DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE 02 October 2012 A Report by the Assistant Director Planning and Sustainability ______

Reference No: EN010044

Applicant: Centrica RPS Limited, Maidenhead Road, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 5GB

District: Barrow Borough Council ______

Proposal: To consider a joint Cumbria County Council/Barrow Borough Council Local Impact Report relating to an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to enable the applicant to construct and operate a new Biomass electricity generating station with a nominal capacity of 90MW, together with a number of associated developments

Location: Land at Roosecote, Barrow-in-Furness ______

1.0 RECOMMENDATION

1.1 To approve the joint Cumbria County Council/Barrow Borough Council prepared Local Impact Report, as set out in Annex A, and to refer it to Cabinet and for Cabinet to make representation about whether the Council supports the proposal or not, taking account the Local Impact Report agreed by DC&R.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 On the 3 rd July 2012, Centrica RPS Limited submitted an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the National Infrastructure Directorate (Planning Inspectorate) to build and operate a 90MW (gross)/80MW (Net) biomass electricity generating power station on land at Roosecote, Barrow-in-Furness.

2.2 As the biomass facility is an on-shore electricity generating station having a capacity of more than 50MW, it is deemed a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the definition contained in Sections 14 & 15 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended. The application for the DCO will therefore be determined by the Secretary of State, via the National Infrastructure Directorate (Planning Inspectorate).

2.3 Cumbria County Council is consequently a key statutory consultee on this development alongside Barrow Borough Council. Other adjoining Local Authorities such as South Lakeland District Council and Copeland Borough Council are also involved in the consultation process. It is intended that a copy of the joint Cumbria County Council/Barrow Borough Council Local Impact Report will be made available to South Lakeland District Council to assist the preparation of their Local Impact Report. At this stage, South Lakeland District Council has supported the joint approach.

2.4 Within 14 days of the submission, statutory consultees were required to respond to the National Infrastructure Directorate, to give their views on the adequacy of the pre-application consultation process encapsulated in the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council submitted a joint Officer response that raised serious concerns about aspects of their approach to community consultation, including insufficient involvement of the County Council’s Local Area Manager and support Team, but which did not go as far as to object and was based on its understanding of the position at the time,.

2.5 Following this, on the 31 st July 2012 the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) confirmed that they had accepted the application, which now takes the application currently into what is known as the Pre-Examination stage, which is expected to last 2-3 months. The acceptance of the application also triggers a series of immediate deadlines for statutory consultees, such as Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council, to respond to the application prior to the Examination stage, which is expected could last up to 6 months thereafter..

2.6 A key input for statutory consultees as part of the Examination stage process is that Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council will be formally invited by the Secretary of State to give their views on the proposal, and to prepare and

submit a Local Impact Report setting out what they consider to be the effects of the development upon the local area. The Local Impact Report will be required to be submitted following a formal Pre-Examination meeting to be held by the National Infrastructure Directorate probably sometime in early October 2012, with the submission of the Local Impact Report likely due in early/mid-November 2012.

2.7 Throughout the preliminary stages, Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council have been working jointly to submit Officer responses to consultations by both Centrica RPS Ltd and the Planning Inspectorate on Environmental Scoping, the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), and the applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI). This process has been a good example of collaboration between the Authorities, resulting in the preparation of the attached joint Barrow Borough Council/Cumbria County Council Local Impact Report in which we share the same conclusion.

2.8 However, a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) between the joint Authorities and Centrica RPS Ltd, which is intended to assist the Authorities in the preparation of all the documentation and assessments as part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process, has yet to be signed at the time of drafting the Local Impact Report (21/09/12). Due to the very tight timescales involved in NSIPs, it has meant that limited independent studies have had to be commissioned at financial risk to both Authorities as part of the Local Impact Report process.

2.9 Based on the current County Council Constitution, the Development Control & Regulation Committee (DC&R) is expected to consider and approve the draft Local Impact Report as set out in Annex 1, and refer it to Cabinet and it is for Cabinet to make representations about whether the Council supports the proposal or not, taking account of the Local Impact Report agreed by DC&R at their meeting on the 11 October 2012. The views of Barrow Local Committee on the proposed development have also fed into both the Local Impact Report and the Cabinet report. Barrow Borough Council will endorse the joint Local Impact report separately.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL

Site location and surrounding area

3.1 The new Biomass electricity generating power station would be located on the site of the existing Roosecote gas-fired power station approximately 600m to the south east of Barrow-in-Furness. Various additional parcels of land nearby will be required to accommodate the development and its associated infrastructure such as the rail link from the power station to connect with the existing railway serving Ramsden Dock. The existing power station site was previously occupied by a coal-fired power station in 1954, and the current gas-fired power station on the site started commercial operation in November 1991. Linked to the existing power station is the cooling pump house, which is located adjacent to Cavendish Dock.

3.2 To the immediate north-west of the power station is the United Utilities Waste Water Treatment Plant. To the south are Centrica’s Morecambe Bay Gas

Terminals. The nearest residential properties are at Dowie Close some 400m to the north of the power station site. New House Farm is some 500m to the north east of the site. There are some allotment gardens at Roose Farm some 600m to the north of the site, and Barrow-in-Furness Town Centre is some 2.3km north west of the power station site.

3.3 There are some areas of special interest, including the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, and part of the South Walney and Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Cavendish Dock is part of the SPA and Ramsar site and part of the South Walney and Piel Channel Flats SSSI and part of the Cavendish Dock Wildlife Attraction. Salthouse Pool, between Cavendish Dock and the power station, is designated as a County Wildlife Site and also part of the Cavendish Dock Wildlife Attraction. The Duddon Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site (Duddon Estuary SSSI) are beyond Barrow-in-Furness to the north-west.

3.4 A public right of way (PROW) runs north-south along a former railway along the north western boundary of the power station, and is part of the Cumbria Coastal Way. A footpath/cycleway around the eastern edge of Cavendish Dock. There is a further PROW runs 300m north of the power station site.

The proposed development

3.5 The main new structures proposed in the development comprise the following: a new boiler house 70m high; a new stack 90m high; a new fuel storage shed some 29m high and up to 120m x 55m in plan; four new fuel storage silos for wood pellets each some 25m in diameter and some 35m tall; biomass screening building; road delivery unloading facility; rail unloading facility; a new railway line connecting the existing rail infrastructure; and conveyors to transport fuel within the power station.

3.6 Approximately 430,000 to 600,000 tonnes of biomass fuel (comprising a mix of virgin wood chip and pellets, with a proportion of recycled/waste wood chips) would be burnt per annum to generate electricity at the facility. A limit of 630,000 tonnes of fuel has been included in the draft DCO. The applicant states that other types of fuel could change in the future, subject to Local Authority agreement.

3.7 The applicant claims that the Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) would clean the flue gases before release into the atmosphere, and would comprise NOx abatement, acid gas neutralisation, heavy metals absorption and particulate filtration components. Continuous on-line emissions monitoring equipment would monitor the performance of the Gas Flue Treatment system and warn of trending toward the emission limits. This reporting mechanism will be agreed with the Environment Agency.

3.8 The fuel would be delivered to the power station either by sea to the Port of Barrow (and then by train to the power station), or alternatively from another UK port and then by train via the rail network. A new berth and fuel storage and handling facility at the port and new rail link from the proposed power station to the existing line that serves the Port of Barrow, would be created.

3.9 Depending upon the source of fuel, up to three ships per week would deliver fuel to the Port of Barrow, and up to seven trains per day would deliver the fuel to the power station. The removal of waste products is likely to be by road, although the option of removal by rail is being considered by the applicant. The generation of waste products including ash is expected to be 50-85 tonnes per day; sand consumption approximately 6-12 tonnes per day; and limestone consumption approximately 2–5 tonnes per day. The transport of the ash and process materials would result in up to 10x HGV movements per day (5 in and 5 out).

3.10 All conveyors and transit points would be enclosed with appropriate dust filters. All train unloading would take place within a purpose built enclosed building, also fitted with appropriate dust controls and filters. All dust collected at the dust filters would be combusted in the boiler. At the Port of Barrow, vessels would be unloaded using either clamshell or orange peel type grabs. Once the fuel has been unloaded it would be transferred to the buffer stores via means of belt conveyors housed in enclosed galleries.

3.11 Cooling water would be pumped from Cavendish Dock and returned to the dock using the existing pump house and delivery and discharge pipes. Approximately 300,000 cubic meters of cooling water would be required, but would not change the current abstraction and discharge consents held by the Power Station, as it would not exceed the current consented limit of 346,000 cubic meters.

3.12 The Biomass power station would generate electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. It would operate continuously through out the year except during shutdowns for maintenance or unplanned outages. It is anticipated that rail movements would be restricted to a 13 hour period (8am – 9pm) Monday to Saturday. Unloading of trains would continue between 9pm – 11pm. Sunday deliveries would only be required in the case of emergencies, or to clear any backlogs at the port if space is required for imminent fuel delivery. Deliveries and movement of HGVs would be between 6am and 11pm Monday – Friday, and 7am to 5pm on Saturday.

3.13 During operation, in excess of 50 full-time operational and maintenance staff are expected to be employed, working a combination of shift and day time hours.

3.14 Subject to approval, construction is anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2013 and would last for some 26 months. Following a 6 month period of commissioning and testing, the biomass power station would become operational in the first quarter of 2016. The Biomass power station would have a minimum design life of 20 years. Construction materials would be generally transported by road, and it is anticipated that some 500 construction jobs would be created at its peak.

4.0 KEY ISSUES RAISED IN THE LOCAL IMPACT REPORT

Policy considerations

4.1 The planning history confirms that the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station would be located on the site of the existing electricity generating power station, which has itself an extensive planning history of applications over the years for extensions, new buildings and chimneys, which have seen the power

station expand to occupy the existing site today. In addition there are planning permissions in the vicinity of the site for a renewable energy plant at Ramsden Dock and the United Utilities Water Treatment Plant. In addition there have been numerous applications for port related development adjacent to the DCO boundary.

4.2 In terms of policy considerations, national policy indicates that there should be a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) states that this presumption applies unless more specific and relevant policies set out in the NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused. National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3) reaffirms advice in EN1 on the basis that the need for infrastructure covered by the NPS has been demonstrated, and that there are ambitious renewable energy targets in place and a significant increase in large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target.

4.3 In accordance with NPS EN1 and EN3, the applicant claims that the Roosecote Biomass Power Station has been designed to allow future opportunities to be realised for the utilisation of combined heat and power off-take, if and when they arise. However, they point out that the integration of CHP into the project is dependent upon the availability if a suitable end user, and may not be realised until later on in the project life cycle.

4.4 The North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy also gives general support for the delivery of renewable energy schemes, which contribute towards the indicative regional targets. Whilst criteria are identified which should be taken into account in assessing development schemes, Policy EM17 of the RSS states that these should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of renewable energy technologies.

4.5 Sub-regional planning policies contained in the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy support major development in Barrow to support its regional and sub- regional role, especially opportunities to sustain and enhance employment, secure investment and diversify the economic base. Reference is made to the importance of Barrow Marina and the importance of Barrow Port redevelopment, where major mixed use development to create a Marina Village and Waterfront Gateway is proposed.

4.6 The Saved and Extended Policies contained in the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan define major development which will only be permitted where the total benefit of a scheme clearly outweighs the total detrimental effects, and that permission will be granted on condition that all possible measures are taken to minimise the adverse effects of development and associated infrastructure, and where appropriate provision is made to meet local community needs; acceptable measures are secured for decommissioning and site restoration; and arrangements are made for suitable local community involvement during development, decommissioning and restoration.

4.7 It is understood that the applicant did not consider alternative locations and methods in accordance with saved and extended JSP Policy ST4, as they take the view that the National Planning Statements do not require alternative locations to be assessed, and that the NPS only require alternatives that have been considered by the applicant to be reported. The applicant has only considered alternatives in respect of fuel delivery options and colour options on the main power station buildings.

4.8 Local planning policies within the Barrow Local Plan Review are aimed at protecting the coastal zone, nature conservation sites and landscape features. Whilst the Local Plan supports energy generating projects that rely on renewable energy resources, such projects need to meet established best practice criteria and the energy benefits must outweigh the environmental impacts.

4.9 The Local Plan also requires significant development to provide additional infrastructure requirements and social, recreational and community facilities where needed. Importantly the Barrow Port Action Plan proposes large scale regeneration of some 240 ha of land in mixed use including Ramsden, Buccleuch and Cavendish Docks. The proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) boundary for the power station includes a number of sites previously allocated within the Barrow Port Area Action Plan for housing, commercial and environmental development. The key sites included within the boundary for the DCO are Key Site 1: Barrow Marina, Key Site 2: Marina Village Housing; Key Site 3: Land at Cavendish Dock; Key Site 4: Barrow Watersports Centre and Key Site 5: Salthouse Housing. These sites will be affected to varying degrees by the proposed Roosecote Biomass power station, either through physical proximity, access requirements, engineering and construction works or new structures depending on their location.

4.10 Overall, it is considered that the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power station may have a significant impact upon, and could severely prejudice, the development and implementation of various aspects of the Barrow Port Area Action Plan, both in terms of physical proximity and to an extent visual impact (e.g. Marina Village), which is considered unacceptable. The linked nature of the proposed developments at the existing power station site and through Cavendish Dock to Ramsden Dock would remove the legible routes outlined in the Action Plan and may preclude future accessibility. Barrow Borough Council would wish to protect the environmental and amenity value of Cavendish Dock, and it is not clear to which some of the land included in the DCO boundary such as Cavendish Dock Road will be used and whether this may preclude other use and access. Barrow Borough Council believes the successful regeneration of the area requires comprehensive development of the sites within the Action Plan, and the proposal in its entirely is therefore not in accordance with the Development Plan.

Evaluation of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment

4.11 From the above assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development, significant concerns are raised by Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council over the quality of the information contained in the Centrica RPS Limited’s

assessments of the impact of the proposed development upon the area of Barrow and its surrounds.

4.12 In some cases, the applicant’s EIA information is incomplete or deficient, and this has created difficulties for Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council to adequately assess the full impact of the proposed development based on the applicant’s DCO submission so far. Notwithstanding these issues, from the above assessment the following conclusions can be drawn.

4.13 The Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station includes detailed assessments of air quality, the effects of air pollutants on nature conservation sites, and the risks to health posed by emissions to air. These aspects of the Environmental Statement have been reviewed by AEA Technology on behalf of Barrow Borough Council. It was found that the applicant has in general used appropriate techniques to evaluate these air quality, conservation and health issues, and in most respects, emissions to air would not pose significant risks to air quality, human health or natural ecosystems.

4.14 However, a number of concerns regarding the study methods and findings were identified. The “high significance” issues identified in relation to the assessments of air quality, health risk and nature conservation sites for the proposed development were as follows:

• Substantial increases in levels of air pollution and risks to health are forecast for some substances in some locations. The EN-1 guidance document advises that these air quality considerations should be viewed as “important.”

• A risk-based and/or quantitative assessment of dust from the storage and handling of biomass material should be provided.

• Deposition at some habitat sites may have been under-estimated due to the use of inappropriate deposition velocities

• Levels of ammonia at some habitat sites may have been assessed against an inappropriate air quality guideline.

• Levels of benzo(a)pyrene may have been under-reported in the modelling study. The forecast levels could potentially result in a significant impact on air quality. • The assessment of chromium VI is based on data from waste incineration facilities which may not be representative of the proposed facility. If this is the case, levels of chromium VI could potentially exceed the relevant air quality guideline.

• The deposition rates of metals may have been under-estimated. This would indicate a potentially significant impact due to deposition of some metals.

• The assessment of the health risks due to exposure to released substances via consumption of fish has not been carried out on a worst-case basis, and consequently the risks to health may have been under-estimated.

• An Appropriate Assessment should be carried out in respect of potential impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC. This should include an assessment of metals emitted from the proposed facility on shellfish and bird life in this SAC.

4.15 A number of issues identified as being of “medium significance” and “low significance” were also identified. In particular, the Environmental Statement does not address the issue of ultrafine particulate matter. This has been highlighted by a number of consultees, and it would be helpful for the applicant to provide an assessment of ultrafine particulate matter. This and other “medium” and “low” significance issues should be considered in the evaluation of the planning application along with the “high significance” issues listed above.

4.16 With regard to land quality, it is recommended that further work, including site investigations should be carried out in relation to identifying the extent of any contaminants and the remedial measures required to be taken. Amendments are suggested to Requirement 25 of the Development Consent Order.

4.17 With regard to ecology and ornithology, there appears to be some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the applicant’s Environmental Assessment due to insufficient survey information on which to base the work. More detailed habitat mapping and evaluation of habitats both on the site and outside the development footprint should have been carried out by the applicant. Whilst we have identified some positive impacts, there are a number of negative impacts, which could have an adverse permanent or long-term effect on ecology/ornithology of the site unless suitable mitigation can be arranged, or if this is not possible, then adequate compensation must be provided. Many of the identified local effects are on the biodiversity rather than the internationally and nationally designated sites.

4.18 It is acknowledged that the majority of the potential ecological effects covered by the Environmental Statement are considered to be neutral in that the valued ecological receptors before, during and after the development of the biomass power station are not expected to suffer any significant direct or indirect effect, provided that the mitigation and compensation measures are adopted. Qualifying features of the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site, and therefore the integrity of these sites, are not considered likely to be permanently adversely affected by the power station development, although temporary minor effects are anticipated during the construction phase. Mitigation for most of these temporary minor adverse effects is provided in the Environmental Statement, excepting the construction of the rail link where compensation for disturbance and loss of a small part of the SPA has not been adequately covered. In addition, possible loss of, or disturbance to, inland roosting areas does not appear to have been addressed. The issues raised in the negative impacts section above may well also be categorised as neutral effects once more detailed survey and adequate mitigation/compensation methodology has been undertaken, but at present we do not have sufficient information on which to base our judgement.

4.19 With regard to cumulative effects on SPA birds from increased disturbance through developments in the vicinity of Barrow Docks, it is difficult to assess without knowledge of the total carrying capacity of both Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar sites. Use is already made of Ramsden Dock by SPA birds displaced from Cavendish Dock when disturbed and as additional high tide roost. The cumulative effect of land-take on habitats likely to be lost to development in Barrow docks area is undervalued, and we consider that the cumulative impact on local/district/County habitats may be significant unless adequate compensation is provided for loss of habitat. This would also require retention of habitat continuity through wildlife corridors to prevent loss of biodiversity in the port area. Cumulative effects arising through land take would also impact on invertebrate and reptile populations unless adequate compensation is provided in each case. It is important that populations are not left isolated as a result of cumulative development.

4.20 With regard to landscape & visual effects, although it would appear that the applicant has carried out a relatively thorough visual impact assessment it is not evident within the report and assessment schedules that all aspects of the development have been assessed robustly, e.g. lighting and night time effects, cumulative effects and plume from the stacks. Also a clear explanation should have been provided where the assessment’s significance results deviate from the significance matrix if applied directly, to allow the reader to understand the reason for the deviation or the professional judgement made.

4.21 A number of the landscape receptors which have been identified in the report have not been carried through for assessment in the report or assessment schedules, e.g. the effects on the landscape character of Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes. A clear explanation should also have been provided by the applicant on the reasoning behind the sensitivities identified for those landscape receptors, i.e. Landscape Character Types assessed in the LVIA.

4.22 Following review of the applicant’s LVIA (notwithstanding the shortcomings of the LVIA as discussed above) we would conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station would not have a significant effect on the landscape character of the local and wider landscape including that of the Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB and locally designated landscapes. The proposed development is situated within a landscape which is characterised locally by industrial features and the proposed elements of the Biomass Power Station are unlikely to significantly alter the surrounding landscape character.

4.23 In terms of visual effects we would conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station development would result in significant effects only upon a small number of residents situated within close proximity of the site, namely at the southern eastern end of Dowie Close and in the Hornbeam Crescent area on the southern edge of Barrow-in-Furness. Here we consider that the proposals would significantly alter the existing views from the properties.

4.24 Otherwise the visual effects of the proposals on other receptors within the study area and receptors assessed outside the study area including those at Lake

District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Morecambe and Heysham would not be significant.

4.25 In terms of archaeological and cultural heritage, it is considered that the applicant’s assessment of the impacts of the proposal on archaeology and cultural heritage of the site and surrounding area is acceptable in terms of the impact on designated heritage assets and buried archaeological remains, and is largely acceptable in relation to non-designated assets.

4.26 With regard to traffic and transport matters, a number of issues arise from the evaluation of the application and the supporting information. These issues relate to inadequate information being provided and include:

• The operational worst case scenario of all fuel being delivered via the highway network has not been assessed. As this possible impact, and its implications on the operation of the highway network is unknown, the proposed Development Consent Order should be amended to expressly prohibit fuel deliveries via the road network and require the developer to keep a log of all deliveries and present this information upon request of the relevant planning authority.

• A carriageway condition survey of the proposed haul route should be undertaken by the developer as the proposed additional HGV movements would contribute to an accelerated deterioration of parts of the route. Future maintenance of the route should be considered by the developer as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan in order to enable uninterrupted access along the route to be achieved.

• The traffic impact during the construction phase of the development detailed in the Transport Assessment is overly optimistic and should be revised taking into account the detailed comments below in order to provide a more realistic evaluation of the impact the development will have on the highway network.

• The development would have a detrimental impact on public Rights of Way users due to the proposed level crossings which increase the level of danger for users from collision with trains and are inconvenient to use, particularly for users with low levels of mobility.

• The proposed Construction Travel Plan is generally acceptable, however a contribution towards additional bus services is unlikely to encourage modal shift, therefore the provision of a dedicated workers bus service should be considered as an alternative and included as a measure in the plan.

• Requirement 18 in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order should be amended to refer to the Operational Travel Plan, and should also set out that the Construction Travel Plan should be submitted to the relevant planning authority and approved prior to construction commencing.

• The Travel Plan should be properly secured to ensure the developer’s commitment to achieving the stated targets and minimising the overall impact of the development in terms of vehicle trips.

4.27 With regard to noise and vibration, day and night noise rating levels are considered to be comparable to the noise conditions on the planning consent for the existing power station and to those previously monitored. However, it is recommended that relevant conditions should be amended or added to within the DCO requiring:

• hours of construction working;

• an additional noise penalty; and

• a further noise survey and mitigation.

4.28 In terms of waste generation, it has not been possible to properly understand the implications of the proposals in terms of the supply of construction materials or of waste management because of the lack of figures about how much aggregate would be needed, and how much waste would be produced and would need to be treated or disposed of. Similarly, details are not given as to where it is proposed to dispose of wastes. It is considered that landfills in Cumbria cannot be assumed to be available as Distington landfill has no remaining capacity and the Derwent Howe slag bank and Lillyhall sites have planning permissions, which require them to be fully restored by 2013 and 2014 respectively.

4.29 With regard to matters relating to socio-economic effects, community impact and a contribution to the community to host the development, whilst it is welcomed that the ES advises that workers transferring from the existing power station will receive retraining, a clear indication of the number of jobs and positions would be helpful to provide certainty of continuation of employment to ensure that existing skills and employment benefits are retained within the local area. There is a clear need for a more comprehensive and integrated programme of intervention to improve the opportunities for employment creation to help promote lasting and positive skills beyond the construction period to deliver long term sustainable employment benefit to the area. There is a lack of consideration of the potential of the operation and benefits which could be gained from using existing supply chains within the local area and how this could be complemented by the effective approach to developing local workforce skills. The ES fails to appropriately consider the impact that the proposed development may have on the opportunities to improve the tourism offer in the area.

4.30 It is also considered that there is a lack of a clear analysis of the interrelationship of topic based matters and the effect on the community arising from the development of a biomass power plant. Further work is necessary to more clearly quantify what the impact of the development will be on the local community. If a quantifiable impact is demonstrated, then it would be appropriate to request some compensatory measures in recognition of the potential impacts on the quality of life and well being of local communities, which may not be addressed by other mitigation. Consideration will need to be given to the appropriate vehicle for over-

seeing the programme of Community Benefit Contribution funded projects. This could be via establishing a community fund and/or the local authorities overseeing the collection and allocation of the CBC fund.

4.31 In terms of fire and emergency planning, it is considered that that there is insufficient information provided with the DCO application submission to confirm as to whether or not the COMAH Regulations (Control Of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH)) as amended in 2005 apply to this proposal. It was not possible to fully determine an off-site plan until the applicant has developed their on-site plan. In terms of the potential risk to the general public, it is considered that without understanding the products that would be used on site, the County Council is not in a position to comment. However, the HSE will be the "Competent Authority" and it will be the HSE who will need to be satisfied that any identified health and safety risks are managed.

Barrow Local Committee and Local Member views

4.32 Barrow Local Committee is strongly opposed to the development and believes the proposal is unacceptable and believes the application should not be approved and that appropriate independent evidence should be obtained taking account of the issues raised at the Committee (see Appendix 2 of the Local Impact Report attached).

4.33 The Local Member for Low Furness has commended that “unless Cumbria County Council are 100% certain that there is no risk to the public from emissions from this plant then it should be opposed.”

4.34 It is understood that a local opposition group called the Furness Opposes Biomass Group along with 14,500 residents have signed a petition against the proposal.

4.35 The Registration and Relevant Representations stage for the project and the responses to the Adequacy of Consultation stage, which have been submitted by Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council to the National Infrastructure Directorate can be viewed on the following weblinks:

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/north-west/roosecote-barrow- biomass-power-station/?ipcsection=relreps

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/north-west/roosecote-barrow- biomass-power-station/?ipcsection=aoc

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 It is accepted that the proposed Roosecote Power Station would be built on the site of the existing power station, and the principle for this kind of electricity generating development is therefore established for the site. However, the question is whether or not the proposed development would be significantly different from the existing power station in terms of its’ impact upon local amenities and identified interests of local, national and international importance. The extent

to which the benefits of the scheme are outweighed by the disbenefits to accord with the above referred to planning policies has yet to be demonstrated.

5.2 In this regard, at this stage, given the shortcomings of aspects of Centrica RPS’s Environment Statement and DCO submission and the need for further detailed evidence as set out above, together with the above identified potential adverse impacts on:

• air quality;

• land quality;

• landscape & visual;

• ecology & ornithology;

• traffic and transport;

• noise and vibration;

• waste generation;

• fire and emergency planning,

- it is considered likely that the development will have some significant adverse effects on Barrow and the surrounding local area.

5.3 These significant adverse effects, some of which remain undetermined, will require mitigation in order to make the proposal acceptable in accordance with national, regional and local planning policies.

5.4 At this stage, it is not possible to determine therefore as to whether or not the benefits of the scheme necessarily outweigh the disbenefits. It is considered that mitigation measures are inevitable, given the findings of the Local Impact report so far, and it will be vital to secure contributions to mitigate the direct effects of the development itself, but also Community Impact Mitigation (CIM) as well as Community Benefit Contribution (CBC) funded projects in order to compensate the local community in recognition of the potential impacts of the development on the quality of life and well being of local communities. The level of mitigation and satisfactory design measures will determine the level of harm.

5.5 It is recommended that further detailed investigation will be required as part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) Examination process to be carried out by the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) to understand and quantify all those impacts before a complete picture of the effects of the development are known and a recommendation to the Secretary of State can be made about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the development and the level of mitigation required should it be so minded to recommend approval of the scheme.

5.6 The findings and recommendations contained in the joint Barrow Borough Council/Cumbria County Council Local Impact Report are therefore commended to the Development Control and Regulation Committee.

Paul Feehily Assistant Director – Planning and Sustainability

Contact

Graham Hale (Spatial Planning Team Leader) 01228 226716

Background Papers

The draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and all the relevant EIA and other information is now posted on the Planning Inspectorate website, and you can download it as follows: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/north-west/roosecote-barrow-biomass- power-station/?ipcsection=app

Electoral Division Identification

Cllr D Marcus Walney South ED Cllr O Pearson Old Barrow ED Cllr K Hamilton Risedale ED Cllr T MaCur Newbarns ED Cllr D Roberts Hawcoat ED Cllr B Bleasdale Dalton South ED Cllr R Guselli Barrow Local Committee Chair - Roosecote ED

ANNEX A

PLANNING ACT 2008 – RULE 8(1) (B) OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (EXAMINATION PROCEDURE) RULES 2010 – SUBMISSION OF LOCAL IMPACT REPORT

A JOINT CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL/BARROW BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL IMPACT REPORT UNDER SECTION 60 OF THE PLANNING ACT 2008 INTO:-

AN APPLICATION BY CENTRICA RPS LIMITED (THE DEVELOPER) FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER (DCO) TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A BIOMASS ELECTRCICITY GENERATING STATION WITH A NIOMINAL CAPACIRTY OF 90MW TOGETHER WITH A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENTS.

LAND AT ROOSECOTE, BARROW-IN-FURNESS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 On the 3 rd July 2012, Centrica RPS Limited submitted an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the National Infrastructure Directorate (Planning Inspectorate) to build and operate a 90MW (gross)/80MW (Net) biomass electricity generating power station on land at Roosecote, Barrow-in- Furness.

1.2 As the biomass facility comprises an on-shore electricity generating station having a capacity of more than 50MW, it is deemed a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) within the definition contained in Sections 14 & 15 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended. The application for the DCO will therefore be determined by the Secretary of State, via the National Infrastructure Directorate (Planning Inspectorate).

1.3 Cumbria County Council is consequently a key statutory consultee on this development alongside Barrow Borough Council as a defined “B” Authority as set out in the Planning Act 2008. Other adjoining Local Authorities such as South Lakeland District Council and Copeland Borough Council are also involved in the consultation process as defined “A” Authorities.

1.4 Throughout the preliminary stages, Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council have been working jointly to submit joint responses to consultations by both Centrica RPS Ltd and the Planning Inspectorate on Environmental Scoping,

the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation, and the applicant’s Preliminary Environmental Information.

1.5 Within 14 days of the DCO submission, statutory consultees were required to respond to the National Infrastructure Directorate, to give their views on the adequacy of the pre-application consultation process encapsulated in the applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council submitted a joint Officer response on the 16 th July 2012, based on their understanding of the position at the time.

1.6 On the 31 st July 2012, the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) confirmed that they had accepted the application. A key input for statutory consultees as part of the Examination stage process is that Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council have been formally invited by the Secretary of State to give their views on the proposal, and to prepare and submit a Local Impact Report setting out what they consider to be the effects of the development upon the local area. This Local Impact Report follows the above approach, and is a jointly prepared Barrow Borough Council/Cumbria County Council document.

1.7 Based on the current County Council Constitution, Cumbria County Council’s Development Control & Regulation Committee (DC&R) considered and approved the joint Local Impact Report at their meeting on the 2 nd October 2012, and made recommendations to the County Council’s Cabinet who separately took a view on the impact of the development on the area at their meeting on the 8 November 2012. The views of Barrow Local Committee on the proposed development have also fed into both the Local Impact Report and the Cabinet report. A copy of the detailed Minutes of the Barrow Local Committee report are Appended. Barrow Borough Council endorsed the Local Impact Report separately on the XXXX.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 The new Biomass electricity generating power station would be located on the site of the existing Roosecote gas-fired power station approximately 600m to the south east of Barrow-in-Furness. Various additional parcels of land nearby will be required to accommodate the development and its associated infrastructure such as the rail link from the power station to connect with the existing railway serving Ramsden Dock. The existing power station site was previously occupied by a coal-fired power station in 1954, and the current gas-fired power station on the site started commercial operation in November 1991. Linked to the existing power station is the cooling pump house, which is located adjacent to Cavendish Dock.

2.2 To the immediate north-west of the power station is the United Utilities Waste Water Treatment Plant. To the south are Centrica’s Morecambe Bay Gas Terminals. The nearest residential properties are at Dowie Close some 400m to the north of the power station site. New House Farm is some 500m to the north east of the site. There are some allotment gardens at Roose Farm some 600m to the north of the site, and Barrow-in-Furness Town Centre is some 2.3km north west of the power station site.

2.3 There are some areas of special interest, including the Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, and part of the South Walney and Piel Channel Flats Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Cavendish Dock is part of the SPA and Ramsar site and part of the South Walney and Piel Channel Flats SSSI and part of the Cavendish Dock Wildlife Attraction. Salthouse Pool, between Cavendish Dock and the power station, is designated as a County Wildlife Site and also part of the Cavendish Dock Wildlife Attraction. The Duddon Estuary SPA and Ramsar Site (Duddon Estuary SSSI) are beyond Barrow-in-Furness to the north-west.

2.4 A public right of way (PROW) runs north-south along a former railway along the north western boundary of the power station, and is part of the Cumbria Coastal Way. A footpath/cycleway around the eastern edge of Cavendish Dock. There is a further PROW runs 300m north of the power station site.

3.0 DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The main new structures proposed in the development comprise the following: a new boiler house 70m high; a new stack 90m high; a new fuel storage shed some 29m high and up to 120m x 55m in plan; four new fuel storage silos for wood pellets each some 25m in diameter and some 35m tall; biomass screening building; road delivery unloading facility; rail unloading facility; a new railway line connecting the existing rail infrastructure; and conveyors to transport fuel within the power station.

3.2 Approximately 430,000 to 600,000 tonnes of biomass fuel (comprising a mix of virgin wood chip and pellets, with a proportion of recycled/waste wood chips) would be burnt per annum to generate electricity at the facility. A limit of 630,000 tonnes of fuel has been included in the draft DCO. The applicant states that other types of fuel could change in the future, subject to Local Authority agreement.

3.3 The applicant claims that the Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) would clean the flue gases before release into the atmosphere, and would comprise NOx abatement, acid gas neutralisation, heavy metals absorption and particulate filtration components. Continuous on-line emissions monitoring equipment would monitor the performance of the Gas Flue Treatment system and warn of trending toward the emission limits. This reporting mechanism will be agreed with the Environment Agency.

3.4 The fuel would be delivered to the power station either by sea to the Port of Barrow (and then by train to the power station), or alternatively from another UK port and then by train via the rail network. A new berth and fuel storage and handling facility at the port and new rail link from the proposed power station to the existing line that serves the Port of Barrow, would be created.

3.5 Depending upon the source of fuel, up to three ships per week would deliver fuel to the Port of Barrow, and up to seven trains per day would deliver the fuel to the power station. The removal of waste products is likely to be by road, although the option of removal by rail is being considered by the applicant. The generation of waste products including ash is expected to be 50-85 tonnes per day; sand consumption approximately 6-12 tonnes per day; and limestone consumption approximately 2–5 tonnes per day. The transport of the ash and process materials would result in up to 10x HGV movements per day (5 in and 5 out).

