32 SNH (2001). Survey of Behaviour Associated with Access and Informal Recreation.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 304 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 14.5 Recreational Magnitude of change
Magnitude of Change Definition
High Where the extent of changes (e.g. changes in visitor visual attractiveness, visitor numbers, etc.) on identified receptors (i.e. routes, activities, tourism and recreational resources, tourism destinations or tourism/recreational businesses) is large scale and the substantial majority of activities or receptor users (including employees) will be affected.
Medium Where the extent of changes (e.g. changes in visitor attractiveness, visitor numbers, etc.) on receptors is small in scale, but the majority of activities or receptor users (including employees) will still be affected; or alternatively where the extent of effects on activities, resources and/or businesses is large in scale but only a minority of receptor users (including employees) or activities would be affected.
Low Where the extent of changes (e.g. changes in visitor attractiveness, visitor numbers, etc.) on receptors is small in scale and would only affect a small minority of receptor users (including employees) or activities.
Negligible Where the extent of changes would have no discernible effect on receptor users or activities.
Level and Significance of Effect
14.2.28 In line with standard EIA practice, and taking into account professional judgement, the sensitivity of receptors (as defined in Table 14.2 and Table 14.3) are generally considered against the magnitude of change (Table 14.4 and Table 14.5) to determine the significance of resultant effects. A matrix showing this relationship is provided in Table 14.6.
Table 14.6 Establishing the level of effect
Magnitude of Change Sensitivity
High Medium Low
High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate
Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate
Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight
Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible
Key: Significant Not Significant
14.2.29 Based on the approach summarised in Table 14.6, predicted changes from the baseline position that would result in either substantial or substantial/moderate levels of effect (shaded in grey) are considered to be significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.
14.3 Baseline Information
Land Use and Regeneration
14.3.1 The Development Site is located within the established East Tullos Industrial Estate on the south side of Aberdeen. The Development Site is brownfield land and currently comprises a large mothballed gas holder, associated structures and hard standing which are scheduled for demolition followed by site remediation works during 2016 by the current land owner SGN (Scotland Gas Networks).
14.3.2 The immediate surrounding area comprises industrial storage, distribution and office buildings, with associated car parking within the curtilage of individual industrial plots. Altens Nursery is located to the west of the Development Site on Hillview Road, within the East Tullos Industrial Estate.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 305 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Loirston Country Park is located directly south and east of the Development Site. To the north of the East Tullos Industrial Estate lies the East Coast Mainline (ECML) railway, with Tullos School and residential dwellings beyond.
14.3.3 The East Tullos industrial estate lies south of the River Dee and is accessed via the A956 Wellington Road, which links Aberdeen with the A90 south of Charlestown. Greenbank Road is the main industrial estate road between the Development Site and the A956 Wellington Road and serves a number of industrial units. Greenbank Crescent leads from Greenbank Road and directly serves the Development Site. The B9077 is located within 2km of the Development Site and runs from Ferryhill, north west of the Development Site, towards Banchory in Aberdeenshire. The ECML runs to the north of the Development Site, with sidings and railway access for freight located parallel to Greenwell Road.
14.3.4 In terms of policy context, the Aberdeen City and Shire Regional Economic Strategy (2015) commits Aberdeen City Council to the regeneration of the Development Site. The draft Nigg Bay Development Framework (Barton Wilmore, 2015) identifies a long term need to provide new transport infrastructure into East Tullos industrial estate and to redevelop parts of East Tullos industrial estate. All of these measures are identified as necessary to increase the industrial estate’s employment density and to maximise potential economic benefits which could be generated by the proposed Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project (currently pending determination)33.
Population
14.3.5 Table 14.7 provides an overview of the current demographic profile of relevant geographies, as recorded by the 2011 Census.
Table 14.7 Key Population Statistics from 2011 Census
Geographical Area Total Population Percentage Percentage Percentage 65 Population - 2011 Census Under 16 (i.e. 16-64 (i.e. and over (i.e. Density Dependants) Working Age) Pensionable (persons per Age) hectare)
Scotland 5,295,403 17.3 65.9 16.8 0.68
Aberdeen 222,793 14.4 71.2 14.4 12.00
Kincorth/Loirston council 15,870 16.7 67.9 15.3 10.33 ward
Torry/Ferryhill council ward 21,905 13.0 76.2 10.8 43.61
Note: Age distribution figures have been rounded to 1 decimal place
14.3.6 The data in Table 14.7 demonstrates that there is a substantial resident population within the host and surrounding council wards to the Development Site, and further afield across Aberdeen. The adjacent Torry/Ferryhill council ward has a higher population than the host Kincorth/Loirston which includes a large proportion of rural and industrial areas. The nearest main residential areas are Torry (north), Kincorth (east) and Cove (south).
14.3.7 The data in Table 14.7 indicates that the percentage working age population of all relevant local geographies is higher than the Scottish average and in particular, Torry/Ferryhill at 76.2%. This result is reflected in the percentage of elderly residents where Torry/Ferryhill has significantly lower proportion then the average.
33 Of note, Aberdeen City Council’s process for approving the draft Nigg Bay Development Framework (expected late Spring 2016) is separate from any future decision(s) to consent the Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 306 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
14.3.8 In addition to the 2011 Census Results, official Scottish Government statistics provide a rolling annual mid-year estimate of population levels across various geographies. Relevant data for the period 2011-2014 with an annual percentage increase/decreased is provided in Table 14.8.
Table 14.8 Total Population (Mid-Year Estimates) from Scottish Government Statistics
Geographical Area 2011 2012 2013 2014
Scotland 5,229,900 5,313,600 (+1.6%) 5,327,700 (+0.3%) 5,347,600 (+0.3%)
Aberdeen 222,460 224,970 (+1.1%) 227,130 (+1%) 228,990 (+0.8)
Kincorth/Loirston council ward 15,827 15,820 (-0.05) 16,025 (+1.3%) N/A
Torry/Ferryhill council ward 22,069 22,463 (+1.8%) 22,695 (+1%) N/A
14.3.9 The data in Table 14.8 indicates that the total population of Aberdeen has been increasing above the national average and that similar or greater increases have been experienced in Torry/Ferryhill. The high level trend shown in Table 14.8 suggests that with a higher population there is rising demand for local services provided by Aberdeen City Council, including waste management.
14.3.10 The latest available demographic projection for Aberdeen is shown in Table 14.9. Demographic projections are unavailable at lower spatial scales.
Table 14.9 Projected Population by Age Group in Aberdeen to 2037 (NROS, 2014)
Base Percentage Projected Projected Years Year Change from 2012 - 2037
Age group 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2037
0-15 32,903 35,116 40,562 45,093 47,075 47,635 47,640 +44.8%
16-64 158,901 161,297 165,663 170,635 177,285 185,958 189,617 +19.3%
65+ 33,166 35,082 38,188 42,370 46,942 50,242 51,531 +55.4%
Total 224,970 231,495 244,413 258,098 271,302 283,835 288,788 +28.4% Population
14.3.11 Table 14.9 indicates that population of Aberdeen is projected to substantially increase up to 2037, both in terms of the total population and each age group. In the absence of emigration from Aberdeen, the projected increases in youth and working age populations could be expected to sustain overall population growth beyond 2037.
