METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL

ECONOMIC REGENERATION AND PLANNING STRATEGY SELECT COMMITTEE – 15th NOVEMBER 2005

CABINET – 16th NOVEMBER 2005

REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES ______

CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED SEAFORTH RIVER TERMINAL AND CHANNEL DEEPENING

1. Executive Summary

1.1 The Council has been consulted on an application by Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Harbour Revision Order for the construction of a new deep-water berth at Seaforth Docks and deepening of the outer approach channel to the Estuary. The deep-water berth will enable a new generation of container ships - which will be too large to access the enclosed dock system – to load and discharge their cargoes while berthed in the Estuary itself. Some additional dredging is required to facilitate the use of the new facility by these larger vessels.

1.2 The Draft Harbour Revision Order was issued for comment on the 18th August for a six- week period. The Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the application was however not issued to consultees until early September. The ES is a lengthy document – 873 pages in length including appendices - and it was not possible to finalise a response and secure the endorsement of Members before the deadline for comments (30th September). As such, officers lodged a holding objection with the Department for Transport, as a way of registering Wirral’s interest in the application and allow time to prepare a more considered response.

1.3 Officers have now had an opportunity to assess the Environmental Statement in more detail, and have identified a number of issues (particularly in relation to impacts on coastal processes) which require further clarification with the applicants. As such the report proposes that the Select Committee recommend to Cabinet that subject to the Council receiving a satisfactory response from the applicants on a number of issues relating to coastal process impacts and the inclusion of appropriate controls on noise- generating activity (principally pile-driving) during construction, the objection can be withdrawn.

2. Background

Project Description

2.1 Mersey Docks and Harbour Company have applied to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) under Section 14 of the Harbours Act

Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 1 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening 1964 to permit construction of a deep-water berth at Seaforth Docks in the Mersey Estuary. Under the Harbour Works (EIA) Regulations 1999 an Environmental Impact Assessment is required for the development and an Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared by the applicant to accompany the submission of the Harbour Revision Order. The project comprises two phases – the construction of the river berth itself (Phase1) and the deepening of the approach channel (Phase 2). The ES suggests that the development of administration and logistics buildings, maintenance facilities and the like on existing land to the east and north of the River Terminal site will be covered by the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and will therefore not require separate planning permission.

2.2 The construction of the deep-water berth under Phase 1 will involve the following elements:

(1) The construction of a new wall (approximately 750m long) between the south- west corner of Seaforth docks and along the low water edge of an intertidal area known as ‘Seaforth Triangle’.

(2) The deepening of an area of the riverbed in front of the proposed terminal (to - 15m below chart datum) to create a 40m wide ‘Berth Pocket’ that will allow Post Panamax vessels to berth in this area.

(3) The reclamation of the Seaforth Triangle area behind this new wall (using materials dredged during the Berth Pocket deepening work).

2.3 Two alternative methods have been identified for the construction of the quay wall: these involve either using concrete caissons or a piled steel structure. The construction stage is expected to take a maximum of 2.5 years to complete (depending on the construction method that is employed). It is intended that as much of the site-won dredge arisings as possible will be used as in-fill behind the new wall: only if no other options are available will these materials be discharged to a barge for disposal offshore.

2.4 Within 10 years of the quay wall completion, MDHC also propose to deepen shallower areas (mainly the Formby Bar and Crosby Shoal) in the Outer Estuary navigation channel. This is because average vessel sizes are predicted to increase with time and there will be a need to increase the length of time on each tide (the “tidal window”) that these vessels are able to access the new River Terminal. This is Phase 2 of the project.

2.5 After both Phases 1 and 2, there will be a need for ongoing maintenance dredging work to keep both the Approach Channel and the River Terminal ‘berth pocket’ at their required depths. This maintenance dredging will represent part of the Operational Phase of the proposal along with the day-to-day port-side activities (vessel movements, container handling, HGV movements etc.).