3.6 All conveyors and transit points would be enclosed with appropriate dust filters. All train unloading would take place within a purpose built enclosed building, also fitted with appropriate dust controls and filters. All dust collected at the dust filters would be combusted in the boiler. At the Port of Barrow, vessels would be unloaded using either clamshell or orange peel type grabs. Once the fuel has been unloaded it would be transferred to the buffer stores via means of belt conveyors housed in enclosed galleries.

3.7 Cooling water would be pumped from Cavendish Dock and returned to the dock using the existing pump house and delivery and discharge pipes. Approximately 300,000 cubic meters of cooling water would be required, but would not change

the current abstraction and discharge consents held by the Power Station, as it would exceed the current consented limit of 346,000 cubic meters.

3.8 The Biomass power station would generate electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. It would operate continuously through out the year except during shutdowns for maintenance or unplanned outages. It is anticipated that rail movements would be restricted to a 13 hour period (8am – 9pm) Monday to Saturday. Unloading of trains would continue between 9pm – 11pm. Sunday deliveries would only be required in the case of emergencies, or to clear any backlogs at the port if space is required for imminent fuel delivery. Deliveries and movement of HGVs would be between 6am and 11pm Monday – Friday, and 7am to 5pm on Saturday.

3.9 During operation, in excess of 50 full-time operational and maintenance staff are expected to be employed, working a combination of shift and day time hours.

3.10 Subject to approval, the applicant anticipates that construction would commence in the third quarter of 2013, and would last for some 26 months. Following a 6 month period of commissioning and testing, the biomass power station would become operational in the first quarter of 2016. The Biomass power station would have a minimum design life of 20 years. Construction materials would be generally transported by road, and it is anticipated that some 500 construction jobs would be created at its peak.

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY AND CONSTRAINTS

Planning History

4.1 Planning applications for major development in the vicinity of the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station include:

• Roosecote Power Station has an extensive planning history since the original permission in the late 1970’s. Various applications over the years for extensions to buildings and erection of new buildings, storage facilities, tanks and chimneys have seen the power station expand to occupy the existing site it does today. The most recent approval 2011/0765 relates to the construction of a new switch yard to facilitate an electrical interconnection between the power station and the Gas Terminal complex.

• Salthouse Mills forms an area of scattered industrial/ business use on, and adjacent to, the site of a former paper mill. The site is adjacent to Cavendish Dock and neighbouring housing at Sandgate and Salthouse Road. Due to its past predominantly industrial use this brownfield site has had various applications for business uses comprising a metal shop, waste transfer site, vehicle dismantlers, vehicle parts sales and coal yard. These uses have tended to be ‘bad neighbour’ type uses due to the sites relative isolation and due to its history the site is known to be contaminated, particularly by asbestos.

• Roose Sand Quarry is the only sand and gravel site in the south of the county, the earliest permission for this site dates back to 1982 when the site was used for tipping and the existing quarry was restored. The most recent permission 2011/9012 dealt with by Cumbria County Council permitted the continued extraction of sand until 2016.

• Renewable Energy Plant, Ramsden Dock Road (2008/9018) was granted permission in 2009, the application by Sunrise Renewables Ltd proposed to install a Biomass Plant of up to 9MW capacity on existing industrial land at Ramsden Dock. The proposal stated the plant would be fuelled by reclaimed wood arising from local recycling operations. At this time the permission has not yet been implemented.

• Waste Water Treatment Works, Rampside Road is operated by United Utilities and has been the subject of numerous planning applications since the 1990’s. UU have invested in phased upgrading works to the plant to address, amongst other issues, odour nuisance. Permissions have been granted in relation to the odour control unit the most recent of these being 2012/9007. Permission was granted for 4 detention tanks and associated infrastructure (2007/9011) in 2010.

• A screening opinion (2008/0929) was undertaken by Barrow Borough Council in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the land to the north of Buccleuch Dock to create Marina Village in line with the proposals within Barrow Port Area Action Plan . The site screened covered an area of approx 30ha of

predominantly vacant land accessed via Cavendish Dock Road, with commercial premises and allotments.

• There have been numerous applications for Port Related developments within and adjacent to the DCO boundary these included use of the dockside and adjacent land for lay down and assembly areas for offshore rigs and windfarms and associated storage and office facilities.

• There have been a small number of applications for small scale residential development within and adjacent to the DCO boundary, these are located along Salthouse Road an established residential area.

Constraints

4.2 The following planning constraints have been identified relating to the site:

Advert Control Area

• Site is within area of special control for advertisements

Airfield Safeguarding Chart

• Walney Airfield Consultation Zone - All Buildings - Structures - Erections and Works Exceeding 90 metres in height

• Walney Airfield Consultation Zone - All Buildings - Structures - Erections and Works Exceeding 45 metres in height

• Walney Airfield Consultation Zone - All Buildings - Structures - Erections and Works Exceeding 15 metres in height

Conservation Areas

• This site is within St Georges Square Conservation Area designated in 1982.

Council Owned Land

• This site is in close proximity to Barrow Borough Council owned land.

Emergency Planning Consultation Zone

• Cumbria emergency planning consultation zone - for Gas Terminals, BAE Dock Basin, BAE Devonshire Dock, Cavendish Dock Reservoir, Lower Ormsgill Reservoir and Harlock Reservoir - for all major, minor and appropriate change of use applications.

Flood Plain Zone 2

• Site is within a Zone 2 flood risk area designated by the Environment Agency May 2012

Flood Plain Zone 3

• Site is within a Zone 3 floodrisk area designated by the Environment Agency May 2012

Health and Safety Executive – Explosives

• Site is Within Explosives Safeguarding Area Reference 13162 Ramsden Dock Safeguarding Distance SD3

• Site is Within Explosives Safeguarding Area Reference 13162 Ramsden Dock Safeguarding Distance SD2

• Site is Within Explosives Safeguarding Area Reference 13162 Ramsden Dock Safeguarding Distance SD1

Health and Safety Executive – Nuclear

• This site is within the Inner zone of a Nuclear Installation No. ND04 at BAE Systems Marine Ltd Barrow consult Health and Safety Executive

Health and Safety Executive – Pipelines

• This site is within the Outer Zone of a major pipeline (North Morecambe Terminal Trunk) that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 11652

• This site is within the Middle Zone of a major pipeline (North Morecambe Terminal Trunk) that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 11652

• This site is within the Inner Zone of a major pipeline (North Morecambe Terminal Trunk) that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 11652

• This site is within the Inner/Middle/Outer Zone of a major pipeline that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 6837 Feb2008

• This site is in the vicinity of a major pipeline that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 6837 Feb 2008

• This site is within the Inner/Middle/Outer zone of a major pipeline that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 6814 Feb 2008

• This site is in the vicinity of a major pipeline that requires consultation with the Health and Safety Executive Reference 6814

Pipeline Operators

• This site is within the vicinity of a major pipeline (North Morecambe Terminal Trunk) that requires consultation with the Operator Hydrocarbon Resources Ltd

• This site is within the vicinity of a major pipeline (Barrow to Roosecote) that requires consultation with the Operator Centrica RPS Ltd

• This site is in the vicinity of a major pipeline (Ulverston to Barrow) that requires consultation with the operator National Grid Gas Plc

Listed Buildings

• This site is in the vicinity of a Grade 2 Listed Building the Railwaymens Club and Attached Warehouse, The Strand, Barrow-in-Furness

Marina Village Site

• This site is within the Marina Village Compulsory Purchase Order area.

Microwave Fixed Links

• Site has a fixed link microwave communications line passing through it for NWEB as provided by information from the Radio Communications Agency. It runs from Salthouse Depot to BLACKPOOLBRITISHGASDEPOT

• Site has a fixed link microwave communications line passing through it for NWEB as provided by information from the Radio Communications Agency. It runs from LANGTHWAITESCOTFORTHLANCS to BarrowRadioSite

• Site has a fixed link microwave communications line passing through it for NWEB as provided by information from the Radio Communications Agency. It runs from Salthouse Depot to LANGTHWAITESCOTFORTHLANCS

• Site has a fixed link microwave communications line passing through it for NWEB as provided by information from the Radio Communications Agency. It runs from NorwebDepot to Langthwaite

• Site has a fixed link microwave communications line passing through it for CWC as provided by information from the Radio Communications Agency. It runs from 1319809689VICKERS to LANGTHWAITESCOTFORTHLANCS

Mineral Consultation Zones

• This site is within a Sand and Gravel Mineral Consultation Zone

One Day Sale Zone

• This site is within a 1/2 Mile one day exclusion zone

Other Constraints

4.3 The following other planning constraints have been identified relating to the site:

Windfarms

• This site could be affected by the Ministry Of Defence Windfarm Constraint for developments over 11m in height. • This site could be affected by the CAA Windfarm Constraint for developments over 15m in height.

Railway Lines

• The site is within 5m of a railway line

Rivers

• The site is within 25m of the centre line of a river controlled by the Environment Agency on December 2011

Roads - A

• The site is within 10m of the centreline of an A road designated A590 which is also known as OCEAN ROAD as taken from OS OSCAR data

School within 300m

• Site within 200m of St Georges C Of E School and Cambridge Primary School. Establishments should be informed of Telecommunication applications

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

• The site is within 500m of South Walney & Piel Channel Flats SSSI

Waste Sites - Historic

• The site is within a Waste Site - Roosecote Flash 250m Buffer

• The site is within a Waste Site - Barrow Docks 250m Buffer

• The site is within a Waste Site - Roosecote 250m Buffer

• The site is within a Waste Site - Salthouse Pool 250m Buffer

• The site is within a Waste Site - Roose Quarry 250m Buffer

• The site is within a Waste Site - Cavendish Dock 250m Buffer

5.0 RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

National Policy Statements

5.1 As the proposal exceeds 50MW of electricity generation, it falls within the definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIPs) under Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008.

5.2 Under the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change designated six National Policy Statements (NPSs) of which the most relevant are: the overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1); Renewable Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statement (EN3); and the National Policy Statement for Ports.

5.3 National Policy Statement for Energy EN1 sets out the national policy for energy infrastructure applications. It gives support the transition to a low carbon economy to realise the UK’s climate change commitments. It sets out that the Government is committed to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels by delivering secure energy supplies. It recognises that a diverse mix of technologies and fuels is required so that the country does not rely on any one technology or fuel, and indicates that the determining authority should give substantial weight to the contribution which projects would make towards satisfying this need when considering applications for development consent.

5.4 In terms of the role of renewable energy, EN1 states that the UK has committed to sourcing 15% of its energy from renewable energy sources by 2020, and biomass is considered to be low carbon, “providing that the biomass has been cultivated, processed and transported with due consideration to sustainability. ”.

5.5 In terms of assessing proposals, paragraph 4.1.2 of EN1 states that the IPC (now National Infrastructure Directorate) should start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs. It states that that presumption applies unless any more specific and relevant policies set out in the relevant NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused.

5.6 In considering any proposed development, and in particular when weighing its adverse impacts against its benefits, the IPC should take into account the potential benefits “ including its contribution to meeting the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and any long-term or wider benefits; and its potential adverse impacts, including any long-term and cumulative adverse impacts, as well as any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts ”.

5.7 Paragraph 4.6.6 of EN1 states that any application to develop a thermal generating station under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 must either include combined heat and power (CHP) or contain evidence that the possibilities for CHP have been fully explored to inform the IPC’s consideration of the application.

5.8 Paragraph 4.10.2 of EN1 states that the planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest. It pays a key role in protecting and improving the natural environment, public health and safety, and amenity, for example by attaching conditions to allow developments which would otherwise not

be environmentally acceptable to proceed, and preventing harmful development which cannot be made acceptable even through conditions.

5.9 Paragraph 4.10.3 of EN1 goes onto states that in considering an application for development consent: “the IPC should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land and on the impact of that use, rather than the control of processes, emissions or discharges themselves”. EN1 states that the IPC should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime and other environmentally regulatory regimes, including those on land drainage, water abstraction and biodiversity, will be properly applied and enforced by the relevant regulator, and should act to complement but not seek to duplicate them”.

5.10 EN1 lists the generic impacts that energy infrastructure developments are likely to have, and the assessments which should be carried out by the applicant. These include: air quality; biodiversity and geological conservation; civil and military aviation and defence interests; coastal change, dust, odour, artificial light, smoke, steam, and insect infestation; flood risk; historic environment; landscape and visual; land use including open space, green infrastructure & Green Belt; noise and vibration; socio-economic; traffic and transport; waste management; and water quality and resources.

5.11 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3) reaffirms the advice in EN1 on the basis that the need for infrastructure covered by the NPS has been demonstrated, and that there are ambitious renewable targets in place and a significant increase in generation from large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target.

5.12 EN3 points out that under the Appraisal of Sustainability, the strategic effects of EN3 are considered to be neutral for onshore and offshore wind, while biomass and EFW were associated with a greater number of negative effects.

5.13 Part 2.5 of EN3 deals specifically with biomass and waste combustion electricity generation, and states that this type of technology is likely to play an increasingly important role in meeting the UK’s renewable energy targets. It states that biomass generating stations should be Carbon Capture Ready (CCR) and/or have a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology applied. EN3 identifies the type of fuel appropriate for biomass schemes, and states that the social, environmental and economic case for widespread deployment of biomass-fuelled plant depends on the sustainability of fuel used in it. EN3 states that the Government is proposing to introduce sustainability criteria for solid biomass plants as a condition of their eligibility for Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs).

5.14 EN3 states that applications for Biomass electricity generating stations must include information on how it would be connected to the grid network, and whether there’re would be any environmental issues likely to arise from that connection. EN3 also recognises that biomass generating power stations are likely to generate considerable transport movements. It goes on to state that Government policy encourages multi-modal transport, and the IPC should expect materials (fuel and residues) to be transported by water or rail routes where possible. EN3 states that the IPC should not give development consent unless it is satisfied that the

applicant has provided appropriate evidence that Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is included or that opportunities for CP have been fully explored. For non- CHP stations, the IPC may also require that developers ensure that their stations are configured to allow heat supply at a later date as set out in EN1.

5.15 In terms of the IPC assessment principles, EN3 then states that in sites with nationally recognised designations (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Registered Parks and Gardens), consent for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation of the area would not be compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits. As in EN1, EN3 then identifies the generic impacts that energy infrastructure developments are likely to have, the assessments which should be carried out by the applicant, and the assessments that the IPC need to make, including consideration of mitigation.

5.16 The National Policy Statement for Ports is also relevant as a material consideration to this application in so far as it would involve a proposed new berth at the Port of Barrow, and a significant proportion of the fuel will be transported by sea.

Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework

5.17 The Coalition Government had stated its intention to abolish RSSs. However, the Localism Act 2011 states that it will be to the discretion of the Secretary of State if the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West remains part of the Development Plan, as well as the saved policies of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan. It is also suggested that the Cumbria Sub Regional Spatial Strategy should be taken into consideration.

5.18 The National Planning Policy Framework was issued in March 2012, and the PPGs and PPSs, which preceded it were cancelled upon its adoption. The NPPF does not offer specific advice relating to NSIPs, but refers to NSIP applications and states that NSIPs are determined in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 and relevant national policy statements for major infrastructure, as well as any other matters that area considered both and relevant. The NPPF reaffirms that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.19 Of particular relevance, paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. The NPPF states that Local Authorities should be supportive of schemes that promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources.

The North West of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021

5.20 The RSS (NW) was issued in September 2008 and provides a framework for development and investment in the region up to 2021. The Coalition Government has announced its intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies, but until that takes place, the RSS (NW) remains part of the development plan for the region.

5.21 Relevant Policies to the Roosecote Biomass proposal contained in the RSS (NW) are:

• Policy DP1 – Spatial Principles,

• DP2 – Promote Sustainable Communities;

• DP3 – Promote Sustainable Economic Development;

• DP4 – making the Best Use of existing resources and Infrastructure;

• DP5 - Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel and Increase Accessibility;

• DP7 – Promote Environmental Quality;

• DP9 - Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change;

• RDF1 – Spatial Priorities;

• RDF3 - The Coast;

• W1 – Strengthening the Regional Economy

• RT4 – Management of the Highway Network

• RT6 – Ports and Waterways;

• RT8 – Intermodal Freight Terminals;

• RT9 – Cycling and Walking;

• EM1 – Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region’s Environmental Assets;

• EM5 – Integrated Water Management

• EM6 – Managing the North West’s Coastline

• EM10 – A Regional Approach to Waste Management

• EM11 – Waste Management principles;

• EM12 – Locational Principles;

• EM13 – Provision of Nationally, Regionally and sub-Regionally Significant Waste Management Facilities;

• EM15 – A Framework for Sustainable Energy in the North West;

• EM17 – Renewable Energy;

• EM18 – Decentralised Energy Supply;

• CNL1 – Overall Spatial Policy for Cumbria; and

• CNL2 – Sub-area Development priorities for Cumbria.

5.22 Overall, the Policies contained in the RSS (NW) support the delivery of renewable energy schemes, and in particular Policy EM17 states that opportunities should be sought to identify proposals and schemes for renewable energy, which contribute towards the delivery of the indicative capacity targets set out in Tables 9.6 and 9.7a-c of the RSS. It states that the following criteria should be taken into account but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of renewable energy technologies:

• the anticipated effects on local amenity resulting from development, construction and operation of schemes (e.g. air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution, and disposal of waste). Measures to mitigate these impacts should be employed where possible and necessary to make them acceptable;

• acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact. Stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape and townscape would not be appropriate if these effectively preclude the supply of certain types of renewable energy, other than in the most exceptional circumstances such as within nationally recognised designations as set out in (the then) PPS22 paragraph 11;

• effect on the nationally and internationally designated sites or areas and their settings but avoiding the creation of buffer zones and noting that small-scale developments may be permitted in such areas provided there is no significant environmental detriment;

• effect on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including sites, habitats and species, and which avoid significant adverse effects on sites of international nature conservation importance by assessment under the Habitat Regulations;

• potential benefits of development to the local economy and local community;

• accessibility (where necessary) by the local transport network;

• effect on agriculture and other land based industries;

• ability to make connections to the electricity distribution network which takes account of visual impact (as qualified above);

• integration of the proposal with existing or new development where appropriate;

• proximity to renewable energy fuel source where relevant – e.g. wood-fuel biomass processing plants within or close proximity to the region’s major woodlands and forests; and

• encourage the integration of combined heat and power (CHP) into development

5.23 Importantly Policy EM17 states that developers must engage with local communities at an early stage of the development process prior to submission of any proposals and schemes for approval under the appropriate legislation.

The Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 - 2028

5.24 The Cumbria Strategic Partnership Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSpS) sets out the spatial framework for new development in Cumbria and sits alongside the Community Strategy for Cumbria, which seeks to energise the county’s communities, health, economy, connections, and environment over a twenty year period. The SRSpS enables actions that affect specific areas and locations to serve the delivery of the Community Strategy, and it provides the sub-regional spatial framework for the preparation of Local Development Frameworks/Local Plans in Cumbria.

5.25 The SRSpS states that the potential impacts of climate change and ensuring sustainable resource management is an issue that has to be addressed by all strategies. Cumbria is increasingly experiencing severe flooding and needs to reduce its level of carbon emissions. New facilities are needed to increase recycling and composting whilst reducing the amounts of waste that are sent to landfill. Energy conservation needs to be addressed related to domestic, industrial and transport related activities.

5.26 The SRSpS identifies that major development is required in Barrow to supports its regional and sub-regional role. The priority for new development is to support economic and social regeneration and improve the quality of life. Opportunities will be taken to sustain and enhance employment, secure investment and diversify the economic base. Measures will be supported that reduce journey times to the M6 motorway. The distinctive role and opportunities offered by the Port of Barrow will be fostered with measures taken to build on the area’s heritage. The role of the town centre will be supported through measures that enable refurbishment and environmental improvement and by physical restructuring. A significant spatial initiative of importance to the area is the Barrow Port redevelopment, where major mixed use development to create a ‘Marina Village’ and ‘Waterfront Gateway’ is proposed to include:

• Barrow Marina – a focus for waterfront activity;

• New waterfront housing;

• Major new business and commercial location

• Cruise terminal;

• Improvements to housing and public realm;

• Nature reserve at Cavendish Dock

• Barrow Watersports Centre

5.27 Barrow town centre renewal – including encouraging investment, public realm improvements, re-orientating and reconnecting the town centre and the waterfront, plus improved co-ordination and extension of existing transport facilities in Barrow, including a new Cruise Terminal are priorities within the SRSpS.

5.28 The SRSpS also sets out in the ‘Development Principles’ a set of criteria against which all new development is required to conform. This Policy seeks locations consistent with the settlement hierarchy, focusing development appropriate to the size and role of each Key Service Centre and allowing small scale development to help sustain local services in Local Service Centres. It also seeks sites that are or will be made accessible to public transport, walking and cycling, providing a realistic choice of access by means other than the private car. It requires development to avoid the loss of, or damage to and where possible enhance, restore or re-establish, important nature conservation features. The Development Principles seeks to avoid the loss of or damage to, and wherever possible enhance important or distinctive conservation features including landscapes, buildings, archaeological sites, historic parks and gardens and visually important public and private open spaces. It also aims to ensure high standards in design and construction which:

• adopt principles of energy efficiency, waste minimisation and sustainable waste management including waste segregation facilities;

• promote the use of recycled materials, decentralised renewable energy sources and energy recovered from waste;

• are suitably constructed to minimise vulnerability to the future effects of climate change;

• include siting, scale, use of materials and landscaping which respect and, where possible, enhance the distinctive character of the townscape and landscape

• promote a safe and secure environment that designs out crime and makes proper provision for people with restricted mobility and people with special needs.

5.29 The Development Principles seeks to avoid reductions in air quality and the quality and quantity of ground water and surface waters. The Development Principles

seeks to ensure that development makes efficient use of land and is within infrastructure, community and service constraints or that these can be satisfactorily overcome through planned improvements or at the developer’s expense without adverse effect on the environment. It also seeks to minimise levels of light pollution and noise, and ensures that development located on land known to be contaminated is subject to appropriate remediation measures.

Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 (Adopted Plan – April 2006)

5.30 The Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001 – 2016 (JSP) was adopted by Cumbria County Council and the Lake District National Park Authority in April 2006, and contains some 58 policies, of which 23 were subsequent saved and extended as part of the North West of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021. As with the RSS (NW), despite the Coalition Government’s intention to revoke the RSSs, the Saved and Extended Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan (JSP) Policies remain part of the development plan for Cumbria.

5.31 Relevant Saved and Extended JSP policies to the Roosecote development are:

• ST4 – Major Development Proposals

• ST5 – New Development and Key Service Centres outside the Lake District National Park

• T30 – Transport Assessments

• T31 – Travel Plans

• E35 – Areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international importance

• E37 – Landscape Character

• E38 – Historic Environment

• R44 – Renewable Energy outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs

• R51 – Residual Waste and Landfill

5.32 Policy ST4 of the JSP defines major development as development that has significant environmental effects and is more than local in character. The Policy states that major development will only be permitted where:

• The total benefit clearly outweighs the total detrimental effects;

• The proposal complies with national standards and best practice for environment, safety and security, and where appropriate is independently reviewed; and

• Alternative locations and methods giving rise to less harm have been fully considered and rejected;

• Permission will be granted only on condition that all possible measures are taken to minimise the adverse effects of development and associated infrastructure, and where appropriate:-

• provision is made to meet local community needs;

• acceptable measures are secured for decommissioning and site restoration, and

• arrangements are made for suitable local community involvement during the development, decommissioning and restoration.

5.33 Policy ST5 seeks to ensure that the scale of development should be appropriate to the size and role of each Key Service Centre.

5.34 Policies T29 seeks to safeguard routes from development where there is potential for viable future reuse, including disused railway lines.

5.35 Policy T30 seeks the submission of Transport Assessments in accordance with national guidance.

5.36 Policy T31 requires Travel Plans for development that would generate local traffic problems as identified through a Transport Assessment or an evaluation of a proposal.

5.37 Policy E35 states that development and other land use changes that are detrimental to areas and features of nature conservation interests other than those of national and international importance will not be permitted unless harm caused to the value of those interests is outweighed by the need for the development.

5.38 Policy E37 states that development and land use change should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of Cumbria’s landscape types and sub-types.

5.39 Policy E38 states that measures will be taken to identify, record, protect, conserve, or enhance areas, sites, buildings and settings of archaeological, historic, and archaeological importance. Proposals that fail to preserve or enhance or damage, obscure of remove important archaeological sites or other historic features or are detrimental to the character or setting of a listed building will not be permitted unless the harm caused to their importance and intrinsic interest is clearly outweighed by the need for the development.

5.40 Policy R44 states that proposals for renewable energy, including any ancillary infrastructure or buildings will be favourably considered if there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, heritage of the area either individually or cumulatively; there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any adverse impact on landscape, environmental, nature

conservation, historical and local community interests. In considering applications for planning permission in relation to the above criteria, and other policies in the plan, the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight. It goes onto state that biomass schemes shall be sited on existing industrial/employment sites or previously developed land that is well related to the resource catchment. Where practicable, measures to transport fuel and waste by water or rail shall be made.

5.41 Policy R51 states that proposals for the disposal of waste to landfill will not be permitted in the Lake District National Park and AONBs. Outside these areas, proposals for the disposal of residual waste will only be permitted when all the following requirements are met:

• There is a demonstrable need for additional landfill capacity;

• There are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, consideration interests, environmental infrastructure, transport and local communities

• Measures are included to reduce any adverse impact;

• The infill and restoration of existing sites would not be seriously prejudiced, and

• All practical measures are taken to allow landfill gas to be utilised as an energy resource

5.42 Where it is demonstrated that there is a lack of available mineral voids and that transferring waste to distant sites does not comply with the decision making principles, then land raise may be permitted. Priority will be given to proposals that contribute to meeting landfill restoration requirements.

Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework

5.43 The Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies, together with those policies of the Cumbria and the Lake District Joint Structure Plan which are still in effect, and provide the County Council's statutory development plan policies. The MWDF Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map have been withdrawn.

5.44 The fuels that are proposed to be used for the Roosecote power station include only a small proportion of waste materials. Some of the MWDF policies are, however, indirectly relevant to the impacts of the proposed development with regard to the sources of minerals required for construction and to the proposals for managing construction and operational wastes.

5.45 In this context reference is made to the following Core Strategy policies.

• Policy 1 stresses the importance of minimising "minerals and waste road miles";

• Policy 7 highlights the need for landfill capacity in the south of the county;

• Policy 9 sets out the requirements for waste capacity and facilities;

• Policy 13 and paragraph 10.20 relate to local supplies of aggregates and an issue for sand and gravel in the south of the county; and

• Policy 15 relates to facilities for increasing use of marine dredged aggregates.

Barrow Borough Council Local Plan Review 1996-2006 (2001)

5.46 The majority of local planning policies for Barrow Borough, contained within Local Plan Review (2001) and the Local Plan Housing Chapter Alteration (2006) were saved. Some have since been replaced by policies within the Barrow Port Area Action Plan, which was produced with the intention that it would be part of a Local Development Framework.

5.47 Following the introduction of the Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012, Barrow Borough Council intends to produce a single Local Plan document that will contain strategic borough wide and site specific policies that will include land allocations and detailed development control policies.

5.48 In due course this will replace current ‘saved’ local policy and policy contained within the Barrow Port Area Action Plan.

5.49 The Local Plan Review was adopted in 2001 and was based around a number of principles including the regeneration of the local economy through sustainable development whilst protecting and improving the Borough’s environment. These principles and the policies contained within the Plan remain relevant. The saved policies relevant to this are summarised below:

• Policy A9 relates to applications for hazardous installations, and the criteria the Local Planning Authority will take into account when considering proposals. These include proximity to housing and other sensitive land uses, the visual impact of the proposals, and the effect of the proposal on surrounding land uses. • Policy D7 defines the protection of the coastal zone from development and outlines the impacts that would prevent the development from being permitted. These include increased risk of flooding and adverse effect on landscape, wildlife and recreation activities. • Policy D9 concerns proposals which affect a designated European site. Cavendish Dock is designated as a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. • Policy D10 concerns proposals affecting nationally important nature conservation interests, and restricts development that may have a significant adverse effect on the nature conservation interest or integrity of an SSSI. Cavendish Dock is designated as a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site.

• Policy D13 concerns proposals which affect the integrity of wildlife and landscape features such as hedgerows, ponds, woodland or continuity of Wildlife Corridors. Salthouse Pools is designated as a County Wildlife Site for its reedbed, one of the largest in Cumbria. • Policy D45 supports energy generation projects that rely on renewable resources where they meet established best practice criteria and the energy generation and other benefits outweigh the environmental impact. • Policy D57 restricts developments that pose an unacceptable risk to the quality of groundwater. Areas subject to different levels of risk and protection are shown on the Proposals Map, the proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) boundary is within the Groundwater Protection Area. • Policy E5 concerns proposals which will generate large volumes of road traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles. • Policy F15 requires significant development to provide additional infrastructure requirements and social, recreational and community facilities where needed. • Policy G13 provides protection for designated routes for walking, cycling and horse riding, where development on or near would adversely affect an interesting or visually pleasing view. There are several Public Rights Of Way including the Cumbria Coastal Way within the DCO boundary.

The Barrow Port Area Action Plan (2010)

5.50 The Barrow Port Area Action Plan was adopted in July 2010. As the Action Plan was adopted post 2004, as part of the Local Development Framework, the NPPF affords it full weight in planning policy consideration until 27 March 2013. After this date, the policies, like those of the Local Plan Review and the Housing Chapter Alteration now, will be afforded weight according to their consistency with the NPPF.

5.51 The Barrow Port Area Action Plan proposes large scale regeneration of some 240 hectares of land in mixed use including Ramsden, Buccleuch and Cavendish Docks. Successful regeneration of the Action Plan Area and the wider Borough is focussed on the comprehensive development of the designated sites, which has been supported and informed by feasibility studies and masterplanning work over a number of years. As such the Council supports proposals that contribute to the identified strategic aims and that will not result in conflict with neighbouring uses.

5.52 The proposed DCO boundary for the power station includes a number of sites previously allocated within the Barrow Port Area Action Plan for housing, commercial and environmental development. The Key Sites included within the boundary for the DCO are Key Site 1: Barrow Marina, Key Site 2: Marina Village Housing, Key Site 3: Land at Cavendish Dock, Key Site 4: Barrow Watersports Centre and Key Site 5: Salthouse Housing. These sites are affected to varying degrees by the proposal, either through physical proximity, access requirements, engineering and construction works or new structures depending on their location.

5.53 The extract below illustrates the boundary of the Area Action Plan and the key sites within it.

Extract from Proposals Map, Barrow Borough Council ©

5.54 The relevant Action Plan policies are outlined below:

• Policy BP SV1 outlines the strategic vision for the Area focusing on the redevelopment and regeneration of the area whilst safeguarding the ongoing operation of the port. • Policy BP SV2 outlines how the strategic vision (BPSV1) will be realized by the development of key sites, these include Marina Village, Land at Cavendish Dock and Salthouse Housing which are within the DCO boundary. • Policy BP 4 supports the preservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including protected species, priority species and priority habitat. Cavendish Dock is designated as a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. • Policy BP 8 supports the ongoing operation and commercial development of the port. A number of new facilities are proposed at the port. • Policy BP 9 promotes the development of a range of tourism and leisure facilities which complement regeneration activities and support mixed use development. • Policy BP 15 outlines the contributions required by developers to secure the sympathetic comprehensive development of the Area. • Policy BP 18 outlines the development of Marina Village, a key site designation within the Action Plan which will provide a sustainable waterfront location for a mixed use development including alongside housing; leisure, business and open space.

• Policy BP 19 designates land for the enhancement and development of Cavendish Dock as a wildlife attraction, with enhanced public access and visitor facilities whilst protecting the integrity of the environmental designations at the Dock. • Policy BP 20 allocates an area of land between Cavendish and Ramsden Dock for a Watersports Centre. • Policy BP 21 allocates an area of land of nearly 8 hectares for 250 dwellings and high quality open space to support wildlife habitats.

Other Relevant Plans and Strategies

The Waterfront, Barrow-in-Furness

5.55 The ‘Waterfront Barrow-in-Furness’ project as set out in the statutory development plan – the Barrow Port Area Action Plan, will incorporate 925 new houses, 650 at the new ‘Marina Village’; a 350 berth marina, new and enhanced water sports facilities and a new regionally significant employment site at the Waterfront Business Park. The comprehensive mixed-use development of this part of Barrow represents perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity to deliver transformational change in Barrow and the wider Furness Peninsula.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2012

5.56 This study examines the current and likely future housing market in terms of both the number and types of dwellings that may be required, including the need for affordable housing. It provides a range of information on the demographic and economic context of the Borough and analyses a range of scenarios and predictions to inform housing and other planning policy.

5.57 The overall aim of the SHMA is to provide an evidence base from which future housing and planning policies can be developed. These policies and the number of dwellings required in the future and their location within the borough is reliant on a number of factors including investment, job creation, population migration and the existing sites for housing that are already allocated. Proposals affecting the housing allocations of Marina Village and Salthouse Housing may have a negative impact on the housing supply.

Appraisal of Relevant Policy

5.58 The proposal submitted by Centrica RPS outlines the positive socio-economic outcomes of the development including the creation of jobs. The Planning Statement is detailed and correctly asserts that the proposals, in part, are consistent with local policy.

5.59 However Barrow Borough Council is concerned that the thrust of the Barrow Port Area Action Plan may be undermined, by the piecemeal development of small parcels of land contrary to the allocations set out in the Plan.

5.60 It is not clear the extent to which some land included within the DCO boundary such as Cavendish Dock Road will be used and whether this may preclude other uses or access. The Action Plan is clear that the principal vehicular access to Marina Village should be via Cavendish Dock Road. If Centrica RPS were to acquire permanent use over Cavendish Dock Road this would severely prejudice the development of Marina Village. This would not be acceptable to the Council. However, the Council accept that access to the retained port land is required and propose an agreement is reached whereby an alternative route to Cavendish Dock Road for port related traffic providing access to the port land to the south is provided.

5.61 The site of Salthouse Housing in particular will be bisected by the creation of a new railway line which could separate the proposed housing from the open space required by Policy BP21 raising issues of access and safety. The proposed railway line may also affect wildlife habitats in the location.

5.62 Cavendish Dock is designated as a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The importance of the site in terms of ecology means that the proposals raise significant concerns. Both the Local Plan Review 1996-2006 and the Barrow Port Area Action Plan place a high value of protection on these ecological features. Land at Cavendish Dock is allocated in the Action Plan as a wildlife attraction providing environmental enhancement for natural habitats and appropriate recreational use. The Council is concerned about the cumulative effect of the proposals on Cavendish Dock and all other designated sites within and adjacent to the DCO boundary.