14.3.12 If the projections provided in Table 14.9 are borne out, they would generate multiple implications for the available labour force, employment trends and public service delivery within Aberdeen. Of particular relevance these projections suggest that, notwithstanding any new policy measures which may be implemented to reduce waste generation and implement a circular economy, there is likely to be rising demand for waste management services across Aberdeen.
Employment and Economic Activity
14.3.13 Numerous factors influence the supply and demand of labour in the economy including working age population, migration, unemployment, skills and wages. In particular, the supply of appropriate labour to support the construction and operation of the Proposed Development would be a key factor in ensuring socio-economic benefits are realised by local communities.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 307 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Earnings and Business Start-Ups
14.3.14 The level of earnings is an important indicator of the general health of the local economy but also reflects economic activity in the area. In general, higher earnings indicate a prosperous economy comprised of sectors that pay well, whilst low earnings indicate the opposite. In 2015, resident based average gross weekly pay for Aberdeen was £562.40, higher than the Scottish average of £527.00 (NOMIS, 2016). In terms of business growth, the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Strategy (2015) confirms that the region experienced an 11% growth in registered enterprises over the period 2008-2014, compared with an average 4% growth across Scotland. It is noteworthy that the Aberdeen City and Shire Regional Economic Strategy (2015) recognises that future growth in earnings and businesses could be affected by the recent drop in oil prices.
Unemployment & Deprivation
14.3.15 Data from NOMIS (Official Labour Market Studies) (2015) shows that between October 2014 and September 2015, 80.5% of the working age population in Aberdeen34 were economically active, compared with 77.8% across Scotland. The official unemployment rate over the same period was 4.5% for Aberdeen and a higher figure of 6.0% across Scotland. As such unemployment is lower and economic activity rates are higher in Aberdeen than across Scotland, indicating the relative prosperity of the city. However, the Aberdeen City and Shire Regional Economic Strategy (2015) observes that the North East region is presently facing challenging economic and employment conditions due to “a recent downturn in the oil and gas sector due to a downward trend in oil prices and cost pressures, the backdrop of cuts in public sector expenditure and recovery from the wider economic downturn”.
14.3.16 The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) identifies small concentrations of multiple deprivation areas across all of Scotland. 38 indicators of deprivation are used within SIMD 2012, looking at seven dimensions which are: Income; Employment; Health; Education; Housing; Access to Services; and Crime. The SIMD is separated out into data zones which are able to identify small areas of deprivation, with the level of deprivation increasing with the SIMD score. The 15% most deprived data zones in Scotland are shared out among local authorities to give the National Share of most deprived data zones. The SMID is also represented as a Local Share, which is the percentage of the local authority’s data zones which fall within the 15% most deprived data zones in Scotland.
14.3.17 In 2012, Aberdeen City had 2.3% of the National Share and a relatively high Local Share of 8.2%. The SIMD 2012 Local Authority Summary for Aberdeen notes that the most deprived datazone in Aberdeen City in the overall SIMD 2012 is S01000060, which is found in the Intermediate Zone of Torry East, immediately north of the East Tullos Industrial Estate and the Aberdeen to Dundee railway. This datazone has a rank of 221, meaning that it is amongst the 5% most deprived areas in Scotland.
Economic Activities
14.3.18 A breakdown of employment by industry across relevant geographies including relevant wards is detailed in Table 14.10.
Table 14.10 % Employment by Industry (2011 Census)
Kincorth/Loirston Torry/Ferryhill % all in employment who work in Aberdeen Scotland council ward council ward
Agriculture, forestry and fishing (a) 0.2* 0.2 0.2 1.7
Mining and quarrying (b) 9.2 10.4 8.9 1.4
Manufacturing (c) 7.5 7.9 6.9 7.7
34 Working age population is defined by NOMIS as the population aged 16-64.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 308 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Kincorth/Loirston Torry/Ferryhill % all in employment who work in Aberdeen Scotland council ward council ward
Electricity gas steam and air conditioning (d) 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.8
Water supply, sewage waste management and 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.8 remediation activities (e)
Construction (f) 8.5 5.2 6.0 8.0
Wholesale and retail trade, including repair of 16.5 14.4 15.1 15.0 motor vehicles and motorcycles (g)
Transport and storage (h) 7.6 5.5 5.5 5.0
Accommodation and food service activities (i) 5.3 8.2 7.4 6.3
Information and communication (j) 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.7
Financial and insurance activities (k) 1.3 1.3 1.4 4.5
Real estate activities (l) 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.2
Professional scientific and technical activities 9.4 12.2 10.4 5.2 (m)
Administrative and support service activities (n) 5.1 6.1 5.1 4.3
Public administration and defence - compulsory 3.9 3.5 5.1 7.0 social security (o)
Education (p) 6.4 6.5 8.2 8.4
Human health and social work activities (q) 11.5 11.1 12.8 15.0
Other industries (r, s, t, u) 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.9 *Rounded to nearest two decimal places
14.3.19 The data within Table 14.10 indicates that Aberdeen City has a relatively diverse economic base, not dissimilar to that of Scotland as a whole. The city’s retail, construction, manufacturing, education, communications and utilities sectors are particularly closely aligned with national averages. Key differences in the economic base between Aberdeen City and Scotland can however be found within the professional scientific and technical activities and mining and quarrying industries, which can at least partially be explained by the importance of the oil and gas sector, associated manufacturing and supply chain impacts within Aberdeen. At the local level and of relevance to the Proposed Development, the data in Table 14.10 indicates that the host council ward of Loirston/Kincorth has a higher percentage of employment in the construction sector (8.5%) than across Aberdeen (6%) or nationally (8.5%).
Recreation
Recreational Routes
14.3.20 There are two national level recreational routes identified within the 2km of the Development Site (see Figure 12.3), namely National Cycle Route (NCR) 1 and NCR 195 (also Deeside Heritage Trail). Neither are predicted to experience significant visual effects as a result of the Proposed Development as per the assessment in Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual and are therefore scoped out as per the methodology outline in Section 14.2.
14.3.21 There are 17 adopted Core Paths identified within 2km of the Development Site as detailed on Figure 12.3A. None of these Core Paths have a clear recreational value and are not predicted to
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 309 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
experience significant visual effects as per the assessment in Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual. They are therefore scoped out of the assessment herein.
Recreational Receptors
14.3.22 A number of recreational and tourist destinations where identified within 2km of the Proposed Development as detailed on Figure 12.3A. As reported in Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual, only two of these have the potential to experience significant visual effects, namely Loirston Country Park/Tullos Hill; and St Fittick’s Community Park. These two receptors are therefore considered within this assessment.
Predicted Future Baseline
14.3.23 As noted previously, the Development Site is scheduled for demolition and site remediation during 2016 by the current landowner SGN. As such, the predicted future baseline is a cleared and remediated site ready for development.
14.4 Design Evolution and Embedded Mitigation
14.4.1 As detailed within Chapter 2 Project Description, the design process has taken account of all known onsite technical and environmental constraints and has sought to maximise the Proposed Development’s contribution to its surroundings in terms of place-making. Full details regarding the influence of design aims, objectives and key considerations upon the design process are provided within the Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted in support of the planning application.
14.4.2 Given that adverse visual effects have the potential to result in adverse effects on the attractiveness of some recreational receptors, and that the scale of the Proposed Development largely determines predicted economic and employment effects, the design process has indirectly taken account of potential socio-economic (including recreation) effects.