Scheme Justification

2.6 The Environmental Statement indicates that the primary driver of this project is the provision of facilities for the berthing and loading/unloading of the latest generation of large ‘Post Panamax’ container vessels. Panamax is the term used to identify those merchant shipping vessels whose dimensions enable them to pass through the Panama

2 Canal, which until 1988 was the constraining factor on vessel size. However, since then, the economies of scale from ‘building big’ has taken priority and the maximum size of container ships has grown two or three-fold: such vessels are known as “Post Panamax” and Port restrictions are now becoming increasingly important as a constraining factor.

2.7 Container cargoes at the Port of are currently handled within the enclosed dock system, with access via two river entrances, namely Gladstone and Langton. The larger river entrance, Gladstone, can accommodate Panamax but not “Post-Panamax” vessels, meaning that such vessels are not able to access the impounded dock system. The only facility in the Port able to handle the length and beam of such vessels is the Tranmere Oil Jetty but whilst Tranmere accommodates large vessels on a regular basis, these are oil tankers and the Oil Jetty is unsuitable for container handling. As post-Panamax vessels represent an increasing proportion of international trade, the could find its market share restricted and its competitiveness diminished in all key cargo sectors other than oil (i.e. containers, grain, bulk solids) by the inability of the Port to handle vessel sizes greater than Panamax. This will have consequences not just for the Port but also nationally as vessels could by-pass the UK altogether.

2.8 Once completed, the terminal would be a container ‘lift on/lift off’ facility, with the containers being handled by ‘ship-to-shore’ cranes similar to those currently in operation at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal (RSCT). The length of the new quay wall will permit a maximum of three smaller, or two larger, vessels to berth simultaneously. It is anticipated that once the proposed River Terminal is operational, there will be a steady growth in the number of containers handled until equality is reached with the number currently handled at the existing RSCT. In order to maximise port efficiency there will be a reorganisation of other activities within the dock estate in advance of the proposed scheme.

2.9 The Environmental Statement suggests that a number of alternative options have been considered, but none are considered to be viable in terms of achieving the required economic objectives or minimising the environmental effects. For instance, there are no other locations within the Port of Liverpool that can offer the combination of land area, achievable water depth, and proximity to either established road/rail access points and/or the existing container terminal. The technical difficulties associated with widening the existing river entrances and deepening the existing docks, and the disruption that this would cause to the existing business are extreme. It is suggested furthermore that this option would not address the issue of land or berth capacity. A further, practical option would involve reclamation of areas to the north of the Seaforth Container Terminal but it is considered that this would have much larger impact on the environment, residential properties and recreational activities. Further upstream only a limited amount of land is available to the Port that is constrained between the Mersey and the commercial, industrial and residential developments along the A565 corridor.

3. Environmental Impacts identified

3.1 The impacts identified during the Environmental Impact Assessment process are grouped under 29 headings in the ES, and these are set out in Appendix 1 below. A number of the impacts have potential implications for Wirral and these are highlighted in more detail in the Directors Comments. The potential additional effects of this proposal Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 3 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening with other proposed land-based or marine-based developments is also considered. No evidence of any significant cumulative effects between these developments and the Seaforth River Terminal proposal are identified.

Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements

3.2 The ES recommends that required mitigation/monitoring work, and the associated reporting and information dissemination requirements, be drawn together into a single framework that can be integrated into the proposal. In this respect, the recommended strategy is to draw up a legal agreement or ‘Environmental Management and Monitoring Programme’ (EMMP). This approach has been an effective mechanism for ensuring that stakeholders are involved in the process and that all procedural aspects (survey methods, reporting and mitigation/contingency measures) are agreed and ‘signed-off’ between interested parties.

3.3 Overall the ES concludes that in most cases identified impacts will be either negligible or minor. Where larger and unavoidable moderate adverse impacts are likely to occur, then measures to mitigate for these have been identified so that the residual impacts will be minor.