5.63 The proposal includes the construction of a new railway bridge which would include the infilling of a small area of Cavendish Dock. The Council wishes to protect the environmental and amenity value of Cavendish Dock, however should this new rail link go ahead the Council would expect that the bridge be able to accommodate pedestrians to improve accessibility linkages between Cavendish Dock Trail and the surrounding footpath network.

5.64 The proposals could have a significant impact upon various allocations within the Action Plan, both in terms of physical proximity and visual impact. The linked nature of the proposed developments at the existing power station site and through Cavendish Dock to Ramsden Dock would remove the legible routes outlined in the Action Plan, and may preclude future accessibility.

5.65 The visual impact of the power station may also impact on the potential of both Salthouse and Marina Village to be developed for housing as the proposal may not be compatible with the creation of an attractive environment for residential development. If residential development did not go ahead on these sites other elements of the Plan would also be compromised.

5.66 Barrow Borough Council believes the successful regeneration of the area requires comprehensive development of sites within the Plan. The proposal in its entirety is therefore not in accordance with the Development Plan.

6.0 GENERAL APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is acknowledged that Centrica RPS has provided a substantial set of documentation as part of their application process for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the proposed Biomass Power Station at Roosecote, Barrow. However, it is considered that in many of the key topic areas covered in the Environmental Statements and other documentation, the applicant’s assessments have been found by Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council to be either: lacking, deficient/insufficient or inconsistent with nationally agreed standards of best practice, as set out in the findings below.

6.2 The problem has been compounded by the fact that a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA), although drafted, has yet to be signed at the time of drafting this Local Impact Report (21/09/12). Due to the very tight time constraints involved in drafting this Local Impact Report and in order to ensure that it has been signed off by the respective Council’s Committee cycles within the timescales set out in the Planning Act 2008, the joint Local Authorities have had to commission in some instances, and at financial risk, limited independent assessments of the applicant’s submissions.

6.3 For several areas of the submission it has therefore been difficult for Barrow Borough Council and Cumbria County Council to carry out a comprehensive independent assessment of all the effects of the development on the local area, given the shortcomings in the applicant’s formal DCO submission. In light of these points, it is considered likely and it is recommended that the National Infrastructure Directorate will need to itself source further independent work in order for it to adequately assess the full impacts of the development on Barrow and the surrounding area.

6.4 The following therefore contains the joint Council’s findings and assessment of the applicant’s Development Consent Order Environmental Impact Assessment of the impacts of the development upon the local area. In the case of Air Quality, Landscape & Visual, and Ecology matters, the joint Authorities have commissioned external consultants to carry out the assessment of the applicant’s submission involving White Young Green Environment (WYG Group) and AEA Technology respectively, as outlined above.

6.5 For each sub-heading below, the applicant’s own findings are summarised, which is then followed by Barrow Borough Council/Cumbria County Council’s joint independent assessment and findings in response. There are two Appendices to this Local Impact Report, which contain the joint Authority’s detailed findings relating to Ecology and Ornithology prepared by their consultants White Young Green (Appendix 1), and a full set of Minutes to the Barrow Local Committee dated 6 th September 2012 (Appendix 2). Where the matter is to be considered separately by external bodies such as the Environment Agency, this is then made clear for the purposes of completeness (e.g. Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk, Aviation & Telecommunications). A conclusion at the end summarises the key findings of the joint Authorities. The following follows the headings in the applicant’s own Environmental Statements assessments.

Air Quality and Odour

Applicant’s assessment

6.6 The applicant states in their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that the proposed biomass facility will be designed to minimise emissions from the stack using Best Available Techniques (BAT) and to treat any residual emissions by flue gas treatment prior to their release. The existing gas-fired power station operates under a permit granted in 2006. The proposed biomass would operate under a variation of the same permit. In addition, because the plant would be utilising recycled/waste wood as a fuel, the emissions would comply with the limits specified European Union (EU) Industrial Emissions Directive (IED).

6.7 During operation, the principal source of atmospheric emissions would be residual levels of pollutants exhausted from the stack after treatment in the Flue Gas Treatment system (FGT). On the basis of some dispersion modelling work completed for the design site, a 90m high stack has been determined as being appropriate to minimise ground level pollutant concentrations, which would be well within current air quality objectives and limit values for health.

6.8 Road, ship and train emissions have been considered in the air quality assessment, and the applicant claims that no significant impacts are predicted due to the proposals in isolation or in combination with emissions from the exhaust stack. The applicant states that during construction, the potential effects on air quality arising from construction activities at the site have been assessed based on the London Best Practice Guidelines for Construction Dust, and implementation of dust management would ensure that the effects would be minimised.

6.9 This aspect of the proposal will be assessed by Barrow Borough Council as part of their statutory responsibilities, which will be included in the County Council’s Local Impact report.

Local Authority Assessment

6.10 AEA Technology has carried out a critical review of the information relating to air quality, health and nature conservation sites, on behalf of Barrow Borough Council. The aim of this Study is to provide advice to Barrow BC, to assist the Council in responding to the consultation programme co-ordinated by the NID within the specified timetable. In order to achieve this aim, the issues identified with regard to the air quality aspects of the Development Consent Order application have been prioritised. A recommendation is provided to the Council in respect of each issue identified. The findings of this review are set out in the following sections: air quality; health risk assessment; and nature conservation, with overall conclusions at the end.

Comments on Air Quality

6.11 This section sets out comments on the air quality study described in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5-1 of the Environmental Statement for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station. In general terms, the study has:

• Used appropriate air quality and population exposure model systems, and relevant meteorological data • Covered an appropriate range of airborne pollutants, and draws on an appropriate range of data on baseline air quality • Considered an appropriate set of air quality and health-based standards.

6.12 Specific comments on the air quality study are given in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Comments on air quality study

No. Description Significance Recommendation

Environmental Statement Chapter 5

AQ1 5.1.4: The chapter indicates that removal of waste Medium It is recommended materials, particularly ash, comprises a potential that further source of emissions. The air quality study addresses information should the control and handling of dust from air pollution be provided on the control residues, but does not describe the handling, proposals for storage and transfer of other ash streams with regard handling, storage to the control and assessment of dust emissions. and transfer of other ash streams; dust control measures; and an assessment of the potential impact of dust emitted from these ash streams.

AQ2 5.2.3, 5.7.28, 5.9.5: The chapter highlights guidance in High It is recommended the EN-1 policy statement 1 that “ air quality that the NID should considerations will also be important where substantial note these changes in air quality levels are expected, even if this substantial forecast does not lead to any breaches of national air quality increases in levels limits. ” of air pollution in Substantial changes in air quality are indicated in the the context of the following sections in the Environmental Statement: relevant EN-1 policy statement. • Table 5.4 indicates a short-term process EN-1 advises that contribution of up to 34% of the air quality standard these air quality for nitrogen dioxide and 40% for sulphur dioxide considerations • Table 5.16 indicates a long-term process should be viewed contribution of 9% of the air quality standard for as important. nitrogen dioxide and 13% for cadmium • Table 5.18 indicates a long-term process contribution of 47% of the air quality standard for arsenic • Comment AQ24 below indicates a potentially significant process contribution to chromium VI, if not satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant • Comment AQ25 below indicates a potentially significant process contribution to deposition of

1 Department of Energy and Climate Change, “ Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), ” July 2011

No. Description Significance Recommendation cadmium, mercury and arsenic, if not satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant. These increases would be described as “large” or “very large” using the criteria set out in Table 5.11. In this context, the contributions may be considered “substantial” for the purposes of evaluation against the criteria in EN-1. In the context of the EN-1 statement, it cannot be concluded that the effects are generally “negligible” (section 5.7.28) or “minor” (section 5.9.5).

AQ3 5.3.8: This section confirms that Industrial Emissions Advisory Directive limits have been applied to the assessment. This was checked and confirmed.

AQ4 5.3.8: Emission concentrations of 10 mg/Nm 3 for Medium It is recommended ammonia and 0.01 mg/Nm 3 of benz(a)pyrene were that the used. The basis for these emission concentrations Environment should be specified to confirm that these emission Agency should levels are achievable, and these emission limits should specify these limits be written in to any environmental permit for the in any proposed facility. environmental permit for the proposed facility.

AQ5 Table 5.1: The hourly mean Environmental Quality Low No action required. Standard for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in this table should be 6.0 rather than 0.6 as stated.

AQ6 Table 5.2: The applicant states that emissions to air Advisory were assessed on the basis of compliance with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) irrespective of fuel make-up. It is confirmed that, provided a worst-case approach to flue gas volumes has been adopted, this approach to the study is appropriate.

AQ7 Table 5.2: The Infrastructure Planning Commission High It is recommended (IPC) confirmed that the applicant will need to consider that a risk-based “fugitive [dust] emissions arising from storage and and/or quantitative transportation of biomass material.” The applicant’s assessment of dust response confirms that transport exhaust emissions from the storage and construction dust have been considered, but does and handling of not address fugitive dust from storage and handling of biomass material biomass material. This was a key concern raised should be carried during the consultation process by Barrow BC. out.

AQ8 Table 5.2: The Applicant confirmed that no effect on Advisory the Kendal Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) would be expected due to stack emissions or traffic emissions. In view of the distance to the Kendal AQMA and the expected routeing of traffic, this approach is reasonable.

AQ9 Table 5.2: The Applicant suggested that recycled Low It is recommended waste wood would be sourced from within 10 km of the that confirmation proposed development. It seems unlikely, at first sight, should be provided that a significant quantity of waste wood could be of the search area obtained in such a small zone, and it may be worth for recycled waste confirming this point with the Applicant. wood.

No. Description Significance Recommendation

AQ10 Table 5.2: It is suggested that consultations are Low Barrow BC may ongoing with the local authority regarding matters such wish to challenge as odour and dust nuisance. one or both of It is suggested that a response is awaited from these assertions if “council’s air quality consultants relating to the scope of such consultations proposed monitoring. ” The report does not specify are not in fact which Council is referred to (e.g. Barrow BC or ongoing. Cumbria County Council).

AQ11 Table 5.3: The assessment in relation to the Habitats High See Chapter 4. Directive is carried out on the basis that an impact of less than 1% of the relevant Critical Level/Critical Load can be screened out of requiring Appropriate Assessment. AEA’s view is that this criterion cannot necessarily be applied in this way. This is discussed further in Chapter 4.

AQ12 Table 5.3: Consultation feedback from INS, operator of Medium It is recommended a nearby port facility serving the nuclear industry, that the NID should expresses concern with regard to the potential impact seek the views of of dust on its personnel and equipment. Depending on INS as to whether the nature of this equipment, this may require a the construction bespoke assessment to evaluate and control potential and operational dust impacts on this facility. phase dust assessments are adequate for their purposes.

AQ13 Table 5.4: “1 Anon Street” should read “1 Anson Editorial Street”.

AQ14 5.5.16 and 5.7.6-5.7.9: The ES refers to the IAQM Low It is recommended guidelines for assessment of the effects of construction that the applicant dust on air quality. 2 This guidance provides a should explain how structured basis for the assessment of dust. A the IAQM structured risk assessment is set out in Appendix 5.1. guidelines have The findings of this assessment should be set out in been used in the the main text of the ES, and/or the links between the assessment of ES text and the technical appendix should be made construction dust clearer. on air quality.

AQ15 5.5.21-23: It is asserted that construction phase traffic Low It is recommended will not exceed the criteria set out in section 5.5.21. that verification of The potential effect of construction traffic on traffic the assessment of flows, speeds and road alignments should be road traffic during confirmed in more detail, e.g. by reference to the the construction forecast number of vehicles during construction and phase should be the capacity of local road junctions. provided.

AQ16 5.5.29: This section describes the EPUK descriptors Low It is recommended for nitrogen dioxide. An equivalent set of descriptors that the applicant are provided for PM 10 . These descriptors should also should use the be used for consistency. EPUK descriptors for PM 10 , as for nitrogen dioxide.

2 Institute of Air Quality Management, “ Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance ,” January 2012

No. Description Significance Recommendation

AQ17 Table 5.10: The criterion for requiring detailed air Advisory quality modelling for short term concentrations is:

PC short-term > 20% of (short-term EAL/EQS minus twice the long-term background concentration) However, the applicant has provided modelling of PC short-term for all relevant parameters, irrespective of an assessment against this criterion.

AQ18 5.5.49, 5.5.53: It is not usual to include an assessment Medium It is recommended of HCl and HF emissions in relation to critical loads for that the applicant acid deposition. Critical loads are provided for should explain how nitrogen-derived acid and sulphur-derived acid, but not modelled acid for chlorine- or fluorine-derived acid. The report states deposition due to that “the predicted N, S, Cl and F depositions were HCl and HF has added” but it is not clear how this summed value was been included in assessed against the critical loads for nitrogen- and the assessment of sulphur-derived acid. The “Assessment of Air Quality acid deposition. Impacts on Statutory and Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites” refers to hydrogen chloride but not to hydrogen fluoride, and does not specify how the summed values were assessed against critical loads.

AQ19 5.5.51: This section sets out deposition velocities used High It is recommended in the assessment. These values are recommended that deposition at by the Environment Agency for use in assessing designated sites deposition at grassland habitat sites. A different set of which are better deposition velocities is recommended by the represented by the Environment Agency for modelling deposition at deposition woodland sites. The values for woodland sites are velocities for approximately twice the values for grassland sites, and “woodland” should would result in a higher modelled impact at relevant be re-evaluated. sites (see also Chapter 4).

AQ20 Table 5.13: The values used to represent baseline air Medium It is recommended quality levels are generally reasonable. In the case of that an evaluation cadmium, manganese and antimony, higher levels should be carried were recorded during the site survey than those out of the recorded in this table. It would be preferable, in sensitivity of the principle, to use the site survey values, where these study conclusions are higher than those recorded at the remote location. to the levels of For thallium, a baseline level was recorded in the cadmium, baseline survey, but not used in this assessment. It manganese, would be preferable to use the level recorded during antimony and the baseline survey rather than have no value for thallium recorded baseline levels of thallium. during the site survey.

AQ21 Table 5.13: No value for the baseline level of ammonia Medium It is recommended at local receptors or designated habitat sites is that an evaluation recorded in this table. should be carried out of the results at human sensitive locations and designated habitat sites in the context of an appropriate baseline level of

No. Description Significance Recommendation ammonia.

AQ22 Table 5.16: The maximum modelled level of High It is recommended benz(a)pyrene [B(a)P] is given as 2.5 × 10 -7 µg/m 3. that the forecast This modelled concentration would be consistent with a levels of discharge concentration of 0.00001 mg/Nm3. benz(a)pyrene However, Appendix 5.1 Section 5.37 indicates that the should be re- discharge concentration of B(a)P is 0.01 mg/Nm 3. This evaluated in the indicates that the maximum modelled concentration of light of these B(a)P in Table 5.16 should read 2.5 × 10 -4 µg/m 3. This comments. is equivalent to a process contribution (PC) of 100% of the air quality standard, and when combined with baseline levels of up to 1.22 × 10 -4 µg/m 3, the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) would exceed the air quality standard.

AQ23 Table 5.19: the last two comments should be headed Editorial “Max PEC ” and “Max PEC as % of EQS”

AQ24 5.7.26 and Table 5.20: This section uses data in High It is recommended Appendix B of the Environment Agency’s guidance that the applicant note 3 for the Step 3 assessment of Chromium VI. This should provide Appendix provides data on emissions of chromium VI justification that the recorded at ten municipal waste incinerators. The data used by the emissions data are at much lower levels than the levels applicant is used in the Step 2 assessment for Chromium VI, representative of resulting in minimal forecast impact due to Chromium the proposed VI. The Environment Agency guidance note states: facility. If this is not “Appendix B contains our own analysis data for Cr(VI) forthcoming, the in APC residues and calculated Cr(VI) emissions data Step 2 results set that applicants might wish to use if they can justify it as out in Tables 5.18 representative. ” In this case, the applicant has not and 5.19 should be given any justification that data recorded at MWI considered as the facilities is representative of emissions from the best available for proposed facility the purposes of assessment of chromium VI. These results indicate a forecast exceedance of the relevant air quality guideline.

AQ25 Table 5.21: The modelled deposition rates are High It is recommended estimated on the basis of a deposition velocity of 0.01 that the Applicant m/s. Environment Agency guidance indicates that this should provide a deposition velocity represents dry deposition only, and revised the modelled deposition rates should be multiplied by 3 assessment of to represent both dry and wet deposition processes. deposition in the Even using the quoted deposition velocity, the values light of these quoted in this table cannot be reconciled with the comments. modelled concentrations reported in Tables 5.16 and See also AQ2. 5.18 – for example, the modelled deposition rates for Group 9 metals should all be the same value using this method.

3 Environment Agency, “ Guidance to Applicants on Impact Assessment for Group 3 Metals Stack Releases, ” V.2 June 2011

No. Description Significance Recommendation The results were re-analysed using the Environment Agency’s Step 2 approach (each group 3 metal present at 11% of the emission limit). Results given in mg/m 2- day. Pollutant Maximum Maximum PC as a deposition deposition % of the rate EAL rate EAL across model domain

Cadmium 0.009 0.00165 18%

Mercury 0.004 0.00329 82%

Arsenic 0.02 0.00366 18% Chromium 1.5 0.00366 0.24%

Copper 0.25 0.00366 1.5%

Lead 1.1 0.00366 0.33%

Nickel 0.11 0.00366 3.3%

The highest modelled deposition rate is 82% of the specified maximum deposition rate in the case of mercury. There is no information on background deposition rates of these metals. This should be viewed as a potentially significant impact of the proposed development.

AQ26 5.7.32: This section provides useful commitments with Medium In view of the respect to control of dust from storage and handling of Council’s concerns biomass associated with the proposed facility. It will be regarding this important to ensure that these controls are made matter, it is binding on the operator. recommended that The section states that “all biomass is contained during the applicant transfer from the ship to the discharge hopper,” and should provide “the discharge hopper would be fitted with dust controls further details of to ensure that there are no significant dust emissions dust control during resulting from the ship unloading.” It is not clear that transfer of dust emissions could be fully contained during the materials from ship transfer operation, as there would need to be an to discharge opening into the hopper for materials to be discharged hopper, and from the “orange peel” grab. No details are provided of transfer for onward the containment/mitigation of dust emissions during the transportation, with discharge of materials into the hopper. commitments regarding the Consultation was carried out with South Tyneside specific dust Borough Council (STBC). STBC has experienced dust control measures issues associated with the handling of biomass pellets to be used. at the Port of Tyne, with complaints received at distances of up to 700 m from the port area. The friable and low density nature of the pellets contributes to the existence of dust issues. At this site, the original hopper design was inadequate, and significant investment was required in a larger hopper funnel with an air curtain system for control of dust. The STBC

No. Description Significance Recommendation officer remained unconvinced that this represents Best Practicable Means for control of dust, because dust emissions continue to be influenced by external wind- speeds. It is understood that a similar facility at Tilbury, Essex uses a vacuum extraction system which may be preferable from the perspective of dust control, but that this system has encountered difficulties with the generation of heat within the biomass resulting in a fire risk. The Port of Tyne facility uses enclosed transfer from the quayside facility to onward rail transfer with air extraction and treatment using bag filters. No significant odour issues have arisen in relation to the Port of Tyne biomass handling facility.

AQ27 5.7.73: The figure 1.33 µg/m 3 should read 1.30 µg/m 3. Editorial

AQ28 5.7.78: The assessment of emissions from Sunrise Medium It is recommended Pyrolysis facility focuses only on levels of nitrogen that a more dioxide. The Sunrise Pyrolysis facility could in principle comprehensive emit the same range of pollutants as those emitted assessment of from the proposed biomass facility. The assessment of cumulative impacts cumulative impacts should be extended to include associated with the reference to these potential emissions Sunrise Pyrolysis facility should be carried out.

AQ29 5.7.36: This section provides the only assessment of Medium It is recommended odour due to the proposed facility: “ As the biomass that a more (either wood chip or pellets) would be stored and comprehensive maintained in dry conditions, odour due to the fuel is odour assessment not anticipated .” This does not accord with the should be carried statement in Table 5.2: “ A qualitative assessment of out. the odour potential of the proposed fuel options has been undertaken and is detailed in the appropriate section of the PEI. ” An appropriate qualitative assessment could set out the odours associated with the proposed fuels in terms of the nature and intensity of odours. Contingency issues should be considered: for example, the risk of degradation of materials resulting in odours in the event of poor storage conditions en route to the proposed facility or in the event of a delay in process operation. Reference could be made to operational experience at comparable facilities.

AQ30 Technical Appendix 5.1 Para 5.6: This section Low It is recommended mentions ultrafine particles, but there is no further that the Applicant discussion of this issue. Facilities such as the should provide proposed development are not normally significant further information contributors to exposure to airborne particulate matter; on ultrafine however, it would nevertheless be helpful if the particulate matter. application provided an assessment of ultrafine particulate matter, covering issues such as: • The proportion of ultrafine particles in emissions from EfW facilities • The effectiveness of abatement of ultrafine

No. Description Significance Recommendation particulate matter • The significance of these emissions in the context of other sources of emissions • Evidence for a detectable/undetectable contribution to levels of ultrafine particulate matter due to emissions from comparable combustion facilities

6.13 The Environment Agency H1 guidance document 4 includes a checklist for model studies. This contains the following items:

Table 2: Model checklist

Item Comment Item Comment Location map Provided Details of modelled Provided domain and receptors Site plan Provided Details of Provided meteorological data used (including origin) and justification List of Provided Details of terrain Provided pollutants treatment modelled and relevant air quality guidelines Details of Provided Details of building Provided modelled treatment scenarios Details of Provided (see comments AQ20 Sensitivity analysis Provided (sensitivity to relevant and AQ21 above) meteorological data ambient and decrease in concentrations building height only) used Model Provided Assessment of impacts Provided (see description comments above) and justification Special model Provided Model input files Not provided, but treatments model results checked used Table of Provided emission parameters used

6.14 The modelling study carried out by the applicant was reproduced so far as possible using the ADMS model system. So far as possible, model inputs were set up to replicate those used by the applicant. It was not possible to completely reproduce the applicant’s modelling study in the following regards:

4 Environment Agency (2010), “ Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT: IPPC H1 Horizontal Guidance Note ”

• Meteorological data for Walney Island was not readily available without incurring significant cost. The model was run using five years of meteorological data recorded at the nearby Fleetwood meteorological station which was available at no cost and provides a reasonable representation of meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the proposed facility. • A near-field variable surface roughness file was used to represent the different influences of urban, rural and sea areas on atmospheric structure. As the dimensions of this surface roughness file were not specified in the application, it is likely that this will differ from that used by the Applicant’s study. However, the variable surface roughness files would be expected to have a similar influence on dispersion of emissions from the proposed facility. • Because of model running time constraints, it was not possible to set up a variable terrain file. As terrain slopes in the local area are typically less than 1 in 10, this is considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the model forecasts.

6.15 In all other respects, the model set-up was identical to that reported by the Applicant in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5.1 of the Environmental Statement. The ADMS model was used to identify the highest forecast concentrations of released substances, for comparison with the levels reported in Tables 5.14 and 5.16 of the Environmental Statement. A comparison of the modelled levels reported in the Environmental Statement, and those identified in the cross-check study is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of modelled levels reported in the Environmental Statement with cross-check study

Process Environmental Process contribution Contribution from Statement value as from cross-check study 3 Environmental % of cross-check (µg/m ) Substance Averaging period Statement (µg/m 3) study value Scenario Scenari Scenario Scenario Scenari Scenario 1 2 o 1 2 1 o 2 Particulate Annual mean 0.29 0.25 85% matter (PM 10 ) Particulate 90.4th percentile of 1.04 0.96 92% matter (PM 10 ) 24 hour means Particulate Annual mean 0.29 0.25 85% matter (PM 2.5 ) Hydrogen Maximum hourly 25.4 4.2 35.6 5.94 140% 141% chloride mean Hydrogen Annual mean 0.029 0.03 103% fluoride Hydrogen Maximum hourly 1.7 0.42 2.4 0.59 142% 140% fluoride mean Carbon Maximum 8 hour 15.7 24.91 159% monoxide mean 99.9th percentile of Sulphur dioxide 81 20.2 106.8 26.69 132% 132% 15 minute means 99.7th percentile of Sulphur dioxide 73 18.2 95.9 23.99 132% 132% hourly means

Process Environmental Process contribution Contribution from Statement value as from cross-check study 3 Environmental % of cross-check (µg/m ) 3 Substance Averaging period Statement (µg/m ) study value Scenario Scenari Scenario Scenario Scenari Scenario 1 2 o 1 2 1 o 2 99.2nd percentile of Sulphur dioxide 10.1 10.41 103% 24 hour means Sulphur dioxide Annual mean 1.46 1.27 87% (vegetation) Nitrogen Annual mean 4.1 3.56 87% dioxide Nitrogen 99.79th percentile of 51 25.4 68.1 34.05 134% 134% dioxide hourly means Oxides of nitrogen 11.7 5.9 (vegetation) Ammonia Annual mean 0.29 0.25 85% Maximum hourly Ammonia 4.23 5.94 141% mean Ammonia Annual mean 0.29 0.25 85% (vegetation) 6.37 × 10 - Cadmium Annual mean 0.00073 4 87%

6.37 × 10 - Thallium Annual mean 0.00073 87% 4 Maximum hourly 1.48 × 10 - Thallium 0.011 140% mean 1 1.27 × 10 - Mercury Annual mean 0.0015 87% 3 Maximum hourly 2.97 × 10 - Mercury 0.021 141% mean 2 1.27 × 10 - Antimony Annual mean 0.0146 87% 2 Maximum hourly 2.97 × 10 - Antimony 0.21 1 141% mean 1.27 × 10 - Arsenic Annual mean 0.0146 2 87%

1.27 × 10 - Lead Annual mean 0.0146 87% 2 1.27 × 10 - Chromium Annual mean 0.0146 87% 2 Maximum hourly 2.97 × 10 - Chromium 0.21 141% mean 1 2.54 × 10 - Chromium VI Annual mean 0.0029 87% 3 1.27 × 10 - Cobalt Annual mean 0.0146 87% 2 Maximum hourly 2.97 × 10 - Cobalt 0.21 1 141% mean 1.27 × 10 - Copper Annual mean 0.0146 87% 2 Maximum hourly 2.97 × 10 - Copper 0.21 141% mean 1 1.27 × 10 - Manganese Annual mean 0.0146 87% 2 Maximum hourly 2.97 × 10 - Manganese 0.21 141% mean 1

Nickel Annual mean 0.0146 1.27 × 10 - 87%

Process Environmental Process contribution Contribution from Statement value as from cross-check study 3 Environmental % of cross-check (µg/m ) 3 Substance Averaging period Statement (µg/m ) study value Scenario Scenari Scenario Scenario Scenari Scenario 1 2 o 1 2 1 o 2 2

1.27 × 10 - Vanadium Annual mean 0.0146 2 87%

Maximum 24 hour 1.34 × 10 - Vanadium mean 1 - Dioxins and -9 2.55 × 10 Annual mean 2.9 × 10 87% furans ITEQ 9

PAHs - 2.50 × 10 1 (benz(a)pyrene Annual mean 0.00029 7 0%

) Note 1: See comment AQ22.

6.16 The levels obtained in the cross-check study were within ±50% of the levels reported in the Environmental Statement. The Environmental Statement levels are no lower than 85% of the cross-check study values, other than in the case of benz(a)pyrene as discussed in Comment AQ22 above. The differences between the two datasets are due to the unavoidable differences between the two modelling studies set out above. On this basis, it is concluded that no systematic errors have been identified in the modelling work carried out by Applicant.

6.17 If desired, model input files could be obtained from the Applicant and audited in more detail. However, the cross-check modelling study described above indicates that there would be little to be gained from this, and it is recommended that this is unlikely to be an effective use of resources.

Health Risk Assessment

6.18 This chapter sets out comments on the human health risk assessment described in Appendix A to the Health Impact Assessment for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station.

6.19 Our review has found that in general terms, the study has used appropriate methods and inputs. In the absence of a UK based health assessment model the applicant has used the United States Environmental Protection Agency Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP). This methodology is widely used in the UK for carrying out health assessments. The assessment draws on worst-case scenarios for receptors assuming that multiple exposure conditions apply to all pathways of exposure in each land use situation considered. As well as considering potential exposure in residential and farming situations, the study also considers an exposure pathway due to the consumption of potentially contaminated fish.

6.20 The study considers the chronic effect of long term exposure to a range of air pollutants prescribed by the Waste Incineration Directive, namely metals and non- volatile organic chemicals such as dioxins/furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (considered as benzo(a)pyrene) and polychlorinated biphenyls. The

health assessment does not consider the acute effects of other air pollutants (e.g. direct effects of fine particulates and nitrogen dioxide etc). Compliance with National Air Quality Objectives would be expected to provide adequate protection in respect of these pollutants.

6.21 The assessment derives the pollution loading on the basis of the emission limits contained in the Waste Incineration Directive, representing worst case contributions from the proposed site. The health risk assessment was focused on the location with the highest exposure; for a residential receptor this was receptor location 33 and for a farmer receptor this was receptor location 11.

6.22 The assessment considers three main scenarios: residential receptors; a farming receptor, and a fish eater receptor. In line with Government guidelines the assessment focuses on the worst case receptor, which in this case was a child receptor, aged 0-6. The exposure routes applied in the assessment assumed that:

• Residential receptors consume home grown produce • Farming receptors consume home-grown produce, meat, eggs and milk subject to the highest pollutant exposure • The fish eater receptor was the same as the residential receptor, with the addition of a potential exposure pathway via contaminated fish (see Comment HH2 below).

6.23 The main scenarios selected are considered to provide a worst case view of the potential exposure.

6.24 The effects of exposure to the pollutants of concern have been investigated in a number of ways:

• As estimates of threshold and non-threshold risks associated with exposure to pollutants of concern

• As estimates of threshold and non-threshold risks associated with pathways of exposure

• As estimates of blood levels associated with exposure to lead

• As estimates of infant exposure via breast milk to pollutants of concern

• As estimates of the soil concentration at the most affected receptors compared to typical baseline and guideline soil concentrations

• As estimates of the concentration of certain metals in commonly eaten food items, these being compared to national standards.

6.25 The assessment shows that:

• For relevant pollutants the exposure to non-threshold risks for metals and BaP are less than the health criteria value in all scenarios considered (however, see Comments HH1 and HH2 below) • For relevant pollutants the exposure to threshold risks for metals are less than the health criteria value in all scenarios considered. Similarly, when the background concentrations and the process contributions are combined the exposure are less than the health criteria value in all scenarios considered (however, see Comments HH1 and HH2 below) • The forecast exposures to dioxins/furans and dioxin-like PCBs are a small fraction (3% or less) of the health criteria value • The predicted levels of lead in air and soil are no more than a small fraction (3% or less) of the guideline/objective levels • The predicted soil concentrations at key receptors are low compared to mean rural and urban soil levels and soil guideline values, other than for mercury which was comparable to mean rural levels • The predicted concentration of pollutants in foodstuffs is low compared to UK standards, with the exception of mercury, for which the forecast level was 79% of the relevant standard. 6.26 Some issues in relation to the assessment are set out in Table 4 below.

6.27 The study concludes that potential exposure to the emissions from the proposed site will not pose a significant risk to the residential or farmer receptors in the vicinity of the proposed facility. The methodology and subsequent data supported this conclusion in most cases, with the exception of the issues highlighted in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Detailed comments on human health risk assessment

No. Description Significance Recommendation

HIA Appendix A: Human health risk assessment

HH1 2.2.10: This section appears to use data from High It is recommended Appendix B of the Environment Agency’s guidance that the applicant note on assessment of Group 3 metals as the basis should confirm that for the assessment of Chromium VI. This Appendix the data used is provides data on emissions of chromium VI recorded representative of the at ten municipal waste incinerators. The Environment proposed facility. If Agency guidance note states: “ Appendix B contains this is not our own analysis data for Cr(VI) in APC residues and forthcoming, the calculated Cr(VI) emissions data that applicants might study results in wish to use if they can justify it as representative. ” In respect of chromium this case, the applicant has not given any justification VI should not be that data recorded at MWI facilities is representative considered as of emissions from the proposed facility (see also reliable. AQ24).

H2 4.4.2, Table 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4.4.10 and subsequent High It is recommended discussion: Ingestion of resident exposure, including that the potential consideration of ingestion via fish consumption, was exposure of resident

No. Description Significance Recommendation modelled for Receptor 33 (referred to as Receptor and fish-eater 33a when considering fish consumption). However, receptors at Location the potential exposure of a farmer or resident located 33 should be re- at Receptor 11 would be higher than for a resident evaluated, to ensure located at Receptor 33. It is therefore requested that that a worst-case evaluation of potential resident exposure at Receptor approach has been 33 should be replaced by consideration of potential adopted. resident exposure at Receptor 11. Exposure via fish consumption should be assessed for resident and farmer receptors at Location 33. This change could potentially affect the study conclusions with respect to the potential for exposure via fish consumption.

H3 4.4.5, 4.4.10, 4.4.11, 4.4.15: The air quality chapter High It is recommended highlights guidance in EN-1 that “ air quality that the NID should considerations will also be important where note these forecast substantial changes in air quality levels are expected, increases in health even if this does not lead to any breaches of national risks associated with air quality limits. ” air emissions, in the Substantial changes in health impacts due to context of the emissions to air from the proposed facility are relevant EN-1 indicated in the following sections in the guidance document. Environmental Statement: EN-1 advises that such air quality • Section 4.4.5 indicates a long-term process considerations contribution for arsenic of 10.2% of the non- should be viewed as threshold index dose. important. • Section 4.4.10 indicates a long-term process contribution for methyl mercury of 49% of the threshold value. • Section 4.4.11 indicates a long-term process contribution for nickel of 33% of the threshold value. • Section 4.4.15 indicates a long-term process contribution for dioxins and furans of 3% of the tolerable Daily Intake value. • Table 4-10 indicates that the highest contribution to soil levels of mercury would be 13% of the “Soil Acceptable Level”. • Table 4-12 indicates that process emissions could result in levels of mercury in fishery products up to 79% of the maximum permitted level in foodstuffs. • Comments HH1 and HH2 above suggest that exposure levels may be higher in some respects than those set out in the health risk assessment. These contributions may be considered “substantial changes” for the purposes of evaluation against the criteria in EN-1. In the context of the EN-1 guidance, it cannot be necessarily be concluded that “ potential exposure to the facility’s emissions would not pose a significant risk ”

Air Quality Effects on Nature Conservation Sites

6.28 This chapter sets out comments on the assessment of air quality effects on nature conservation sites, described in Appendix 5.2 of the Environmental Statement for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station, entitled “Assessment of air quality impacts on statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites”.