14.5 Impact Assessment
14.5.1 Following Morris and Therivel (2011), to improve the accuracy of predicting socio-economic effects, those associated with the construction or operational phases of a Proposed Development should be considered separately and, wherever possible, disaggregated into district effect types. This section follows this approach by separately assessing the individual economic and social effects predicted to result from the construction or operational phases of the Proposed Development.
14.5.2 The construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development have the potential to generate multiple displacement effects, including diverting existing socio-economically productive resources (e.g. construction workers and firms) from activities they may otherwise undertake in the absence of the Proposed Development. Owing to substantial uncertainties in modelling any potential displacement effects from the Proposed Development, for simplicity the assessment considers potential ‘gross’ socio-economic impacts in the absence of any displacement effects. In any event, any potential displacement effects are unlikely to be significant.
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase
Economic Effects
Land Use Change and Regeneration
14.5.3 The land use of the Development Site would change from a cleared non-economically productive site into a temporary construction site for the duration of the construction phase. This transitional land use change is considered to be a temporary, negligible and ‘not significant’ effect.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 310 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Capital Expenditure
14.5.4 As noted in Section 14.2, where effects cannot be quantified, the assessment of significance is undertaken using professional judgement and experience. This is considered to be the case for expenditure effects resulting from the capital investment required to construct the Proposed Development, where the assessment of significance is effectively based on the magnitude of change in monetary terms. The Proposed Development has the potential to generate a range of economic benefits for local businesses as it is anticipated that a reasonable proportion of the capital expenditure would be spent within Aberdeen and surrounding area.
14.5.5 Indicative construction requirements for the Proposed Development, are detailed in Chapter 2 Project Description. All of these construction requirements would give rise to direct capital expenditure and could also result in indirect or induced expenditure.
14.5.6 Financial modelling undertaken by Ernst & Young (2015) and the Addendum to Energy from Waste Business Case (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2015), which were presented to Aberdeen City Council’s Zero Waste Subcommittee on 1st December 2015, indicate that the capital expenditure required to construct the Proposed Development is £138,861,985 (at 2015 prices and excluding inflation and financing costs). As the construction contract(s) necessary to deliver the Proposed Development would be competitively tendered after any planning permission is granted, the actual total value of capital expenditure may be subject to change or refinement. A further complexity is that whilst a Principal Contractor would be appointed to comply with the CDM regulations 2015, depending on the construction contract model deployed (e.g. EPC, D&B or DBO, etc.) and construction services required, individual elements of the construction process may be subcontracted by the Principal Contractor using competitive tender processes. If this were to occur, the Applicant would be at least once removed from expenditure generated through subcontracting.
14.5.7 Table 14.10 demonstrates that the host council ward and wider Aberdeen City have an established construction industry with an associated supply of construction workers. Ongoing major infrastructure projects within Aberdeen and the surrounding area also indicates that locally based construction firms exist which could potentially be engaged in the construction process. Such locally based firms would be particularly suited to site based construction, installation and commissioning work. At the same time, it is recognised that components of the Proposed Development could be prefabricated or constructed in modules offsite and transported to the Development Site for final installation, so not all of the required construction work may take place within Aberdeen or the wider North East Scotland region.
14.5.8 In terms of the geographic distribution of capital expenditure, a conservative assumption is that 50% may be spent or directed to firms within Aberdeen and the wider North East region, with 50% spent elsewhere. This would result in direct capital expenditure within Aberdeen and the wider North East region of approximately £69,430,992.50 (at 2015 prices, excluding inflation and financing costs). Indirect and induced expenditure would also arise, particularly in terms of indirect supply chain activities and induced spending by local businesses to satisfy increased demand for their services flowing from the construction process.
14.5.9 Taking account of the Development Site’s location within an established industrial estate, it is considered that the onsite contribution of construction work to the economy would result in a Medium magnitude of change at the ‘local’ level (i.e. within the host and adjacent council ward). This would therefore result in a temporary, beneficial, Moderate effect which is not significant. Owing to the dispersed distribution of offsite work, the Proposed Development is predicted to result in a Negligible/Low magnitude of change and a temporary, beneficial effect across Scotland and Aberdeen (i.e. the regional level) respectively; which is and not significant.
14.5.10 In summary it is considered that the effects during the construction of the Proposed Development in respect of increased expenditure would result in temporary, beneficial and not significant effects at council ward, local authority and national levels.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 311 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Employment
14.5.11 The latest available data indicates that turnover per construction industry employee in Aberdeen is £101,625.00 (Scottish Annual Business Statistics for 2013). Used as a proxy for converting the predicted value of capital expenditure into Man Year Employment (MYE) units, if 50% of total capital expenditure is spent within Aberdeen this would result in the generation of 683.2 MYE (£69,430,992.50 / £101,625.00) during the construction phase of the Proposed Development.
14.5.12 One MYE is equivalent to one year of employment whereas, in accordance with standard socio- economic impact assessment conventions, one FTE is assumed to be equivalent to a full time job for ten years. Therefore for the purposes of this assessment1 FTE equates to 10 MYE. As such the construction phase of the Proposed Development could generate or support 68.3 FTE jobs in the local economy. However, this does not equate to a maximum of 68 construction workers onsite, as the 30 month construction programme and the range of construction specialities required mean that onsite employee numbers would fluctuate and would greatly exceed this number at peak periods. It is estimated that up to 273 construction workers (683.2 MYE / 2.5 year construction programme) could be directly employed over the construction phase of the Proposed Development.
14.5.13 On the basis of the quantitative assessment outlined above, a qualitative assessment of the significance of potential employment levels has been carried out. Employment at the ‘local’ level is considered to have Medium sensitivity across Aberdeen due to the level of the existing construction workforce in this geographical area (see Table 14.10). The predicted increase in employment during the construction phase would be of temporary/short term benefit and is considered to represent a Low magnitude of change at the local authority level owing to the number of jobs created. This would result in a temporary beneficial Slight/Moderate level of effect across Aberdeen which would be not significant. At the national level, the predicted increase in employment during construction is a temporary beneficial effect of Negligible magnitude of change on a Low sensitivity receptor, owing to the limited number of jobs created when compared with the levels of jobs in the construction sector nationally. This would also result in a temporary, beneficial but not significant effect on employment.
14.5.14 In summary, it is considered that the construction related employment effects of the Proposed Development would result in temporary, beneficial effects that are considered not significant in EIA terms for all relevant geographies.
Social Effects
Community Benefits
14.5.15 The Proposed Development would be constructed and operated by or on behalf of Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Councils, which are all statutory public bodies. Under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (as amended) and associated guidance, there is an expectation that Community Benefit clauses should be considered by public bodies in procurement contracts wherever there is an appropriate legal basis to do so. Given the scale of the Proposed Development, it is clear that there would be an opportunity to deploy a Community Benefit clause in the construction contract(s) in order to secure community benefits during the construction phase. Of note, whilst net economic benefits are valid material considerations in the determination of planning applications, not all potential forms of community benefits are material considerations.
14.5.16 Specific community benefits would depend firstly upon the precise wording of a community benefit clause to be included within the invitation to tender (ITT), then upon how individual bidders choose to respond to this requirement, and finally upon the procurement process used to identify a preferred bidder. Community benefits could for example include the establishment of apprenticeships targeted towards locally resident unemployed people. This could be of particular importance given the Development Site’s proximity to areas of high multiple deprivation.