4.0 Directors Comments

4.1 In principle, the case for the expansion of the Seaforth Docks along the lines proposed is clear-cut, given the strategic importance of the Port of Liverpool for and the North West and the need to secure it’s long-term competitive position in the face of competition from ports elsewhere in the UK and Europe. However, there needs to be certainty that the potential environmental impacts have been fully and properly identified and that the suggested mitigation measures are adequate.

4.2 As such, relevant sections of the Environmental Statement and supporting documentation have also been reviewed by Officers in the Drainage, Coastal and Parking Services Division of the Technical Services Department and the Pollution Control Section of the Regeneration Department. The Environmental Advisory Service, jointly funded by all the Merseyside Districts is also commenting on the application and playing a co-ordinating role (Sefton MBC clearly also has an interest in the proposals). The review of the documentation has identified a number of potential issues of concern to Wirral, as set out below.

4.3 A key issue from Wirral’s perspective is the potential impact of the proposed development on physical processes and coastal defences with particular reference to the coastline between New Brighton and Egremont. There is some concern that the effects of the proposals, and in particular the quay construction, on the Wirral side of the estuary have not been adequately investigated. The ES (and the Coastal Process Review that informed it) look at the combined effects of both the quay and the channel deepening, although there may be up to a 10-year gap between the two 'phases' being carried out.

4.4 The impact of the scheme on wave climate has not been described in any great detail in the ES. This is of particular importance for Wirral, because reflection of waves from the proposed development and any associated increase in wave climate may have a negative effect on the foreshore and river wall between New Brighton and Egremont. An

4 increase in wave height for example would result in an increase in wave energy with additional likelihood of damage to defences and increased maintenance costs.

4.5 Clarification is needed on some of the assumptions and background data used in carrying out the modelling work and which has informed the conclusions of the consultants preparing the ES. Consideration of some issues that were raised in a preliminary meeting with the consultants appears to be less comprehensive than expected, and some results of the computer modelling do not appear to be consistent with visual observations and local knowledge. Provisions in the ES for monitoring of impacts on Wirral are limited. It may well be that many of the issues can be addressed through a face-to-face meeting with the consultants, but officers will want to be satisfied that any appropriate safeguards identified are enshrined in the finalised Harbour Revision Order or some other mechanism which is enforceable.

4.6 There is an additional consideration that the Egremont Foreshore is included within the Mersey Narrows Site of Special Scientific Interest and is proposed for designation as part of the potential North Wirral Foreshore/Mersey Narrows Special Protection Area. As the owner of the foreshore with statutory responsibilities under Section 28G of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Council needs to satisfy itself that there will be no adverse impact on nature conservation interests. As the Seaforth Triangle and the Approach Channel lie outside the boundary of the nature conservation sites in the vicinity no direct impacts to these sites will occur. The ES suggests that an Appropriate Assessment (AA) may be required for this proposal under the terms of the 1994 Habitat Regulations to evaluate the indirect impacts to designated areas situated in the vicinity of the proposed River Terminal and Channel Deepening areas. The potential indirect effects identified in the ES can be used by the Competent Authority (in this case the Department for Transport) to agree (in consultation with English Nature) whether there is a formal requirement for an AA. From the Council’s perspective, the need for an AA will depend on the concerns and queries referred to above being satisfactorily resolved, such that there is reasonable certainty about the nature and magnitude of impacts of the development on the Wirral coast.

4.7 A further issue of concern is the potential impact on the amenity of Wirral residents, particularly in the New Brighton area. The airborne noise impact assessment indicates that the largest impacts of the construction work would arise from pile-driving activities (should this method of construction be adopted). The ES suggests that the preferred construction method is currently to use bored and socketed piles; and as such consideration of noise generated through pile driving is very much a worst-case scenario. None the less should any pile-driving work be required, the impact would be relatively regular and frequent (during daylight hours) over a period of between 6 to 9 months over one summer season. While the noise generated by piling activities would arise only when driving and the peak noise levels generated for only reasonably short periods of time, this would be on repeated occasions during the working day.