6.29 In general, the study has:

• Used appropriate air quality model systems, and relevant meteorological data • Covered a suitable range of airborne pollutants and drawn on an appropriate range of data on baseline air quality; and • Considered an appropriate set of critical loads and critical levels.

Legislative basis

6.30 Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) states:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.”

6.31 Article 6 of the Habitats Directive applies to Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA), also known as Natura 2000 sites, or ‘European sites’. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (para. 118) states that Ramsar Sites should also be given the same protection as European sites. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (‘the Habitats Regulations’) transpose the Habitats Directive into British law. Regulation 61 requires competent authorities to consider whether an Appropriate Assessment is required.

6.32 Case law (the Waddenzee case, Case C-127/02, 2004, ECR-I, 7405; and Hart DC v Secretary of State, 2008, EWHC, 1204, Admin.) has established that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive demands that competent authorities adopt a precautionary approach, i.e. the implications of any project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site must be subject to an Appropriate Assessment relative to the site’s conservation objectives if a significant effect, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information. Consistent with case law, European Commission (EC) guidance on Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Managing Natura 2000 sites April 2000) states:

“Where a feature for which the site has been selected is already in unfavourable condition or critical thresholds are being exceeded, any additional plan or project that adds further to either the cause of unfavourable condition or the exceeded critical threshold is likely to have a significant effect on the site.”

Screening Threshold

6.33 The ecological evaluation criteria employed for assessing air quality impacts of the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station on statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites (section 3.9 of Appendix 5.2 to the Environmental Statement) refer to the following hierarchy of assessment gleaned from Environment Agency (EA) guidelines 5,6,7:

• If PC (the Process Contribution) < 1% of relevant EQS (Environmental Quality Standards) the emission was considered not significant; • If PC > 1% but the resulting PEC (Predicted Environmental Concentration) 8 < 70% (European and SSSI sites) or 100% (all other designations) of the relevant EQS, the emission was not considered significant; • If PC > 1% and PEC > 70% or 100% (depending upon designation) then emission considered to result in a likely significant effect. 6.34 Appendix 5.2 also cites national guidance 1, which states:

“Where the concentration within the emission footprint in any part of the European site(s) is less than 1% of the relevant long-term benchmark (EAL, Critical Level or Critical Load), the emission is not likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination, irrespective of the background levels.”

6.35 This guidance means that an Appropriate Assessment is not normally undertaken in relation to applications, plans or projects projected to contribute less than the 1% threshold.

6.36 The assessment of the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station places considerable emphasis on the 1% threshold. However, a recent study undertaken by AEA Technology, on behalf of Norfolk County Council, found no technical or scientific basis for the 1% threshold and concluded that its use is inconsistent with the EU Habitats Directive9. As a result, following the precautionary approach required by the EU Habitats Directive, there is a particular need to undertake an Appropriate Assessment in situations where the minimum critical load is already exceeded due to emissions from other sources, even where the 1% threshold is not breached. This is the case for many sites and habitats included in Appendix 5.2.

5 Environment Agency (2007) The EU Habitats and Birds Directive Handbook – Appendix 7, Stage 1 and 2 Assessment of new PIR permissions under the Habitats Regulations. Environment Agency, Bristol. 6 Environment Agency (2012a) Operational Instruction 66_12 Simple assessment of the impact of aerial emissions from new or expanding IPPC regulated Industry for impacts on nature conservation. Environment Agency, Bristol. 7 Environment Agency (2012b) Operational Instruction 67_12 Detailed assessment of the impact of aerial emissions from new and expanding IPPC regulated industry for impacts on nature conservation. Environment Agency, Bristol. 8 PEC = PC + Background Concentration (BC) 9 Smithers, R.J.; Miller, K. and Broomfield, M. (2012) Screening out emissions to air as insignificant for nature conservation. Report for Norfolk County Council. AEA, Didcot.

6.37 On this basis, it is recommended that an Appropriate Assessment of the proposed development should be carried out. The need for an Appropriate Assessment is considered to be an issue of high significance.

6.38 As a typographical comment, in paragraph 4.1.3, “The PEC NH 3 comprises <1% of the EQS” ” should read “The PC NH 3 comprises <1% of the EQS.

Other Issues

Woodland Sites

6.39 As noted in Section 2 (above), RPS has modelled deposition using velocities recommended by the EA for use in assessing impacts on grassland habitats. A different set of deposition velocities is recommended by the EA for modelling deposition at woodland sites. The values for woodland sites are approximately twice the values for grassland sites, and would result in a higher modelled impact at relevant sites. This issue may be of high significance. For example, the PC to acid deposition calculated for the woodland within the Duddon Estuary SSSI (part of Morecambe Bay SAC), using deposition velocities for grassland sites, was only marginally less than 1% of the EQS (0.95%).

6.40 This issue is considered to be of high significance and it is recommended that deposition should be re-evaluated at designated sites which are better represented by the deposition velocities for woodland.

Lichens and bryophytes

6.41 Levels of sulphur dioxide (SO 2) and ammonia (NH3) at each site are assessed against critical levels for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems specified in relevant European Air Quality Directives and corresponding UK air quality -3 -3 -3 regulations (NO x, 30 µg.m ; SO 2, 20 µg.m ; NH 3, 3 µg m ). However, RPS has not applied more stringent critical levels, recommended by the Air Pollution Information System (APIS) ( www.apis.ac.uk ), where lichens are an important -3 component of sites (SO 2 for lichens, 10 µg.m ; NH 3 for lichens and bryophytes,1 µg m -3). This is potentially relevant to two priority natural habitats (denoted by an asterisk in Annex I and II of the Directive for conservation at a European scale) for which Morecambe Bay has been designated a Special Area of Conservation (SAC):

• Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’); Dune grassland • Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea); Coastal dune heathland

6.42 The conservation objectives of this SAC are to maintain the extent and distribution, structure and function, and supporting processes of its constituent habitats. The presence of each of these habitats and the likelihood that they support important lichen and bryophyte communities is considered below.

Dune grassland

6.43 Although, fixed dune vegetation is rich in lichens in areas with a drier and more continental climate, such as Norfolk, and where the substrate is at the acidic end of the spectrum, only the dunes at North End Haws on Walney Island, are acidic. Nevertheless, these may demand comparison of emissions with the more stringent critical levels recommended by APIS.

Coastal dune heathland

6.44 The SSSI citation for Duddon Estuary notes that dune heath has developed on thinner drier soils at North Walney where the sward is dominated by ericaceous shrubs with a mosaic of mosses and lichens. Therefore, this site may also demand comparison of emissions with the more stringent critical levels recommended by APIS.

6.45 This issue is considered to be of high significance and it is recommended that impacts on these habitats should be re-evaluated against the more demanding assessment benchmarks.

Significance of acid deposition > 1% of the Critical Load at European sites

6.46 Section 3.8.2 of Appendix 5.2 describes the method used to calculate PC as a percentage of the critical load function for acid deposition. This method has recently been superseded by revised guidance provided via the APIS website (see http://www.apis.ac.uk/clf-guidance ).

6.47 Appendix 5.2 reports that the PC to acid deposition at the North Walney NNR (part of Morecambe Bay SAC) was above 1% of the EQS in relation to sand dune habitats (1.59%). The study states that, as the PEC was below 70% of the EQS (28%), no significant impacts are predicted resulting from the operation of the biomass power station. However, this statement overlooks the acidic nature of the coastal dune heathland here and the presence of extensive lichen and bryophyte communities. It further reinforces the need to compare emissions with the more stringent critical levels recommended by APIS before reaching conclusions in relation to this site.

6.48 Kirkby Moor SSSI was found to have a maximum PC for acid deposition that was 1.56% of the relevant EQS for upland heathland with the PEC at 467% of the EQS. Although the report concludes that no significant impacts would arise on the basis that deposition rapidly falls to less than 1% of the EQS across 95% of the site, the report does not refer to this acid habitat’s inability to buffer and cumulative past impacts.

6.49 The argument used in relation to Morecambe Bay SAC (South Walney and Piel Channel Flats SSSI) that “ The sites will... be subject to less acid deposition by the time the proposal is operation (2016) than experienced currently, even given the operational PC ” is one that might be applied judiciously at many of the sites and also in relation to nitrogen deposition. However, it cannot be used to rule out the need for an Appropriate Assessment. A recent SSSI condition assessment is quoted to support the conclusions in relation to South Walney and Piel Channel Flats SSSI. However, using the SSSI condition assessment in this way is

inappropriate and would be equally so elsewhere, as “ Surveyors are asked to record possible reasons for features being in unfavourable condition, but it is impossible for them to be able to identify the impacts of... air pollution with any degree of confidence 10 .”

6.50 It is recommended that an Appropriate Assessment of the proposed development should be carried out in respect of potential acid deposition impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC, taking account of these comments.

Significance of nitrogen deposition > 1% of the Critical Load at European sites

6.51 Appendix 5.2 does not provide a narrative on results for North Walney NNR (part of Morecambe Bay SAC). However, whilst Table 4.6 shows the PC for nitrogen deposition comprising <1% of the EQS in relation to sand dune habitats (0.6%), the PEC was 120% of the EQS. These percentages would increase substantially if emissions were compared with the more stringent critical levels recommended by APIS, as appropriate to the mosaic of lichens and bryophytes associated with coastal dune heathland at this site. This could be a cause for concern. In the UK, the main impact of nitrogen on dunes is eutrophication to which acid dune systems are most sensitive. Research at Newborough Warren, North Wales 11 has demonstrated that even low levels of additional nitrogen lead to significant accumulation in the moss layer, which is liberated when mosses die. The response of the wider plant community to this nitrogen may be inhibited by phosphorus limitation, which is common in many UK dunes. However, phosphorus becomes more available to plants as dunes approach pH 5, increasing the likelihood that more acidic systems will be adversely affected by excess nitrogen 12 .

6.52 It is recommended that an Appropriate Assessment of the proposed development should be carried out in respect of potential acid deposition impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC, taking account of these comments.

Significance of metal deposition at European sites

6.53 The study includes an assessment of the human health risks associated with indirect exposure to metals, e.g. through ingestion of fish. However, it does not consider the potential impacts of metal deposition on the marine environment and consequences for bird populations that are the qualifying features of Ramsar Sites and Special Protection Areas within the zone of influence. Shellfish concentrate heavy metals and the knock-on implications for birds that feed upon them may be of high significance.

10 Morecroft, M.D.; Sier, A.R.J.; Elston, D.A.; Nevison, I.M.; Hall, J.R.; Rennie, S.C.; Parr, T.W. and Crick, H.Q.P. (2006) Targeted monitoring of air pollution and climate change impacts on biodiversity. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology http://www.ecn.ac.uk/publications/targeted-monitoring-of-air-pollution-and-climate-change-impacts-on- biodiversity 11 Plassmann, K. (2006) Effects of grazing and nitrogen deposition on sand dune systems. PhD Thesis, Bangor University. 12 DEFRA (2010) The impact of nitrogen and acid deposition on: sand dune habitats. http://ukreate.defra.gov.uk/PDFs/Leaflets/coastal%20grasslands.pdf

6.54 It is recommended that the impact of trace metal deposition on European sites should be evaluated, as part of an Appropriate Assessment.

Significance of cumulative impacts at European sites

6.55 Section 5.7.78 of Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement indicates that the Sunrise Biomass plant makes a relatively small contribution to airborne levels of nitrogen dioxide (1.3 µg/m 3 annual mean nitrogen dioxide, compared to a maximum contribution from the proposed facility of 8.91 µg/m 3.) In contrast, Section 5.1.5 of Appendix 5.2 indicates that emissions from the Sunrise Biomass Plant make a much greater contribution to acid deposition than the proposed facility (0.216 kEQ/ha-year, compared to a maximum contribution from the proposed facility of 0.026 kEQ/ha-year.)

6.56 It is recommended that clarification of this apparent discrepancy should be provided by the applicant as an issue of moderate significance.

Impact on County Wildlife Sites

6.57 Appendix 5.2 concludes that the proposed development would have a significant impact at the three County Wildlife Sites within 2 km of the proposed development (paragraph 4.2.14 and 4.3.9).

6.58 It is recommended that the NID should note this forecast impact of the proposed development as an issue of moderate significance.

Conclusions on Air Quality, Health Risk and Ecological Assessments

6.59 An Environmental Statement has been submitted in support of the planning application for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station. This Environmental Statement includes detailed assessments of air quality, the effects of air pollutants on nature conservation sites, and the risks to health posed by emissions to air. These aspects of the Environmental Statement have been reviewed by AEA Technology. It was found that the applicant has in general used appropriate techniques to evaluate these air quality, conservation and health issues, and in most respects, emissions to air would not pose significant risks to air quality, human health or natural ecosystems.

6.60 However, a number of concerns regarding the study methods and findings were identified. The “high significance” issues identified in relation to the assessments of air quality, health risk and nature conservation sites for the proposed development were as follows:

• Substantial increases in levels of air pollution and risks to health are forecast for some substances in some locations. The EN-1 guidance document advises that these air quality considerations should be viewed as “important.”

• A risk-based and/or quantitative assessment of dust from the storage and handling of biomass material should be provided.

• Deposition at some habitat sites may have been under-estimated due to the use of inappropriate deposition velocities

• Levels of ammonia at some habitat sites may have been assessed against an inappropriate air quality guideline.

• Levels of benzo(a)pyrene may have been under-reported in the modelling study. The forecast levels could potentially result in a significant impact on air quality. • The assessment of chromium VI is based on data from waste incineration facilities which may not be representative of the proposed facility. If this is the case, levels of chromium VI could potentially exceed the relevant air quality guideline.

• The deposition rates of metals may have been under-estimated. This would indicate a potentially significant impact due to deposition of some metals.

• The assessment of the health risks due to exposure to released substances via consumption of fish has not been carried out on a worst-case basis, and consequently the risks to health may have been under-estimated.

• An Appropriate Assessment should be carried out in respect of potential impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC. This should include an assessment of metals emitted from the proposed facility on shellfish and bird life in this SAC.

6.61 A number of issues identified as being of “medium significance” and “low significance” were also identified. In particular, the Environmental Statement does not address the issue of ultrafine particulate matter. This has been highlighted by a number of consultees, and it would be helpful for the applicant to provide an assessment of ultrafine particulate matter. This and other “medium” and “low” significance issues should be considered in the evaluation of the planning application along with the “high significance” issues listed above.

Water Quality

Applicant’s assessment

6.62 The effects of the proposals on water quality during construction, operation and decommissioning of the power station have been assessed by the applicant. There are existing water abstraction and discharge permits for the Roosecote gas- fired power station site from/to water resources and features in the vicinity of the site. The applicant has confirmed that the cooling water infrastructure at Cavendish Dock would remain unchanged and continue to operate under the same conditions as the existing station. The existing site pollution control and emergency procedures would be updated to reflect the changes associated with the new operation. The effects on water quality during construction, operation and decommissioning of the development have been assessed by the applicant, and they state that no significant adverse effects have been identified.

6.63 This aspect of the proposal will be assessed separately by the Environment Agency and would not form part of the joint Cumbria CC/Barrow BC Local Impact Report.

Hydrology and Flood Risk

Applicant’s assessment

6.64 The applicant states that the flood risk from all sources to the main power station site is generally considered to be low. The fluvial or tidal flood risk within the vicinity of the proposed railway link route is considered moderate. The applicant considers that with the incorporation of mitigation measures, no significant adverse effects of the proposed power station on hydrology and flood risk throughout its lifecycle have been identified.

6.65 This aspect of the proposal will be assessed separately by the Environment Agency, and would not form part of the joint Cumbria CC/Barrow BC Local Impact Report.

Land Quality

Applicant’s assessment

6.66 The applicant has assessed the potential for existing ground contamination at and in the vicinity of areas proposed for development, together with potential risks during construction. The site has a long history of related power station uses dating back to the 1950s, and there are a number of landfills within the site boundary and to the immediate south. An area in the east of the site (in the vicinity of the visitor’s car park) was used to strip asbestos from the old coal boilers. Most of the asbestos was taken off-site but the area was encapsulated with inert waste and soil as a precaution.

6.67 British Geological Survey records show that the majority of the power station site is underlain by tidal flat deposits. The access road and proposed lorry park are underlain by sand and gravel and the area to the west/north west of the site is underlain by alluvium. The solid geology underlying the site is the Sherwood Sandstone Group, and the bedrock is classified as a Principal Aquifer, however the site is not located within a Source Protection Zone.

6.68 The applicants considers that appropriate measures have been identified to prevent adverse effects of existing ground conditions and further contamination of land during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed power station. Within the main power station site where piling is proposed, only limited concentrations of contaminants have been encountered during investigation, and no remedies are required. The site investigation has encountered some evidence of asbestos fibres. Where landscaping is proposed in these areas, appropriate barrier techniques would be used to prevent mobilisation of any potential contamination.

Local Authority Assessment

6.69 This aspect of the Local Impact Report has been assessed by Barrow Borough Council.

6.70 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states that ‘for developments on previously developed land, applicants should ensure that they have considered the risk posed by land contamination.’

6.71 Section 8 of the Environmental Statement contains a comprehensive desk based assessment on land quality which considers the potential for existing ground contamination at and in the vicinity of areas proposed for development, and the potential risks associated with contamination during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed power station. The applicant proposes to undertake site investigations and where necessary, remediation, to deal with any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, both on the development site and construction lay down areas.

6.72 The Draft Development Consent Order submitted by the applicant includes the requirement for the above to be undertaken prior to commencement of the development. Barrow Borough Council is in agreement with the approach; however the following amendments are suggested to requirement 25:

Barrow Borough Council’s Explanation Proposed Change Contaminated land and groundwater 25.— (1) Prior to the commencement of development a written scheme to deal with the contamination of any land, including groundwater, within the Order limits which is likely to cause significant harm to persons or pollution of controlled waters or the environment has, after consultation with the Environment Agency, shall be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority.

(2) The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment report, prepared by a specialist consultant, to identify the extent of any contamination and the remedial measures to be taken to render the land fit for its intended purpose, together with a management plan which sets out long-term measures with respect to any contaminants remaining on the site.

(3) Remediation must be carried out in accordance with the approved sch eme.

(3) The site shall be remediated in The Authority feels the rewording of accordance with the approved 25(3) provides greater clarification and measures and a verification report understanding of the requirements of shall be submitted to and approved remediation and associated verification, in writing by the relevant Planning which should demonstrate that the Authority, prior to beneficial use. necessary works have been completed effectively.

(4) If during the construction of the There is the potential to discover authorised development, further unsuspected contamination during contamination not previously development. Although 25 (1-3) seeks to identified is found to be present at identify and deal with contamination, the site then no further work shall even with these assessments, be carried out until the results of a unsuspected contamination may occur. risk assessment have been provided to the relevant Planning Authority. Where remediation is necessary, development should not recommence until the developer has submitted and obtained written approval from the relevant Planning Authority for a remediation scheme identifying how this contamination will be dealt with.

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), This will prevent unnecessary delays on the relevant Planning Authority may other parts of the site where approve that works can continue in contamination is limited to a particular a defined area or areas. area.

6.73 Several contamination assessments have been included with the DCO application documents list. However on review, further work is necessary, including site investigations on construction lay down areas.

6.74 The Authority will not comment on the suitability of the assessments at this stage and recommends that Requirements 25, as amended, is included on any Development Consent Order. Once a full assessment on land quality is complete, the necessary information should be submitted to the relevant Planning Authority as required by the DCO.

Ecology & Ornithology

Applicant’s assessment

6.75 In relation to ecology the applicant has assessed the likely effects of the development on sites designated for their nature conservation importance, and legally protected and notable habitats and species of flora and fauna. The applicant states that modelling the predicted impacts of air emissions from the biomass power station indicates no significant impacts on statutory designated conservation sites within this area. Nitrogen and acid deposition would have some adverse effects on the ecology of non-statutory designated County Wildlife Sites.

6.76 Cavendish Dock is an enclosed dock with a unique ecology influenced by discharge of cooling water from the existing Roosecote gas-fired power station. The applicant states that a beneficial effect of the proposed power station would be the maintenance of the temperature regime of Cavendish Dock, which would help to maintain the unique ecology of the dock.

6.77 The area to be developed consists of a mixture of hard-standing, amenity grassland, species-poor semi-improved grassland and gorse scrub. Part of the proposed rail route crosses the north-eastern corner of Cavendish Dock which would require infilling by placement of rock-fill. The overall loss of open water following infilling equates to 0.01 ha of the surface of the coastal lagoon habitat which is some 0.017% of the 59ha area.

6.78 The applicant proposes measures to minimise the potential impact on the ecological habitats and species of the site and its surroundings. Specific measures are proposed to protect the aquatic environment, including measures related to the proposed dredging at Ramsden Dock, and the infilling and extension of the culvert at Cavendish Dock.

6.79 It is understood that otters are known to use parts of the development area but the applicant claims that construction is not predicted to disturb any resting sites. A pre-construction survey would be required to establish whether an outlier badger sett, about 20m from the development boundary, is in use. If so, the need for temporary exclusion of badgers from this sett under licence would be considered. Removal of common lizards and other reptiles from some construction areas would be required prior to works commencing.

6.80 Any stands of Japanese knotweed likely to be damaged or disturbed during work would need to be removed and disposed of. Four sites have been identified for use as temporary construction lay-down areas, including areas of semi-improved grassland and scrub. The proposed landscape strategy includes planting of scrub habitat to offset the potential loss of these areas. The landscaping strategy also includes the development of a landscaped bund with shrub planting along the western margin of the power station site.

6.81 In relation to ornithology the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site and the Duddon Estuary SPA/Ramsar site support internationally important concentrations of waterbirds and breeding sea birds. The applicant claims that any significant effects on birds would be avoided through a combination of best practice and mitigation. Measures have been developed to mitigate any potential disturbance or displacement of the important bird species of the SPA/Ramsar sites. This includes timing of construction in sensitive areas to avoid periods when concentrations of

wintering and migrating birds are present, visual screening of the power station construction site along the frontage with Roosecote sands and managing the warm water outflow to Cavendish Dock. With these measures in place, the applicant claims that no significant impacts on any important ornithological feature would result from any stage of the biomass project.

6.82 The cooling water regime of the existing Roosecote Power Station has beneficial effects on the ecology of Cavendish Dock by promoting the growth of beaked tasselweed. This in turn has benefits for estuarine birds including SPA qualifying species. The applicant states that the proposed biomass power station would continue to provide this warm water discharge to Cavendish Dock.

6.83 Specific measures are proposed to minimise the disturbance on estuarine birds in the closest parts of the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar site including reducing both the visual and noise disturbance. The noisiest activity likely to be associated with the construction work at Ramsden Dock would be percussive piling. This would only take place over the period April to September avoiding the main wintering period for estuarine birds.

6.84 The infilling of the small section of the northeast corner of Cavendish Dock would take place between June and August (when the lowest number of birds are present in Cavendish Dock) to minimise disturbance.

6.85 The proposed landscape strategy includes planting of scrub habitat to provide habitat for locally breeding birds in order to offset the potential loss of nesting habitat. The landscaping strategy also includes the development of a landscaped bund with shrub planting. The applicant claims that this would screen all or most of the activity taking place within the proposed site and thereby minimising the visual disturbance of waterbirds across Roosecote Sands.

Local Authority Assessment

6.86 In order to assess the ecological and ornithological impact Cumbria County Council has commissioned White Young & Green to provide this section of the Local Impact Report. This is detailed in the paragraphs below, in order to provide this response White Young Green have conducted a detailed review of all the relevant supporting evidence, including the ecology and ornithology Environmental Statement chapters and a site visit, together with considerable local ecological knowledge of Barrow Docks. The following content summarises the main ecological issues identified during this review and provides a statement of the positive, neutral and negative indirect and direct effects considered likely to arise during construction, operation and decommissioning of the power station, including an assessment of local impacts which may occur due to in-combination effects of development in the local area. There are also detailed comments relating to the Environmental Statement, which are contained in Appendix 1.

Baseline Ecology – Environmental Statement

6.87 The Environmental Statement contains separate chapters on ecology and ornithology effects arising from the development. Comments on the content of these chapters has been included in accompanying text ‘Roosecote Biomass

Power Station - Review of ecology Environmental Statement’ WYG August 2012. These chapters and accompanying documents have been reviewed in detail to enable an assessment of the local impact of the development on ecology. Although the Environmental Statement provides valid assessments of various ecological effects there are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Environmental Statement which arise mainly due to insufficient survey information on which to base the work. Local knowledge of this area assists in the assessment of effects on the biodiversity of the site and adjoining areas but the Environmental Statement should really have been based on more detailed habitat mapping and evaluation of habitats both on the site and outside the development footprint. The following lists what we consider to be the main omissions, inaccuracies and unsubstantiated evaluation of ecological receptors.

• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey – there is little detail provided of the habitats and species present, with no species lists included, making it unreliable to evaluate the magnitude and significance of ecological effect based solely on this survey. Local knowledge, the attached APEM report and a site visit have assisted in filling in this gap in the evidence base to enable input into the Local Impact Report. Cumbria County Council’s response to the PEI report pointed out the lack of detailed habitat survey information but there is still insufficient terrestrial habitat description and species information provided.

• Biodiversity value of habitats on the site – this appears to have been overlooked/ undervalued despite the fact that the APEM report of 2007 in the Appendix of the Environmental Statement discusses various habitats of biodiversity value on the premises.

• Protected species and other ecology surveys – the lack of reptiles found in the reptile survey is very surprising, and not all the development footprint has been adequately covered in the survey. No invertebrate survey was initially recommended based on the Habitat Survey as this report did not identify the biodiversity of the site and its surroundings. Following CCC response to PEI, RPS has started invertebrate survey work and has now identified notable species. Habitat mapping is not detailed enough to allow assessment of habitat types to be lost to development and hence a clear plan detailing adequate compensation is not offered.

• Mitigation measures in the Environmental Statement are not detailed or comprehensive enough to demonstrate that there will be no long-term significant effect, particularly on local biodiversity. The following issues appear to have been overlooked/neglected – compensation for loss of herb-rich grasslands, potential loss of open mosaic habitats on previously developed land, loss of habitat supporting biodiverse invertebrate populations, increased disturbance to SPA birds in the northern and western sections of Cavendish Dock due to construction and operation of the new rail link. In addition the mitigation report for reptiles is not detailed enough to be adequate and contains inaccuracies in the methodology.

• Potential spread of Japanese knotweed along the railway line does not seem to have been addressed adequately; simply fencing off the stands does not

seem a viable solution if they occur within 7 m of the construction areas, access roads or along the main rail line which will connect to the new extension serving the power station.

• The infilling of part of Cavendish Dock, although representing only a small area within the designated sites, will result in loss of habitat within an internationally designated site so it would be expected that some form of compensation should be provided to benefit qualifying features of the designated site.

• Ornithology report does not address the mute swan population present in Cavendish Dock for moulting season.

• Airborne pollution effects assessed do not consider potential effect on bryophytes and lichen of ancient woodlands less than 15km from the power station.

• It is considered that local cumulative effects are understated in the Environmental Statement as is mitigation and/or compensation for this.

• In the ornithology Environmental Statement the use made by SPA birds of Ramsden Dock is not addressed in detail yet this provides roosting for SPA birds displaced from Cavendish Dock and at higher tides, and potentially birds from the Duddon Estuary SPA as well. Effects on the Duddon Estuary are dismissed as negligible due to the 1.8km distance from the construction areas. The Environmental Statement does not however address indirect effects on the Duddon SPA which may result particularly when considering cumulative impacts of development in Barrow.

• SPA birds may also be affected by loss of habitat used for roosting and nesting adjacent to the SPA.

• The PEI consultation response recommended various additional surveys and enhancement to compensate for loss of habitat. It is difficult to understand where sufficient compensation land can be provided within the development site boundary – the Environmental Statement has not clearly identified land which could be used for habitat creation apart from mention of the horse grazed field – the existing biodiversity of this field is not detailed. The Biodiversity Mitigation and Habitat Enhancement Strategy provides little evidence to prove that there will be no significant adverse effect on local biodiversity. Cumulative effects of other developments around Barrow Docks would only exacerbate this issue unless detailed mitigation plans are drawn up and adopted in each case. Maintaining and enhancing local habitat continuity is also of importance.

Local Impact Assessment – Positive Impacts

6.88 The restoration of the warm cooling water discharges to Cavendish Dock once the new biomass power plant is operational will encourage the growth of beaked tasselweed, and increase the fish biomass. This notable plant species has suffered in the last 12-18 months due to the reduced operation of the existing

plant. It provides foraging for SPA birds, and habitat for aquatic invertebrates which in turn provide a food source for other aquatic fauna which provide prey for the SPA birds. This is likely to be of significant beneficial effect on the SPA birds.

6.89 Habitat creation making use of a calcareous substrate in association with the construction of the new rail route would be of benefit to invertebrates, and is likely to result in the development of a herb-rich sward. This would result in a positive effect on the local biodiversity, and enhance habitat continuity around the dock area.

6.90 It is also considered that if more thorough habitat and reptile surveys are undertaken and appropriate management plans drawn up the project could give rise to additional beneficial effects on local ecology through habitat enhancement and creation. Presently the Environmental Statement is lacking in detailed survey baseline evidence and lacks adequate detail in mitigation and compensation plans so it is not possible to make a fair and accurate assessment based on the evidence provided.

Local Impact Assessment – Negative Effects

6.91 We consider that the following effects, which have been considered to a degree in the Environmental Statement, could potentially have an adverse permanent or long-term effect on the ecology/ornithology of the site unless suitable mitigation can be arranged, or if this is not possible, then adequate compensation provided. Each effect is listed below together with comments on the mitigation/compensation presently offered. Many of these local effects are on the biodiversity rather than on the internationally and nationally designated sites. Negative effects are therefore considered firstly in relation to designated sites and qualifying features, then with regards local biodiversity.

Designated Sites & Qualifying Features

Loss of SPA Bird Roosting Habitat

6.92 The bird surveys on qualifying species of the SPA and Ramsar site do not clearly consider the use of the development site and other areas inland of the SPA and Ramsar sites by roosting SPA birds, particularly at high tide. There is concern that this loss of terrestrial habitat together with cumulative losses through other developments may result in a squeeze effect pushing SPA birds either further inland or into another estuary unless additional roosting area is created locally. Loss of even a small area of Cavendish Dock should be compensated for as this is an internationally designated site.

Disturbance of SPA Birds

6.93 As above it is considered likely that the construction of the rail connection at the north-east corner of the Cavendish Dock will result in some disturbance and displacement of SPA birds particularly during the construction phase. No specific compensation has been offered for this disturbance. In addition the construction and operation of the Ramsden Dock site will also disturb and displace SPA birds which roost outside the designated boundary. Whilst it is not anticipated that either

of these effects will result in significant effect on the actual integrity of the Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay SPAs, it is nonetheless recommended that some form of compensation is offered. SPA birds are the most likely species to suffer in this area from cumulative development around Barrow Docks, and therefore it is anticipated that each development would provide compensation for the additional pressures on these birds. This could be in the form of additional roosting structures in the docks or elsewhere.

6.94 It is not clear whether or not any other alternatives were considered for the rail route other than the conveyor belt along the opposite side of Cavendish Dock. Alternative rail routes could potentially avoid construction within the dock and disturbance to Cavendish dock during operation of the power station and thereby lead to reduced disturbance to the SPA birds.

Air Pollution Issues

6.95 The emissions from the biomass power station include potential acid deposition at levels which could affect designated habitats. We have not reviewed the figures provided in detail but are concerned that the assessment may have underestimated the impact of acid deposition on sensitive habitats including dune heath and vegetated shingle and sand habitats. In particular the rich lichen and bryophyte assemblages characteristic of these habitats and also ancient woodlands may be adversely affected. In addition the potential effect of concentration of metal pollution through the food chain via shellfish and fish, and consequent effects on SPA birds, has not been addressed.

Biodiversity

Direct Loss of Biodiverse Habitats

6.96 During the walkover visit in August the site itself was found to support a range of interesting habitats some of which were species-rich. These included herb-rich grassland, calcareous grassland, reedbed and scrub, and included the notable plant species dittander and possibly others such as blue fleabane. Patches of the BAP Priority Habitat of Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land occur within the Centrica-owned land and along the railway line routes, supporting a varied vegetation structure including bare areas with pioneer species, scrub, herb- rich grassland, rubble, open water/pools, damp hollows etc These habitats are likely to support biodiverse invertebrate fauna, including the potential for presence of small blue, dingy skipper and grayling butterflies, linnet and sky lark, common lizard and slow-worm, smooth newt and common toad. The Environmental Statement mentions some 10 hectares of habitat loss as a result of the development but although a Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been submitted with the proposal it is only an outline document with no specific detail as to how this extent of habitat is to be compensated for. The Phase 1 Habitat does not note any species lists so it is not easy to see how similar grasslands etc can be recreated as compensation until more detailed surveys are undertaken to identify the plants species/habitat types being lost.

Loss of Reptile Habitat

6.97 The survey undertaken provided very limited information about the potential reptile populations which may require translocation. It is considered that the survey records have undervalued the site but it is also noted that RPS have agreed the habitats are good for reptiles so are considering mitigation/compensation for a ‘medium’ reptile population. The Reptile Mitigation Plan submitted with the Environmental Statement lacks any specific detail as to the methodology and location of the reptile fencing, capture areas and translocation areas. In addition the cumulative impacts are not considered to be thorough. There is only limited compensation mentioned for the reptile habitat lost to the development. At present there is still risk of the reptile populations being affected through accidental killing or injury, habitat loss and fragmentation together with loss of habitat continuity affecting the reptile population in the docks area as a whole.

6.98 It is not necessarily considered that the presence of reptiles should be viewed as a major constraint to development but the Environmental Statement does not provide adequate mitigation and compensation to provide assurance that the reptile population will not be significantly adversely affected both during construction and operation, and due to in-combination impacts in the Barrow Docks area.

Loss of Invertebrate Habitat

6.99 Again we are concerned that the amount of habitat creation proposed and the methodology is vague and does not relate closely to the habitats being lost on site. It is appreciated that the invertebrate survey information is still being collated but these surveys should really have been recommended and undertaken following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Compensation habitat should address the requirements of the invertebrate fauna present on the site and include species such as bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus. Should the surveys identify the presence of a significant population of a rare or notable population then suitable translocation of habitat might be required. Again this is not considered to be a major constraint but mitigation/compensation provided in the Environmental Statement is not detailed enough to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat or species as a result of the development.

Loss of Bird Breeding Habitat

6.100 Open grassland areas may be used by ground nesting birds and scrub offers cover for other species such as grasshopper warbler. Although there is land outside the development footprint which could be used by ground and scrub nesting birds it is not clear whether or not this land is already of ecological value. There is no detailed survey provided of the habitats to be lost or the areas with potential for habitat creation and enhancement. It is therefore difficult to see where any additional habitat can be created where there is not already ecological value.