14.5.17 Owing to evidence of multiple deprivation, the local area is considered to have high sensitivity in relation to impacts from community benefits, whilst Aberdeen as a whole is relatively prosperous and so is considered to have low sensitivity to community benefits. Whilst the magnitude of individual community benefits cannot yet be determined, overall it is considered that a community
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 312 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
benefits package could result in a Medium magnitude of change within the local area and a Negligible-Low magnitude of change across Aberdeen. Potential community benefits are expected to generate a temporary, beneficial Moderate/Substantial effect, which could be significant in EIA terms. However, due to overall uncertainty regarding the final contracts and scope of community benefits which could be delivered, on balance it is considered that the level of effect would be moderate and not significant overall.
Recreational Effects
14.5.18 The construction phase of the Proposed Development is not expected to generate any direct effects on identified recreational receptors. As much of the construction work would only be visible from within the Development Site and its immediate surroundings, indirect (visual) effects would not infringe upon the enjoyment of recreational activities and thus would only result in a temporary Negligible magnitude of change, which is not significant in EIA terms. Of note, the level and duration of potential temporary noise and visual effects (assessed separately in Chapter 10 Noise and Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual) would vary over time depending on the nature of individual construction activities being undertaken at the Development Site.
Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase
Economic Effects
Land Use Change and Regeneration
14.5.19 Once constructed and operational, the Proposed Development would add to the visual massing, economic activity, employment density and footfall of East Tullos Industrial Estate. In addition to the regeneration of the Development Site, which Aberdeen City Council are committed to under the approved Aberdeen City and Shire Regional Economic Strategy (2015), the Proposed Development would increase the land use productivity of East Tullos Industrial Estate and enhance the vitality of this established industrial area. These beneficial effects would be aligned with the long term priorities for change for the East Tullos Industrial Estate identified within the draft Nigg Bay Development Framework (2015). Whilst the magnitude of change and significance of individual potential land use and regeneration effects cannot reliably be predicted at this early stage, the operation of the Proposed Development does have the potential to generate long term beneficial effects on land use and regeneration.
Social Effects
Recreational Receptors
14.5.20 The Proposed Development has the potential to indirectly affect recreational activities outwith the site boundary through generating landscape and visual effects at recreational receptors. Assessment of recreational receptors in line with the methodology set out in Section 14.2 and taking account of the assessments in Chapter 12 (Landscape and Visual) and Chapter 13 (Historic Environment) is presented in Table 14.11.
14.5.21 The determining factor within this assessment is the extent to which predicted adverse effects on the physical environment may reduce the attractiveness of individual recreational receptors, thereby potentially resulting in a reduction in visitor numbers.
Table 14.11 Assessment of Operational Effects on Visitor Attractiveness of Recreational Receptors
Receptor Name Assessment of Effects on Visitor Attractiveness
Loirston Country Loirston Country Park is located immediately south of the Proposed Development at Tullos Hill Park/Tullos Hill and also further southwest around Kincorth Hill beyond the A956. Loirston Country Park/Tullos Hill, which includes the Tullos Hill Local Nature Conservation Site, is an elevated area of
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 313 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Receptor Name Assessment of Effects on Visitor Attractiveness
heathland, scrub and new tree planting with the highest point being the summit of Tullos Hill (83 mAOD). Tullos Hill is also the location of 5 Scheduled Cairns and one Scheduled ‘Consumption Dyke’. On balance, the recreational sensitivity is considered Medium taking account of both local and national interests. Significant visual effects have been identified in Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual. No significant effects have been identified in Chapter 13 Historic Environment. Directional views towards the Proposed Development from Tullos Hill would be seen against the existing urban backdrop of Aberdeen. The Proposed Development would not dominate panoramic views from Tullos Hill as it would merely add additional structures in the foreground to views over an existing industrial area, whilst views from Tullos Hill to other locations such as Nigg Bay and the coast would be unaffected. In regards to recreational attractiveness, it is considered that the Proposed Development would generate a Low magnitude of change on Loirston Country Park/Tullos Hill. Therefore the predicted level of effect is considered slight/moderate and not significant.
St Fittick’s Community St Fittick’s Community Park is a new community park located to the northeast of the Park Development Site at a distance of approximately 550m at the closest point. The Category B Listed and Scheduled Monument St Fittick’s Church and Churchyard are located within the park. On balance, the recreational sensitivity is considered Medium taking account of both local and national interests. Significant visual effects have been identified in Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual, however no significant effects on the setting of St Fittick’s Church and Churchyard have been identified in Chapter 13 Historic Environment. Considering the relatively low topographical position of the Community Park (in contrast to the nearby Tullos Hill) and its location between a residential area and the coast, the primary recreational purpose of the Park is considered to be as a place of tranquillity rather than as a viewpoint over Aberdeen. The Proposed Development would only be visible in directional views looking south west back towards industrial/urban areas, whereas substantially more scenic angles of view eastwards over Nigg Bay and the coast/seascape, and north west over Balnagask Golf Course, would be completely unaffected by the Proposed Development. On this basis, it is considered that the Proposed Development would generate a Low magnitude of change on the attractiveness of St Fittick’s Community Park. Therefore, the predicted level of effect is considered slight/moderate and not significant.
14.5.22 The assessment provided in Table 14.11 above demonstrates that the Proposed Development would not result in any significant adverse effects on the visual attractiveness of any individual identified recreational receptor.
Community Benefit
14.5.23 Depending on the operating and contractual models selected by the Applicant (e.g. self-operation, contracted operation or DB&O), the operational phase as well as the construction phase could generate community benefits. Specific community benefits would be determined through responses to an ITT and the identification of a preferred bidder, but could for example include apprenticeships.
14.5.24 As noted previously, the local area is considered to have high sensitivity in relation to impacts from community benefits, whilst Aberdeen as a whole is relatively prosperous and so is considered to have low sensitivity to community benefits. Whilst the magnitude of individual community benefits cannot yet be determined, overall it is considered that a community benefits package could result in a Low magnitude of change within the local area and a Negligible magnitude of change across Aberdeen. Therefore, community benefits expected to generate a permanent, beneficial Moderate and not significant level of effect within the host and adjacent council ward, and a permanent, beneficial, Slight and not significant level of effect across Aberdeen.
Potential Benefits of District Heating Network Connection
14.5.25 As required by the SPP (2014) and SEPA’s Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014, the design process has included consideration of the connection of the Proposed Development into a district heating network (DHN). Owing to the absence of an existing DHN within the vicinity of the Development Site, a new DHN would need to be constructed in order to export residual heat
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 314 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
generated from the Proposed Development. The planning application package submitted in respect of the Proposed Development includes a Heat and Power Plan, which identifies high heat demand centres close to the Development Site and examined the feasibility of developing a DHN.
14.5.26 It must be understood that the potential future construction of a DHN does not form part of the Proposed Development for which planning permission is currently sought, so any future socio- economic benefits arising from by a DHN supplied by the Proposed Development cannot directly be ascribed to the Proposed Development as predicted impacts. Therefore it is not possible to identify a magnitude of change or level of effect for any future impacts arising from the potential development of a DHN. Nevertheless, the Proposed Development would provide an important catalyst to enable the future development of a DHN.