4.8 The ES suggests that the impacts could be mitigated through measures such as appropriate daily timing of the works (e.g. confining them to set periods during working hours) or by shrouding the head of the pile hammer. Alternatively the ES suggests that the option of boring the pile holes and then socketing the piles in place (currently the preferred strategy) could be considered as this would greatly reduce the airborne noise

Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 5 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening effects. If blasting is needed (to ‘pre-loosen’ bedrock prior to piling) then the ES suggests that the effects from this work may be reduced by undertaking initial small-scale explosions. The ES suggests that detailed mitigation requirements for the chosen construction methodology will be discussed and agreed with regulatory bodies once methods are known. It is anticipated that the associated monitoring will provide real-time feedback to construction operations to ensure that impacts can be managed. For all construction work, the ES recommends that appropriate noise limits be specified.

4.9 The ES accepts that depending upon the final methods that are pursued for the construction of the new River Terminal, it is possible that noise monitoring may be required. Both airborne and underwater noise monitoring may be needed with the sampling work being undertaken at appropriate and agreed receptor locations. Measurements of airborne noise will be required if piling is pursued for the quay wall construction and if impacts to residential properties or other receptors at New Brighton are likely to occur. If necessary, real-time monitoring of noise levels could provide a feedback to the construction programme to control noise levels within agreed limits. Method-related prediction and measurements of underwater noise will be required if piling or blasting is required as part of the piled wall construction or the berth dredging respectively.

4.10 The principal concern from Wirral’s perspective is that, depending on the preferred method of construction, there is potential for serious disturbance to residents of New Brighton for up to nine months. At the very least it would be essential that piling was restricted to set hours during daylight. However the precise method of construction of the quay wall has yet to be chosen and much is left to liaison between regulatory bodies (presumably including the Council) once methods are known. It is possible to envisage a situation where once construction has started, it is proposed that piling should take place at night for reasons of tidal restrictions, making up time delays and so on. There is a concern that the Authority may have limited ability to control such activities in these circumstances - as this is not a planning application, but rather a Statutory Instrument, arrangements for enforcement are less straightforward. Clause 17 of the draft order if anything appears to limit the scope to take action under the Environmental Protection Act or Control of Pollution Act. It is my view that firm controls should be put in place within the Order with respect to noise generation (covering timing of works and permitted noise levels) with clear provisions for enforcement.

4.11 The other issue of potential concern to Wirral is visual impact. The clearest views of the development site will be from the waterfront at New Brighton and here all elements will be visible at least in part. The ES concludes that the visual impact of the development will be negligible during construction and operation, due partly to the fact that the structures and facilities will be very similar to those already in place, will form only a small part of the overall view and also because activity on a waterfront is usually interesting. At night-time, berth lighting will be provided to illuminate the interchange (mooring, berthing, loading and unloading) between vessels and the quayside. This will require 36m-high lighting columns identical to those currently supplied across the container terminal. In addition, there will be a need for general lighting to the container stacking area although this has yet to be designed. This lighting will be designed in accordance with best practice and this is expected to ensure that the landscape character is not adversely affected to any unwarranted degree and similarly, that any changes to the visual receptors will be confined to acceptable limits. Also the lighting changes that do take place will be in-

6 keeping with the existing dock-related night-time activities already occurring on the adjoining site. Therefore, no material impact on the night-time landscape character or visual amenity is expected as a result of the illumination of development site and the ES concludes that the overall impact is considered to be negligible. The conclusions of the ES in relation to visual impact are reasonable in my view and this is not an issue that merits objection.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 In principle, the case for the development of a new River Berth at Seaforth is compelling. There is a need to ensure that the Port of Liverpool maintains its competitive position in a regional, national and European context and is able to handle the new generation of large container ships that cannot access the current enclosed dock system. However, the environmental impacts of the new development must be identified, understood and if necessary mitigated. The assessment above has indicated that further clarification is required on a number of issues relating to coastal processes and possible consequential impacts on nature conservation interests. A need to ensure appropriate safeguards over noise pollution is also identified. As such it is proposed that subject to the Council receiving a satisfactory response from the applicants on a number of issues relating to coastal process impacts and the inclusion of appropriate controls of noise-generating activity (piling) during construction, the holding objection lodged with the Secretary of State can be withdrawn.