Spread of Japanese Knotweed along the New Rail Line

6.101 There is no detail on the scope of the Japanese Knotweed Mitigation Plan but it is thought likely that to avoid future spread of this invasive plant species the existing

extent of this species along the railway lines outside the site but connecting into the new rail routes will also need to be investigated. A combined effort with Network Rail to eradicate this invasive species is recommended before any construction takes place along the new rail track to avoid any spread further into the dock area.

Air Pollution

6.102 As for the designated sites, there is concern that acid deposition as a result of the operation of the biomass power station may result in damage to habitats particularly those supporting sensitive lichen and bryophyte assemblages. This could result in an adverse effect on the ancient and semi-natural woodlands within 15km of the site.

Dredging requirements

6.103 In relation to the dredging proposed at Ramsden Dock, Habitat Regulations Article 4(4) of the Directive requires that -

“.....Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article. Outside these protection areas, member States shall also strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.”

6.104 The chemical characteristics of the material to be dredged and the potential danger to ecology by the mobilisation of contaminated sediment causing pollution to the dock waters and downstream areas, discharging into Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA/Ramsar site where there would be the risk of contamination to Morecambe Bay SAC, would need to be assessed. This potential effect should have been addressed within the ES ecology chapter, and it is clear that the effect on SPA birds outside designated sites should be addressed including pollution aspects.

6.105 In addition the actual areas of Ramsden Dock being dredged should be assessed in the ES – both of these dredging areas are close/adjacent to where there are high tide SPA bird roosts within Ramsden Dock. There should therefore be some comment about this in the ES chapter and an assessment provided of the potential magnitude of impact. It has already been pointed out that the ES does not address potential effects on SPA birds outside the actual designated site.

Local Impact Assessment – Neutral Effects

6.106 The majority of the potential effects covered by the Environmental Statement are considered to be neutral in that the valued ecological receptors before, during and after the development of the biomass power station are not expected to suffer any significant direct or indirect effect, provided that the mitigation and compensation measures are adopted. Qualifying features of the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site, and therefore the integrity of these sites, are not considered likely to be permanently adversely affected by the power station development although temporary minor

effects are anticipated during the construction phase. Mitigation for most of these temporary minor adverse effects is provided in the Environmental Statement, excepting the construction of the rail link where compensation for disturbance and loss of a small part of the SPA has not been adequately covered. In addition possible loss of or disturbance to inland roosting areas does not appear to have been addressed. The issues raised in the negative impacts section above may well also be categorised as neutral effects once more detailed survey and adequate mitigation/compensation methodology has been undertaken, but at present we do not have sufficient information on which to base our judgement.

Local Impact Assessment – Cumulative Effects

6.107 In-combination effects have been considered in the Environmental Statement in paragraphs 9.8.170 onwards in the accompanying review document. The development projects identified are Barrow Marina Village, Barrow Waterfront Business Park, Salthouse Housing, United Utilities WWTW Storm Tanks, gateway Gas Storage Facility and Sunrise Pyrolysis Plant. The cumulative effects on SPA birds from increased disturbance through developments in the vicinity of Barrow Docks is difficult to assess without knowledge of the total carrying capacity of both Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar sites. Use is already made of Ramsden Dock by SPA birds displaced from Cavendish Dock when disturbed and as additional high tide roost.

6.108 The cumulative effect of land-take on habitats likely to be lost to development in Barrow docks area is undervalued in 9.8.182 and we consider that the cumulative impact on local/district/County habitats may be significant unless adequate compensation is provided for loss of habitat. This would also require retention of habitat continuity through wildlife corridors to prevent loss of biodiversity in the port area. Cumulative effects arising through land take would also impact on invertebrate and reptile populations unless adequate compensation is provided in each case. It is important that populations are not left isolated as a result of cumulative development.

Landscape and Visual effects.

Applicant’s assessment

6.109 The applicant has assessed the potential landscape and visual effects of the proposed biomass development. The assessment study area extended 10km from the site of the proposed biomass power station, and additional viewpoints in the Lake District National Park and the Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty beyond this were also considered.

6.110 The applicant considers that the operational biomass power station would have effects on landscape character of no more than a minor adverse level of significance. The visual effects on representative viewpoints in both the Lake District National Park and the Arnside and Silverdale AONB are assessed as of negligible significance. Areas where there would be visual effects of some significance would be the Dowie Close and Hornbeam Crescent residential areas of Barrow-in-Furness.

6.111 The applicant accepts that there would be significant effects during construction and in the early years of operation on views from the Cistercian Way/Cumbria Coastal Way/Westfield Greenway footpath/cycleway, where it passes adjacent to the power station site. Once proposed landscape planting in this area is established, they consider the visual effects on this recreational route would be reduced to minor levels.

6.112 The power station would need to be lit for safety and operational reasons and a lighting strategy would be developed taking account of landscape, ecological and visual issues. The applicants state that key principles have been agreed such as using task specific lighting, which is only turned on when actually needed, the use of luminaires, which minimise light pollution in terms of light trespass, sky glow and glare.

Local Authority Assessment

Introduction

6.113 This part of the Local Impact Report has been undertaken by WYG on behalf of Cumbria County Council and seeks to consider the potential landscape and visual impact of the proposed 80MW Biomass Power Station at Roosecote in Barrow. The section below is based on a review of the applicant’s information as provided in the Landscape and Visual chapter of the Environmental Statement (June 2012) prepared by RPS for Centrica Energy. This section identifies the potential for receptors to be affected by the proposed development based on a desk based review of the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) along with site analysis, and provides comments as to the applicant’s predicted significance of effect on these receptors, where it is possible to do so based on the information provided.

6.114 It should be noted that in agreement with Cumbria County Council, WYG has not undertaken an independent LVIA, to validate the applicant’s observations, assessment and report conclusions. This report is based on a review of the approach and conclusions drawn through the applicant’s LVIA and supported by site analysis work, as explained above.

Landscape Impacts

Potential Receptors

6.115 A number of landscape receptors have been identified within the assessment although it is noted that not all of the identified receptors have been taken through to the assessment stage within the Effects Schedules in Appendix 11.5 of the LVIA report as explained further below. This assessment information should have been provided by the applicant or justification included for its absence within the report so that conclusions could be drawn on the likely impact of the development on the landscape receptors.

Lake District National Park

6.116 The Lake District National Park is situated to the north and north east of the site with the boundary at a distance of between 15 - 20km.

6.117 Although the National Park is not situated within the 10km landscape study area identified for the assessment of effects, it is acknowledged that the applicant has included a representative viewpoint within the National Park for assessment within the LVIA. The report states that the location of this representative viewpoint was agreed with Barrow Borough Council (BBC), Cumbria County Council (CCC) and Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA).

6.118 The assessment methodology states that the effect on the landscape resources will be assessed, however no assessment is provided within the report for the effects of the proposed Biomass Power Station on the landscape character of the National Park. This assessment should have been provided by the applicant given that it is generally accepted that the development will form part of the setting of the landscape character within the National Park boundary.

6.119 The visual effects of the proposed development on the National Park is included within the assessment and is referred to under Visual Impacts below.

6.120 Effects on the Landscape Character of the Lake District National Park:

• Although the applicant has not provided an assessment of the impacts of the development on the landscape character of the National Park, given the distance of the development site from the National Park and the information provided by the applicant on the assessment of the representative view from within the Park, we would anticipate that the potential effects on the landscape character of the Lake District National Park are likely to be ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

Arnside and Silverdale AONB

6.121 The Arnside and Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is situated approximately 20km to the north east of the site within Morecombe Bay with the closest land based location within the AONB situated 22km from the site.

6.122 Although the AONB is not situated within the 10km study area identified for the assessment of effects, the applicant with agreement from BBC, CCC and LDNPA has included a representative viewpoint within the AONB for assessment within the LVIA.

6.123 The assessment methodology states that the effect on the landscape resources will be assessed, however no assessment is provided for the effects of the proposed Biomass Power Station on the landscape character of the AONB. This assessment should have been provided by the applicant or an explanation as to why this has not been assessed included within the report.

6.124 The visual effects of the proposed development on the AONB is included within

the LVIA and is referred to under Visual Impacts below.

6.125 Effects on the Landscape Character of Arnside and Silverdale AONB:

• Although the applicant has not provided an assessment of the impacts of the development on the landscape character of the AONB, given the distance of the development site from the AONB and the information provided by the applicant on the assessment of the representative view from the AONB we would anticipate that the potential effects on the landscape character of Arnside and Silverdale AONB are likely to be ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes

6.126 Within the assessment, several Landscapes of County Importance are identified within the 10km study area including the Landscape of County Importance to the north east of Askam in Furness, Duddon Estuary to the north of the site and land immediately south of the application site at Roosecote Sands, Rampside Sands and Walney Island.

6.127 Local Landscapes are designated by Barrow Borough Council and given protection under saved Policy D3 of the Barrow Borough Council Local plan. The Local Landscapes within the study area include Furness Abbey and Mill Beck Valley, Goldmire and Hagg Gills Valley and Poaka Beck Valley, north of Dalton.

6.128 The assessment includes Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) which indicate that the proposed development may be viewed from areas within 10km and the local landscape designated sites.

6.129 The Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes designated areas are included within the applicant’s Figure no: 11.3 but are not referred to or assessed within the LVIA text.

6.130 The LVIA methodology states that the effect on the landscape resources will be assessed, however no assessment is provided for the effects on the landscape character of the local landscape designated areas. This assessment should have been provided by the applicant or explanation as to why it has not been assessed included within the report.

6.131 Effects on the Landscape Character of Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes:

• It is likely that there will be adverse effects on the landscape character of the locally designated landscape areas, particularly on the designated land closest to the site at Roosecote Sands, Rampside Sands and Walney Island, where there are open views across to the site and existing power station. Although the applicant provides some assessment of the landscape effects on the landscape character areas that fall within the Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscape designated area, no overall assessment of effects is provided for the designated areas.

• If the applicant’s methodology is applied, a sensitivity of medium should be applied to the Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes which recognises the local designation or value of these areas of landscape, whilst also taking into consideration the existing detractors which form part of the view from the designated landscapes, e.g. the existing industrial/commercial activity and buildings at the Port of Barrow, the existing power station and gas terminal which can be seen within the panoramic view from the Landscape of County Importance at Roosecote Sands.

• Again applying the applicant’s methodology, the magnitude of change on the landscape character of the locally designated landscapes is likely to be low to negligible, where the features of the proposed development will not appear uncharacteristic in the landscape, resulting in an overall Minor to Negligible Minor adverse significance of effect.

• In summary, the landscape characteristics of the Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscape designated sites would not be significantly affected by operation of the proposed Biomass Power Station.

Landscape Character Areas

6.132 The application site falls within National Character Area 7, ‘West Cumbria Coastal Plain’ as defined in Natural England’s Joint Character of England Map (1996). Description of the published key characteristics of the National Character Area are detailed in the applicant’s assessment along with the landscape types which fall within the study area as described in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit (March 2011).

6.133 No assessment of the landscape effects of the proposed development on the National Character Area is provided by the applicant, however assessment is provided on the landscape effects on the landscape types as identified within the Character Guidance and Toolkit, within the study area.

6.134 The sensitivity to proposed change of the landscape types within the study area is not defined within the LVIA report although it is included within Appendix 11.5 – Operational Landscape Effects Schedule, but without a clear explanation of how the sensitivity has been assessed or determined.

6.135 Landscape sub types 1b – Coastal Marsh, 2a – Dunes and beaches and 5c – Rolling Lowland are given a sensitivity rating of ‘Low’ within the assessment report, however these landscape types fall within areas designated as Landscape of County Importance or Local Landscapes. Table 2.2b Resource Value (as expressed through designation) within the applicant’s assessment methodology document states that locally/regionally designated/valued countryside and landscape features have a medium tolerance to change and are of medium sensitivity to proposed change. Explanation should have been provided by the applicant on the reasoning behind the sensitivities identified for the landscape types and why these deviate from the methodology where applicable.

6.136 Further explanation should also have been provided by the applicant on the landscape effects on Landscape sub type 5b – Low Farmland and confirmation on the nature of the effect, i.e. whether it is beneficial or adverse on Landscape sub types 00 – Urban Area, 1b – Coastal Marsh, 2a – Dunes and beaches, 5c – Rolling Lowland, 3c – Disturbed Areas and 9d – Ridges.

6.137 Section 11.7.7 of the assessment states that the potential impact of the proposals on the baseline during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases will be undertaken. Appendix 11.5 – Operational Landscape Effects Schedule does not include assessment details for the above phases and Appendix 11.5 – Visual Effects Schedule – Construction and Operational does not state whether the significance of operation effects is at year 1 or 15 of operation.

6.138 The above information should have been provided by the applicant so that conclusions on the landscape effects of the proposed development could be determined based on a transparent and robust methodology.

6.139 Effects on the Landscape Character Areas:

• It is likely that there will be adverse effects on the Landscape Character Types within the study area due to the size of the proposed structures within the proposed Biomass Power Station in comparison to the existing power station plant and the potential for the development to feature in the views in and out of the Landscape Character Types.

• In general we would agree with the overall significance of effect on landscape character arrived at by the applicant, i.e. not significant in EIA terms. The change to the landscape character types within the study area brought about by the proposed development would take place in a landscape which is already influenced by industrial activity where stacks, plumes and industrial buildings of differing scales are characteristic features.

Visual Impacts

6.140 ZTVs have been prepared by the applicant for the 10km study area to illustrate the ZTV of the existing structures, the ZTV of the tallest proposed building (70m in height) and the ZTV of the stack. Justification is provided within the report for the selection of the 10km study area.

6.141 A number of representative potential visual receptors have been identified by the applicant following analysis of the ZTV, OS maps, aerial photographs, recent photography of the area and following consultation and agreement with officers from Barrow Borough Council, Cumbria County Council and the Lake District National Park Authority. The representative visual receptors are located within the 10km study area with four representative visual receptors located outside the 10km study area within Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Morecombe and Heysham.

Residential Receptors

6.142 The main visual receptors are identified as the occupants of residential dwellings and the effects of the proposed development on 12 representative visual receptors up to 7km from the site have been assessed within the report.

6.143 The applicant has given residential receptors a sensitivity of ‘High’ which is considered appropriate for the receptor type.

6.144 In general, those residential receptors closest to the site (within 1.5km) are assessed as having a ‘medium’ or ‘low’ magnitude of change and those at a medium distance from the site are assessed as having a ‘low’ magnitude of change. Based on the information provided within the assessment, in general WYG would agree with the magnitude of change identified for close and medium distance residential receptors. We would however question if the assessment includes all features of the proposed development, i.e. night time effect and plume from the stacks, cumulative effect of other existing and consented development, as this is not evident from the assessment. This information should have been included to ensure that a transparent and robust assessment has been carried out.

6.145 The resulting significance of effect on the residential visual receptors has been downgraded by the applicant without further explanation and in the case of Visual Receptor 1 this has resulted in the visual effects being considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms. The applicant’s own methodology significance matrix would indicate a ‘significant’ significance of effect in EIA terms.

6.146 We feel however that visual effects would be significant (in EIA terms) from properties on the south eastern end of Dowie Close where the larger buildings of the proposed power station would create a prominent break in the horizon, presenting an expansive large facade (not provided in the view of the existing power station and proposed storm tanks) within close range, i.e. 0.5km from the receptor.

6.147 At Visual receptor 7, properties at Scales, 7km from the site, we would question whether it would be more appropriate for the magnitude of change to be assessed as ‘low’ rather than ‘negligible’ as the tallest buildings (over 60m) and accompanying stacks would be seen to break the skyline and in contrast to the existing view where only the top section of the existing stack at Roosecote Power Station is visible on the skyline. The existing view comprises what appear as narrow vertical structures on the skyline whereas the proposed view will introduce large buildings which may be viewed as incongruous features on the skyline. The nearby Visual receptor 24 has been assessed as ‘low’ magnitude of change and a similar to view to that of Visual receptor 7. Nonetheless we generally agree with the applicant’s assessment that the visual effects on visual receptors at Scales will not be considered significant in EIA terms.

6.148 Visual Effects on Residential Receptors:

• In general from the information provided WYG would agree that the potential

visual effects on residential receptors within the representative viewpoints assessed is likely to be ‘not significant’ in EIA terms, with the exception of residents in properties in the Hornbeam Crescent area of Barrow-in-Furness and properties on the southern eastern side of Dowie Close on the south eastern edge of Barrow-in-Furness. From properties in Hornbeam Crescent, the proposed structures of the proposed Biomass Power Station will interrupt the current views of the sea and are likely to have ‘significant’ visual effects on residents. At the southern eastern of Dowie Close the larger buildings of the proposed development will be viewed where the absence of rising topography allows, from the ground floor and upper storey rear of properties and viewed as a prominent break along the skyline, occupying a greater proportion of the view currently occupied by the existing power station and proposed storm water tanks.

• The potential effects described above are for day time views of the development and do not include night time effects as these have not been assessed within the assessment as discussed further below.

Lake District National Park

6.149 The National Park is given the highest sensitivity rating of ‘Very High’ which we consider appropriate for this national designation with the magnitude of change described as ‘Negligible’, appropriate for the anticipated scale of the change in view. With a sensitivity rating of ‘Very High’ and a magnitude of change of ‘Negligible’ the significance of effect on the National Park would be ‘Minor’ as set out in the LVIA assessment methodology Significance Matrix. This however has been downgraded to ‘Negligible/Minor’ by the applicant without further explanation nor confirmation if the significance of effects is considered beneficial or adverse.

6.150 Visual Effects on Lake District National Park:

• Despite the absence of qualification described above we nonetheless agree that the significance of effect on views from the Lake District National Park is considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

Arnside and Silverdale AONB

6.151 The AONB is given a sensitivity rating of ‘High’ with the magnitude of change described as ‘Negligible’, which we consider appropriate for this national designation and the scale of the change in view. With a sensitivity rating of ‘High’ and a magnitude of change of ‘Negligible’ the significance of effect on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB would be ‘Minor’ as set out in the LVIA assessment methodology Significance Matrix. This however has been downgraded to ‘Negligible’ by the applicant without explanation or confirmation if the significance of effects is beneficial or adverse.

6.152 Visual Effects on Arnside and Silverdale AONB:

• Despite the absence of qualification described above we nonetheless agree

that the significance of effect on views from Arnside and Silverdale AONB is considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes

6.153 The Landscapes of County Importance fall within the representative viewpoints locations, however no reference to, or assessment of the visual effects on the designated Landscapes of County Importance or Local Landscapes is made within the assessment of effects. The assessment of the visual effects on the designated sites should have been provided by the applicant or explanation as to its absence explained within the report.

6.154 Visual Effects on Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes:

• Using the information provided by the applicant within in the representative viewpoints located in areas designated Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes, we would generally agree with the applicant’s assessment that the effects on views from these designated areas is considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

• The potential effects described above are however for day time views of the development and do not include night time effects as these have not been included within the assessment as discussed further below.

Public Rights of Way, recreational trails, Access Land and public open space

6.155 A number of Public Rights of Way and recreational trails are situated close to the site including Cistercian Way, Cumbria Coastal Way, Westfield Greenway and Cavendish Dock Trail. The Public Rights of Way and recreational routes are identified as receptors of high sensitivity with views from sections of the routes situated close to the site anticipated by the applicant to experience a medium magnitude of change, which we consider appropriate. We would however question if the assessment includes all features of the proposed development, i.e. night time lighting effect as this is not evident from the assessment and may affect those receptors closest to the site in particular.

6.156 The resulting significance of effect on the Public Rights of Way and recreational trails has however been downgraded by the applicant without further explanation and resulting in visual effects considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms rather than ‘significant’ if the methodology significance matrix had been applied. Further explanation as to the reason for lowering the significance of effects should have been provided by the applicant.

6.157 Further from the site the assessment has considered the visual effects of the proposed Biomass Power Station on Public Rights of Way, Access Land and public open space with a magnitude of change identified as ‘low’ or ‘negligible’. We would generally agree with the sensitivity and magnitude of change identified during operation of the proposed Biomass Power Station within the assessment for the medium and long distance visual receptors from the site. Again the

resulting significance of effects on the visual receptors has been downgraded without explanation and this should have been addressed by the applicant.

6.158 We also note that not all receptor distances from the site appear to be accurate in Appendix 11.5 – Visual Effects Schedule – Construction and Operational and this should be addressed by the applicant.

6.159 The route of the Public Rights of Way and recreational trails within the study area along with areas of Access land are not illustrated on plan within the assessment and it would be of been useful to have had this information provided or reference made to it if it is included within a separate section of the ES.

6.160 Visual Effects on users of Public Rights of Way, Recreational Trails, Access Land and Public Open Space:

• In general from the information provided in the applicant’s assessment and despite the qualifications and further evidence described above, we would agree that the potential visual effects on users of Public Rights of Way, recreational trails, Access Land and public open space is likely to be ‘not significant’ in EIA terms. Although the proposed Biomass Power Station would be noticeable from the recreational trails which run adjacent and close to the site, they would be viewed in association with immediate, existing industrial landscape.

• The potential effects described above are however for day time views of the development and do not include night time effects as these have not been adequately assessed in the development as discussed further below.

Morecambe and Heysham

6.161 An assessment of views from Morecambe and Heysham is provided within the report and anticipated by the applicant to experience a ‘Negligible’ magnitude of change, which we consider appropriate. The resulting significance of effect on the visual receptors however differs from those indicated within the applicant’s methodology significance matrix and does not indicate if the effects are beneficial or adverse, and further explanation should have been provided by the applicant.

6.162 Visual Effects on Morecambe and Heysham:

• Despite the inaccuracies and omissions described above we nonetheless agree with the applicant that the significance of effect on views from Morecambe and Heysham is considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

Transport Corridors, development sites and commercial operations

6.163 The representative viewpoints include a number which represent views from transport corridors and the proposed development adjacent to Cavendish Dock and Ramsden Business Park/Waterfront Business Park. We would generally agree with the sensitivity and magnitude of change identified for these receptors

within the assessment. The resulting significance of effect however does differ on occasion from those indicated within the applicant’s methodology significance matrix and further explanation should have been provided by the applicant so that the basis of the judgment is robust and transparent.

6.164 Visual Effects on Transport Corridors, development sites and commercial operations:

• Despite the qualifications described above we nonetheless acknowledge that the visual effects on users of transport corridors included within the assessment and on the proposed development adjacent to Cavendish Dock and Ramsden Business Park/Waterfront Business Park will be considered ‘not significant’ in EIA terms.

Cumulative impact

6.165 The cumulative effects of the proposed development are discussed in summary towards the end of the LVIA report in Section 11.10 Assessment of Effects. It is noted that the significance of the cumulative effects on receptors is not identified within the assessment report or the Effects Schedules in Appendix 11.5. The applicant should have had addressed the cumulative effects on the agreed viewpoint locations and landscape receptors so that the basis of the judgement made on the cumulative effects was supported through the assessment.

6.166 A plan showing the location of the developments included within the cumulative assessment should have been provided or referred to if included elsewhere in the ES.

6.167 We can draw no conclusion on the significance of the cumulative effects of the development as no detail is provided within the assessment.

Night time effects

6.168 The LVIA report states that the proposed lighting scheme for the proposed power station and associated structures at Ramsden Dock has not been finalised and that key principles have been established. Proposed lighting levels are set out in the applicant’s Figures 3.11a and 3.11b.

6.169 As with the cumulative effects discussed above, the night time impacts of the proposed development are discussed in summary towards the end of the LVIA report in Section 11.10 Assessment of Effects, although the significance of the night time effects is not identified within the assessment report or the Effects Schedules in Appendix 11.5. The proposed lighting strategy should have been included within the assessment of effects and this information included within the assessment schedules or clearly described within the report so that the basis of the judgement made is understandable and transparent.

6.170 We can draw no conclusion on the significance of the night time effects on landscape and visual receptors as no detail is provided within the assessment.

Overview

6.171 Although it would appear that the applicant has carried out a relatively thorough visual impact assessment it is not evident within the report and assessment schedules that all aspects of the development have been assessed robustly, e.g. lighting and night time effects, cumulative effects and plume from the stacks. Also a clear explanation should have been provided where the assessment’s significance results deviate from the significance matrix if applied directly, to allow the reader to understand the reason for the deviation or the professional judgement made.

6.172 A number of the landscape receptors which have been identified in the report have not been carried through for assessment in the report or assessment schedules, e.g. the effects on the landscape character of Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes. A clear explanation should also have been provided by the applicant on the reasoning behind the sensitivities identified for those landscape receptors, i.e. Landscape Character Types assessed in the LVIA.

Conclusions on Landscape and Visual Effects

6.173 Following review of the applicant’s LVIA (notwithstanding the shortcomings of the LVIA as discussed above) we would conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station would not have a significant effect on the landscape character of the local and wider landscape including that of the Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB and locally designated landscapes. The proposed development is situated within a landscape which is characterised locally by industrial features and the proposed elements of the Biomass Power Station are unlikely to significantly alter the surrounding landscape character.

6.174 In terms of visual effects we would conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station development would result in significant effects only upon a small number of residents situated within close proximity of the site, namely at the southern eastern end of Dowie Close and in the Hornbeam Crescent area on the southern edge of Barrow-in-Furness. Here we consider that the proposals would significantly alter the existing views from the properties.

6.175 Otherwise the visual effects of the proposals on other receptors within the study area and receptors assessed outside the study area including those at Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Morecambe and Heysham would not be significant.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Applicant’s assessment

6.176 The applicant considers that the potential for the presence of previously unidentified archaeological remains within the power station site is very low. Much of the land was formerly tidal sands and mudflats that were reclaimed following the construction of a railway embankment. The remaining areas within the power

station site have been subject to extensive extraction of sand. The land required for the port facilities and transport routes also has a very low potential for the presence of buried archaeological remains. The applicant considers that there would thus be no adverse effects on any archaeological remains.

6.177 In the wider landscape, designated and non-designated heritage assets have been identified and visited in order to understand their significance and the role that their setting plays in contributing to that significance. No historic buildings would be demolished or physically altered by the proposed scheme, Furness Abbey and Bow Bridge are both located in a valley, and the protection of these assets would not be significantly changed. The power station would be visible from Piel Castle, although the castle is 4.9km from the proposed development. The applicant states that the key views of the castle would not be affected.

6.178 The proposed new power station and stack would be clearly visible in views along Dungeon Lane. The applicant considers that the effect would be minor. A number of minor temporary adverse effects would occur during construction, and minor reversible adverse effects would occur during operation. The applicant considers that no effects that would be considered to be significant have been identified.

Local Authority Assessment

6.179 This part of the assessment has been carried out by Cumbria County Council’s Environment (Archaeology) Team, within the Environment Directorate. It is considered that the applicant’s assessment of the impacts of the proposal on archaeology and cultural heritage of the site and surrounding area is acceptable in terms of the impact on designated heritage assets and buried archaeological remains, and is largely acceptable in relation to non-designated assets.

6.180 The applicant states that there will be negligible impact on the Salthouse Road rail bridge, as was confirmed during pre-application consultation. The submitted plans appear to indicate that an element of this bridge will now be modified, or a new element built right alongside the existing bridge. If the historic fabric of the bridge is to be affected, or permanently masked, a scheme of photographic recording by way of mitigation should be proposed.

6.181 Part of the north east section of Cavendish Dock will be in-filled, and the new port facility at the entrance to Ramsden Dock will require an extension, as part of the proposals. The impact on Ramsden Dock is briefly addressed, but not that of Cavendish Dock, and the impact on the historic fabric and appearance of the docks. It is assumed that these works are deemed to have low impact due to their scale and the size of the overall structures, but a scheme to record any element prior to development should be proposed.

Traffic and Transport

Applicant’s assessment

6.182 The applicant has assessed the existing transport network, including the adjacent highway network, facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and public transport provision.

6.183 The applicant has carried out their own traffic surveys to establish details of existing traffic flows along the adjacent highway network. In addition, to estimate future traffic flows, the applicant has applied traffic growth rates to account for the projected growth in traffic and the effect of other committed developments in the area. The applicant claims that the observed traffic flows are as expected, and do not show anything out of the ordinary.

6.184 Access to the site is currently either by road via the power station access road off Rampside Road, or via a footpath/cycleway along the western boundary of the power station. Use of this latter route as an alternative form of access by employees is already encouraged with a pedestrian access gate established at the west of the site.

6.185 There is an existing bus service on Rampside Road with bus routes between Barrow-in-Furness, Roa Island, Coast Road and Ulverston. The applicant proposes to provide an additional bus stop within 400m of the access road to encourage employees to travel to the site by bus. There is a railway station at Roose with services running between Carlisle, Barrow, Lancaster and Manchester Airport.

6.186 The applicant anticipates that a proportion of the construction workers would already be living in close proximity of the site or would be staying in temporary local accommodation. Therefore they could use the existing pedestrian and cycle routes to access the site.

6.187 A Framework Construction Travel Plan has been prepared by the applicant, which sets out measures to reduce the traffic impact during the construction phase including specific targets to minimise the use of single occupancy vehicles, to ensure operational vehicles use appropriate routes, to maximise the use of public transport and to maximise the efficiency of operational vehicles. They propose that this Travel Plan would be reviewed and consulted with Cumbria County Council and other relevant parties before being finalised.

6.188 Construction materials would be sourced locally where reasonably practicable. Construction materials would generally be transported by road. The site’s location provides the opportunity to deliver fuel for the proposed biomass plant (wood pellets, virgin wood chips and recycled/waste wood) by alternative methods to road transport. All fuel would be delivered to the power station by ship to the Port of Barrow and then by rail to the power station, or by train from the main rail network.

6.189 In terms of total traffic, the applicant considers that the operation of the power station is unlikely to have any significant environmental effect.

Local Authority Assessment

6.190 This part of the assessment has been carried out by Cumbria County Council’s Transport & Highways Division within the Environment Directorate. Detailed comments relating to the assessment of the submitted information are detailed below.

Transport Assessment

6.191 Paragraph 1.3 states:

“Cumbria County Council deemed that the proposals are appropriate and the matters raised from the consultation are included in Appendix 1.”

6.192 While the report includes copies of the brief emails from the local Highway Network Manager, the formal responses of the County Council dated 07/12/2011 and 02/04/2012 are not included. In these responses, the County Council stated that the applicant should provide an assessment of a worst case scenario should both fuel and waste have to be transport wholly via the road network. This aspect has not been undertaken as the applicant considers that this is unlikely to happen, and therefore all scenarios considered within the Transport Assessment have the fuel wholly being delivered to the site via rail. However, paragraph 5.5.25 of the Environmental Statement (Document Reference 6.0) includes 108 HGV movements of locally sourced recycled wood and paragraph 13.9 of the Non- Technical Summary states the Road Transport would only be used for delivery of fuel in emergencies. Paragraph 1.4 of the Transport Assessment states that the traffic flows associated with the operational period of the Roosecote Biomass power station are only anticipated to result in a marginal increase from the existing power station. This statement is considered reasonable as long as all fuel deliveries to the site are via rail. However, should it become necessary for fuel to be delivered via the highway network then the impact will be much more significant.

6.193 The Local Highway Authority still considers that the worst case scenario of all fuel being delivered via the road network should have been considered to demonstrate the possible impact of the proposed development. Alternatively, the proposed Development Consent Order should be amended to expressly prohibit fuel deliveries via the road network and require the developer to keep a log of all deliveries and present this information upon request of the relevant planning authority.

6.194 Paragraph 5.5 and Table 5.1 indicate that the Biomass Station would employ between 72 and 522 construction staff on a daily basis across the construction period of 34 months. The average derived for this period is 289 staff. Due to the prolonged period of time over which the construction takes place, it would be more appropriate to calculate a rolling per annum figure. Table 1 below demonstrates that for prolonged periods of time the average daily number of employees is in excess of the 289 average quoted.

Table 1 – Daily Construction Workers

Rolling Per Rolling Per Month Staff Annum Month Staff Annum Ave. Ave. 1 72 18 435 266 2 72 19 435 290 3 72 20 435 314

4 72 21 435 338 5 72 22 435 362 6 72 23 500 386 7 145 24 500 410 8 145 25 522 429 9 145 26 522 448 10 145 27 478 458 11 217 28 478 468 12 217 121 29 406 465 13 290 139 30 406 463 14 290 157 31 290 451 15 362 181 32 217 432 16 362 205 33 145 408 17 362 235 34 72 378

6.195 Paragraph 5.10 applies a peak vehicle occupancy for workers of 2.1 which is then applied to the 522 maximum staff figure in order to estimate the number of vehicle trips generated (equates to 498 vehicle movements). However, WebTAG identifies a figure for average vehicle occupancy for AM commuters of 1.16 per vehicle which is significantly lower than the figure applied in the assessment and would result in a significant increase in traffic being generated by the development (equates to 900 vehicle movements).

6.196 Applying the travel plan target to the peak level of construction workers in itself is a satisfactory approach. Especially given this allows two years for the Travel Plan measures to be adopted, monitored to be undertaken, and additional measures to be put in place if the targets are not being hit. However, evidence of where a vehicle occupancy figure of 2.1 has been derived from has not been provided. A baseline should be provided taken from the current site Travel Plan (if recorded) or a survey of existing vehicle occupancies undertaken and referenced.

6.197 Due to the issues raised above regarding both the average number of employees on site and average car occupancy, table 5.2 of the Transport Assessment should be revised to represent a more robust assessment of the development traffic impacts.

6.198 While the HGV route detailed in paragraph 5.18 is agreed in principle, the Local Highway Authority considers it expedient for the developer to undertake a carriageway condition survey of the proposed haul route as the proposed additional HGV movements would contribute to an accelerated deterioration of parts of the route. The developer should discuss and agree with the Local Highway Authority proposals to minimise any resultant deterioration and means of undertaking remedial works. Sections of the A590/A5087 route in Barrow have been included in a proposed forward programme of capital structural maintenance schemes. An annual reassessment of the forward programme is currently on going. At present the estimated cost of the proposed maintenance works on the two sections of A5087 identified is approximately £260,000. Subject to funding, these may be undertaken during the proposed construction period. Uninterrupted access along the access route could be achieved if the developer considered

future (i.e. those works proposed to be undertaken during their construction phase) maintenance works as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan which is to be submitted prior to the commencement of foundation works (paragraph 17 of the Draft Development Consent Order – Document Reference 3.0).

6.199 The Roose Road / Risedale Road LinSig model which informs the Transport Assessment has been setup with excessive intergreen timings following the pedestrian movements. The pedestrian phase intergreen should be based on the industry standard approach as set out in DfT TAL 5/05 Part 4 “Pedestrian Facilities at Signal-Controlled Junctions”. This states that to derive pedestrian phase intergreen times (in seconds) the below formula should be used:-

L/1.2 + Pc

Where L is the width of the road crossing, Pc represents a pedestrian comfort factor, and 1.2 is pedestrian walking speed in metres/sec.

6.200 The signal configuration data indicates that the junction has a dynamic timing system. A survey of the signal timings experienced on the ground should have been undertaken with average green times used to representatively model the base situation. Allowing Linsig to optimise for Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC) on a double cycle without validation against real observed timings will result in an under representation of operational capacity.

6.201 It is not clear from the Linsig outputs provided what give-way tolerance has been applied to Arm 2 in the model. Right turn lanes at signals should be assigned a give-way co-efficient of 1.09 and maximum flow whilst giving way of 1440 pcu/hr. The saturation flow for the lane is shown as 2046 pcu/hr which appears high on review of the useable lane geometry. Both of these issues will result in under reported queue lengths and delay on this arm of the junction.

6.202 Paragraph 5.48 states that Passenger Car Unit (PCU) values have been derived simply by multiplying the HGV figures by two. Table B4 in WebTAG unit 3.9.5 provides standard PCU conversion factors for all vehicle classes which should be applied to the observed classified traffic flow data.

Public Rights of Way

6.203 The Rights of Way Plan (Document 2.3) indicates that two new rail crossings will be installed across public right of way 601006 (Salthouse Road to Roose) and one new rail crossing is proposed across 601108 (Roose to Salthouse Mills). In addition Document 6.3, Transport Assessment, section 8.2 states that an additional rail crossing will be installed across public right of way 601006 in the vicinity of Salthouse Junction (point T2 on the Rights of Way Plan). No evidence that the applicant has assessed the feasibility of the provision of alternatives to the proposed level crossings, such as the provision of bridges or tunnels or alternative routes, has been provided.

6.204 Public Right of Way 601006 (Salthouse Road to Rampside) is a very popular promoted route for pedestrians and cyclists and users with low levels of mobility.

The introduction of three new at level rail crossings within a 700m section of the right of way would be of substantial inconvenience to the public. In addition there will be an increased level of danger for users of 601006 from collision with trains when using the level crossings.

6.205 In order to reduce the level of risk with regards two of the proposed level crossings at points P6 and P8 on the submitted Rights of Way Plan (Document 2.3), an alternative route suitable for use by users with low levels of mobility, pedestrians and cyclists should be provided. This alternative route should be dedicated as highway and run from point T2 to the west of United Utilities Waste Water Treatment Works and Salthouse Paper Mill and rejoin public right of way 601006 100m south of point P9. In order to mitigate the increased danger associated with the proposed level crossing at point T2, it may be possible for a bridge or tunnel to be constructed.

6.206 With regards public Rights of Way 601108 (Roose to Salthouse Mills) and 601009 (Roose/Rampside Road to United Utilities Waste Water Treatment Works), respectively these enjoy moderate and light use by pedestrians and the introduction of level rail crossings at points P3, P6 and P8 will cause some inconvenience and an increased danger of collision with trains. However, there does not appear to be an alternative to mitigate this situation other than the installation of a bridge or tunnel at each location.

Rail Services

6.207 The proposed track layout could enable the biomass shuttle trains to operate between Ramsden Dock and Roosecote without any impact on the main line. As there are roughly hourly gaps in the passenger train service, there would also be sufficient time for freight traffic to use the main line to gain access to the Ramsden dock-Roosecote lines.

6.208 While the proposed bridge widening and track laying will be adjacent to the running lines, disruption to passenger train services will be kept to a minimum during the construction period. Northern Rail are not aware of any disruption to their services on the line during or after the construction period for the power station. Should short term blockades be needed, there is an alternative route into Barrow station that requires a reversal at Askam.

6.209 The times of passenger trains arriving at Roose railway station in the Centrica report of June, 2012, are correct however, it should be noted that these will be subject to change during 2013 and 2014.

6.210 Cycle parking and possibly additional shelter facilities could be installed at Roose Station should there be a need identified as part of the Travel Plan, or there is an increase in passenger use of Roose station as a result of the opening of the new power station.

Bus Services

6.211 The information provided in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement confirms that the existing accessibility to the development site by public transport is limited,

with the nearest bus stop being approximately 1km from the site entrance and Roose rail station approximately 1.3km from the site entrance. It is proposed to provide new bus stops within 400m of the site access road, however, given the length of the access road (approximately 550m), new stops in themselves are unlikely to encourage bus use by workers. In addition, the existing bus stops are served by the number 11 service. This runs from Barrow town centre so most users would have to take a second bus or walk to pick this service up. The number 11 service also currently has a low frequency, and the first arrival near the site from Barrow is at 09:10 with a return at 17:45 (the return prior to this being at 14:05). Table 13.7 in Chapter 13 of the ES lists a service departing at 08:11 from Ulverston, but this service runs only on Saturdays or weekdays in school holidays. Paragraph 13.8.5 states that the majority of staff involved in the construction phase would work a 08:00-17:00 shift, although arrival and departure times will be staggered over a 90 minute period before and after shift start and end times.

6.212 Therefore, there is no existing bus service on the current timetable that will allow workers to arrive in time for the start of their shift, and without a service to meet the needs of the potential users, provision of new bus stops will not attract extra usage.

6.213 One of the measures proposed in the Construction Travel Plan is to seek discussions with Blueworks Taxis, the existing provider of the number 11 service, regarding providing an additional service to tie in with construction worker shift times. While measures to improve the option for travel by public transport are generally supported, it should be noted that the number 11 service is currently provided by Blueworks on behalf of Cumbria County Council, and the current contract runs only until September 2015. As such, any discussions regarding public transport matters should take place via the County Council rather than direct with operators.

6.214 With regard to the proposed provision of additional bus services, it is considered that during the operational phase the small number of staff would not lend itself to a viable long-term service coinciding with shift times. During the construction phase, as noted above the length of the access road is likely to prove a barrier to attracting additional usage to the current scheduled service, and since the current service is provided with a minibus there is likely to be a limited impact on accommodating potential demand. Instead it is considered that a dedicated bus service for workers, paid for by the developer and linking from areas of accommodation in Barrow directly into the site rather than dropping off on the main road, would be a more appropriate alternative to improved public transport accessibility.

Construction Travel Plan

6.215 The Construction Travel Plan sets out clear and acceptable objectives and targets, including achieving a vehicle occupancy rate of 2.1 or better and specific targets for use of sustainable transport. The Travel Plan clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator along with a structured timetable for implementation of the Travel Plan. The proposed measures are generally

sound and acceptable, although as noted above the proposal to contribute towards additional bus services is unlikely to encourage modal shift, and provision of a dedicated workers bus service should be considered as an alternative. If this change is adopted the Construction Travel Plan will be considered to be acceptable.

Operational Travel Plan

6.216 The Operational Travel Plan acknowledges the shortfall in existing public transport provision, although as noted above the provision of additional bus stops and improvements to the scheduled bus service are likely to have a limited effectiveness in encouraging modal shift, particularly with only 62 workers during the operational phase. The provision of a dedicated bus for workers running directly into the site should be considered as an alternative, although with the low number of staff it is likely that car sharing may be a more effective measure to reduce single occupancy car trips, which is noted in the Travel Plan. The overall objectives of the Operational Travel Plan are acceptable, and the Travel Plan sets out a target of a 10% reduction in single occupancy car trips and the need for reviewing targets through annual monitoring reviews. Again, the responsibilities of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator are clearly set out, although both the Construction and Operational Travel Plans should have a statement setting out the management support for the Travel Plans, and the operator should ensure there is sufficient time and budget to allow the Travel Plan Co-ordinator to deliver the measures set out in the Travel Plans.

6.217 Requirement 18 in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order requires a Travel Plan to be submitted and approved prior to first fuel delivery. This should be amended to refer to the Operational Travel Plan, and should also set out that the Construction Travel Plan should be submitted and approved prior to construction commencing.

6.218 The Travel Plan targets, and therefore the developer's commitment to achieving the stated targets and mitigating the overall impact of the development in terms of vehicle trips, should be secured through a developer contribution which will be linked to successfully meeting the set targets. The developer should also provide a Travel Plan Monitoring Fee to cover CCC staff time related to ongoing monitoring of the Travel Plans. The Travel Plan monitoring period should be defined as the period of construction plus five years from the commencement of operation.

6.219 The Travel Plan Contribution will be used by the County Council to mitigate the impacts of the development in the event that the Travel Plan targets are not met, and should cover a period comprising the construction phase plus five years from the commencement of operation. The suggested Contribution is £291,126, based on the cost of an annual Barrow Megarider Plus bus ticket multiplied by the proposed reduction in the number of single occupancy staff car trips in both the construction and operation phases, multiplied by the respective length of each phase. Also, a contribution of £10,000 should be secured in respect of County Council staff time relating to the ongoing monitoring and review of the Travel Plans through contact with the development's Travel Plan co-ordinator. This contribution is based on the standard County Council Travel Plan Monitoring Fee of £6,600

over a five year period to cover the Operational Travel Plan, plus a pro-rata amount to cover the Construction Travel Plan period."

Summary of Traffic & Transport Issues

6.220 It is considered that there are a number of issues from a highway and transport perspective arising from the evaluation of the application and the supporting information. These issues relate to inadequate information being provided and include:

• The operational worst case scenario of all fuel being delivered via the highway network has not been assessed. As this possible impact, and its implications on the operation of the highway network is unknown, the proposed Development Consent Order should be amended to expressly prohibit fuel deliveries via the road network and require the developer to keep a log of all deliveries and present this information upon request of the relevant planning authority.

• A carriageway condition survey of the proposed haul route should be undertaken by the developer as the proposed additional HGV movements would contribute to an accelerated deterioration of parts of the route. Future maintenance of the route should be considered by the developer as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan in order to enable uninterrupted access along the route to be achieved

• The traffic impact during the construction phase of the development detailed in the Transport Assessment is overly optimistic and should be revised taking into account the detailed comments below in order to provide a more realistic evaluation of the impact the development will have on the highway network.

• The development would have a detrimental impact on public rights of way users due to the proposed level crossings which increase the level of danger for users from collision with trains and are inconvenient to use, particularly for users with low levels of mobility.

• The proposed Construction Travel Plan is generally acceptable, however a contribution towards additional bus services is unlikely to encourage modal shift, therefore the provision of a dedicated workers bus service should be considered as an alternative and included as a measure in the plan.

• Requirement 18 in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order should be amended to refer to the Operational Travel Plan, and should also set out that the Construction Travel Plan should be submitted to the relevant planning authority and approved prior to construction commencing.

• The Travel Plan should be properly secured to ensure the developer’s commitment to achieving the stated targets and minimising the overall impact of the development in terms of vehicle trips.

Noise and vibration

Applicant’s assessment

6.221 The applicant has assessed noise and vibration during the construction and operation of the Biomass power station. Noise and vibration during the construction and operation of the biomass power station, railway and fuel handling facilities have been predicted and assessed by the applicant using British Standard methodologies.

6.222 The applicant’s baseline surveys indicate that noise levels are low at all areas potentially affected by the development. However, their report states that there is a large variation in baseline noise levels that is likely to be due to variations in weather and atmospheric conditions. Measures to minimise the adverse effects of noise during construction, include routing and programming of construction vehicle movement to minimise disturbance to local residents, HGV and site vehicles equipped with broadband, non-tonal reversing alarms, site hoardings to minimise noise propagation outside the site boundary and selection of piling techniques, which minimise noise and vibration where practicable.

6.223 Monitoring of noise levels would be carried out throughout the construction programme. A local community liaison strategy would be established by the applicant.

6.224 Construction noise and vibration effects would be negligible at residential areas due to the separation distance between houses and the site. There would be minor adverse effects of construction noise at neighbouring footpaths, cycleways, and fishing locations at Cavendish Dock.

6.225 During operation, other potential noise emissions have been identified including noise associated with rail and ship unloading facilities, noise from road vehicles delivering process materials and transporting waste, and noise and vibration from fuel delivery trains. The design of the process and infrastructure has incorporated measures to minimise the adverse effects of noise emissions in line with the Government’s Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE). Measures proposed by the applicant include selection of quiet plant and processes, design of the building fabric to provide sound insulation, and specification of high performance silencers on stack outlet, exhausts, steam vents and other external noise sources.

6.226 An Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) would be established by the applicant, with measures to control noise during operation of the power station. This would include a noise monitoring strategy, which would be developed prior to commencement of operations. This would monitor noise at locations on the boundary of the power station site and the boundary of the fuel storage and handling site at the Port of Barrow.

Local Authority Assessment

6.227 This part of the assessment has been carried out by Barrow Borough Council and In relation to the draft Development Consent Order itself, have the following comments to make:-

Construction & Commissioning Phase

6.228 In addition to the Conditions 20(1) and 20(2) – Construction Hours of Working including reference to the Code of Construction Practice, it is recommended that the following shall apply:

Percussive piling operations shall only take place between 8:00am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday and not at all on Saturday, Sunday, or Bank Holidays, and any other noisy construction works shall only take place during the hours of 7:00am - 7:00pm Monday to Friday, and 8:00am - 1:00pm on Saturday. There shall be no noisy construction activities on Sunday or Bank Holidays. 'Noisy Construction' is defined as audible or perceived at any noise sensitive dwelling.

Operational Phase

6.229 In relation to Condition 22(1) - Day and Night noise rating levels are comparable to the noise conditions on the planning consent for the existing power station and to those previously monitored. However, it is recommended that the addition of the ‘noise penalty’ condition, similar to that in the current permission is included:

Rating levels L Ar,Tr in condition 22(1) shall be reduced by 5dB when the noise is impulsive or where pure tones predominate.

6.230 In relation to Condition 23, it is considered that the following sentence should be inserted:

Should the results of the noise survey suggest that further mitigation measures are necessary these shall be identified by the undertaker and implemented within one month following their approval unless otherwise agreed in writing by the requesting planning authority.

6.231 The inclusion of Condition 24 is welcomed and considered good practice.

Waste generation

Applicant’s assessment

6.232 The existing Roosecote Power Station currently has a waste management procedure for its operational wastes. Wastes are stored in a dedicated area of the site, with hazardous waste stored separately in appropriate containers.

6.233 Where it has been deemed appropriate, reuse of buildings and infrastructure has been incorporated into the proposals. This includes retention of the turbine building, admin building and the workshop/stores; reuse of the existing water cooling infrastructure including retention of the water treatment plant building, the raw and demineralised water tanks, the cooling water pump house and pipes; and retention of the access road to the sub-station and the emergency access to the Barrow Gas Terminals.

6.234 A pre-demolition audit would be undertaken by the applicant to identify materials that can be reused within the development or off site. This would include other construction wastes include dredgings from the construction of the new berth at Ramsden Dock, spoil and arisings, and general construction waste. A Site Construction Waste Management Plan has been drafted by the applicant to define how these wastes would be managed.

6.235 During operation, the main solid waste product of the plant would be ash. This is removed from the process as bottom ash, boiler fly ash or Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) residue. The bottom ash would be screened with the finer material recycled to the bed material. The FGT solid residue would comprise of a small quantity of fly ash, excess sorbent, sulphide and chloride salts, excess carbon and volatile heavy metals including mercury. Due to the inclusion of recycled/waste wood in the fuel mix and the potential for the presence of heavy metal contaminants this would be disposed of as hazardous waste. It has been identified that it is feasible to use the fly ash waste and FGT residue as a raw material substitute in cement production.

6.236 Wastes would also be generated from the screening the waste/recycled wood, and oversize materials. An operational waste management strategy has been prepared by the applicant to identify potential options for the disposal of the wastes, considering opportunities to divert all the major wastes from landfill. This would continue to be developed as the operation commences. It is understood that the applicant has had ongoing discussions with waste management contractors and regulators in the vicinity to identify waste management options for the operational wastes, in particular the FGT residue.

Local Authority Assessment

6.237 This part of the assessment has been carried out by Cumbria County Council’s Waste Management Services and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Team within the Planning & Sustainability Division of the Environment Directorate.

6.238 Many of the statements in the submitted documents about waste management are welcomed. References are made to designing-out and minimising waste, not over-ordering construction materials and using recycled materials as much as possible. For example, the Design and Access Statement states that recycled or waste materials will be used for concrete, for road bases and for bedding materials for paved areas, if they are available locally and the Site Construction Waste Management Plan refers to targets for diverting demolition and other wastes from landfill.

6.239 However, it has not been possible to properly understand the implications of the proposals in terms of supply of construction materials or of waste management because of the lack of figures about how much aggregate would be needed, and how much waste would be produced and would need to be treated or disposed of. Appendix A describes the waste types but does not include estimates of their volumes. Bearing in mind the low level of detail that has been provided, it is difficult to understand how conclusions about neutral environmental effects, such as in 15.7.10, have been reached.

6.240 It is noted that there is intended to be a 26 month construction period starting in the 3rd quarter of 2013 and a figure of 104 lorry deliveries/week is given for construction materials.

6.241 No figures have been able to be identified of the estimated quantities of construction aggregates or of the rock fill for Cavendish Dock. The transport assessment states that the sources of construction materials are unknown. Whilst Roosecote sand and gravel quarry is adjacent to the site, and is owned by Centrica, it has limited reserves. Alternative permitted sources are 40 to 70 miles away. Marine dredged sand is landed at Barrow and presumably has potential to be used with low road transport implications.

6.242 Similarly details are not given of where it is proposed to dispose of wastes. Paragraph 15.2.2 states the requirements for assessing waste management capacity over at least five years of operations. With regard to this, Table 16.4 is somewhat misleading because landfills in Cumbria cannot be assumed to be available, Distington landfill has no remaining capacity and the Derwent Howe slag bank and Lillyhall sites have planning permissions which require them to be fully restored by 2013 and 2014 respectively.

6.243 From details in Appendix 15.2 of wastes from three feedstock options, there could be around 33,000 tonnes/year of operational waste. It is not clear how effective the measures would be to drive these wastes up the waste hierarchy, where the wastes would be treated/remediated and where residual wastes would be disposed of.

6.244 It is not clear if the Waste Estimate Data Sheets and the Waste Management Data Sheets are intended to be made available to the local planning authorities. The six-monthly reviews mentioned in paragraph 3.8 may not be frequent enough to identify a need for waste management action.

6.245 With regard to the comments in the Site Construction Waste Management Plan (paragraph 1,2) about whether materials have to be identified as waste, account could now be taken of, and reference could now be made to, the August 2012 DEFRA Guidance on the legal definition of waste.

6.246 The references to the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework need to be updates (paragraph 15.3.14 to .16 and 15.6.15). The County Council has withdrawn the Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map and has commenced work on the Minerals and Waste Local Plan under the new development plan system.

Socio and economic effects

Applicant’s assessment

6.247 The applicants have used a number of sources to establish the baseline socio- economic effects.

6.248 The key findings are that Barrow-in-Furness is a relatively isolated area, which shows significant deprivation in many but not all parts, and on some but not all

indicators. The town and surrounding area have considerable natural and historic assets. These are, however, not among the most popular attractions in Cumbria, partly as a result of the area’s comparative isolation.

6.249 The project is expected to provide a significant number of jobs in the construction phase. Many of these would require specialist skills which are more likely than not to be brought in from outside the area. The most likely benefits therefore are employment for local people to the extent that their skills can match requirements and the measures available to create the best match. There would also be benefits to local hotels and providers of other accommodation catering for workers who would be brought in from outside the area.

6.250 Once the plant is in operation, it is hoped that the majority of the 50 jobs would be available to local people. In terms of local amenity, steps would be taken to ensure that rights of way remain open in the construction and operational stage with local diversions where necessary.

Local Authority Assessment

6.251 This part of the assessment has been carried out by Cumbria County Council’s Economic Development Division within the Environment Directorate in relation to the Social and Economic Chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) for the proposed biomass power station.

Employment – Creation of jobs and training opportunities

6.252 It is considered that the potential to engage local people in direct and indirect employment opportunities resulting from construction and operation are not fully realised or the benefits understood within the submission.

6.253 The ES outlines that whilst a number of jobs will be created through the construction phase, because of the specialist nature of the build a number of these skills will be brought in from outside of the area. The ES suggests that the workforce in the operational stage is more likely to be drawn from the local area bearing in mind the history of power generation at the site.

6.254 Whilst it is welcomed that the ES advises that workers transferring from the existing power station will receive retraining, a clear indication of the number of jobs and positions would be helpful to provide certainty of continuation of employment to ensure that existing skills and employment benefits are retained within the local area. Concern is raised that more certainty cannot be given to the encouragement of the use of local labour within the construction period. It is suggested that there is a clear need for a more comprehensive and integrated programme of intervention to improve the opportunities for employment creation to help promote lasting and positive skills beyond the construction period to deliver long term sustainable employment benefit to the area. The County Council would be willing to help in developing, in consultation with the developer, an employment brokerage scheme to enable the developer to use local workforce and apprenticeship opportunities. This would ensure that local residents are supported

to access employment and training opportunities on site.

6.255 There is a lack of consideration of the potential of the operation and benefits which could be gained from using existing supply chains within the local area and how this could be complemented by the effective approach to developing local workforce skills. Timely work should be carried out by developers to access the foundations for a local supply chain at the earliest opportunity – ensuring local businesses have equal access to opportunities and are able to prepare for their input into projects. The county council has worked major with employees in Cumbria to develop Supply Chain Framework that sets out the methodology for engaging with local suppliers as well as the support local authorities and other key partners can provide. The county council would be happy to replicate this work for this development.

Tourism

6.256 The ES fails to appropriately consider the impact that the proposed development may have on the opportunities to improve the tourism offer in the area particularly in respect of the ambitions contained within the Barrow Port Action Plan. A commitment to address impacts should be addressed throughout the construction and operation of the proposed development.

Community Benefits

Applicant’s Assessment

6.257 Community benefits are not addressed in the applicant’s submissions.

Local Authority Assessment

6.258 As with the Socio-economic effects, this part of the assessment has been carried out by Cumbria County Council’s Economic Development Division within the Environment Directorate.

Community Impact (Community Impact Mitigation)

6.259 It is considered that there is a lack of a clear analysis of the interrelationship of topic based matters and the effect on the community arising from the development of a biomass power plant. For example the Social and Economic chapter states that the Transport chapter addresses the matters arising from transport implications of the developments and makes no further comment about the interrelationship. Similarly there is no consideration air quality issues and impacts on the local community. The ES is also lacking in its consideration of the effect on the community in terms of the perception of a biomass plant being located within an area.

6.260 In accordance with the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan Policy ST4, it is considered that further work is necessary to more clearly quantify what the development’s impact will be on the local community. If it found that the development demonstrates a quantifiable impact then it would be appropriate to

request some compensatory measures in recognition of the potential impacts on the quality of life and well being of local communities which may not be addressed by other mitigation. The contribution should be commensurate with the level of impact or harm on local communities, taking into account the nature of the impacts on the quality of life, the number of people affected, the length of the project and account of its construction operation.

Contribution to the Community to Host a Biomass Power Plant.

6.261 Community Benefit Contributions (CBC) are payments to a community in recognition for hosting a development that delivers national benefits, whilst imposing particular consequences upon the host community. CBC is in addition to the actions and contributions that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. It is voluntary, and may be in addition to, and ‘above and beyond’ any Section 106 agreement, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment or Community Impact Mitigation (CIM) fund agreed between the developer and host communities.

6.262 The concept of Community Benefit Contribution is common in other parts of the UK in relation to renewable energy developments. It is considered appropriate that a request is made in respect of the proposed development as it is considered to be in the national interest.

6.263 At the present time a CBC package has not been offered by the developer. It will therefore be necessary to explore whether the developer is willing to offer this and how it will be quantified.

6.264 Consideration will need to be given to the appropriate vehicle for over-seeing the programme of Community Benefit Contribution funded projects. This could be via establishing a community fund and/or the local authorities overseeing the collection and allocation of the CBC fund.

Fire and Emergency Planning

Applicant’s Assessment

6.265 There is no information relating to Fire and Emergency Planning contained in the applicant’s submission.

Local Authority Assessment

6.266 This part of the assessment has been carried out by Cumbria County Council’s Emergency Planning/Fire Protection and Fire & Rescue Service within the Safer and Stronger Communities Directorate.

6.267 It is considered that that there is insufficient information provided with the DCO application submission to confirm as to whether or not the COMAH Regulations (Control Of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH)) as amended in 2005 apply to this proposal.

6.268 Centrica RPS would have to apply to the HSE prior to construction if they do meet any of the thresholds and the County Council’s Emergency Planning Team would receive a copy of the COMAH application as a key stakeholder.

6.269 Cumbria County Council’s Emergency Planning Team could not fully determine an off site plan until the applicant had developed their on-site plan. Any costs associated with that off-site plan would be recharged to Centrica RPS so the actual resource impact on Emergency Planning is minimal.

6.270 As the enforcing authority of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS) acknowledges the Centrica Roosecote Power Station (CRPS) commitment to “adopt the highest standard of fire safety equipment” (CRPS Consultation Report, June 2012, Pg 69). However, there are no further comments in response to the consultation in accordance with the Planning Act 2008.

6.271 Specific Building Plans submitted to the Local Authority Building Control at the Building Regulations stage will be subject to a full and detailed response by CFRS in accordance with Article 45 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

6.272 In terms of the potential risk to the general public, it is considered that without understanding the products that would be used on site, the County Council cannot comment; however the HSE will be the "Competent Authority" and it will be the HSE who will need to be satisfied that any identified health and safety risks are managed, and not the Local Authority (CCC).

6.273 If the application involves an COMAH Upper Tier proposal the following would apply and be regulated by the HSE. If a site is entering COMAH because of an increase in the quantity of dangerous substances held on site, notification must be made before the start of construction and/or operation. However, if the site is entering COMAH because of a change in regulations by the Competent Authority, e.g. change in threshold quantity for a substance, the applicant should submit a notification within three months of the change.

6.274 For COMAR Upper Tier, a Safety Report is required which usually includes:

• A full description of the site, substances stored and handled, the local environment etc • A policy on how to prevent and mitigate major accidents (Major Accident Prevention Policy) (shorter than for Lower Tier sites) • Details of the safety management system that implements the MAPP • Identification of major accidents including human and environmental consequences • Information on physical safety precautions, operating and control systems, shutdown systems and alarms, and emergency equipment such as relief systems and fire fighting equipment • Justification for the types and frequency of testing, maintenance and inspection of mechanical and instrumented systems.

• Information about the emergency plan for the site. This is also used by the local authority for the preparation of an off-site emergency plan. • A demonstration to show that risks from the installation are ALARP ( As Low As Reasonably Practicable).

6.275 It is considered that there would be no public safety impacts relating to any issues arising concerning the 2x licensed sports ground facilities that Cumbria County Council certifies, that being Holker Street and Craven Park, Barrow.

Aviation and Telecommunications

6.276 This matter is left for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), OFCOM, Cable & Wireless Worldwide plc, BT and associated organisations as being the relevant consultation bodies.

7.0 BARROW LOCAL COMMITTEE AND LOCAL MEMBER VIEWS

7.1 The proposed Roosecote Biomass proposal was considered by the Barrow Local Committee at a public meeting held on the 6 th September 2012, where a report setting out a summary of the applicant’s case and findings of their Environmental Statement and other documents was presented by a representative of the County Council’s Spatial Planning Team.

7.2 Following a detailed discussion of the issues by members of the Barrow Local Committee and having received a series of questions from members of the public attending the meeting, the Local Committee RESOLVED,

• that the Committee is strongly OPPOSED to the proposed development of a Biomass Incinerator in Roosecote, Barrow-in-Furness following consideration of the report and the public representations presented at the Local Committee for Barrow on 6 September 2012 and in particular the Committee believes the proposal is unacceptable and the case presented by the applicant is unproven. Committee believes that the application should not be approved and that appropriate independent evidence should be obtained on each of the aspects listed in the report. This independent evidence should take account of the issues raised at the Committee and in particular the concerns noted below:

Air Quality and Odour Centrica have no existing operational biomass plants and their figures are based on some dispersion modelling work. They have only looked at PM 10 and over, the Committee asks for figures on PM 2.5 and below, as their figures can not be substantiated.

Centrica claims that there would be no significant impact from road, ship and rail emissions but members believe there would be a considerable impact and ask for further exploration and analysis to be carried out.

Water Quality – No further comment at this stage

Hydrology and Flood Risk – No further comment at this stage

Land Quality – No further comment at this stage

Ecology – No further comment at this stage

Ornithology – No further comment at this stage

Landscape and Visual Effects

The sheer size of the development is not in keeping with the rest of the area and would lead to a significant adverse visual impact on the local area.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage – No further comment at this stage

Traffic and Transport Residents have already raised issues with increased road congestion in the area. Centrica has been inconsistent with the estimated number of traffic flows to and from the site.

Noise and Vibration The information provided by Centrica relating to noise and vibration has not been consistent. Other areas of the town would be adversely affected by the noise from docks.

Waste Generation Centrica has not stated where the waste from the plant will be taken or what contaminates might be deposited and what commitment will be undertaken to manage the deposit of waste.

Socio Economic Effects The application will have an adverse impact on the proposed Barrow Marina and Village, as well as the tourism industry in Barrow.

Aviation and Telecommunications – No further comment at this stage

Safer Communities There are concerns over potential fire risks at the plant as previous accidents at other industrial sites in Barrow leads members to believe that safety cannot be guaranteed.

7.3 A copy of the full Minutes of the Barrow Local Committee meeting is attached in Appendix 2 to this Local Impact Report.

Local Member views

7.4 The Local Member for Low Furness has commented that “ Unless Cumbria County Council are 100% certain that there is no risk to the public from emissions from this plant then it should be opposed”.

8.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy considerations

8.1 The planning history confirms that the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station would be located on the site of the existing electricity generating power station, which has itself an extensive planning history of applications over the years for extensions, new buildings and chimneys, which have seen the power station expand to occupy the existing site today. In addition there are planning permissions in the vicinity of the site for a renewable energy plant at Ramsden Dock and the United Utilities Water Treatment Plant. In addition there have been numerous applications for port related development adjacent to the DCO boundary.

8.2 In terms of policy considerations, national policy indicates that there should be a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) states that this presumption applies unless more specific and relevant policies set out in the NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused. National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3) reaffirms advice in EN1 on the basis that the need for infrastructure covered by the NPS has been demonstrated, and that there are ambitious renewable energy targets in place and a significant increase in large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target.

8.3 In accordance with EN1 and EN3, the applicant claims that the Roosecote Biomass Power Station has been designed to allow future opportunities can be realised for the utilisation of combined heat and power off-take if and when they arise. However, they point out that the integration of CHP into the project is dependent upon the availability if a suitable end user and may not be realised until later on in the project life cycle.

8.4 The North West of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy also gives general support for the delivery of renewable energy schemes, which contribute towards the indicative regional targets. Whilst criteria are identified which should be taken into account in assessing development schemes, Policy EM17 of the RSS states that these should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of renewable energy technologies.

8.5 Sub-regional planning policies contained in the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy support major development in Barrow to support its regional and sub- regional role, especially opportunities to sustain and enhance employment, secure investment and diversify the economic base. Reference is made to the importance of Barrow Marina and the importance of Barrow Port redevelopment, where major mixed use development to create a Marina Village and Waterfront Gateway is proposed.

8.6 The Saved and Extended Policies contained in the Cumbria and lake District Joint Structure Plan (JSP) define major development, which will only be permitted where the total benefit of a scheme clearly outweighs the total detrimental effects,

and that permission will be granted on condition that all possible measures are taken to minimise the adverse effects of development and associated infrastructure, and where appropriate provision is made to meet local community needs; acceptable measures are secured for decommissioning and site restoration; and arrangements are made for suitable local community involvement during development, decommissioning and restoration.

8.7 It is understood that the applicant did not consider alternative locations and methods in accordance with Saved and Extended JSP Policy ST4, as they take the view that the National Planning Statements do not require alternative locations to be assessed, and that the NPS only require alternatives that have been considered by the applicant to be reported. The applicant has only considered alternatives in respect of fuel delivery options and colour options on the main power station buildings.

8.8 Local planning policies within the Barrow Local Plan Review are aimed at protecting the coastal zone, nature conservation sites and landscape features. Whilst the Local Plan supports energy generating projects that rely on renewable energy resources, such projects need to meet established best practice criteria and the energy benefits must outweigh the environmental impacts.

8.9 The Local Plan also requires significant development to provide additional infrastructure requirements and social, recreational and community facilities where needed. Importantly the Barrow Port Action Plan proposes large scale regeneration of some 240 ha of land in mixed use including Ramsden, Buccleuch and Cavendish Docks. The proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) boundary for the power station includes a number of sites previously allocated within the Barrow Port Area Action Plan for housing, commercial and environmental development. The key sites included within the boundary for the DCO are Key Site 1: Barrow Marina, Key Site 2: Marina Village Housing; Key Site 3: Land at Cavendish Dock; Key Site 4: Barrow Watersports Centre and Key Site 5: Salthouse Housing. These sites will be affected to varying degrees by the proposed Roosecote Biomass power station, either through physical proximity, access requirements, engineering and construction works or new structures depending on their location.

8.10 Overall, it is considered that the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power station may have a significant impact upon, and could severely prejudice, the development and implementation of various aspects of the Barrow Port Area Action Plan, both in terms of physical proximity and visual impact (e.g. Marina Village), which is considered unacceptable. The linked nature of the proposed developments at the existing power station site and through Cavendish Dock to Ramsden Dock would remove the legible routes outlined in the Action Plan and may preclude future accessibility. Barrow Borough Council would wish to protect the environmental and amenity value of Cavendish Dock, and it is not clear to which some of the land included in the DCO boundary such as Cavendish Dock Road will be used and whether this may preclude other use and access. Barrow Borough Council believes the successful regeneration of the area requires comprehensive development of the sites within the Action Plan, and the proposal in its entirely is therefore not in accordance with the Development Plan.

Evaluation of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Assessment

8.11 From the above assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development, significant concerns are raised by Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council over the quality of the information contained in the Centrica RPS Limited’s assessments of the impact of the proposed development upon the area of Barrow and its surrounds.

8.12 In some cases, the applicant’s EIA information is incomplete or deficient, and this has created difficulties for Cumbria County Council and Barrow Borough Council to adequately assess the full impact of the proposed development based on the applicant’s DCO submission so far. Notwithstanding these issues, from the above assessment the following conclusions can be drawn.

8.13 The Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application for the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station includes detailed assessments of air quality, the effects of air pollutants on nature conservation sites, and the risks to health posed by emissions to air. These aspects of the Environmental Statement have been reviewed by AEA Technology on behalf of Barrow Borough Council. It was found that the applicant has in general used appropriate techniques to evaluate these air quality, conservation and health issues, and in most respects, emissions to air would not pose significant risks to air quality, human health or natural ecosystems.

8.14 However, a number of concerns regarding the study methods and findings were identified. The “high significance” issues identified in relation to the assessments of air quality, health risk and nature conservation sites for the proposed development were as follows:

• Substantial increases in levels of air pollution and risks to health are forecast for some substances in some locations. The EN-1 guidance document advises that these air quality considerations should be viewed as “important.”

• A risk-based and/or quantitative assessment of dust from the storage and handling of biomass material should be provided.

• Deposition at some habitat sites may have been under-estimated due to the use of inappropriate deposition velocities

• Levels of ammonia at some habitat sites may have been assessed against an inappropriate air quality guideline.

• Levels of benzo(a)pyrene may have been under-reported in the modelling study. The forecast levels could potentially result in a significant impact on air quality.

• The assessment of chromium VI is based on data from waste incineration facilities which may not be representative of the proposed facility. If this is the case, levels of chromium VI could potentially exceed the relevant air quality guideline.

• The deposition rates of metals may have been under-estimated. This would indicate a potentially significant impact due to deposition of some metals.

• The assessment of the health risks due to exposure to released substances via consumption of fish has not been carried out on a worst-case basis, and consequently the risks to health may have been under-estimated.

• An Appropriate Assessment should be carried out in respect of potential impacts on the Morecambe Bay SAC. This should include an assessment of metals emitted from the proposed facility on shellfish and bird life in this SAC.

8.15 A number of issues identified as being of “medium significance” and “low significance” were also identified. In particular, the Environmental Statement does not address the issue of ultrafine particulate matter. This has been highlighted by a number of consultees, and it would be helpful for the applicant to provide an assessment of ultrafine particulate matter. This and other “medium” and “low” significance issues should be considered in the evaluation of the planning application along with the “high significance” issues listed above.

8.16 With regard to land quality, it is recommended that further work, including site investigations should be carried out in relation to identifying the extent of any contaminants and the remedial measures required to be taken. Amendments are suggested to Requirement 25 of the Development Consent Order.

8.17 With regard to ecology and ornithology, there appears to be some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the applicant’s Environmental Assessment due to insufficient survey information on which to base the work. More detailed habitat mapping and evaluation of habitats both on the site and outside the development footprint should have been carried out by the applicant. Whilst we have identified some positive impacts, there are a number of negative impacts, which could have an adverse permanent or long-term effect on ecology/ornithology of the site unless suitable mitigation can be arranged, or if this is not possible, then adequate compensation must be provided. Many of the identified local effects are on the biodiversity rather than the internationally and nationally designated sites.

8.18 It is acknowledged that the majority of the potential ecological effects covered by the Environmental Statement are considered to be neutral in that the valued ecological receptors before, during and after the development of the biomass power station are not expected to suffer any significant direct or indirect effect, provided that the mitigation and compensation measures are adopted. Qualifying features of the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site, and therefore the integrity of these sites, are not considered likely to be permanently adversely affected by the power station development, although temporary minor effects are anticipated during the construction phase. Mitigation for most of these temporary minor adverse effects is provided in the Environmental Statement, excepting the construction of the rail link where compensation for disturbance and loss of a small part of the SPA has not been adequately covered. In addition, possible loss of, or disturbance to, inland roosting areas does not appear to have been addressed. The issues raised

in the negative impacts section above may well also be categorised as neutral effects once more detailed survey and adequate mitigation/compensation methodology has been undertaken, but at present we do not have sufficient information on which to base our judgement.

8.19 With regard to cumulative effects on SPA birds from increased disturbance through developments in the vicinity of Barrow Docks, it is difficult to assess without knowledge of the total carrying capacity of both Duddon Estuary and Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar sites. Use is already made of Ramsden Dock by SPA birds displaced from Cavendish Dock when disturbed and as additional high tide roost. The cumulative effect of land-take on habitats likely to be lost to development in Barrow docks area is undervalued, and we consider that the cumulative impact on local/district/County habitats may be significant unless adequate compensation is provided for loss of habitat. This would also require retention of habitat continuity through wildlife corridors to prevent loss of biodiversity in the port area. Cumulative effects arising through land take would also impact on invertebrate and reptile populations unless adequate compensation is provided in each case. It is important that populations are not left isolated as a result of cumulative development.

8.20 With regard to landscape & visual effects, although it would appear that the applicant has carried out a relatively thorough visual impact assessment it is not evident within the report and assessment schedules that all aspects of the development have been assessed robustly, e.g. lighting and night time effects, cumulative effects and plume from the stacks. Also a clear explanation should have been provided where the assessment’s significance results deviate from the significance matrix if applied directly, to allow the reader to understand the reason for the deviation or the professional judgement made.

8.21 A number of the landscape receptors which have been identified in the report have not been carried through for assessment in the report or assessment schedules, e.g. the effects on the landscape character of Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Landscapes of County Importance and Local Landscapes. A clear explanation should also have been provided by the applicant on the reasoning behind the sensitivities identified for those landscape receptors, i.e. Landscape Character Types assessed in the LVIA.

8.22 Following review of the applicant’s LVIA (notwithstanding the shortcomings of the LVIA as discussed above) we would conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station would not have a significant effect on the landscape character of the local and wider landscape including that of the Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB and locally designated landscapes. The proposed development is situated within a landscape which is characterised locally by industrial features and the proposed elements of the Biomass Power Station are unlikely to significantly alter the surrounding landscape character.

8.23 In terms of visual effects we would conclude that the proposed Biomass Power Station development would result in significant effects only upon a small number of residents situated within close proximity of the site, namely at the southern eastern end of Dowie Close and in the Hornbeam Crescent area on the southern

edge of Barrow-in-Furness. Here we consider that the proposals would significantly alter the existing views from the properties.

8.24 Otherwise the visual effects of the proposals on other receptors within the study area and receptors assessed outside the study area including those at Lake District National Park, Arnside and Silverdale AONB, Morecambe and Heysham would not be significant.

8.25 In terms of archaeological and cultural heritage, it is considered that the applicant’s assessment of the impacts of the proposal on archaeology and cultural heritage of the site and surrounding area is acceptable in terms of the impact on designated heritage assets and buried archaeological remains, and is largely acceptable in relation to non-designated assets.

8.26 With regard to traffic and transport matters, a number of issues arise from the evaluation of the application and the supporting information. These issues relate to inadequate information being provided and include:

• The operational worst case scenario of all fuel being delivered via the highway network has not been assessed. As this possible impact, and its implications on the operation of the highway network is unknown, the proposed Development Consent Order should be amended to expressly prohibit fuel deliveries via the road network and require the developer to keep a log of all deliveries and present this information upon request of the relevant planning authority.

• A carriageway condition survey of the proposed haul route should be undertaken by the developer as the proposed additional HGV movements would contribute to an accelerated deterioration of parts of the route. Future maintenance of the route should be considered by the developer as part of the Construction Traffic Management Plan in order to enable uninterrupted access along the route to be achieved.

• The traffic impact during the construction phase of the development detailed in the Transport Assessment is overly optimistic and should be revised taking into account the detailed comments below in order to provide a more realistic evaluation of the impact the development will have on the highway network.

• The development would have a detrimental impact on public Rights of Way users due to the proposed level crossings which increase the level of danger for users from collision with trains and are inconvenient to use, particularly for users with low levels of mobility.

• The proposed Construction Travel Plan is generally acceptable, however a contribution towards additional bus services is unlikely to encourage modal shift, therefore the provision of a dedicated workers bus service should be considered as an alternative and included as a measure in the plan.

• Requirement 18 in Schedule 1 of the draft Development Consent Order should be amended to refer to the Operational Travel Plan, and should also set out

that the Construction Travel Plan should be submitted to the relevant planning authority and approved prior to construction commencing.

• The Travel Plan should be properly secured to ensure the developer’s commitment to achieving the stated targets and minimising the overall impact of the development in terms of vehicle trips.

8.27 With regard to noise and vibration, day and night noise rating levels are considered to be comparable to the noise conditions on the planning consent for the existing power station and to those previously monitored. However, it is recommended that relevant conditions should be amended or added to within the DCO requiring:

• hours of construction working;

• an additional noise penalty; and

• a further noise survey and mitigation.

8.28 In terms of waste generation, it has not been possible to properly understand the implications of the proposals in terms of the supply of construction materials or of waste management because of the lack of figures about how much aggregate would be needed, and how much waste would be produced and would need to be treated or disposed of. Similarly, details are not given as to where it is proposed to dispose of wastes. It is considered that landfills in Cumbria cannot be assumed to be available as Distington landfill has no remaining capacity and the Derwent Howe slag bank and Lillyhall sites have planning permissions, which require them to be fully restored by 2013 and 2014 respectively.

8.29 With regard to matters relating to socio-economic effects, community impact and a contribution to the community to host the development, whilst it is welcomed that the ES advises that workers transferring from the existing power station will receive retraining, a clear indication of the number of jobs and positions would be helpful to provide certainty of continuation of employment to ensure that existing skills and employment benefits are retained within the local area. There is a clear need for a more comprehensive and integrated programme of intervention to improve the opportunities for employment creation to help promote lasting and positive skills beyond the construction period to deliver long term sustainable employment benefit to the area. There is a lack of consideration of the potential of the operation and benefits which could be gained from using existing supply chains within the local area and how this could be complemented by the effective approach to developing local workforce skills. The ES fails to appropriately consider the impact that the proposed development may have on the opportunities to improve the tourism offer in the area.

8.30 It is also considered that there is a lack of a clear analysis of the interrelationship of topic based matters and the effect on the community arising from the development of a biomass power plant. Further work is necessary to more clearly quantify what the impact of the development will be on the local community. If a quantifiable impact is demonstrated, then it would be appropriate to request some

compensatory measures in recognition of the potential impacts on the quality of life and well being of local communities, which may not be addressed by other mitigation. Consideration will need to be given to the appropriate vehicle for over- seeing the programme of Community Benefit Contribution funded projects. This could be via establishing a community fund and/or the local authorities overseeing the collection and allocation of the CBC fund.

8.31 In terms of fire and emergency planning, it is considered that that there is insufficient information provided with the DCO application submission to confirm as to whether or not the COMAH Regulations (Control Of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH)) as amended in 2005 apply to this proposal. It was not possible to fully determine an off-site plan until the applicant has developed their on-site plan. In terms of the potential risk to the general public, it is considered that without understanding the products that would be used on site, the County Council is not in a position to comment. However, the HSE will be the "Competent Authority" and it will be the HSE who will need to be satisfied that any identified health and safety risks are managed.

8.32 Barrow Local Committee is strongly opposed to the development and believes the proposal is unacceptable and believes the application should not be approved and that appropriate independent evidence should be obtained taking account of the issues raised at the Committee.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 It is accepted that the proposed Roosecote Power Station would be built on the site of the existing power station, and the principle for this kind of electricity generating development is therefore established for the site.

9.2 However, the question is whether or not the proposed development would be significantly different from the existing power station in terms of its’ impact upon local amenities and identified interests of local, national and international importance. The extent to which the benefits of the scheme are outweighed by the disbenefits to accord with the above referred to planning policies has yet to be demonstrated.

9.3 In this regard, at this stage, given the shortcomings of Centrica RPS’s Environment Statement and DCO submission and the need for further detailed evidence as set out above, together with the above identified potential adverse impacts on:

• air quality;

• land quality;

• landscape & visual;

• ecology & ornithology;

• traffic and transport;

• noise and vibration;

• waste generation;

• fire and emergency planning,

it is considered likely that the development will have some significant adverse effects on Barrow and the surrounding local area.

9.4 These significant adverse effects, some of which remain undetermined, will require mitigation in order to make the proposal acceptable in accordance with national, regional and local planning policies.

9.5 At this stage however, it is not possible to determine therefore as to whether or not the benefits of the scheme necessarily outweigh the disbenefits. It is considered that mitigation measures are inevitable, given the findings of the Local Impact report so far, and it will be vital to secure contributions to mitigate the direct effects of the development itself, but also Community Impact Mitigation (CIM) as well as Community Benefit Contribution (CBC) funded projects in order to compensate the local community in recognition of the potential impacts of the development on the quality of life and well being of local communities. The level of mitigation and satisfactory design measures will determine the level of harm.

9.6 It is recommended that further detailed investigation will be required as part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) Examination process to be carried out by the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) to understand and quantify all those impacts before a complete picture of the effects of the development are known and a recommendation to the Secretary of State can be made about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the development and the level of mitigation required should it be so minded to recommend approval of the scheme.

9.7 The findings and recommendations contained in the joint Barrow Borough Council/Cumbria County Council Local Impact Report are therefore commended to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID).

APPENDIX 1 – DETAILED WHITE YOUNG GREEN (WYG) ECOLOGY & ORNITHOLOGY COMMENTS ON THE CENTRICA RPS ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Background

WYG Environment was commissioned by Cumbria County Council in August 2012 to undertake a review of the ecology and ornithology chapters of the Environmental Statement (ES) submitted by Centrica RPS Ltd relating to a planning application for a biomass power station at Roosecote, barrow in Furness, Cumbria. The scope of work comprised review of all relevant documents submitted; collation of comments with regards the ecological content of the ES submission, and then the ecological/ornithological input to the Local Impact Assessment (LIA) being prepared by Cumbria County Council in response to the application. This letter report provides feedback from the review of the Ecology and Ornithology ES chapters and associated plans and surveys. It is intended as guidance for CCC and not as a stand alone report. The comments are listed with reference to the chapter numbers in the ES. Comments to be used in the preparation of the Local Impact Assessment are included in a separate document.

Roosecote Biomass Power Station - Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation

9.4.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey - The Habitat survey provides a basic overview of the designated sites, main vegetation cover and potential for protected species. However it is not detailed enough to address potential local biodiversity effects with respect terrestrial habitats, and has not identified areas of biodiversity within and adjoining the development site boundary. Differentiation of different types of grassland has not been attempted with all grassland included as species- poor semi-improved neutral.

9.4.5 Recommended surveys from the phase 1 report neglected potential for invertebrates and invasive species.

9.5 ‘Assessment of Effects’ - Title here misleading as the content is actually providing the methodology and basis for the assessment whereas the Potential Impacts and Mitigation are covered in 9.7, and then the Assessment of Effects is also the title for section 9.8 which does actually cover the assessment stage. 9.5 is the really the Methodology used in making the assessment. This chapter is not clearly laid out and has no introduction to the methodology used, rather a few disjointed paragraphs covering specific parts of the assessment process. The current Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) guidelines for ecological assessment are not clearly outlined in this section, and the assessment adopts a mixed approach using EIA matrix rather than IEEM recommended assessment for level of significance of effects, which RPS have argued is for reasons of clarity? The actual assessment paragraphs following do not necessarily indicate the following elements used to define the scale of effects – duration, timing and frequency, reversibility, confidence in predictions, effect on long-term viability of habitat or species population. In addition the direct and indirect impacts are not clearly defined. IEEM define a significant ecological impact as an impact (adverse or positive) on the actual ‘integrity’ of a defined site or ecosystem(s) and/or the ‘conservation status’ of habitat or species within a given geographical area.

The ecological value of the feature is used to determine the geographical scale of significance as shown in table 9.3. This table covers International, National, Regional, Local and Negligible but omits cover of County and District geographic categories. Therefore there is a gap between ‘local’ features of value and those of ‘Regional’ significance. It is not clear therefore where features of County and District value have been incorporated and therefore how they have been assessed making use of the table 9.5. This means that effects and residual effects for features within these geographic categories could be either over- or under-valued, and therefore scoped into or out of the assessment inaccurately?

9.5.1 Introduces the assessment scoping based on the Habitats Regulations Assessment for draft National Policy Statements for Energy to identify and characterise potential effects for biomass power stations. There are all sorts of activities which are non-specific to the actual type of development but are relevant for consideration for most larger planning applications. The ES is not purely concerned with HRA for effects on internationally designated sites as it must also consider other site designations and biodiversity. The IEEM guidelines provide a more comprehensive overview of non-specific activities potential to impact on the ecology –

Preliminary activities prior to the main construction contract (e.g. ground investigations)

Construction phase

• Access and travel on/off-site.

• Assembly areas for components of construction.

• Blasting, e.g. for minerals operations.

• Construction of structures and hard surfaces.

• Demolition operations.

• Environmental incidents and accidents ( e.g. spillages, noise and emissions).

• Fires.

• Ground and excavation works.

• Lighting.

• Provision of services and utilities ( e.g. underground power lines, water supply and drainage).

• Removal or disruption of top-soil/sub-soil etc.

• Siting and subsequent removal of site offices/compounds and final site clear away after construction.

• Storage areas for construction materials.

• Structural works for building and engineering.

• Structural works to existing buildings, including conversions.

• Temporary access routes for construction vehicles - both on and offsite.

• Vegetation clearance.

Occupation/Operational phase

• Access (both route and means).

• Drainage.

• Damage to mitigation work through accident or vandalism.

• Implementation of landscape design and habitat management (type and location).

• Presence of people, vehicles and typical uses and activities (including factors likely to cause disturbance, e.g. increased public access and recreational pressure, risk of fires, lighting, noise, regular emissions).

• Presence of pets.

• Site operation and management ( e.g. maintenance operations, industrial processes generating emissions, etc.).

Decommissioning phase

• Removal of contaminated water or soil.

• Removal or demolition of disused structures that may have been colonised by, e.g. roosting bats, barn owls.

• Removal of ancillary developments including culverts.

• Removal or neglect of structures which might cause pollution if they fail.

Restoration phase (where operations/phases have finished, e.g. for mineral extractions).

Potential non-standard operations (e.g. one-off incidents and accidents)

9.6.8 Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed land – there appear to be no detailed field observations relating to the grassland, scrub and ephemeral vegetation within and adjacent to the development area? Habitat surveys contained in section 9.6.75 onwards refer to the extended Phase 1 Habitat report in Appendix 9.1 – but none of the open, scrub and grass mosaics across the application site are considered to fall within this UKBAP habitat category. There are no species lists to indicate plant species composition of the sward and hence allow ecological evaluation of the habitats represented on the site. It is known from previous field surveys associated with the Barrow Marina Village site that there are herb-rich grasslands in the area and diverse open habitats associated with previous industrial use made of the land around the ports. In addition the railway line itself is likely to support a diverse vegetation cover which may in places fall under this BAP UK designation. CCCs response to the PEI highlighted lack of detailed survey information including species lists for habitats and lack of recognition of the biodiverse habitats on and in the vicinity of the site. This has still not been addressed sufficiently in the ES.

A field inspection was carried out on August 20th 2012 to look in more detail at the habitats being lost to this development. The grasslands described as semi- improved neutral grassland range from unimproved herb-rich basic grassland, reedbed and marshy grassland, herb-rich neutral grassland through to species- poor neutral grassland, tall ruderals, coarse unimproved grassland and amenity grassland. It is therefore difficult to evaluate the loss of biodiversity which would result through land-take for the main power station and the associated transport corridors without a more detailed habitat survey of the areas affected. This would then allow for suitable mitigation to be planned. In addition it is not clear from the ES where this mitigation or compensation might take place. Apparently there are areas of low biodiversity within the ownership of Centrica but not within the proposal boundary which could form the basis for habitat creation/enhancement.

The CCC response to the PEI also requested a plan relating the development to existing habitats to indicate clearly where all the development areas are located in respect of habitats so as to enable more accurate assessment of effects.

9.6.8 This lists habitat types within the ZoI afforded protection under legislation and initiatives – this has not included ponds and semi-natural woodland which have been described elsewhere in this report.

9.6.9 This section covers protected and notable flora and faunal species records for the ZoI of the development but only lists one plant, the beaked tasselweed. It then goes onto consider potential impacts relating to the salinity of the water in Cavendish Dock which should be addressed in a later section. Plant species of interest recorded close/within the site include dittander Lepidium latifolium, common spotted orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsia, northern marsh orchid Dactylorhiza purpurella, goat’s-beard Tragopogon pratensis , common broomrape Orobanche minor, hare’s foot clover Trifolium arvense and blue fleabane Erigeron acer . Small white orchids Pseudorchis albida UK BAP Priority plant species have been recorded further to the west around Barrow Port. The sea wall also supports several species characteristic of strandline vegetation which is included as a qualifying feature of the nearby SAC. Of these species dittander is a Nationally Scarce plant species and is a rare casual species in Cumbria. This plant is known to occur on the eastern side of Cavendish Dock. During the field inspection on 20 th August dittander was found growing on the sea wall immediately outside the site and along the proposed rail route within the Centrica planning proposal site. It appears that this plant will be lost during the construction of the rail route inside the site itself.

9.6.75 Habitat surveys section refers to Appendix 9.1 of the ES which is the extended Phase 1 habitat survey report – undertaken at sub-optimal time of year for habitat assessment in early March 2011. This did not include any data search from Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre but the final ES chapter refers to data searches which have been carried out since this report was written. Both this section and Appendix 9.1 refer to species-poor grassland both on the site of the power station and the surrounding area. Ramsden Dock is also described as supporting rank species-poor neutral grassland of negligible ecological value (9.6.81). In 9.6.86 the vegetation along the northern embankment of Cavendish Dock is described as supporting areas of scrub and tall ruderal vegetation either side of the dock railway. Then in 9.6.87 the area to the east of Cavendish Dock has apparently been assessed for presence of UK BAP habitat of Open Mosaic

Habitat on Previously Developed Land. There does not appear to be any record of species found at all these sites and the species composition of the sward. It is known that the terrestrial habitats around Barrow Docks include a diverse range of vegetation cover including species-rich marshy, neutral, calcicolous, calcareous, maritime grasslands, scrub, swamp, ruderal, ephemeral and bare ground communities.

A field inspection was carried out on August 20th 2012 to look in more detail at the habitats being lost to this development. The grasslands described as semi- improved neutral grassland range from unimproved herb-rich basic grassland, reedbed and marshy grassland, herb-rich neutral grassland through to species- poor neutral grassland, tall ruderals, coarse unimproved grassland and amenity grassland. It is therefore difficult to evaluate the loss of biodiversity which would result through land-take for the main power station and the associated transport corridors without a more detailed habitat survey of the areas affected. This would then allow for suitable mitigation to be planned. In addition it is not clear from the ES where this mitigation or compensation might take place. Apparently there are areas of low biodiversity within the ownership of Centrica but not within the proposal boundary which could form the basis for habitat creation/enhancement.

It is therefore considered that the terrestrial habitats have not been surveyed in sufficient detail to enable an assessment of their ecological value in terms of biodiversity. As the biodiversity of the habitats and vegetation cover in turn affect the potential to support diverse fauna it is possible that the species assessments may be undervalued. In particular the invertebrate interest may not have been realised through the lack of any detailed plant species recording. It is recommended that more detailed plant species surveys are undertaken to establish areas of higher biodiversity which may be affected by the development. This will enable adequate mitigation and/or compensation to be allowed for in the design of the development.

9.6.84 This concludes that there are no habitats of ecological significance along the sea wall itself, although this forms part of the European designated sites, and does support strandline vegetation species which are a qualifying feature of the nearby SAC/SSSI.

9.6.105 The reptile survey results are surprising as it is known from previous survey reports that there is a medium to large population of common lizard and slow-worm around Cavendish Dock and the adjacent Barrow Port area. Much of the terrestrial habitat described in the ES and seen in the field is optimal for reptiles. In addition the railway embankments are considered to be good habitat for reptiles. Previous surveys around Cavendish Dock and along the open sections of railway in 2008 consistently recorded slow-worm and lizards on every survey visit. Reptile Mitigation plans have been considered for the proposed Barrow Marina Village development and have been carried out further west in the Barrow Business Park development.

9.6.108 This paragraph considers the habitats to be suitable for reptiles and therefore assesses the lizard population to be ‘medium’. It is recommended that additional survey effort is afforded as it is known that there were considerable numbers of slow-worm recorded here in the recent past, and the adjacent areas were considered to support a good population of both common lizard and slow- worm, evaluating the area as a Key Reptile Site according to Froglife’s scoring method.

9.6.115 Japanese knotweed has been located in various locations in the vicinity of the access route north of Cavendish Dock. A Japanese Knotweed Mitigation Plan is considered to be necessary if any development on the adjacent land to provide for the rail access from the port is to be undertaken. The extent of the Japanese knotweed infestation needs to be mapped so that the areas within 7 metres of this can be marked on the development plan – it is considered from the existing information that the invasive species may need to be eradicated prior to construction. It is considered unlikely that it will be possible to simply fence off these plants as suggested in the ES where the rail route joins the Network Rail mainline. It is important that existing Japanese knotweed is not spread further towards the dock area along the rail line. A joint approach with Network Rail may be required to address this problem.

Table 9.10 Conservation Value of VERs identified – we are in agreement with most of the valuations. However there is a comment under intertidal habitats of sand and mud flats which state that those mud and sand flats not actually within the SAC are only of local value. It is not clear which areas fall outside the designated sites, and if any areas do they would still provide potential foraging and roosts for SPA birds, hence would be of greater than local value. In addition it is considered that the reptile population in the dock area and along the railway lines may have been undervalued.

9.7.4 Types of impacts are listed – habitat loss and disturbance are really 2 separate issues yet combined here for some reason. Spread of invasive weeds should be added (Japanese Knotweed).

9.7.8 Any railway line improvements around Cavendish Dock will be additional noise and disturbance along the edge of the designated site which is not presently experienced here?

9.7.9 Appear to be mixing ‘disturbance’ and ‘loss of habitat’ which are 2 separate impacts.

9.7.10 F irst point regarding pollution should also include water pollution; third point about Japanese knotweed does not seem adequate – fencing off would need to be 7 metres from the base of the plants as the rhizomes spread underground – no work can be carried out within 7 m of the plant – does this leave enough room to manoeuvre?

Generally the Mitigation Measures listed in the text here are not very detailed or comprehensive and do not mention any timing or seasonal constraints etc

9.7.12 Maintenance of the unique ‘Ecology’ should really be ‘aquatic ecology’

9.7.18 No mention in Construction section of mitigation for loss of biodiversity or

UK and Cumbria BAP priority habitats or species.

9.7.21 Chemical storage should be within an impervious bund to prevent accidental leakages

9.7.25 Reptile mitigation – we would suggest that any mitigation should presently follow the earlier guidelines until Natural England reissue their draft report of 2011. This section is vague and does not point out the amount of time and survey effort required to find and prepare suitable receptor sites in advance of any capture and translocation. This reptile mitigation strategy and its impact on reptile populations in Barrow docklands area overall needs to address the cumulative impacts, loss and fragmentation of suitable reptile habitats and their continuity over the whole of Barrow Port area.

9.7.31 Japanese knotweed adjacent to the site yet outside the planning application boundary – this really needs a combined effort from landowners well in advance of the construction phase to avoid any risk of extending the problem along the railway lines. This problem has not been emphasised sufficiently as it may take up to 3 years to fully eradicate the plant from vulnerable locations.

Operation Mitigation

9.7.37 These sentences are jumbled.

9.8 Assessment of Effects – presently same title as 9.5 but this is an appropriate title for 9.8.

No prediction given for the level of confidence in the predicted effects, i.e. certain, near-certain, probable.

No mention of whether effect is temporary or permanent.

Effect of airborne pollution (dust) on adjacent designated sites is not considered. Table 9.5 in 9.5.15 provides the matrix used in this assessment – therefore it follows that when considering a designated site of International or National ecological value a low magnitude of effect would lead to a ‘moderate-minor’ effect if using this methodology. This methodology does not appear to have been adhered to in the assessment of effects chapter 9.8 where there are assessments of ‘minor significance’ when considering international/national sites.

Construction and Decommissioning Effects

9.8.15 This considers loss of 10.8 hectares of habitat to the construction of the power plant assessing the existing scrub, grassland and hard standing areas to be of ‘low to negligible’ ecological value. There are no species lists to consult when appraising the ES but these habitats are known to support wildlife such as reptiles, invertebrates, and potentially some open mosaic habitats on previously developed land - it is expected that they are at least of low to medium conservation value in this industrial landscape. Loss of this habitat further reduces habitat continuity and extent and hence overall biodiversity. It would seem more accurate to assess this loss as of medium magnitude and hence the significance according to the matrix in Table 9.5 would be Moderate (Minor). One of the problems with making use of this table rather than IEEM methodology is the reduced significance and neglect of habitats of local biodiversity importance but with no statutory designation.

9.8.18 Again refers to the ‘low’ ecological value of the habitats within and surrounding the power station, yet not enough detail in habitat descriptions to assess. The field inspection on 20 th August noted some biodiverse habitats within the application site with associated invertebrate assemblage.

9.8.19 The field survey data provided is not detailed enough to be able to exclude any rare or notable species particularly with regards invertebrates and plant species. Also this statement is not strictly correct as reptile presence was recorded within this site, so there is likely to be loss of reptile habitat as a result of the development of a new power station. Invertebrates are assessed in Table 9.10 as being of Regional nature conservation importance, in which case the matrix assessment of significance in Table 9.5 comes out as Moderate not ‘no effect/not significant’ as is stated in this section.

9.8.28 Section on Ramsden Dock construction impacts – inconsistent use of terms – in this section of the ES ‘minor adverse’ and ‘minor beneficial’ residual significance is used. The detail provided in all the aquatic ecology sections of the ES is excellent; potential and residual effects are well considered and adequate reasons provided for the level of assessment of the significance of effects throughout. The terrestrial effects are less detailed and do not provide the same level of baseline detail on which to base the significance of effects. There is no comment on any terrestrial habitat damage or loss associated with the development of Ramsden Dock.

9.8.64 The justification for the assessment of significance of effects is not clear in this paragraph. A pollution incident could result in deterioration in water quality in an internationally designated site and even if accidental one-off leak or spillage this could result in an effect of at least medium magnitude – however the effect on this site depends on the ecological receptors. Using the Table 9.5 provided this could equate to an adverse effect of ‘major’ significance. However use of appropriate pollution prevention and mitigation techniques is likely to reduce the likelihood and severity of the effect resulting in an adverse effect of only ‘minor’ significance.

9.8.69 This section considers loss of habitats as a result of the rail link. It mentions only 3 BAP habitats – ponds, orchards and maritime cliff. There is no consideration of the potential loss of UK and Cumbria BAP habitat of Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land which is quite likely to be present along this route, or other BAP Habitats. Therefore this assessment may need to be re- assessed following more detailed habitat survey.

9.8.70 Although these are to use the existing railway line from the docks to Salthouse Junction if there needs to be any form of improvement and/or maintenance this needs to be discussed as there are potential constraints with regards Japanese knotweed, reptiles and BAP habitat involved.

9.8.71 The former railway route might be expected to support a biodiverse habitat/ vegetation cover providing habitat for reptiles, invertebrates, and possibly notable/rare plant species – there are no records of plant species recorded from the survey so it is not possible to evaluate this loss of habitat during construction of the new railway line.

9.8.72 This is described as relatively species–rich habitat so the points mentioned above apply. Reptile mitigation may be required here.

9.8.73 Again this describes the habitats along the route as of ‘low’ ecological value and bases the assessment on this. Additional survey information may be required to verify this.

9.8.74 Needs to include slow-worm as these are also likely to be present along the former railway line and are known to be present along the existing railway corridor.

9.8.77 Again the invertebrate interest would be related to the biodiversity of habitat and plant species and there are no species list to suggest the ecological value of this railway route.

9.8.79 This does not assess the potential ‘new’ barrier to wildlife accessing the Salthouse Pool and marshes area from the wider environment to the east of the proposed rail line.

9.8.85 – 9.8.86 These sections mentions night-time works and lighting – would it not be advisable to avoid any night time working along Cavendish Dock, not only with respect bats, but to avoid disturbing SPA birds and otter in the dock area?

9.8.88 Reptile receptor sites for translocation need to be found by surveying suitable habitat for existing populations, and prepared well in advance of the translocation.

9.8.91 It is considered that the Japanese Knotweed infestation may be more extensive than this report describes. Fencing 7metres away from the base of the stands will reduce the working area left and thus may not be feasible along this strip of land.

9.8.94 The sea wall does support some interesting and notable plant species, some of which are typical of strandline vegetation, so is not of negligible value. There appears to be no species list of the plants along the sea wall. In addition although the land take from the designated site is small it nonetheless results in ‘erosion’ of the designated sites. Compensation for this loss should be allowed elsewhere in the development to benefit the qualifying species which will be affected (ornithology comments will cover this in more detail).

9.8.96 This paragraph does not make sense ‘and thus any effects are predicted to be of low magnitude’?

9.8.87 This does not explain measures to minimise risks. The infilling will obviously impact the water quality, even if temporarily, elsewhere in Cavendish Dock unless the area can be effectively isolated during construction.

9.8.99 The argument why the loss of part of the saline lagoon is considered to be ‘not significant’ is not clearly explained here, as it is a supporting habitat of the international sites and a UK BAP Priority Habitat.

9.8.102 Changes in water quality due to pollution incidents is likely to be more severe in this enclosed waterbody. The actual construction process is likely to give rise to effects on water quality unless the working area within the water can be isolated from the rest of Cavendish Dock.

Operational Effects

9.8.110 This paragraph confirms that the proposed Roosecote Biomass Power Station would have no significant impacts on statutory designated sites within 15km as a result of air emissions. However there is not sufficient conclusive evidence provided in the attached Air Quality Report to substantiate this statement. The effect of air emissions with regards the ecological assessment of a development is based on the type of ecological receptors within the predicted zone of influence of the air emissions. The habitat types supported on designated sites within 15km of the proposed power station include a range of coastal, grassland, aquatic and woodland habitats.

In Air Pollution Information System (APIS) the critical levels of gaseous pollution in the air are provided for various habitat types. In addition it is possible to search the model for critical loads for acidity and nitrogen for all qualifying habitats for every internationally and nationally designated site. Making use of the Site Relevant Critical Loads and Source Attribution tool reveals that several qualifying habitats in the designated sites in the vicinity of the power station are sensitive to acid deposition including dune grasslands, decalcified fixed dunes, calcareous grassland, semi-natural and ancient mixed/broadleaved and humid dune slacks. There is not sufficient time allowed, nor is it the purpose of this review, to include a detailed analysis of the data provided in the ES against the levels for each qualifying habitat, but the potential effects on some receptors appears to have been underestimated. In particular there appears to be little consideration of the potential air pollution effects on lichen and bryophyte flora. Bryophyte and lichen flora are important components of two qualifying habitats of Morecambe Bay SAC – dune grassland and dune heathland. In addition they are an important component of ‘ancient’ woodland and other semi-natural woodlands which have not been addressed in this assessment.