14.5.27 The location of the Development Site, in relatively close proximity to the residential neighbourhood of Torry and identified areas of high multiple deprivation therein, could allow a future DHN supplied by the Proposed Development to supply low cost, low carbon heat to local residents. If such a DHN was developed this could reduce levels of fuel poverty and therefore also multiple deprivation within targeted residential areas.
14.6 Cumulative Effects
14.6.1 The construction phase of the Proposed Development is programmed to last for 30 months, followed by a long term indefinite operational period. Cumulative socio-economic effects could therefore be generated from the Proposed Development in combination with other development proposals, either due to proximity between the Development Site and other construction/operational sites and/or due to similarities in the type of predicted effects. Development proposals likely to require a similar construction workforce include Altens Waste Transfer Station (consented and currently under construction) and Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project (pending consideration).
14.6.2 From a review of publicly available documentation, it is noted that subject to the granting of all necessary consents, the construction phase of the Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project, which would be located approximately 1km north east of the Development Site, is expected to occur over approximately the same timescale as the construction programme for the Proposed Development. Chapter 16: Socio-economics and associated appendices of the ES submitted in support of the Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project (see Barton Wilmore (2015), BiGGAR Economics (2015) and Waterman Infrastructure & Environment (2015)) predicts that the construction phase of the Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project would result in moderate, beneficial and significant economic effects35 at regional and local levels, whilst all other predicted socio-economic effects would be not significant.
14.6.3 Therefore, although all socio-economic effects predicted to result from the Proposed Development would be not significant in EIA terms, there is some potential for the simultaneous construction of the Proposed Development and the Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project to result in cumulative temporary, beneficial capital expenditure and associated economic effects at local and regional levels which would be significant. Any other potential cumulative socio-economic effects which may result from the Proposed Development in combination with any proposed or consented developments are predicted to be not significant in EIA terms.
14.7 Additional Mitigation
14.7.1 To ensure community benefit can be delivered as a result of the Proposed Development, it is recommended that construction and operational contracts include applicable community benefit clauses.
35 The term “socio-economic effects” within Chapter 16: Socio-economics of the Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project ES includes capital expenditure, employment and regeneration related economic effects.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 315 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
14.8 Summary of Predicted Effects
Table 14.12 Summary of Residual Effects
Potential Magnitude Receptor Significance Summary Rationale Receptor and of Change Sensitivity Effect
Construction Phase
Land Use and Negligible Low Not Temporary change from cleared non-economically Regeneration Significant productive site into a temporary construction site. at the Development Site
Capital Low - Medium Not Due to predicted distribution of capital expenditure. Expenditure Moderate Significant at local – Potential for cumulative significant economic effects to result regional level from the simultaneous construction of the Proposed Development and the proposed Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project.
Capital Negligible Low Not Due to predicted dispersed distribution of capital Expenditure Significant expenditure. at national level
Employment Low Medium Not Due to predicted distribution of employment, which would be at local – Significant focused on the Development Site and the surrounding labour regional level market.
Potential for cumulative significant economic effects to result from the simultaneous construction of the Proposed Development and the proposed Nigg Bay Aberdeen Harbour Expansion project.
Employment Negligible Low Not Due to predicted dispersed distribution of any employment at national Significant opportunities outwith the local area. level
Community Temporary, High Not Due to overall uncertainty regarding the final contracts and Benefits in Medium Significant scope of community benefits which could be delivered, on host and balance it is considered that the level of effect would be adjacent moderate and not significant overall. council wards
Community Temporary, Low Not Community benefits would be concentrated within the locality Benefits at the Negligible - Significant of the Development Site and are currently uncertain. regional level Low
Recreational Temporary, Low – Not As much of the construction work would only be visible from Effects at the Negligible Medium Significant within the Development Site and its immediate surroundings, local – indirect (visual) effects would not infringe upon the regional level enjoyment of recreational activities.
Operational Phase
Land Use N/A N/A N/A Whilst the magnitude of change and significance of individual Change and potential land use and regeneration effects cannot reliably be Regeneration predicted at this early stage, the operation of the Proposed within East Development does have the potential to generate long term Tullos beneficial effects on land use and regeneration. Industrial Estate
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 316 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Potential Magnitude Receptor Significance Summary Rationale Receptor and of Change Sensitivity Effect
Recreational Low Medium Not The Proposed Development would be viewed in an industrial Effects: Significant setting and would not dominate panoramic views. Visitor Attractiveness of Loirston Country Park/Tullos Hill
Recreational Low Medium Not The primary recreational purpose of the Park is considered Effects: Significant to be as a place of tranquillity rather than as a viewpoint over Visitor Aberdeen. The Proposed Development would not affect Attractiveness scenic views over Nigg Bay/the coast and Balnagask Golf of St Fittick’s Course. Community Park
Community Low High Not Although specific community benefits are currently uncertain, Benefits in Significant it is assumed that they would be of a similar magnitude to host and operational employment, which was scoped out of this adjacent assessment on the grounds that the predicted effects would council wards not likely to be significant. Therefore despite the high sensitivity of the local area, operational Community benefits would also be not significant.
Community Negligible Low Not Although specific community benefits are currently uncertain, Benefits at the Significant it is assumed that they would be of a similar magnitude to regional level operational employment, which was scoped out of this assessment on the grounds that the predicted effects would not likely to be significant. Operational Community benefits would therefore also be not significant. In addition, community benefits would be concentrated within the locality of the Development Site and are currently uncertain.
Potential N/A N/A N/A The potential future construction of a DHN does not form Benefits of part of the Proposed Development for which planning District permission is currently sought, so any future socio-economic Heating benefits arising from by a DHN supplied by the Proposed Network Development cannot directly be ascribed to the Proposed (DHN) Development as predicted impacts. Therefore it is not Connection in possible to identify a magnitude of change or level of effect the local area for any future impacts arising from the potential development of a DHN. Nevertheless, the Proposed Development would provide an important catalyst to enable the future development of a DHN.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 317 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
14.9 Technical References
Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority (2014). The Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Plan. Available at: http://www.aberdeencityandshire- sdpa.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=1111&sID=90 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2009). Adopted Aberdeen City Core Paths Plan 2009. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/corepathsplan/ (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/local_development_plan/pla_local_develop ment_plan.asp (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Infrastructure and Developer Contributions Manual Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=47676&sID=14394 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2012). Low and Zero Carbon Buildings Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=55244&sID=14394 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2014). Aberdeen City Waste Strategy 2014-2025. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=56656&sID=24896 (Accessed 15/02/2016).
Aberdeen City Council (2015). Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/planning_environment/planning/local_development_plan/pla_2016_propose d_plan.asp (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council (2015). Resources: Energy and Resources Draft Supplementary Guidance. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=62582&sID=26047 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Opportunity North East (One). Approved Regional Economic Strategy: Securing the future of the north east economy. Available at: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/documents/s52770/Regional%20Economic%20Strategy.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016).