6 Financial and Staffing Implications

6.1 There are no financial and staffing implications arising out of this report.

7. Equal Opportunities Implications

71 There are no equal opportunities implications arising out of this report.

8. Human Rights Implications

8.1 There are no human rights implications arising out of this report.

9. Local Agenda 21

9.1 The environmental implications of the proposed development at Seaforth Harbour wall should be subject to conditions within the Harbour Revision Order. These conditions should mitigate the impact of the development on the natural environment of the Mersey estuary and on the visual and acoustic environment experienced by residents in New Brighton Ward.

10. Local Member Support Implications

10.1 This report will be of particular interest to Members in New Brighton, Liscard, Seacombe, and Wallasey Wards

11. Background Papers Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 7 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening 11.1 Consultation letter dated 17th August 2005, plus enclosures

Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening: Environmental Statement prepared by ABPmer Date: July 2005

12. Planning Implications

12.1 The new River Terminal and associated works either fall outside the scope of the land use planning system or are granted ‘deemed consent’ under the terms of the General Permitted Development Order. The strategic importance of the Port of Liverpool is identified in Policy T6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RPG13).

13. Community Safety Implications

13.1 There are no community safety implications arising out of this report

14. Recommendation

14.1 That the Select Committee recommends to Cabinet that subject to the Council receiving a satisfactory response from the applicants on a number of issues relating to coastal process impacts and the inclusion of appropriate controls of noise-generating activity, the holding objection to the proposed Seaforth River Terminal and channel deepening lodged with the Secretary of State for Transport can be withdrawn.

J. WILKIE Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Services

This report has been prepared by John Entwistle in the Forward Planning Section who can be contacted on 691 8221

8 APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S CONCLUSIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED

1.0 Impact on Physical Processes

Impact 1 - Changes to tidal flows and wave conditions

1.1 The deepening of the Approach Channel (in Phase 2) will lead to small increases in tidal flow speeds. Minimal changes to the wave conditions are predicted for the Wirral side of the Narrows region due to the presence of the River Terminal. Overall changes to the hydrodynamics of the Mersey and the effects of the wave climate changes on the Wirral shoreline are considered to be negligible.

Impact 2 - Changes in erosion/deposition patterns and effects on coastal habitats

1.2 The overall effect of the increases in maintenance dredging after Phase 2 is considered to be of moderate adverse significance because of the potential reduction in the supply of sediments to the Mersey. However, this impact will be offset by the fact that the material will be returned to the system through deposition offshore (see Impact 3). No significant physical change is predicted for the surrounding coastal habitats.

Impact 3 - Redistribution of deposited dredge arisings

1.3 All dredge arisings from the Approach Channel deepening work (and all maintenance arisings) are to be deposited at a designated offshore location (Site Z) following which the sediments are expected to migrate towards the Sefton coast with a large proportion then moving south along the coast and ultimately re-entering the Approach Channel. The addition of these sediments will be of minor beneficial significance and will offset/mitigate the moderate adverse effects of the actual maintenance dredging work. Therefore, the combined effects of the dredging (see Impact 2 above) and disposal will be of minor adverse significance.

Impact 4 - Alteration to estuary dynamics

1.4 In general, the changes predicted following Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development are small in magnitude and confined to the main Approach Channel north of the proposed River Terminal site. Therefore the effects on the estuary will be negligible.