9.8.116 This states that vegetated shingle and sand dune communities ‘are not considered to be particularly sensitive to acid deposition’. This statement seems to be in direct conflict with the APIS results for such habitats. It also states that sand dune communities are not considered particularly sensitive to acid deposition due to their calcareous nature. Surely the vegetation species composition of the dunes would be affected if the dune became more acidic resulting in a less species-rich sand dune, similar to the dunes found further north along the Cumbria coast near Silloth. Even dunes at Drigg and Eskmeals are relatively low in calcareous material, supporting dun heathland, but becoming more basic around the Duddon Estuary. These more calcareous lime-rich dunes support a rich flora with several rarities. It is therefore considered that the potential effect on these dune habitats should be assessed in greater detail.

9.8.117 This argues that the condition monitoring of Natural England does not include any observations indicating acid deposition, and infers that this fact supports the claim in 9.8.16 that these habitats are therefore not sensitive to existing acid deposition. It is doubtful whether change in vegetation cover, including species and health, due specifically to existing air pollution levels would be easily detectable by a non-specialist ecologist.

9.8.129 This considers the effect of airborne pollutants on sand dune, saltmarsh, fen, reed bed, blanket bog, birch woodland, raised bog etc in the CWS sites BUT does not consider the lichen and bryophyte populations in the ancient woodlands shown on the designated sites map. Some of these are within 5 km of the biomass power station and should have been included in the assessment. In addition potential effects of air pollution on the bryophyte and lichen flora of the designated dune habitats has been omitted.

9.8.145 There is no assessment provided for the risk of ‘dust’ pollution during loading and unloading of biomass fuel.

9.8.150 This considers the effects of air emissions on shellfish, and the process contributions of metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, lead, dioxins and PCBs. The effects on the shell fish health and human health are considered but not the possibility of metal concentration through the food chain affecting SPA birds feeding on these shellfish.

9.8.155 There would be potential risk from use of weedkillers etc to maintain the railway track along the northern and western sides of Cavendish Dock which is not considered here. Similar comments to 9.8.64.

9.8.156 Potential for spread of Japanese knotweed during the operational phase if the existing extent of this invasive species along the main railway line and adjacent land is not controlled prior to construction and operation of the new line serving the biomass plant. Use of weedkillers along rail line would affect local undesignated habitats.

9.8.161 Disturbance during operational phase is discussed for common lizard but should also include slow-worm.

9.8.164 Incidental mortality should include slow-worm which were found to be present along the north and western rail routes around Cavendish Docks during surveys in 2008.

Cumulative impacts

Habitat Loss

9.8.182 This states that habitats likely to be lost to development in the Barrow Port area ‘are all expected to be of low conservation value’. We do not agree with this statement as there are known to be biodiverse habitats present supporting some notable plants, breeding birds, reptiles, a biodiverse invertebrate population. Habitats affected by cumulative development include species rich acid, neutral and calcareous grasslands, open mosaic habitats on previously developed land, reedbeds and scrub which in combination provide a diverse wildlife habitat including BAP Priority and notable species within an urban/industrial surrounding. It is therefore important that habitats continuity is retained throughout this area by providing areas of habitat enhancement/creation which link the area to be developed to habitats adjacent and the countryside beyond the docks. Cumulative impacts on local biodiversity should all the developments go ahead without compensation could be ‘Moderate’ if making use of the RPS methodology of impact assessment (as discussed previously this matrix tends to undervalue the importance of local biodiversity in impact assessments) even though this might result in more than 20% habitat loss or more than 20% of the species population.

Loss of these biodiverse mosaics of habitat and wildlife continuity between them could, for example, result in the reptile populations becoming fragmented to the extent that populations would no longer be viable, although continuity along the railway itself would be maintained provided that the sufficient surrounding vegetation cover is retained. There would be pressure on remaining habitat to support invertebrates, and piecemeal loss of the open mosaic habitats and species–rich grasslands associated with each of these developments would result in a decline in the invertebrate diversity in this vicinity of the docks. The effect would be a continual squeeze of species on to remaining undeveloped land and disruption of wildlife corridors. The compensation for loss of diverse habitat needs to be considered in greater detail and land outside the development offered for habitat creation and enhancement. This compensation land should not already be of ecological value, or there will be a net loss of habitat which when considered in combination with other developments could significantly affect the local biodiversity of Barrow docklands. Maintaining and creating habitat continuity should also be considered an important part of the design.

9.8.183 This statement considers that ‘none of the habitats to be lost are of great value to locally occurring wildlife’. The habitat survey report as stated earlier is not detailed enough to evaluate the different types of grassland, scrub and open habitat land being lost. Cumulative loss of similar habitat is considered to be a significant effect which could be addressed through compensation and retention of wildlife corridors throughout the area. We would consider that the cumulative impacts on local biodiversity, BAP habitats and species, arising through loss of land for all these developments would be significant without detailed plans for compensation through sensitive habitat creation.

Summary and Conclusions

9.9 Does not include a summary of all potential effects such as air emission on non-designated sites. Local biodiversity not mentioned in this section, apart from habitat enhancements proposed across the site. It is anticipated that off-site habitat creation/enhancements to replace 10 hectares of grasslands and scrub habitat will be required. In general the ES underestimates the importance of ecological constraints posed by invertebrate assemblages, reptile populations, invasive Japanese knotweed and species-rich swards potentially supporting notable plant species. Reptile and Japanese Knotweed mitigation need to be emphasised and mitigation plans instigated as early as possible.

Table 9.11 Summary of Effects

No mention of invasive Japanese knotweed?

Roosecote Biomass Power Station - Chapter 10: Ornithology

10.6 Assessment methodology

Desk study does not mention records from Cumbria Biological Data Centre but this was obtained for the terrestrial ecology assessment?

Lay out is not same as for the Terrestrial ecology Chapter?

Field Surveys

10.6.8 Surveys use a 100m buffer zone whereas the responses to the scoping report state a 300m buffer around the application site?

10.6.9 Terrestrial breeding bird surveys only 3.

10.7.24 Handmark Buldings adjacent to west of Cavendish Dock is known to have supported a barn owl roost in 2008.

10.7.30 Where have these inland area surveys been undertaken?

10.8 Potential Impacts and Mitigation

10.8.3 Potential effects Table 10.15 This table has no mention of the cooling water discharge effects on birds, or potential water pollution?

10.8.6 Considers construction disturbance to nesting birds and advises that birds should be deterred from nesting by clearance of potential nesting habitat in the period September to February. Unfortunately this is also the period when reptiles are hibernating and therefore some clearance will not be possible until the reptile capture and translocation has been completed. Breeding birds use a range of different habitats including ground nesting habitat, scrub, trees, and buildings.

10.8.6 At what distance would nests be cordoned off? They will require a good buffer zone of at least 500m with regards noise or 200m from visual stimuli to protect from disturbance during construction.

10.8.7 2008 records of peregrine nesting in the crane tower at the shipyard in Barrow Docks. Barn owl roost in the Handmark Buildings to the western edge of Cavendish Dock. Eider duck nesting in the far south west corner of Cavendish Docks near the railway line; pink footed goose nesting on the eastern side of the railway embankment at the Handmark Buildings. Mute Swan nesting in north- western edge of Cavendish Dock. We would agree with the recommendation for breeding bird surveys to be undertaken and for mitigation to be provided as necessary to prevent any disturbance during the breeding season should nesting birds be located.

10.8.9 Agree with the 3m or higher screens around the construction site and Roosecote Sands BUT would also expect screening to be provided to protect Cavendish Dock from visual disturbance as this is only 150m away from the proposed new rail line running alongside the western part of the site. In addition if possible the work in the north-east end of Cavendish Dock should also be provided with a screen as temporary visual disturbance will be an issue here.

10.8.11 This section considers loss of breeding bird habitat to the development. The suggestion is that ‘Centrica RPS Ltd would plant areas of scrub habitat to offset areas cleared for construction’. It is not stated where this might be as much of the habitat on the proposal site will be lost and compensation should be provided off site. Limited clearance of vegetation along the new railway line will also further reduce breeding habitat for birds. Compensation for loss of ground nesting habitat is not mentioned. More detailed information on the compensation to be provided is required as at present it is not clear that any extra land for habitat creation will be provided to offset that lost to development. Using the remaining land within the application site is not acceptable as there would be a net loss of habitat as a result.

10.9 Assessment of Effects

10.9.2 There will almost certainly be knock on effects to the ornithology of the neighbouring SPA/ Ramsar sites due to displacement and loss of high tide roosts, and in-combination effects.

10.9.3 No mention of potential effect of changes in the water quality of the Cavendish Dock, growth of tasselweed etc on food supply and hence the foraging activity on Cavendish Dock.

10.9.8 Clearance of vegetation might deter scrub nesting species but will not help with any ground nesting birds. It may be advisable to introduce temporary bird deterrents over the construction area before the breeding season if work needs to be carried out from March to September. Scrub and grassland cover may provide reptile habitat and hence cannot be safely cleared until the reptiles have been translocated to a suitable receptor(s).

10.9.15 This states that ‘only a small fraction of many SPA-qualifying waterbirds occur within 300m of any of the proposed construction areas;’ however there is 10% or more of the SPA population of redshank, ringed plover, cormorant, goldeneye and whimbrel recorded from the Core Area i.e. within 300m of the proposed Development Consent Order boundary. The 300m buffer zone includes most of Cavendish Dock and a 300m band of Roosecote Sands.

10.9.21 Infilling of the north-east corner of Cavendish Dock planned for June to August – breeding birds at or close to the edge of Cavendish Dock may be affected but not considered here.

10.9.18, 10.9.25 and 10.9.10.9.27 These paragraphs consider any potential effect due to visual disturbance on the Duddon Estuary SPA which lies 1.8 km from the development site. This does not mention any risk of displacement of birds to the Duddon estuary as a result of visual disturbance?

10.9.26 SPA birds make use of Ramsden Dock for roosting and if displaced from

Cavendish Dock.

NOTE Previous surveys in 2008-2009 consider that the artificial slope to the Ramsden Dock on the southern side is used as the preferred high tide roost for lapwing, together with 4 other SPA bids making use of this part of the docks. The other main roost in Ramsden Dock is the Depot Bank on the opposite side of Ramsden Dock.

10.9.48 Birds have been found nesting within/adjacent to Cavendish Dock and along the railway line to the west of the dock (2008-2009 surveys) including eider duck and pink footed geese. Mute swan recorded breeding on the north-eastern bank, adjacent to proposed rail route.

NOTE Cavendish Dock supports 70% of the Ramsar population of red breasted merganser, and 20% of the Ramsar population of great crested grebe and redshank. Visual disturbance is presently along south and eastern sides; rail access would increase activity on west and north sides but the rail line can be screened from birds if existing trees and scrub are retained and reinforced. Mitigation for disturbances during construction could be in form of an additional jetty /roost structure in Cavendish Dock.

Ornithological surveys undertaken in 2008-2009 summarised use made of Cavendish Dock and Ramsden Dock by SPA birds –

Cavendish Jetty is the main high tide roost for waterfowl – key species recorded was redshank

Cavendish Staithes in the western area is used when exposed as water levels fall in the dock – acts as secondary roost if birds disturbed from jetty – again most use made by redshank. Presently screened from visual disturbance by the Handmark Buildings.

Cavendish North/East – held the largest concentration of wildfowl and gulls including large numbers of mute swan – concluded that this was main section used because of lower levels of disturbance here. Therefore really important to screen from any development along these edges.

10.9.57 Piling – is it possible to avoid this noise disturbance by making use of a continuous flight auger instead?

10.9.58 Indirect impact could result if SPA birds are displaced to Duddon estuary.

10.9.66 Severe weather working restrictions – work will stop after 7 consecutive days when temperatures less than 0 degrees centigrade – surely the birds will already have become stressed after this period of time? Where has this recommended amount of time been derived from?

Breeding birds – Habitat loss

10.9.70 L and to be lost provides suitable breeding habitat for some BAP priority species including song thrush, skylark, lapwing and linnet. In addition the grassland areas provide foraging for barn owl, and potentially foraging/roosting for SPA birds.

10.9.77 This considers any effect on SPA birds of habitat loss as a result of the power station development and concludes that as there is no land take in the designated sites there will be no loss of feeding or roosting habitat for SPA waterbirds. This statement is inaccurate as SPA birds make use of inland areas for roosting at high tide and breeding. Land to be lost to the develop potentially includes habitats suitable for species such as curlew to nest and for any SPA birds as occasional /high tide roosts so there should be an assessment of the significance of this loss.

10.9.78 This edge has been used in the past for breeding by mute swan.

10.9.79 Previous 2008-2009 surveys found the most important area for SPA birds to be the north-eastern section of the dock.

10.9.80 The artificial bank of Ramsden Dock is located close to the proposed works and is used by SPA birds particularly as a high tide roost for lapwing and by SPA birds displaced from Cavendish Dock.

10.9.83 This assessment does not consider the visual effect of the skyline of the new Biomass Power Station buildings which are much more extensive and taller than the existing ones?

10.9.86 There is potential for displacement of SPA birds roosting at the artificial bank on the south side of Ramsden Dock. This is thought to provide the main lapwing high tide roost.

Cumulative effects

10.9.109 Barrow Marina Village would involve construction of a marina within Ramsden Dock and some form of piling would be required. The assessment does not seem to take account of the fact that SPA birds make use of Ramsden Dock as well as the designated sites and hence has not assessed the indirect effect on these birds outside the designated site boundaries.

10.9.116 Cumulative loss of suitable bird breeding habitats due to land take is likely to be significant resulting in a decrease in biodiversity unless at least the same area of habitat creation is provided as compensation on land of negligible ecological value.

Summary of Effects

No compensation offered for loss and disturbance at north-east corner of Cavendish Dock. This could be in the form of an additional structure to act as enhanced roosting habitat inside the dock.

Throughout there is no mention of the mute swan population in Cavendish Dock and implications of the construction and operational phases on this population. Mute swans use the dock for their post breeding moult from mid August until October.

Lack of detailed compensation, habitat enhancement etc

Draft Reptile Mitigation Strategy

The reptile survey carried out in 2011 does not appear to provide a representative picture of reptile populations in the vicinity of the power station and around Cavendish Dock. Surveys carried out previously in connection with other developments in the dock area in Barrow found medium (to high) populations of common lizard and slow-worm, particularly along the railway embankments and derelict grassland/scrub areas. A detailed reptile mitigation strategy to deal with the populations which may be affected by the power station proposals cannot be planned without reliable survey information on the reptile populations present. In addition the receptor sites will also need to be surveyed to see whether or not they already support reptile populations in which case they may be unsuitable as a receptor site depending on the density of populations already present.

It was recommended in the response to the PEI consultation that the reptile surveys be repeated but this does appear to have been undertaken.

4.3 This states that the retained habitat within the application site will be enhanced one year in advance of the translocation to increase the reptile carrying capacity. With the limited survey information presented it is not possible to comment on whether or not the retained land would have the capacity to act as a receptor site for additional reptiles as this cannot be assessed with any confidence until adequate reptile survey information for both the areas of habitat to be lost and the retained areas has been obtained.

4.4 Vegetation clearance and translocation methodology appears to be muddled . It is not clear what is to be undertaken first? In b it states that the area would be strimmed in 2 phases around 3 days apart and at least ‘ 24 hours’ before construction is commenced. This does not allow any time for a reptile capture and translocation which could take a couple of months at least before construction commences? Then in d it talks about artificial refugia and capture within the exclusion zone. There is also confusion as to the guidelines being followed as the main ES says it will follow the new NE guidelines 2011 which have been retracted until further revised. This chapter makes use of the existing guidance in Gent and Froglife. Trapping is proposed for a maximum of 70 sessions with 2 sessions per day in good weather conditions. One capture is counted per day even if the refugia are revisited 2-3 times through a single day. The temperature range is not accurate as temperatures as high as 23 degrees centigrade the reptiles are unlikely still to be present under the refugia as it will be too hot. The guidelines quoted state 9-18 degrees. No indication is provided of reptile refugia density for the capture.

No translocation plans/maps provided to indicate the areas to act as receptors and location of reptile fencing. Also there is no indication of what is proposed along the rail link.

Biodiversity Mitigation and Habitat Enhancement Strategy

2.0 Designated sites - Specific mention needs to be made of the rail link construction phase and mitigation to be provided during the infilling the small area at the north-east corner of Cavendish Dock. No compensation for disturbance of SPA birds or loss of dock area is offered yet it takes place within a internationally designated site. Following construction this section will remain highly visible to SPA birds so may result in permanent displacement of birds towards the better screened north-western area. Compensation is required. This could be provided as a structure elsewhere within Cavendish Dock for roosting SPA birds similar to the jetty and the Staithes along the western side.

3.0 Habitats – this section is inadequate as it only offers limited protection to some of these areas and nothing in the way of compensation for loss and/or damage of biodiverse habitats. There is no mention of any habitat creation or enhancement and no indication of where there may be ecologically poor land available for enhancement to provide compensation for 10.8 hectares of habitat lost.

4.0 Species –

Otter – the PEI consultation response recommended enhancement of otter habitat as compensation for disturbance and probable temporary displacement during the construction phase. The actions listed relate solely to provisions to protect the otter during the construction phase with no offer of habitat enhancement as compensation for disturbance.

Badger – The PEI response recommended maintaining and enhancing habitat continuity through the site to compensate for habitat loss but there is no mention of this, only methods of protection during construction, which is considered to be adequate but should also include a pre-construction check of badgers due to the mobile nature of this species.

Reptiles – the reptile mitigation report is not detailed enough to understand where receptor site can be located. In addition there will be net loss of reptile habitat so there needs to be additional reptile habitat creation on areas not presently suitable for reptiles – it is not clear where this can be undertaken and there are no indications of the area/extent of land to be enhanced as compensation. The PEI response indicated areas which have not been surveyed but are likely to support reptiles – there is not additional reptile survey information provided in the ES. It also requested identification of amount of reptile habitat to be lost, and of suitable receptor sites for translocation. This is not provided, and neither is there any indication of the amount of habitat that can be provided to compensate for the total area of land lost.

Bats – It is considered that the provisions for protection of bats and habitat enhancement in this report is adequate although there is no detail provided of the extent of enhancement offered.

Invertebrates – lack of detailed survey information but compensation required for loss of habitat supporting BAP priority and notable invertebrate species and also biodiverse invertebrate populations. The presence of a dingy skipper butterfly population elsewhere in the Barrow Docks led to recommendations for translocation of the colony to a suitably prepared receptor habitat elsewhere. The larval food plant is bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus of which there is abundant growth on the power station site. 9.6.113 of the ES lists the invertebrate species found on one survey visit. Compensation habitat for total area of habitat lost should be provided.

Breeding birds – again it is not clear from the text where the replacement habitat can be located as the area of semi natural habitat will be lost to development. Detail of this was requested in the PEI consultation response but has not been provided. Both scrub and ground nesting habitat will need to be replaced.

Birds of ecological value other than breeding birds will be affected by the development and loss of habitat. The area is likely to be used by raptors for foraging and by SPA birds for roosting, and occasionally for breeding. No compensation is mentioned for these effects.

Estuarine birds – mitigation offered to protect from disturbance but no compensation for temporary displacement or loss of a small part of the Cavendish Dock; nor for additional disturbance during operation due to the visual effect of bring the rail line adjacent to the dock with no/limited space for screening.

Ecological Management Plan

1.2 It would have been useful as part of the ES to provide a map of ecological constraints and sensitive habitats. The current Phase 1 Habitat Map is inaccurate and misleading with all grasslands either amenity or semi-improved neutral grassland. There is no indication of the value of the more biodiverse habitats and their extent. This needs to be revisited and the habitats mapped in more detail for the whole area within the Development Consent Order Boundary so that a detailed Ecological Management Plan, Biodiversity Mitigation and Habitat Enhancement Plan, and individual mitigation plans can be prepared.

1.15 Chemicals should be stored in an impervious bund.

1.25 Would it be possible to use an alternative construction method to reduce the noise impact?

1.29 It is not clear how the areas of land lost can be provided for as compensation within the site itself to make up for total losses of habitat. It may be necessary to find off-site land for habitat creation and enhancement.

1.31 Simply fencing off to prevent entry to the Japanese knotweed is not considered to be adequate – the fencing would have to be over 7 metres away from the edge of the stands to allow for the extent of underground rhizomes resulting in loss of development land. It must be emphasised that a Japanese Knotweed Management Plan will be required as soon as possible to allow for eradication of the invasive species before construction commences. A combined effort is recommended as the plant may spread onto the site from Network Rail land once the trains start to operate so spreading the risk of contamination closer to the designated sites.

Habitats Regulations Assessment

This is not the actual HRA but information required by the Competent Authority to enable HRA. Therefore should be entitled ‘Information for Habitat Regulations assessment’ as stated in the text. NE commented on the preliminary HRA accompanying the PEI indicating that further supporting evidence was required for the conclusions presented. Appropriate Assessment was requested for any issues which there remained uncertainties as to likely significant effect.

Identifying key potential impacts on European sites

This assessment needs to look at the integrity of the site based on any likely significant effects on qualifying species of the designated sites. Effect of disturbance during operation has been considered to be negligible but the rail link at the north-eastern corner of Cavendish Dock appears to result in this side of the dock being opened up to visual disturbance and hence displacement of SAP birds. This may be only within the dock itself but no compensation has been afforded such as provision of additional roosting sites like the jetty and staithes.

Table 5 – Habitat loss should also consider loss of land used by SPA birds outside the designated boundaries for roosting particularly at high tide. This would include land at the power station site and also alongside Ramsden Dock which provides high tide roosts for some SPA birds in the vicinity of the new shipping terminal.

Duddon Estuary SPA – indirect effects caused by any potential displacement of SPA birds from Cavendish Dock or Roosecote Sands is not considered .

3.5 Disturbance due to noise/visual stimuli should also consider the SPA birds making use of Ramsden Dock, particularly where the ships dock. Also opening up the north-east corner of Cavendish Dock to visual stimuli should be considered.

In combination assessment and conclusion require more evidence to support these conclusions. Other reports have assessed that opening up of the northern and western sides of Cavendish Dock is potentially likely to result in SPA birds becoming concentrated in the middle of the dock rather than using the north-east half of the dock. Therefore it is recommended that compensation is necessary to provide additional SPA habitat for displaced birds such as an additional roosting structure which would be located away from new disturbances.

3.8.16 Need to provide explanation as to why calcareous dunes are not sensitive to acid deposition? The more acid dunes along the western Cumbria coast are much less species rich than the more basic dunes.

4.4.29 Ramsden Dock is here stated to be of negligible value to SPA birds. Have any surveys been undertaken in this area as previous years Ramsden Dock has been used for roosting particularly by lapwing at high tide, and by SPA birds displaced from Cavendish Dock.

4.4.35 This mentions the large expanse of alternative feeding and roosting habitat available in Morecambe Bay SPA – is there evidence for this provided in the ES?

The problem with using this argument as mitigation is that eventually cumulative developments along the estuary will result in coastal squeeze and displacement of SPA birds to other estuaries. Compensation for visual disturbance to SPA birds is recommended.

In–combination assessment

Further development around the dock will result in little immediate inland high tide roosting potential due to land take.

Code of Construction Practice

This summarise the issues to be included in the CEMP. Section 3.27 onwards addresses the ecology objectives of the construction works. Ecological Management Plan reflecting ecological mitigation and enhancement measures is to be submitted and approved by the local authority. No detail at this stage.

APPENDIX 2 – COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR BARROW - MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 6 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 TO DISCUSS ROOSECOTE BIOMASS APPLICATION

COUNTY COUNCIL LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR BARROW

Minutes of a Meeting of the County Council Local Committee for Barrow held on Thursday, 6 September 2012 at 10.30 am at Nan Tait Centre, Abbey Road, Barrow-in-Furness, LA14 1LG

PRESENT :

Mr R Guselli (Chair)

Mr J Hamezeian Mr D Roberts Ms LV Hammond Mr MH Worth Ms J Heath

Also in Attendance:-

Mr G Hale - Spatial Planning Team Leader Ms E Haughin - Solicitor Ms J Hounslow - Senior Democratic Services Officer Mrs K Johnson - Area Support Manager - Barrow & South Lakeland Mr N Raymond - Highways Transport Manager Mr S Reed - Senior Manager – Facilities Management

PART 1 – ITEMS CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS

46 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Mr W Bleasdale, Mrs A Burns, Mr K Hamilton, Mrs T Macur, Mr D Marcus and Mr O Pearson.

47 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests made.

Mr Guselli declared an interest as a member of the Furness Opposes Biomass group. Given his interest, he asked the other members present, if they would like someone else to chair the meeting. The members were happy for Mr Guselli to continue chairing the meeting.

48 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED, that the press and public be not excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item of business.

49 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Mr David Salt gave a presentation on behalf of Furness Opposes Biomass group. He stated that the group along with 14,500 residents were opposed to a biomass plant which they believed would detrimentally affect their lives. He referred to scientific evidence of the health risks associated with biomass plants, side effects such as birth defects. Bag filters currently used in biomass plants in the UK admit particles of 1 micron to escape, those are the most dangerous size particles as they can be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs. The existing gas power station emitted no particulates. The fuel the biomass plant would use per day was equivalent to 68,000 domestic wood burning stoves running for 24 hours. The biomass plant would produce black soot and carbon emissions which would cause acid rain and was detrimental to the environment.

The proposed height of the biomass plant would be 229 feet and towering above that building would be a chimney at another 66 feet, a total height of 295 feet. Alongside that would be a separate fuel storage shed 95 feet high and 400 feet long, with a further 4 storage tanks, each 120 feet high and 82 feet in diameter which would be used to accommodate almost 42,000 tonnes of timber at anytime. A fire at a biomass plant in Tilbury took 120 fireman 4 days to control.

Centrica stood to make £46m per year if the plant were to be given planning permission. The presentations given to the public by Centrica were flawed, misleading and totally inaccurate. He urged members to read the impartial advice and evidence from scientists, health professionals and doctors on the dangers of biomass plants. The County Medical Officer on behalf of NHS Cumbria had expressed numerous concerns and stated that ‘a more detailed health impact assessment was required’.

He asked members not to support the application, to rebuke it and stand beside the 14,500 residents who had signed the petition.

The Chair then introduced Mr John Crane who made the following comments to the Committee:

• The health and safety of the people of Barrow-in-Furness and beyond was not mentioned in the report; • Centrica had been quoted as saying that Barrow people did not look after themselves and that a lot them had bad health. This was a result of working in places such as the Steel Works, Wireworks, Iron Works, Cellophane, Cairds Foundry, Paper Mills and Vickers. Places were they came into contact with asbestos, nuclear contaminates etc; • Why should the people of Barrow be subjected to even more health issues;

• Centrica claimed there would be 50 jobs at the plant but in fact there would only be 30 as 20 of the existing staff at the power station who could not be redeployed elsewhere would be made redundant. Are 30 jobs worth the health risks, No.

There then followed a number of questions to the committee from members of the public.

Mr Dennis Yeates asked the following question:

How confident can the Committee be that the presentations and assurances by Centrica were accurate and not equally “misleading” and “wholly incorrect”?

Mr Jim Hogg asked the following question:

Given that Centrica was recently issued with a warning by the Environment Agency for an unintended and accidental discharge of chemicals into the atmosphere, does the Committee agree that the residents of Roose have suffered more than their fair share of disruption and inconvenience and the plant is not an acceptable addition to an area where there are two schools within close proximity and a number of housing estates which would be affected by any adverse emissions from the plant?

Mr Dave Salt asked the following question:

There is conflicting opinion throughout the medical world and all over the internet about Biomass combustion and its consequences; may I ask this Committee that until those opinions provide greater evidence as to the safety of the process that for the sake of the people you represent, their families and your own, that you give a commitment today, not to recommend acceptance of the proposal and to ask your Development Control and Regulation Committee to do likewise and refuse the application?

Mrs Karen Hogg referred to paragraph 4.71 of the report and was surprised at the reference to mercury as a residue which had never been mentioned by Centrica before. Crematoriums had all had to change their procedures as it is a poison. She then asked the following question:

Given the alleged inadequacy in this key area of Centrica’s proposals and the concerns expressed by Professor Ashton which has a potential to impact upon public health, may I seek assurance that the Committee will not recommend that the project be approved?

Mr Scott Symon asked the following question:

Does the Committee agree that the construction of a Biomass Plant will do nothing to encourage the increasing number of tourists who are now responding to our tourism initiatives and coming here, especially around the area most affected by the proposed development?

Mr Ken Williams asked the following question:

Does the Committee agree that the proposed Biomass plant will “conflict with the Local Plan” and have such a seriously detrimental impact on the proposed Marina and Village, that this prestigious development will be at risk?

Mrs Glynis Fenton asked the following question:

Centrica states that the “adverse visual impact of this construction would be minor”, does the Committee believe that the adverse visual impact would be minor and how will it enhance our Borough and landscape?

Mrs Pat Ogilvy asked the following question:

The World Health Organisation state there is no safe level for Particulate Matter at a size smaller than 2.5 microns (i.e. PM 2.5). Centrica will only be monitoring PM 10 and not the smaller more harmful Particulate Matter 2.5 and below. What levels are Councillors prepared to tolerate?

Mr Mike Watt asked the following question:

Dr Dick Van Steenis recently advised the Welsh Assembly of the extreme dangers associated with Biomass Plants. Analysis in the USA of plants there, reveal they produce and emit mostly PM 1s containing poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals, which cause illnesses and deaths. The Roosecote proposal will expose innocent people as far away as Windermere. Are a few jobs at Roosecote really worth it? Is the Committee prepared to take the risk with our health and lives?

50 ROOSECOTE BIOMASS POWER STATION

The Committee received a report from the Corporate Director – Resources which informed members that Centrica RPS Limited had submitted an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) to build and operate a 90MW (gross)/80MW (net) biomass electricity generating power station on land at Roosecote, Barrow-in-Furness. Cumbria County Council (CCC) is a key statutory consultee on the development alongside Barrow Borough Council (BBC) and Copeland Borough Council. CCC and BBC will be invited by the Secretary of State to give their views on the proposal and to prepare a Local Impact Report (LIR) which will set out the effects of the development on the local area.

Mr Hale, the Spatial Planning Team Leader stated that the local committees views on the impacts of the development upon the area would form part of the LIR which the Development Control and Regulation Committee would consider at their meeting on 2 October and their views (along with the local committee) would then form part of the report to be considered by Cabinet on 8 November. The LIR and views of Cabinet would then be sent to the Planning Inspectorate. He added that the report before members set out Centrica’s views and were not those of CCC officers. Officers would look at all the information Centrica had provided and would review it independently. Their findings would form the main body of the LIR which would be a joint submission with BBC and SLDC.

The Chair then asked the members of the public present to make their representations. Following which he asked each member present to give their views.

Mr Roberts, the local member for Hawcoat stated that as a councillor on many occasions he was asked to make decisions that would benefit the local town and residents. However, he had not seen or heard anything from Centrica which had allayed his fears on the proposal. The people of Barrow had said that they did not want it and he was there to represent the people, he did not believe it was a good thing for Barrow, so was against the proposal.

Mrs Heath, the local member for Dalton North had read that other areas of the country had rejected Biomass Plants so why should Barrow be any different. She believed, enough was enough and that Barrow was an important town and not a poor relation that would have a proposal such as this thrust on it. She asked for clarification on the number of jobs created and also on the emissions.

Mr Worth, the local member for Walney North had several issues not least the visual impact, additional traffic on the roads but the overriding issue was health. He was not qualified to say what level of particulate matter he was prepared to tolerate but added that the onus had been on Centrica to convince him that the plant would be safe and they had failed to do so. Quite simply he was opposed to the application.

Jim Hamezeian, the local member for Ormsgill believed the impact on health was very important and referred to an open letter sent to Centrica by Professor John Ashton, Director of Public Health and County Medical Officer, NHS Cumbria who considered that “the Health Impact Analysis that has been undertaken is limited in its scope”. 14,500 people had signed a petition against the proposal which he believed was a fantastic proportion of the community. He added that politics had been put aside as it was such an emotive issue. He was with the people of Barrow who were opposed to the Biomass proposal.

Ms Hammond, the local member for Parkside thanked the members of the public for their representations she had found the World Health Organisation data useful. She was concerned that Centrica would be monitoring their own noise levels should the site be built. She added that she had already signed the petition and like the other 14,500 people she too was against the proposal.

Mr Guselli, the Chair of the local committee and local member for Roosecote was concerned that the plant would be one of the biggest in the UK should it be granted planning permission. He had concerns around the levels of particulate matter and asked for further information on Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5. He was extremely disappointed that NID had accepted the application in the first place. In accordance with the wishes of his residents, he was against the application.

The Committee adjourned at 12.20 pm and the meeting restarted at 12.35 pm.

RESOLVED, that the Committee is strongly OPPOSED to the proposed development of a Biomass Incinerator in Roosecote, Barrow-in- Furness following consideration of the report and the public representations presented at the Local Committee for Barrow on 6 September 2012 and in particular the Committee believes the proposal is unacceptable and the case presented by the applicant is unproven. Committee believes that the application should not be approved and that appropriate independent evidence should be obtained on each of the aspects listed in the report. This independent evidence should take account of the issues raised at the Committee and in particular the concerns noted below:

Air Quality and Odour Centrica have no existing operational biomass plants and their figures are based on some dispersion modelling work. They have only looked at PM 10 and over, the Committee asks for figures on PM 2.5 and below, as their figures can not be substantiated.

Centrica claims that there would be no significant impact from road, ship and rail emissions but members believe there would be a considerable impact and ask for further exploration and analysis to be carried out.

Water Quality – No further comment at this stage

Hydrology and Flood Risk – No further comment at this stage

Land Quality – No further comment at this stage

Ecology – No further comment at this stage

Ornithology – No further comment at this stage

Landscape and Visual Effects

The sheer size of the development is not in keeping with the rest of the area and would lead to a significant adverse visual impact on the local area.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage – No further comment at this stage

Traffic and Transport Residents have already raised issues with increased road congestion in the area. Centrica has been inconsistent with the estimated number of traffic flows to and from the site.

Noise and Vibration

The information provided by Centrica relating to noise and vibration has not been consistent. Other areas of the town would be adversely affected by the noise from docks.

Waste Generation Centrica has not stated where the waste from the plant will be taken or what contaminates might be deposited and what commitment will be undertaken to manage the deposit of waste.

Socio Economic Effects The application will have an adverse impact on the proposed Barrow Marina and Village, as well as the tourism industry in Barrow.

Aviation and Telecommunications – No further comment at this stage

Safer Communities There are concerns over potential fire risks at the plant as previous accidents at other industrial sites in Barrow leads members to believe that safety cannot be guaranteed.

51 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

RESOLVED, The next scheduled meeting will take place on Wednesday 12 September 2012, Barrow Fire Station, Phoenix Road, Barrow-in- Furness, LA14 2NS.

The meeting ended at 1.05 pm