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure UK Ltd (2015). Addendum to Energy from Waste Business Case. Available at: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/documents/s52264/ZWSC-7602%20- %20Review%20of%20Energy%20from%20Waste%20Business%20Case%20- %20Appendix%201%202015%20Addendum.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure UK (2015). Energy for Waste Scoping Report. Available at: http://planning.aberdeencity.gov.uk/docs/showimage.asp?j=151515&index=163259 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Barton Wilmore on behalf of Aberdeen Harbour Board (2015). Draft Nigg Bay Development Framework. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=65982&sID=27115 (Accessed 15/02/2016). BiGGAR Economics (2015). Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Environmental Statement – Appendix 16.A: Socio-economic and Tourism Assessment of Aberdeen Harbour Nigg Bay Development. Available at: http://d80a69bd923ff4dc0677- b849429a75dd6216be63404a232a877c.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/EIA_Volume_3/Technical_Appendices_16A.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). BiGGAR Economics (2015). Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Environmental Statement – Appendix 16.B: Economic impact of Aberdeen Harbour Nigg Bay Development - Technical appendix to socio- economic and tourism report. Available at: http://d80a69bd923ff4dc0677-
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 318 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
b849429a75dd6216be63404a232a877c.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/EIA_Volume_3/Technical_Appendices_16B.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Ernst & Young (2015). Aberdeen Waste Project VFM - Business Case Update: August 2015. Available at: http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/documents/s52266/ZWSC-7602%20- %20Review%20of%20Energy%20from%20Waste%20Business%20Case%20- %20App%20B%20to%20App%201%202015%20-%20Unlocked%20A.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). European Council and European Parliament (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN (Accessed 15/02/2016). European Commission (2015). Communication from The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions: Closing The Loop - An EU Action Plan For The Circular Economy. Available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7- 01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (15/02/2016). Great Britain Parliament (2015). The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/51/contents/made (Accessed 15/02/2016). HM Treasury (2015). The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government and Associated Guidance (as amended). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book- appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent (Accessed 15/02/2016). National Records of Scotland (2014) Population Projections for Scottish Areas (2012-based). Available at: http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/population/population- projections/sub-national-population-projections/2012-based (Accessed 15/02/2016). Nestrans (2013). Regional Transport Strategy Refresh 2013. Available at: http://www.nestrans.org.uk/db_docs/docs/RTS_Refresh_FINAL_APPROVED_BY_MINISTER.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). NOMIS: Official Labour Market Statistics (2016) NOMIS website. Available at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ (Accessed 15/02/2016).
Morris, P. and Therivel, R. (2009) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. London: Routeledge. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2014). Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014. Available at: http://www.sepa.org.uk/media/28983/thermal-treatment-of-waste-guidelines_2014.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2008). Community Benefits in Public Procurement Guidance Note. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/212259/0056492.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016).
Scottish Government (2010). Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00458945.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2011). Planning Circular 3/2011: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/06/01084419/0 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2012). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012 – A National Statistics Publication for Scotland. Available at: http://simd.scotland.gov.uk/publication-2012/ (Accessed 15/02/2016).
Scottish Government (2013). Online Renewables Planning Advice regarding Energy from Waste. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00423076.pdf (15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2013). Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00432581.pdf (Accessed 22/01/2016). Scottish Government. (2014) National Planning Framework 3. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/06/3539 (Accessed 15/02/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 319 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Scottish Government. (2014) Scottish Planning Policy. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/06/5823 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Chief Planner Letter regarding Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy (dated 11th November 2015). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00488945.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Making things last: Consultation on creating a more circular economy in Scotland. Available at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/zero-waste-delivery/making-things-last (15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Online Planning and Waste Management Advice (2015). Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00481407.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government. (2015) Scottish Annual Business Statistics 2013. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/SABS (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2015). Scotland’s Economic Strategy. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/5984 (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Government (2016). Scotland’s Census 2011 – Census Data Explorer website. Available at: http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-web/home.html (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Govermnent (2016). statistics.gov.scot BETA website. Available at: http://statistics.gov.scot/ (Accessed 15/02/2016). Scottish Natural Heritage. (2013) A handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidance for Competent Authorities, Consultees and others involved in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Scotland. Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1198363.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016).
The Scottish Parliament (2003). Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/contents (Accessed 15/02/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2011). The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Scotland) 2011. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/139/contents/made (Accessed 15/02/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2011). The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/226/contents/made (Accessed 15/02/2016).
The Scottish Parliament (2012). The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/sdsi/2012/9780111016657/contents (Accessed 15/02/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2014). Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/12/contents (Accessed 15/02/2016). The Scottish Parliament (2015). The Town and Country Planning (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2015. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2015/249/made (Accessed 15/02/2016).
University of Glasgow for the Scottish Government (2015). Analysis of the Impact and Value of Community Benefit Clauses in Procurement: Final Report. Available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00480510.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016). Waterman Infrastructure & Environment (2015). Aberdeen Harbour Expansion Project Environmental Statement – Chapter 16: Socio-economics. Available at: http://d80a69bd923ff4dc0677- b849429a75dd6216be63404a232a877c.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/EIA_Volume_2/Volume_2_Environmental_State ment_Ch_16.pdf (Accessed 15/02/2016).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 320 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 321 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
15. Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Management Proposals
15.1 Introduction
15.1.1 Table 15.1 details the mitigation and enhancement measures that has committed to during the design process for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. These measures are set out by technical topic, along with details of responsibility for implementation and the compliance mechanism, and are presented as a table that would form a base component of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that would provide visibility into the strategy to be employed to ensure that mitigation measures set out in this ES are implemented.
15.1.2 It is assumed that the EMP would be produced by the Applicant post-consent and it is assumed this would be undertaken as an aid to discharging planning conditions. Contractors would be required to adhere to the measures set out in the EMP; and with any conditions specified in the planning permission. However, it is the developer who retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the Contractors comply with the EMP and planning conditions.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 322 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 323 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
Table 15.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures
ES Chapter / Section Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Responsibility Compliance Mechanism(s)
Chapter 6 Land Quality, Section 6.4
Humans: exposure to site Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor By planning conditions following consent and derived contaminants by Good construction practices such as site induction, requirement for PPE suitable to prevent exposure and/or restricted access during higher risk inhalation, ingestion or direct controls specified in contracts. contact. activities. CEMP, CMS, Implementation Plan Risk assessment of dust related activities and controlled through best practice construction procedures. Avoidance where possible of dust releasing activities. If unavoidable, dust effects to be controlled onsite using construction best practice Completion of remediation works prior to construction and Implementation Plan for dealing with any unexpected contamination ‘hot spots’.
Soil and Groundwater: Spillages; Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor By planning conditions following consent and release of contaminants from Designated areas for fuel, oil and chemical storage and handling. controls specified in contracts. building materials or Foundation design, suitable impermeable material CEMP, CMS, SWMP. construction activities; and Dewatering during foundation excavations and discharges would be subject to a method statement and further consent (if required). creation of pathways for the Designated washdown areas with fully contained drainage to be used for plant/vehicles in contact with contaminated soils. migration of contamination Preparation of CEMP and Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP). Supervision of ground works by suitably qualified and experienced geo-environmental engineer. Investigation works would be undertaken in accordance with BS 10175, ‘Investigation of potentially contaminated Sites
Ground gas/vapours. Operational All buildings would need to be designed to comply with Building Regulations, including the provision of ground gas protective measures, where necessary, in Contractor By planning conditions following consent and accordance with The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 controls specified in contracts. Building Warrant,
Accidental releases of potentially Operational Potential effects controlled through: Operator By planning conditions following consent and polluting substances to soil and Operational areas would be covered by competent impermeable hardstanding in order to protect the underlying soils and groundwater and best controls specified in contracts. practice for storing and handling chemicals and oils, comply with the Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. groundwater Building Warrant, PPC permit, Detailed Drainage Site operator to maintain a documented environmental management system (EMS), preventative maintenance system and documented Design procedures for the storage and handling of substances with the potential to cause pollution of soil or groundwater, all in accordance with PPC permit requirements. The detailed drainage design to include measures for the secondary containment of drains where there is potential for contaminants to be present that could impact soil or groundwater, and inclusion oil interceptors downstream of drains carrying run-off from vehicle access roads or parking areas. Techniques such as site inductions, one-way vehicle access routes, enforced site speed limits, segregated vehicle and pedestrian access routes, signage and crash barriers to be deployed. Where required, regularly spaced clay bunds to be included in the design of service trench backfill to prevent the introduction of preferential flow paths within cable/service trenches.
Direct contact with elevated Operational Full implementation of the SWMP during the construction phase, to ensure that any soils reused on site which contain contaminants are placed in a manner Contractor/ By planning conditions following consent and concentrations of phytotoxic which breaks potential pathways to human or environmental receptors. Any required soil capping layer to be installed and verified in accordance with the Operator controls specified in contracts. contaminant(s); guidance in ‘Contaminated Land Report 11 – Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’ (Environment Agency, 2004). SWMP
Settlement of non-piled Operational Consideration in detailed engineering design and construction processes by suitably qualified and experienced contractors/consultants. Contractor By planning conditions following consent and structures controls specified in contracts. CEMP, CMS
Groundwater ingress or potential Operational Consideration in detailed engineering design and construction processes by suitably qualified and experienced contractors/consultants (e.g. specification of Contractor By planning conditions following consent and release of contaminants to soil impermeable concrete to the appropriate British Standard/BRE specification). controls specified in contracts. and groundwater CEMP, CMS
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 324 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
ES Chapter / Section Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Responsibility Compliance Mechanism(s)
Permeation of plastic pipes by Operational Potable water supply pipes serving the Proposed Development would be constructed from appropriate materials. Contractor By planning conditions following consent and contaminants. controls specified in contracts. CEMP, CMS
Direct contact with sulphates Operational Founding materials appropriate for prevailing ground conditions, designed in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, would be used to construct the Contractor By planning conditions following consent and and low pH Proposed Development to mitigate risks from aggressive ground conditions, if present controls specified in contracts. CEMP, CMS, Building Warrant
Chapter 7 Freshwater, Section 7.4
Change in water quality via Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor By planning conditions following consent and generation of sediment-laden All Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) to be followed onsite to avoid pollution, with particular emphasis placed on SEPA PPG 1, PPG 5 and PPG controls specified in contracts. runoff as a result of construction 6. CEMP, CMS, DMP activities resulting in potential As would be specified in the CEMP, the contractor to undertake daily inspections, including monitoring conformance with the CEMP. Immediate deterioration in water quality of action including, if necessary ‘stopping a job’, to be taken should any incidents or non-conformance with the CEMP be found during inspection. the water body. Access routes and works areas (including laydown compounds) to be drained by appropriate SuDS methods for, either through use of infiltration or AND/OR via controlled discharge to the East Tullos Burn Culvert (following 3 stages of treatment). Precise treatment measures to be determined on Changes in morphology and flow commencement of construction works. conveyance to the downstream, Silt fencing or similar in situ measures to be installed to prevent run-off from disturbed areas from entering the East Tullos Burn culvert. open watercourse section of the Soil stockpiles on site to be located as far as practicable from temporary site drainage measures; with ditches installed adjacent to those stockpiles East Tullos Burn as a result of that are deemed to present a potential risk of run-off away from the site. The surface of stockpiled soils to be smoothed with excavators to reduce increased sediment inputs potential for run-off generation. All stockpiles to be in place for >3 months to be seeded to encourage stabilisation of topsoil. resulting in potential No silty water to be discharged directly into the East Tullos Burn culvert. Site specific methods to dispose of soil stockpiles to be incorporated into deterioration to the water body. the CEMP and implemented as appropriate. Where there remains the potential for water to be leached off the site additional control measures to be put in place. This may include emplacing sediment fencing or passing the silt-laden water through a Siltbuster® or similar. Planned maintenance of vehicles and heavy plant to be conducted within designated site compounds, as per PPG, and additional measures to be implemented as required (e.g. drip trays). Prior to the use of any existing piped drainage systems, investigation by the contractor of the suitability of such systems. Elements to be replaced and additional measures, such as oil interceptors, installed where required. Preparation, approval (by planning authority and relevant consultees) and implementation of Drainage Management Plan (DMP), to include: a detailed site drainage strategy in adherence to SuDS principles and CAR regulations. Further details of proposed construction phase drainage management measures Discharge of site drainage to the East Tullos Burn culvert may be subject to Environmental Permit. Any discharge to sewers to be subject to permit from Scottish Water. All of the above mitigation measures to be specified within a CEMP.
Change in water quality via Operational Potential effects controlled through: Contractor/ By planning conditions following consent and generation of sediment-laden Construction of the Proposed Development as per the submitted planning application drawings and ES Figures, for the avoidance of doubt Operator controls specified in contracts. runoff as a result of construction including the construction and operation of the proposed detention basin and subsurface storage tanks. Three stages of treatment to be provided CEMP, CMS, DMP, EMS activities resulting in potential to all surface water leaving the site through the use of the following: deterioration in water quality of o Filter strips; the water body. o Trapped gullies and; AND/OR o The detention basin. Changes in morphology and flow conveyance to the downstream, open watercourse section of the East Tullos Burn as a result of increased sediment inputs resulting in potential deterioration to the water body.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 325 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
ES Chapter / Section Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Responsibility Compliance Mechanism(s)
Flood Risk - changes to run-off Construction and Potential effects controlled through: Contractor/ By planning conditions following consent and rates resulting from ground Operational Construction access routes and working areas to be constructed of material at least as permeable as the topsoil removed (e.g. stone/crushed Operator controls specified in contracts. disturbance during the gravel), where practicable. CEMP, CMS, DMP, EMS construction phase. Implementation of Drainage Management Plan (see above). During the operational phase the rate of surface water discharge to the East Tullos Burn would be controlled to at or below the greenfield rate.
Chapter 8 Nature Conservation, Section 8.4
Disturbance to commuting Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor By planning conditions following consent and and/or foraging badger during Pre-construction badger surveys to be undertaken by qualified ecologist of the Development Site and up to 30m radius. If signs of badger presence controls specified in contracts. site clearance. are found, mitigation to be tailored accordingly in consultation with SNH. Pre-construction surveys, CEMP, liaison with SNH Injury to badger During site clearance, best practice guidelines to be adopted e.g. excavations fenced off to prevent wildlife access. if required Badger becoming trapped in All equipment, which could potentially trap/injure badger, to be contained in a safe place overnight. excavations on site If working at dusk/dawn/low light, artificial lighting to be directed away from boundaries and features which badger could use for commuting.
Killing/injury of breeding birds Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Pre-construction surveys, CEMP, liaison with SNH (nests, eggs, young birds, 1. Vegetation remaining after site clearance is, wherever possible, not to be cleared from March to August inclusive (bird nesting season). If this is not if required, Environmental controls specified in fledglings) during site clearance. possible, pre-vegetation clearance bid survey to be undertaken by a suitably qualified or trained individual. This may require extended observation contracts Disturbance to nests and/or gradual supervised clearance of dense vegetation. If active nests are found, an appropriate exclusion zone to be established (as advised by an ecologist and dependant on the species) and clearance within this zone to be delayed until dependent young have fledged, or if appropriate, a licence obtained from SNH
Killing/injury of common lizards Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Pre-construction surveys, liaison with SNH if and/or other reptiles (within Checking of any piles of rubble, spoil or stone walls on site after site prior to dismantling by a suitably qualified ecologist. Any animals found to be required, CEMP, Environmental controls specified isolated areas which could relocated away from such areas to more suitable receptor areas (as determined by the ecologist) where possible to avoid disturbance. in contracts provide suitable habitat only) For the duration of any earthworks, any trenches or excavations left open overnight to be inspected for the presence of reptiles prior to infilling, if during site clearance. dug during their active period (i.e. March – October). Any amphibians and reptiles found during works to be carefully removed and placed at a suitable receptor site away from the construction works.
Disturb or destroy bat roost/bat Construction Use of directional lighting along linear/boundary features during site clearance Contractor CEMP, CMS roosting habitat. Disturbance to commuting/foraging bats as a result of construction activities, including lighting.
Species disturbance Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS A suitable means of escape from any exposed holes or trenches to be provided (such as a long wooden or metal plank). Any pipes being stored onsite to be open at both ends to allow animals to enter and exit. Pipes not open at both ends to be capped. All trenches and excavations to be covered over at the end of each working day, or fenced off. Construction normally restricted to the hours of 0700 to 1900 (Monday to Friday) and 0800 to 1300 (Saturday). Where night works are unavoidable, artificial lighting to be kept to a minimum and directed away from sensitive habitats and species. The times of working hours at specific locations or times of year may need to be revised as appropriate to avoid disturbance of sensitive receptors. If any significant work outside of these hours is required, appropriate mitigation measures would be installed to prevent any direct/indirect disturbance to ecological receptors, as advised by an ecologist.
Protected species disturbance Construction In the event of any protected species being found close to works whilst they are in progress, the works to be stopped and advice sought immediately from a Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS suitably qualified ecologist.
Pollution migration Construction All works and associated activities to be strictly limited to clearly-defined working areas Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS
Pollution migration and Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor CEMP, CMS, SEPA PPGs accidental discharge All construction work would adhere to the SEPA’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs).
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 326 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
ES Chapter / Section Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Responsibility Compliance Mechanism(s)
Sites for storage of any materials or equipment would preferentially be on hard-standing or bare ground or alternatively would be agreed with a suitably qualified ecologist in advance of works
Soil Disturbance Construction Soil movement to be undertaken with reference to best practice guidelines available in the Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Contractor CEMP, CMS Construction Sites (Defra, 2009).
Disturbance/injury of species, Operational Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS, liaison with devaluation of habitats. 1. Clearly defined working and storage. SNH if required 2. Maintenance works to be undertaken during daylight hours. 3. If development licences are required, these would be discussed with SNH and applied for as necessary.
Chapter 9 Traffic and Transport, section 9.4
Impacts on traffic flow, amenity Construction Preparation, approval (by planning authority) and implementation of Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, Enrolment in and road safety Considerate Contractors Scheme
Chapter 10 Noise, Section 10.4
Disturbance (to dwellings in the Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS, Environmental vicinity of the Development Site) Appointment of Site Manager/Clerk of Works to whom queries/complaints regarding construction activities can be directed. Any complaints to be controls specified in contracts. from noise from construction investigated and action taken where appropriate. plant, traffic and activities during Use of plant fitted with effective silencers and noise insulation. construction Use of continuous flight auger (CFA) piling where piling is required. Use of SMART reversing alarms where practicable. All plant to be regularly serviced and maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. Plant that is intermittently used to be shut down in the intervening periods between work or throttled down to a minimum. All construction activity to be undertaken in accordance with good practice as described in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014. Local residents should be kept informed of general construction activities, including working hours. Construction works limited to 07:00-19:00hrs (Mon-Fri) and 07:00-13:00 on Saturdays. Implementation of a noise limit of 65 dB LAeq, 12hr. Adequate planning to ensure that lengthy operations can be completed within agreed working hours. All reasonable steps to be taken to limit the number of vehicles waiting to deliver materials to the Development Site; Construction at the Development Site boundary (which would be closest to nearby residential receptors), to be undertaken as efficiently and quickly as reasonably possible. With the exception of generators, pumps and electric plant, all plant and equipment to be shut down when not in use.
Disturbance/amenity effects Construction Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS, Environmental from operational noise. All waste for treatment to be stored internally on a short term basis – no external waste storage is proposed. controls specified in contracts, PPC permit. All buildings to be fitted with automatically fast closing roller shutter doors. All operational activities to take place within buildings. Air cooled condensers to be specified as low noise fans. Thermal/acoustic insulation to be applied to boiler and flue gas treatment plant. The material used for the walls and roof of all rooms/halls to be double cladded, providing a minimum sound reduction of Rw 35 (dB). Potential development and implementation of noise monitoring programme, if required.
Chapter 11 Air Quality, Section 11.4
Atmospheric Pollutant Emissions Operational Construction and operation of flue gas treatment (FGT) plant as an embedded component of the Proposed Development to ensure compliance with IED Applicant and Planning Conditions, Environmental controls ELVs. Principal specified in contracts, BAT assessment and PPC Contractor permit.
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 327 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
ES Chapter / Section Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Responsibility Compliance Mechanism(s)
Residual Pollutant Emissions Operational Construction of 80m emissions stack as an embedded component of the Proposed Development. Contractor Planning Conditions, Environmental controls specified in contracts, BAT assessment and PPC permit.
Fugitive Dust Emissions Construction Preparation, approval (by planning authority) and implementation of Dust Management Plan. Contractor Planning Conditions, CEMP, CMS, SWMP, DMP, Environmental controls specified in contracts,
Odour Emissions Operational Potential effects controlled through: Contractor Planning Conditions, OMP, EMS, Environmental Preparation, approval (by SEPA as permitting authority) and implementation of Odour Management Plan (OMP) to ensure that operation of the controls specified in contracts, Proposed Development does not result in detectable odours beyond the Development Site boundary. All waste deliveries to be made in enclosed vehicles. Documented waste acceptance procedures to be in place requiring all imported waste to be checked by an appropriate member of staff before being accepted. If any of the material does not meet the acceptance criteria, it must be rejected and immediately returned to the point of origin. All storage and processing of the waste to be in enclosed buildings maintained under negative pressure and with building air used to provide the combustion air requirement for the combustion process. When the combustion unit is not available, e.g. during a shutdown for maintenance, the waste bunker would be isolated from the remainder of the building and an extraction system would capture air above the bunker. This air would be treated in a carbon-based odour control unit before the treated air is discharged via a roof level vent. Vehicles to access and exit the buildings via fast-acting roller shutter doors.
Chapter 12 Landscape and Visual, Section 12.5
Landscape, Townscape and Operational Submission of detailed landscape strategy. Contractor Planning Conditions Visual Effects Detailed landscape strategy and planting and maintenance schedule
Chapter 14 Socioeconomic, Section 14.7
Community Benefits Construction and Inclusion of applicable community benefit clauses in construction and operational contracts let for the Proposed Development. Applicant Controls specified in contracts. Operational
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1 328 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited
March 2016 Doc Ref. 37482/D040/rr009i1