Impact 5 - Effects on the Integrity of the Training Wall

1.5 It is therefore considered that the impact of the developments on the existing integrity of the training walls will be negligible.

2.0 Water and Sediment Quality

Impact 6 - Long-term effects of the river terminal on water and sediment quality

Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 9 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening 2.1 Long-term beneficial effects are expected because any contaminated sediments that are excavated during the deepening of the berth pocket will be used as infill for the reclamation works and thus will be permanently ‘locked away’. During operation of the new berth, the risks of water quality impacts from accidents, collisions and spillages will be minimised through the operation of established procedures. Overall therefore, this impact that is considered to be negligible.

Impact 7 - Short-term effects from the terminal and berth construction on water and sediment quality

2.2 Suspended sediments resulting from dredging will be rapidly dispersed and diluted by the very high flows at the site and no significant contamination effects are expected as a consequence. Any contaminated material dredged prior to the completion of the wall sections, will have to be temporarily stored in bunded areas for later use as landfill with disposal at sea an option of last resort. Risk of release of contaminants during construction will be minimised through compliance-established procedures. Overall therefore effects are considered to be of minor adverse significance.

Impact 8 - Dredging and disposal during the approach channel deepening

2.3 With the appropriate FEPA (Food and Environment Protection Act) licensing in place, it is considered that any impacts to water and sediment quality conditions will be of minor adverse significance at worst.

3.0 Nature Conservation and Aquatic Ecology

Impact 9 - Effects of habitat change/loss from construction work

3.1 Baseline surveys have indicated that the Seaforth Triangle habitat which will be lost during the reclamation work is of limited ecological value and that there is likely to be a rapid recovery (to baseline conditions) of the seabed at the Approach Channel deepening sites. As such the ES concludes that the overall impact on habitats and species will be of minor adverse significance.

Impact 10 - Effects of underwater noise during construction or operational work

3.2 With mitigation measures in place the effects of underwater noise on fish or mammal species during construction were considered to be of minor adverse significance. Any impacts from the operational activities were considered to be negligible.

Impact 11 - Effects of airborne noise during construction or operational work

3.3 No impact from airborne noise to waterbird populations on the Egremont foreshore and other designated sites is expected, due to the temporary nature of the construction work, the distance of the noise source from the impact site (1,200m away) and the tolerance of birds to artificial dock/industrial activities. Once operational, noise levels will be considerably reduced and not be expected to cause significant disturbance to water birds using the Egremont foreshore or other areas of the estuary. Therefore, any effects are considered to be negligible.

10 Impact 12 - Effects of depositing capital and maintenance arisings at Site Z

3.4 The effects of extra sediment deposition are expected to be negligible overall.

4.0 Fisheries

Impact 13 - Water/sediment quality impacts during the dredging and disposal

4.1 The effects on fisheries activities are considered to be negligible.

Impact 14 - Impacts of noise on fisheries during construction

4.2 The overall impacts are considered to be negligible overall.

5.0 Marine Archaeology

Impact 15 - Effects on features of archaeological importance

5.1 The impact on features of heritage importance is considered to be negligible.

6.0 Coastal Defences

Impact 16 - Effects on the integrity of existing coastal defences

6.1 No significant changes to the Wirral coastline or other coastal habitats and sea defences are predicted. The proposed quay wall will provide the new Seaforth terminal with a high level of protection against flooding from extreme events. Therefore, the overall impacts of the proposal on coastal defences and coastal protection are considered to be negligible.

7.0 Navigation

Impact 17 - Effects from the operational use of the new river terminal

7.1 With new vessel management measures in place, the increase in vessel movements can be accommodated safely at the Port and the navigation impacts will be negligible overall.

Impact 18 - Effects of construction traffic vessels

7.2 The potential impact is considered to be of minor adverse significance.

Impact 19 - Effects of regular maintenance dredging activities

Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 11 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening 7.3 Given the limited increase in the number of the new movements and the fact that they will occur in an area that is already safely managed and maintained, the potential overall impact will be negligible.

8.0 Road Transport

Impact 20 - Effect of additional heavy goods movements

8.1 Once operational, an additional 725 HGVs per day or 1,450 two-way HGV movements are predicted to be generated, but this is relatively small in the context of the forecast traffic growth rates on the local road network. As such the impact is therefore assessed as being of minor adverse significance. Proposals to maximise the opportunities for using rail freight distribution are included within the traffic assessment.

Impact 21 - Effects of traffic generated by employees

8.2 The contribution of employee vehicle movements to the Seaforth River Terminal is expected to be negligible.

9.0 Noise and Vibration

Impact 22 - Effects of construction activities

9.1 The largest impact of the construction work would arise from piling activities (should this method of construction be adopted). Given the duration of such operations (6 to 9 months) it is expected that this would cause impacts of moderate adverse significance at New Brighton. Therefore, there will be a need to mitigate for the impacts occurring. This can be done through measures such as appropriate daily timing of the works or by shrouding the head of the pile hammer. During all other activities there would be only a minor impact and this is expected to include the caisson approach for which pneumatic hammering would not be required. Therefore, in the event that the piling option is preferred mitigation measures will be required, and with these in place, the overall impacts are assessed as being of minor adverse significance.

Impact 23 - Effects of container handling noise

9.2 Given the nature of the proposed activities and their significant distance from the nearest sensitive buildings, (which are typically at 1-1.5km away) the noise impacts resulting from these operational activities are expected to be of minor adverse significance at worst. However, as best practice it is recommended that appropriate noise limits are specified.

Impact 24 - Effects of Road traffic

9.3 The largest impact from road traffic will occur from HGVs arriving and departing at the entrance to the Seaforth Estate at night. With shielding in place as mitigation the long- term effects will be of minor adverse significance. Aside form this local effect no significant impact is expected from the elevated numbers of HGV movements.

12 10. Air Quality

Impact 25 - Effects of operational increases in traffic (HGV) movements

10.4 The air quality impacts of the proposed development are predicted to be negligible.

Impact 26 - Effects of dust increases on residential properties

10.5 The effects of the proposal are assessed to be negligible in this respect.

11. Landscape and Visual

Impact 27 - The landscape effects of the river terminal

11.1 The proposed development and associated activities will be in keeping with the existing industrial/maritime environment and as such the magnitude and significance of the proposed changes are assessed to be negligible. Aside from River Terminal construction and operation, all other development activities (i.e. dredging works) will be sub-tidal and will have no landscape effect.

Impact 28 - The visual effects of the river terminal

11.2 The proposed River Terminal is likely to have a limited visual influence because it will be substantially screened by surrounding port-related structures and buildings from areas on the east side of the Mersey (i.e. by the dock estate, and Crosby) and is located than 1.5km from the west side of the estuary (i.e. New Brighton). The visual impacts are therefore assessed as negligible.

Impact 29 - Impacts of night-time lighting on visual amenity and landscape

11.3 Lighting required will be designed in accordance with standard principles which are expected to ensure that the landscape character is not adversely affected to any unwarranted degree and similarly, that any changes to the visual receptors will be confined to acceptable limits. Therefore, no material impact is expected as a result of the illumination and the overall impact is assessed as negligible.

12. Closure of a Right to Promenade on the River Wall

12. As part of the River Terminal development the ES indicates that there will be a need, for both practical and safety reasons, to close the public right to use the river wall as a promenade (the ‘Right’). To retain it open would conflict with the International Port Security Regulations (the ISPS Code) and with Health and Safety legislation. Although evidence from the Port of Liverpool Police indicates that the Right is not heavily used by the public, due to the industrial nature of the location (it is bordered by existing scrap storage facilities), alternative solutions to the closure of this Right will be considered as mitigation.

Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 13 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening