Environmental Statement


[PDF]Environmental Statement - Rackcdn.comc932921.r21.cf3.rackcdn.com/FOLDER%203%20-%20Environmental%20Statement.pdfAtkins Limited. Document History. ...

1 downloads 208 Views 4MB Size

3

Courtauld Road MBT Facility Environmental Statement

Volume 1

Urbaser / Balfour Beatty Courtauld Road Mechanical Biological Treatment Facility, Basildon, Essex Environmental Statement March 2012 Notice This Environmental Statement was produced by Atkins Ltd. for Urbaser and Balfour Beatty for the specific purpose of supporting the planning application for the proposed Courtauld Road Mechanical Biological Treatment Facility, Basildon, Essex. This report may not be used by any person other than Urbaser and Balfour Beatty without Urbaser or Balfour Beatty express permission. In any event the authors accept no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any organisation other than Urbaser or Balfour Beatty. Atkins Limited

Document History JOB NUMBER: 5093106

DOCUMENT REF: Courtauld Road MBT Facility, Environmental Statement

Final

For Issue

Various

PB

SW

PB

16/3/12

1.0

Draft for Client review

Various

PB

ST

PB

12/3/12

Revision

Purpose Description

Originated

Checked

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 1

Reviewed

Authorised

Date

Courtauld Road MBT Facility, Basildon Essex

Contents Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 13 1.0

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 16

1.1.

The Proposal .................................................................................................... 16

1.2.

Format of the Planning Application ................................................................... 16

1.3.

Project Outline .................................................................................................. 16

1.4.

Background to the Applicant ............................................................................. 17

1.5.

Background to the Proposed Development....................................................... 18

1.5.1.

Waste management ............................................................................... 18

1.5.2.

Planning ................................................................................................. 19

1.6.

Outline description of the proposed development ............................................. 19

1.6.1. 1.7.

The process ........................................................................................... 19

Scope and Content of the Environmental Statement ........................................ 20

1.7.1.

Screening for the Environmental Statement ........................................... 20

1.7.2.

Scoping of the Environmental Statement ............................................... 20

1.7.3.

Content of the Environmental Statement ................................................ 21

1.7.4.

Structure of the Environmental Statement – Main Text .......................... 24

1.7.5.

Content of the Environmental Statement’s technical chapters ................ 26

1.7.6.

Sunlight Assessment ............................................................................. 27

1.7.7.

Scoped Out topics.................................................................................. 27

2.0

The site and its setting ......................................................................................... 31

2.1.

Site location ...................................................................................................... 31

2.2.

Site description ................................................................................................. 31

2.3.

The wider environmental setting ....................................................................... 31

2.3.1.

Land uses .............................................................................................. 31

2.3.2.

Designations .......................................................................................... 32

2.4.

Committed development within the area ........................................................... 32 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 2

2.4.1. 3.0

Existing planning permission .................................................................. 32

Description of the development ............................................................................ 33

3.1.

Introduction....................................................................................................... 33

3.2.

Design and Layout............................................................................................ 33

3.2.1.

Authority requirements ........................................................................... 33

3.2.2.

Development of design and layout ......................................................... 34

3.2.3.

Public/Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................ 34

3.3.

Descriptions of the buildings at the Facility ....................................................... 35

3.3.1.

Reception Building ................................................................................. 35

3.3.2.

Maturation Halls ..................................................................................... 35

3.3.3. De-Stoner/Product Storage Building & Vehicle Workshop/Transformer Buildings .............................................................................................................. 36 3.3.4.

The Visitor and Education Centre .......................................................... 36

3.3.5.

Access road and roundabout ................................................................. 37

3.3.6.

Surface water management ................................................................... 37

3.3.7.

Water storage and treatment tanks ........................................................ 37

3.3.8.

Screening/Acoustic bunds...................................................................... 37

3.3.9.

Site Security........................................................................................... 37

3.3.10.

Weighbridge complex ............................................................................ 38

3.3.11.

Parking .................................................................................................. 38

3.3.12.

Lighting .................................................................................................. 38

3.3.13.

Biofilter................................................................................................... 39

3.4.

Site preparation and construction ..................................................................... 39

3.4.1.

Enabling works ...................................................................................... 39

3.4.2.

Foundations ........................................................................................... 39

3.4.3.

Construction plant & equipment ............................................................. 40

3.4.4.

Construction working hours .................................................................... 40

3.5.

Operation of the Facility .................................................................................... 41

3.5.1.

Staffing .................................................................................................. 41

3.5.2.

Proposed Working Hours ....................................................................... 41

3.5.3.

Transport ............................................................................................... 42 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 3

3.6.

The process...................................................................................................... 43

3.6.1. 4.0

Pre-processing ....................................................................................... 43

The need for the scheme and alternatives considered ......................................... 52

4.1.

Introduction....................................................................................................... 52

4.2.

Current waste management services, achievements and issues ...................... 52

4.3.

Needs Assessment........................................................................................... 53

4.3.1.

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 55

4.3.2.

Alternatives Considered ......................................................................... 55

4.3.3.

Alternative Technologies ........................................................................ 55

4.3.4.

Development of the consortium proposal ............................................... 56

4.4. 5.0

Alternative sites ................................................................................................ 57 Traffic and transportation ..................................................................................... 58

5.1.

Introduction....................................................................................................... 58

Summary of Assessment: ....................................................................................... 58 5.2.

Regulatory, planning and policy context ........................................................... 59

5.3.

Assessment Methodology................................................................................. 60

5.4.

Magnitude of Change ....................................................................................... 62

5.5.

Baseline Conditions .......................................................................................... 63

5.5.1.

Existing Access ...................................................................................... 63

5.5.2.

Local Highway Network.......................................................................... 64

5.5.3.

Road Safety ........................................................................................... 68

5.5.4.

Base Traffic Volumes ............................................................................. 70

5.6. Design Evolution and Operational Procedure Changes to Avoid or Reduce Potentially Significant Effects ...................................................................................... 71 5.6.1.

HGV Traffic Access Route ..................................................................... 71

5.6.2.

Internal Access Arrangements and Access Junction .............................. 72

5.6.3.

Noise Bunding and Planting ................................................................... 72

5.6.4.

Traffic Operational Procedures .............................................................. 72

5.7.

Traffic Generation ............................................................................................. 72 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 4

5.7.1.

Construction Traffic Generation ............................................................. 72

5.7.2.

Operational Traffic Generation ............................................................... 73

5.8.

Significance of Effects ...................................................................................... 77

5.8.1.

Assessment of Magnitude of Change/Impact ......................................... 77

5.8.2.

Importance of Receptors/Resources ...................................................... 82

5.8.3.

Assessment of Significance of Effects.................................................... 83

5.9.

Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 87

5.9.1.

Construction Period ............................................................................... 87

5.9.2.

Operational Period ................................................................................. 88

5.10.

Residual Effects ............................................................................................ 90

5.10.1.

Construction Period ............................................................................... 90

5.10.2.

Operational Period ................................................................................. 90

5.11.

Cumulative effects ........................................................................................ 91

5.12.

Conclusions .................................................................................................. 91

6.0

Landscape and visual impact ............................................................................... 93

6.1.

Introduction....................................................................................................... 93

Summary of Assessment: ....................................................................................... 93 6.2.

Regulatory, planning and policy context ........................................................... 94

6.2.1.

National level policy and legislation ........................................................ 94

6.2.2.

Regional level policy and legislation ....................................................... 94

6.2.3.

District level policy and legislation .......................................................... 94

6.2.4.

Landscape designations ........................................................................ 95

6.3.

Assessment methodology................................................................................. 96

6.3.1.

Landscape character ............................................................................. 97

6.3.2.

Visual amenity ....................................................................................... 99

6.3.3.

Impact assessment ................................................................................ 99

6.3.4.

Landscape character impact assessment ............................................ 101

6.3.5.

Visual amenity impact assessment ...................................................... 101

6.4.

Baseline conditions......................................................................................... 101

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 5

6.4.1.

Landscape character ........................................................................... 101

6.4.2.

Visual amenity receptors ...................................................................... 105

6.5.

Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................. 107

6.5.1.

Key environmental effects to consider.................................................. 107

6.5.2.

External works and landscape ............................................................. 108

6.5.3.

Landscape strategy.............................................................................. 109

6.5.4.

Construction impacts ........................................................................... 111

6.5.5.

Operational Impacts ............................................................................. 113

6.6.

Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 115

6.7.

Residual effects .............................................................................................. 116

6.8.

Cumulative effects .......................................................................................... 116

6.9.

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 117

7.0

Water and flood risk ........................................................................................... 120

7.1.

Introduction..................................................................................................... 120

Summary of Assessment: ..................................................................................... 120 7.2.

Regulatory, planning and policy context ......................................................... 121

7.2.1.

National planning policy guidance ........................................................ 121

7.2.2.

Regional planning policy guidance ....................................................... 122

7.2.3.

Local planning policy guidance ............................................................ 122

7.2.4.

Local planning policy guidance ............................................................ 123

7.3.

Assessment methodology............................................................................... 123

7.4.

Baseline conditions......................................................................................... 127

7.4.1.

Study area ........................................................................................... 127

7.4.2.

Data collection ..................................................................................... 127

7.4.3.

Geology ............................................................................................... 128

7.4.4.

Hydrogeology....................................................................................... 128

7.4.5.

Hydrology ............................................................................................ 129

7.4.6.

Flood risk ............................................................................................. 129

7.4.7.

Existing drainage system ..................................................................... 129

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 6

7.4.8.

Surface water quality ........................................................................... 130

7.4.9.

Designated sites .................................................................................. 130

7.4.10.

Water related receptors........................................................................ 130

7.5.

Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................. 131

7.5.1.

Construction effects ............................................................................. 131

7.5.2.

Operational effects ............................................................................... 132

7.5.3.

Flood risk ............................................................................................. 134

7.6.

Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 135

7.6.1.

Surface water quality: construction mitigation ...................................... 135

7.6.2.

Surface water flow: construction mitigation .......................................... 136

7.6.3.

Surface water quality: operational mitigation ........................................ 136

7.6.4.

Surface water flow: operational mitigation ............................................ 137

7.6.5.

Flood risk ............................................................................................. 137

7.7.

Residual effects .............................................................................................. 137

7.8.

Cumulative effects .......................................................................................... 137

7.9.

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 137

8.0

Noise and vibration ............................................................................................ 140

8.1.

Introduction..................................................................................................... 140

8.2.

Regulatory, planning and policy context ......................................................... 140

Summary of Assessment: ..................................................................................... 140 8.2.1.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) ............................. 141

8.2.2.

Environmental Protection Act, 1990 ..................................................... 142

8.2.3.

Control of Pollution Act, 1974 ............................................................... 142

8.2.4.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG 24): Planning and Noise ....... 142

8.3.

Assessment methodology............................................................................... 143

8.3.1.

Construction noise and vibration .......................................................... 143

8.3.2.

Operational noise ................................................................................. 145

8.3.3.

Road traffic noise ................................................................................. 147

8.4.

Baseline conditions......................................................................................... 147

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 7

8.5.

Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................. 149

8.5.1.

Key environmental effects to consider.................................................. 149

8.5.2.

Key environmental effects to consider.................................................. 150

8.5.3.

Construction noise and vibration .......................................................... 150

8.5.4.

Operational noise ................................................................................. 155

8.5.5.

Road traffic noise ................................................................................. 160

8.6.

Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 163

8.6.1.

Construction noise and vibration .......................................................... 163

8.6.2.

Operational noise ................................................................................. 164

8.6.3.

Road traffic noise ................................................................................. 167

8.7.

Residual effects .............................................................................................. 167

8.7.1.

Construction noise and vibration .......................................................... 167

8.7.2.

Operational noise ................................................................................. 168

8.7.3.

Road traffic noise ................................................................................. 168

8.8.

Cumulative effects .......................................................................................... 168

8.9.

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 169

8.9.1.

Construction noise and vibration .......................................................... 169

8.9.2.

Operational noise ................................................................................. 169

8.9.3.

Road traffic noise ................................................................................. 169

8.9.4.

Summary of noise and vibration effects ............................................... 169

9.0

Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 171

9.1.

Introduction..................................................................................................... 171

Summary of Assessment: ..................................................................................... 171 9.2.

Regulatory, planning and policy context ......................................................... 172

9.2.1.

Air pollutants ........................................................................................ 172

9.2.2.

Air quality criteria ................................................................................. 175

9.2.3.

Planning and air quality management .................................................. 177

9.2.4.

Environment Agency guidance............................................................. 177

9.3.

Assessment methodology............................................................................... 178

9.3.1.

Construction dust ................................................................................. 178 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 8

9.3.2.

Traffic emissions .................................................................................. 179

9.3.3.

Fugitive emissions ............................................................................... 184

9.3.4.

Local air quality .................................................................................... 184

9.3.5.

Dust ..................................................................................................... 186

9.3.6.

Odour................................................................................................... 186

9.3.7.

Bioaerosols .......................................................................................... 187

9.3.8.

Meteorology ......................................................................................... 187

9.4.

Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................. 192

9.4.1.

Key environmental effects to consider.................................................. 192

9.4.2.

Significance criteria .............................................................................. 193

9.4.3.

Assessment of construction dust.......................................................... 193

9.4.4.

Assessment of traffic emissions ........................................................... 195

9.4.5.

Assessment of stack emissions ........................................................... 198

9.4.6.

Assessment of fugitive emissions ........................................................ 200

9.5.

Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 202

9.6.

Residual effects .............................................................................................. 203

9.7.

Cumulative effects .......................................................................................... 203

9.8.

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 203

10.0

Socio-Economic ................................................................................................. 205

10.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................. 205

10.2.

Regulatory, planning and policy context ...................................................... 205

Summary of Assessment ...................................................................................... 205 10.3.

Assessment Methodology ........................................................................... 207

10.4.

Baseline Conditions .................................................................................... 207

10.4.1.

Data Sources ....................................................................................... 207

10.4.2.

Study area ........................................................................................... 207

10.4.3.

Impact Assessment.............................................................................. 207

10.5.

Criteria of Assessment ................................................................................ 208

10.6.

Baseline Conditions .................................................................................... 208 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 9

10.6.1.

Population ............................................................................................ 208

10.6.2.

Economic Activity and Employment ..................................................... 209

10.6.3.

Qualifications ....................................................................................... 211

10.6.4.

Deprivation........................................................................................... 211

10.7.

10.7.1.

Construction......................................................................................... 211

10.7.2.

Operation ............................................................................................. 212

10.7.3.

Mitigation ............................................................................................. 213

10.7.4.

Residual Effect Assessment ................................................................ 214

10.8. 11.0

Key Environmental Issues ........................................................................... 211

Conclusions ................................................................................................ 214

Health Impact Summary ..................................................................................... 216

11.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................. 216

11.1.1.

Assessment Methodology .................................................................... 216

11.1.2.

Data Sources ....................................................................................... 216

11.1.3.

Study area ........................................................................................... 216

11.1.4.

Impact Assessment.............................................................................. 217

11.2.

Baseline Conditions .................................................................................... 217

11.2.1.

Environment......................................................................................... 217

11.2.2.

Socio Economic ................................................................................... 218

11.3.

Proposed Development Considerations ...................................................... 220

11.3.1.

Construction......................................................................................... 220

11.3.2.

Operation ............................................................................................. 221

11.4.

Assessment ................................................................................................ 221

11.4.1.

Emissions to Air ................................................................................... 221

11.4.2.

Road Traffic Emissions ........................................................................ 222

11.4.3.

Noise & Vibration ................................................................................. 222

11.4.4.

Vehicle Noise ....................................................................................... 223

11.4.5.

Employment and Income ..................................................................... 223

11.4.6.

Stress Impact ....................................................................................... 223

11.5.

Conclusions ................................................................................................ 223 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 10

12.0

11.5.1.

Construction Phase.............................................................................. 223

11.5.2.

Operation ............................................................................................. 224

Summary of effects ............................................................................................ 226

12.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................. 226

12.2.

Effects ......................................................................................................... 226

13.0

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 233

List of Appendices Appendix 1.1 – Scoping Request Appendix 1.2 – Scoping Opinion Appendix 1.3 – Informal Scoping Opinion Appendix 1.4 – Sunlight Assessment Appendix 1.5 – Existing Application Site – Ecology Reports Appendix 1.6 – Ecology Desktop Study Appendix 1.7 – Entec Site Appraisal Report Appendix 1.8 – Factual Ground Investigation Report (on CD) Appendix 1.9 – Ground Gas Monitoring Results Appendix 5.1 – Transport Statement Appendix 5.2 – Travel Plan Appendix 6.1 – Tree Survey Appendix 7.1 – Flood Risk Assessment Appendix 9.1 – Odour and Bioaerosol Survey Appendix 9.2 – Odour Model Contour Plots

List of Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Proposed and Existing Planning Boundaries Figure 3 – General Arrangement Figure 4 – Acoustic Improvement Measures Figure 6.1 – Landscape Relevant Designations Figure 6 2 – Landscape Character Areas Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 11

Figure 6 3 – Landscape and Visual Analysis Figure 6 4 – Visual Envelope and Visual Amenity Receptors Figure 6 5 – Photographic Viewpoints Figure 6 6 – Photomontage of the Proposed Scheme Figure 8.1 – Plan showing the noise monitoring locations Figure 8.2 – 3D noise model Figure 8.3 – Plan showing the source locations within the product storage building Figure 8.4 – Plan showing the source locations within the reception hall building Figure 8.5 – Noise contour map showing predicted operational noise levels across the site due to contributions from fixed plant and vehicle

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 12

Acronyms AADT

Annual Average Daily Traffic

ABD

Areas Benefitting from Defences

AD

Anaerobic Digestion

AEP

Annual Exceedance Probability

ANPR

Advanced Number Plate Recognition

AOD

Above Ordnance Datum

AONB

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA

Air Quality Management Area

ATCs

Automatic Traffic Counts

ATT

Advanced Thermal Treatment

BBCSFRA

Basildon Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

BMW

Biodegradable Municipal Waste

BPEO

Best Practicable Environmental Option

BPIP

Building Parameter Input Program

BPSO

Best Practicable Sustainable Option

CCTV

Closed Circuit Television

CFA

Continuous Flight Auger

CFMP

Catchment Flood Management Plans

CIWEM

Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management

C&I

Construction and Industrial

COMEAP

Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants

DEFRA

Department of Food and Rural Affairs

DfT

Department for Transport

EA

Environment Agency

EC

European Commission

EfW

Energy from Waste

EHO

Environmental Health Officer

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

EPA

Environmental Protection Act 1990

EPAQS

Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards

ES

Environmental Statement

EU

European Union Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 13

EWP

Essex Waste Partnership

FRA

Flood Risk Assessment

GLA

Greater London Authority

GLVIA

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

HDV

Heavy Duty Vehicles

HGV

Heavy Goods Vehicles

HSE

Health and Safety Executive

IEMA

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IOH

Institute of Hydrology

IVC

In-Vessel Composting

JMWMS

Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy

JV

Joint Venture

LA

Local Authority

LATS

Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

LCA

Landscape Character Assessment

LDD

Local Development Document

LDF

Local Development Framework

LDV

Light Duty Vehicles

LHA

Local Highway Authority

LP

Local Plan

MBT

Mechanical Biological Treatment

MRF

Materials Recovery/Recycling Facility

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste

NCA

National Character Area

NFCDD

National Flood and Coastal Defence Database

OJEU

Official Journal of the European Union

PIA

Personal Injury Accident

PPG

Planning Policy Guidance

PPGu

Pollution Prevention Guidance

PPS

Planning Policy Statement

PRoW

Public Right of Way

PV

Photo Voltaics

RC

Reinforced Concrete

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 14

RCHW

Recycling Centres for Household Waste

RFRA

Regional Flood Risk Assessment

RSS

Regional Spatial Strategy

RWMS

Regional Waste Management Strategy

SFRA

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SFRM

Strategic Flood Risk Mapping

SME

Small and Medium Enterprise

SMP

Shoreline Management Plan

SOM

Stabilised Output Material

SPA

Special Protection Area

SPZ

Source Protection Zone

SRF

Solid Recovered Fuel

SRSS

Sub Regional Spatial Strategy

SSBRA

Site Specific Bioaerosol Risk Assessment

SSSIs

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

SuDS

Sustainable Drainage Systems

TAG

Transport Analysis Guidance

tpa

Tonnes per Annum

TPOs

Tree Protection Orders

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

WCA

Waste Collection Authority

WDA

Waste Disposal Authority

WFD

Waste Framework Directive

WFD

Water Framework Directive

WHO

World Health Organisation

WPA

Waste Planning Authority

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 15

1.0

Introduction 1.1. The Proposal

Urbaser SA and Balfour Beatty Construction (hereafter referred to as the ‘Applicant’) are seeking to obtain planning permission for the development of a waste management facility at land off Courtauld Road, Basildon. The Facility will a comprise Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant; a visitor, education and office facility; associated infrastructure including welfare facilities; parking; surface water management system; hardstandings; internal roads; new access and junction arrangements; earthworks; landscaping; fencing and gates; weighbridge; lighting; and other ancillary development. This Environmental Statement (ES) sets out the potential significant environmental effects relating to the construction and operation of the proposed MBT facility (the Facility). This report follows on from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request submitted to the local planning authority, Essex County Council (ECC), in January 2012 (presented in Appendix 1.1). The 8.5 hectare application site is located on Courtauld Road off the A132 between the A127 and Courtauld Road within a predominantly industrial area on the north eastern edge of the Basildon conurbation. Figure 1 shows the location of the application site. 1.2. Format of the Planning Application The following documents form part of the planning application; 

Folder 1



Part 1 Planning Application Forms, Certificates, Notices and Validation Checklist



Part 2 Planning Appendices

Statement

and



Folder 2



Part 3 Planning Application Figures and Drawings



Folder 3



ES Main Text



Folder 4 a/b



ES Figures and Technical Appendices



Folder 5



ES Non-Technical Summary



Folder 6



Design and Access Statement

1.3. Project Outline The Facility will provide the waste management solution for residual waste treatment for Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (‘the Authority’) and will assist the Authority in meeting its overall recycling and landfill diversion targets over the next 25 years. Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 16

The Facility will have the capacity to treat up to 416,955 tonnes per annum (tpa) of waste. This will include Waste Collection Authority (WCA) residual waste, trade waste, bulky waste, street sweepings and waste from Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs). The Facility will also have the capacity to receive a smaller proportion of locally derived Commercial and Industrial (C&I) wastes. The anticipated composition of the Authorities waste is as follows: 

Residual household waste



Street sweepings

1.8%



Bulky waste

0.4%



Trade waste

5.4%



HWRC waste

13.9%

78.5%

An Environmental Permit will also be required for the operation of Facility. Pre application discussions have taken place with the Environment Agency (EA) concerning the type of permit necessary for the Facility and what information will need to be provided. An Environmental Permit application is currently being prepared and will be submitted to the EA in due course following submission of the planning application. 1.4. Background to the Applicant The Applicant is a Consortium comprising Urbaser SA and Balfour Beatty Construction. The two companies are working together to deliver the design, construction and commissioning of the Facility. Urbaser SA will provide the technology and operate the Facility whilst Balfour Beatty will undertake the construction of the Facility. Balfour Beatty is a world-class infrastructure services business, operating in four strong and substantial areas of business; professional services, construction services, support Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 17

services and infrastructure investments. The Balfour Beatty group employs over 53,000 people within 28 operating companies. Balfour Beatty is the largest fixed construction/infrastructure contracting company in the world and has significant experience of operating within the Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnership market. Balfour Beatty has an excellent track record, in creating partnership value by providing value-added engineering, construction and service skills to customers for whom construction and civil engineering quality, efficiency and reliability are critical. Balfour Beatty delivers services essential to the creation and care of infrastructure assets including investment, project design, financing and management, engineering and construction and facilities management services. Urbaser SA is a Spanish company, 100% owned by the ACS (Activities of Construction and Services) Group, originating from the merger between ACS Group and the DRAGADOS Group. The ACS Group is the fourth largest construction group in the world. Urbaser operates in the municipal services market sector, providing services which include: 

Waste management - household, medical, industrial, hazardous, demolition and construction residues and used mineral oils; and



Water management - drinking and wastewater

Urbaser has more than 20 years of experience in waste management and employs 33,000 people worldwide. Currently, Urbaser operates in excess of 40 MBT facilities and in total have in excess of 60 municipal waste processing, Energy from Waste (EfW) and disposal facilities in operation, within which more than seven million tons of waste are processed annually. Overall, these sites process more than seven million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) annually. Since 1995, Urbaser has designed, constructed and currently operates five integrated facilities, where several mechanical, biological, and thermal processes are combined. The Applicant has employed Axis PED as their planning advisers and Atkins as their designers and Environmental Impact Assessment consultant. 1.5. Background to the Proposed Development 1.5.1. Waste management The majority of waste streams which will be accepted at the Facility are managed by the 12 District and Borough Councils as Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs), Southend-onSea Borough Council as a Unitary Authority (Waste Collection and Disposal Authority) and Essex County Council as Waste Disposal Authority (WDA). These 14 Authorities make up the Essex Waste Partnership (EWP). The Essex Waste Partnership was formed in order to ensure cost-efficient and sustainable waste management is delivered across the county. In order to manage the municipal waste arisings from the Partnership area, a network of waste facilities is required. The MBT Facility at Courtauld Road is proposed as the main treatment centre and would be supported by five satellite waste transfer stations, together with a separate facility to treat Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 18

source segregated organic waste. within Chapter 4 of this ES.

A more detailed assessment of need is provided

1.5.2. Planning The application site benefits from an existing planning permission for a waste management facility. Therefore there is a presumption in favour of waste development at the site. Planning permission ESS/04/07/BAS was secured at the site in October 2008 by Essex County Council and Integra and consisted of: 

An enclosed integrated Materials Recycling Facility;



An MBT and Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility for municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial / industrial (C&I) wastes;



An In-Vessel Composting (IVC) facility for kitchen waste;



Biogas fired power generators; and



Associated ancillary works

This existing planning permission covers a wider site area than this proposed development. Figure 2 shows the red line application boundary for the proposed Facility with the dotted blue line representing the planning boundary associated with the existing planning permission ESS/04/07/BAS. The existing permission included a number of planning conditions that were required to be met prior to any development commencing. Further details of the planning history of the site and the conditions relating to the existing permission are provided in the Planning Supporting Statement. Those planning conditions that have been considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are discussed in the relevant chapters of this ES. 1.6.

Outline description of the proposed development

A brief outline of the proposed Facility is provided below, with a more detailed description of the development presented in Chapter 3 of this ES. 1.6.1. The process The proposed development comprises a Mechanical Biological Treatment Process. All waste processing and handling will be undertaken in fully enclosed buildings. The waste will be treated in three stages; Pre-processing Waste is tipped into bunkers in the reception hall; the bags of waste are then split open and pass through a series of conveyor belts. The waste is then hand-sorted to remove bulky and other recyclable materials before it passes through automatic processes which use magnets and air blowers to remove the recyclables. The recyclable materials such as

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 19

cardboard, metals and plastics will be removed from the site for recycling by reprocessors. Maturation The remaining waste is then moved by conveyor to the maturation halls, where it is treated using a compost type process. The waste is deposited in rows to form piles approximately 3.5m high. The ‘compost’ process takes approximately seven weeks and during this time the waste is kept moist, regularly mixed and air is blown through it. This stabilises the material, so it is no longer biodegradable, and also reduces the volume of waste due to moisture loss. This results in there being less waste left at the end of the process than was present at the beginning. Refining The material is then sieved and screened to separate it into different sizes. The facility can produce two output materials depending on the market requirements. These are a Stabilised Output Material (SOM) or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) both of which have less weight and volume than the waste which was brought to the site. The SOM is likely to go to landfill as a biodegraded waste while the SRF can be used as a fuel for industrial processes. 1.7. Scope and Content of the Environmental Statement 1.7.1. Screening for the Environmental Statement The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. In light of recent case law and the incorporation of public participation requirements into the updated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation the Department of Communities and Local Government is in the process of amending Circular 02/99: Environmental impact assessment on screening guidance. In the absence of this updated Circular, consultation on Annex A to the Circular 02/99 was used. This stipulates that for installations for the disposal of non hazardous waste EIA is more likely to be required where new capacity is created to hold more than 50,000 tonnes per year. Given the throughput of this facility it was considered likely that the Authority would formally screen the proposal as being an EIA development and therefore an EIA was volunteered via the screening process. 1.7.2. Scoping of the Environmental Statement The importance of scoping in the EIA process is highlighted in the former Department of the Environment’s Good Practice Guide which states that: “Defining its scope is one of the most critical parts of an EIA in that it sets the context for what follows. If the scope is defined too narrowly, some critical area of uncertainty or adverse impact may emerge late in the day. Decisions on the shape of the project may then be too far advanced to allow for any real change. On the other hand, if the scope of the work is too loosely defined, then much time, effort and cost may be spent on pursuing unnecessary detail”. Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 20

There is no legal requirement to scope the EIA however the 2011 EIA Regulations do allow the applicant to request a formal “scoping opinion” from the local planning authority to help determine what is required of the ES. As part of this EIA process informal discussions have been held with the statutory consultees in order to inform any surveys that would be required and also to initiate preliminary discussions on any areas that may not require a full assessment and could therefore be scoped out of the EIA process. A formal scoping request was prepared by the Applicant and submitted to Essex County Council’s planning department in January 2012 in order to confirm the formal scoping position on the environmental impacts of the proposed development that the EIA will need to address. A copy of the scoping request is presented within Appendix 1.1. This request provides a description of the proposed development, the environmental setting of the site, the approach to the EIA in terms of assessment methodology, the criteria that will be used to assess the significance of the environmental effects, and the proposed content of the ES. In response to the scoping request, the County Council’s planning authority provided a response in the form of a scoping opinion. A copy of the scoping opinion dated 27 February 2012 is presented at Appendix 1.2 with copies of the informal scoping opinions presented in Appendix 1.3. 1.7.3. Content of the Environmental Statement Regulation 2(1) and Schedule 4 of the 2011 EIA Regulations set out the required content of an ES and states that it must contain the information specified in Part II, and such of the relevant information in Part I as is reasonably required to assess the effects of the project and which the developer can reasonably be required to compile. Table 1.1 overleaf provides a comparison of the specified information required with the content of this ES;

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 21

2011 EIA Regulations - Regulation 2(1) and Schedule 4

Relevant Chapter of this ES

Required Content of an Environmental Statement PART I that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile 1. Description of the development, including in particular (a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole Chapter 3 development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

(b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials Chapter 3 used;

(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues Chapter 3 and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the Detail provided in the technical Chapters 5-11 proposed development.

2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the Chapter 4 choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be Detail provided in the significantly affected by the development, including, in technical Chapters 5-11 particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.

4. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the Detail provided in the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, technical Chapters 5-11 medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from: (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 22

the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce Chapter 12 and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on Detail provided in the the environment. technical Chapters 5-11 6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under Separate Non-Technical paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part. Summary Report 7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in Detail provided in the technical Chapters 5-11 compiling the required information. PART 2 (that includes at least the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4) 1. A description of the development comprising information on Chapter 3 the site, design and size of the development. Chapter 12 2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, Mitigation detail in the reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects. technical Chapters 5-11 Baseline data provided 3. The data required to identify and assess the main effects in the technical which the development is likely to have on the environment. Chapters 5-11

4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant Chapter 4 or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects. 5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under Separate Non-Technical paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part. Summary Table 1.1 Statutory requirements relating to the content of the environmental statement

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 23

1.7.4. Structure of the Environmental Statement – Main Text This ES comprises three volumes, containing the Environmental Impact Assessment text, Figures and Appendices and a separately bound Non-Technical Summary. The structure of the Environmental Statement main text document is as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction (this chapter)

Includes the introduction and background to the site and development. It sets out the statutory requirement for an ES, including the scope, content and structure and the associated documents that support the planning application. A description of the scoping consultation process detailing what environmental aspects have been included within the EIA and the environmental aspects that have been scoped out.

Chapter 2: The site and its setting

Provides a description of the site location and a summary of the site’s current physical and environmental characteristics.

Chapter 3:

Provides a description of the proposed waste treatment processes involved and the likely construction development.

Description of the development Chapter 4: Need and Alternatives

Chapter 5: Traffic and transportation

Chapter 6: Landscape and visual Impact

A summary of the need for the scheme in terms of the strategic planning context and the practical needs of the Authority to manage their future waste generation is given here. A description of alternative technologies and sites considered in the decision making process for the development is also given as is the iterative process at the site to develop the optimum design. Provides a description of the number and type of daily vehicles movements with an assessment of the effects of these movements on the existing road network. Includes an assessment of the effects the additional movements will have on driver and pedestrian delay. Information pertaining to pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation of road users together with accidents and safety information are also included. A landscape character and visual amenity assessment which describes the existing features within the identified study is made in this chapter. Consideration of the quality of the landscape, sensitivity to change and the magnitude of the likely change are assessed, as well as an assessment of the significance of effects on the landscape character and the visual amenity receptors. The chapter considers mitigation measures Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 24

to address any potential landscape and visual effects. Chapter 7: Water and flood risk

Chapter 8: Noise and vibration

Chapter 9: Air quality

Chapter 10: Socio-Economic Assessment Chapter 11: Health Impact Summary

Chapter 12: Summary of effects

Chapter 13:

Contains a detailed review of the hydrogeological and hydrological conditions at the site, including water abstractions, water balances/catchments, drainage, pollution and flood risks. An assessment of the impacts of the development during operation and construction on the water environment and estimation of significance of the effects has been made. The chapter specifies mitigation measures to address any potential impacts on the water environment are provided. Identifies noise sensitive receptors including residential developments. It provides a description of the potential noise impacts during the construction and operation of the proposed Facility on the surrounding area, including vibration impacts during the construction and traffic impacts. It reports on the noise effects and their significance based on the likelihood of perceptible changes in noise compared with the existing baseline, and the likelihood of noise complaints. An assessment of the effects of the construction and operation of the proposed facility on local air quality, including a quantitative assessment of the effects of odour emissions from the biofilter stack and from the construction and operational traffic on nearby sensitive receptors. This chapter will identify the key socio-economic issues associated with the proposed development. This chapter provides a summary of the local health concerns and key health pathways associated with both the construction and operational phase of the Proposal. This chapter provides a summary of the residual effects and consideration of whether the effects are direct or indirect, the geographical level of importance (national, regional or local), short or long term, temporary or permanent. It also provides a summary of the mitigation measures proposed within the technical chapters. Overall conclusions of the assessment presenting the Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 25

Conclusions

key positive and negative impacts of the proposed development.

1.7.5. Content of the Environmental Statement’s technical chapters Each of the technical chapters broadly provides the following information, though these are adapted to suit the specific reporting needs of each section, the spatial scope determined by the scale of the facility, the nature of the baseline environment and the likely distribution of effects. Introduction and summary

An introduction from the perspective of the specific technical subject.

Regulatory, planning and policy context

The subject specific regulatory, planning and policy framework against which the assessment is carried out. Identification of relevant guidance and legislation that has been followed and reference to relevant planning policy documents that have guided the approach.

Assessment methodology

The method of identifying the environmental aspects, assessing the environmental effects and the criteria used for determining the significance of the effects.

Baseline conditions

A description of the existing conditions, determined through documentary review, site surveys and the development of environmental models.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Identification of the key environmental aspects. An assessment of the potential effects of the development on the environment during the remediation, construction and operation phases.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures that are proposed to avoid or alleviate the adverse environmental effects, and additional measures that would potentially provide environmental enhancements above and beyond the minimum requirements.

Residual effects

Any adverse environmental effects that remain after mitigation measures are taken into account. Any beneficial environmental effects that arise after mitigation measures are applied.

Cumulative effects

A summary of the combined effects of this and other local developments on a receptor or the combination of one or more effects within this development on a particular receptor.

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 26

1.7.6. Sunlight Assessment The assessment will consider the effects of the proposed development on any changes in sunlight and daylight availability with reference to the issue of the proposed scale and height of the development. The assessment has been undertaken for the site and its surrounding area. In order to assess the potential impacts, key receptors were identified. The main receptor was identified as the Hovefields Caravan Park site with consideration also given to the industrial units surrounding the site. The assessment does not consider footpaths and car park areas as receptors in this regard. In order to assess the potential effects a 3D model of the proposed Facility has been produced and this was used to generate shadow projections from the facility at various times of the day to assess its impact on adjacent areas. The shadow path projections have been modelled for the 21 March at several intervals during the day. The results of the modelling are presented in Appendix 1.4. It can be seen from the shadow modelling results that the surrounding area is not adversely affected by the development of the Facility. 1.7.7. Scoped Out topics Following consideration of the environmental impacts associated with the development together with discussion with the key stakeholders and the comments made via the Scoping Opinion. It is considered that ecology, ground conditions and heritage issues would not be significantly affected by the proposed development and so these were not assessed through the formal EIA process for this application. The reasons for this are given below; Ecology In accordance with planning permission ESS/04/07/BAS, Great Crested Newts and reptiles have been translocated from the existing permitted site to a mitigation site located to the north. A report detailing the works carried out is presented in Appendix 1.5. Following the mitigation works the application site has been infilled with inert material in in order to raise the levels of the application site to provide flood alleviation measures. These works have been undertaken at the application site since the previous planning application and associated survey work and it was therefore considered prudent to carry out an ecological walkover survey in order to update the ecological desk study information and identify if any ecological constraints to the proposed development remain. A copy of the Ecology Desk Study Report is presented in Appendix 1.6 and the findings are summarised below. Results of the desk study The data gathering exercise confirmed that no Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites), National Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 27

Nature Reserves or Local Nature Reserves are present within 2km of the site. However, the site had previously been designated as Burnt Mills Local Wildlife Site as it contained grasslands, a breeding population of great crested newts and other invertebrates. Results of the walkover study The site was found to be covered in recently spread soil with very little vegetation having established, though pockets of vegetation are still growing around the perimeter of the site which could provide a habitat for invertebrates. The watercourse which previously flowed through the site has been diverted around the western edge of the existing permitted site. There are three shallow ditches retained around the perimeter of the site. The habitat compensation site to the north of the A127 was also inspected and it was confirmed that damp grassland habitat and ponds were present. Photographs taken during the walkover survey on 20th July 2011 are included in Appendix 1.6. It was assessed that there is negligible potential that qualifying bird species will use the site in its current state but they may now use the ecological mitigation site to the north of the A127. Whilst the majority of the site has been cleared of vegetation and has negligible potential to support protected species, there is a possibility that small populations of reptiles and great crested newts could occur in the retained edge vegetation and along the shallow ditches. Future work The Courtauld Road site was declared clear of amphibians and reptiles in June 2010. Although 18 months have passed, the central area of the site remains largely unsuitable for amphibians and reptiles and of low ecological value. However, under the previous mitigation works, the hedgerow along the site boundary to the north was not removed. This means that it is possible that some residual reptile and great crested newt populations are still located in the hedgerow. As the development will require some clearance of the existing hedgerow to the northern boundary, it will be prudent to carry out a terrestrial survey to establish if there are amphibians present before the hedgerow is removed and development work can commence. A similar survey would be required for the presence / likely absence of reptiles prior to the removal of the hedgerow. To carry out the development, reasonable measures must be taken to ensure that there is no killing or injury to individual reptiles and amphibians (an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). In addition, any movement of great crested newts would require a mitigation licence from Natural England. The development has been previously licensed for this purpose, but the licence has now expired (in August 2011). In the scenario where great crested newts, and potentially other reptile and amphibian species are also found, immediate advice would be sought from Natural England on whether it is possible to extend the licence and transfer it to a new licensee, or whether a new licence application be required. It will be necessary to survey, apply for a licence and carry out mitigation works during 2012, in order for the development to start in early 2013.

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 28

Land Contamination In accordance with planning permission ESS/04/07/BAS the application site has undergone enabling works to raise the site levels as part of the flood mitigation works. Flood alleviation is now provided by the compensatory area to the north of the A127. The import of materials to the site to raise the levels was undertaken under a Works and Surrender Agreement. This agreement specified that inorganic and organic contaminants should not exceed the respective CLEA Soil Guideline Values for a commercial and industrial end use. In addition maximum concentrations were provided for phenols and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The agreement also included a specification outlining the management of any unforeseen contamination encountered. Prior to the enabling works, a ground investigation was undertaken by RSA Geotechnics Limited. This report is summarised in the Site Appraisal Report produced by Entec (presented in Appendix 1.7) which concludes that no significantly elevated contaminant concentrations were detected and that no remediation was required at the site based on an industrial/commercial land use. Further ground investigation works were undertaken by the Consortium at the site in August 2011. The works were undertaken to inform the detailed foundation design and to provide baseline conditions for the Environmental Permit Application. An electronic copy of the factual ground investigation report is presented in Appendix 1.8. For the above reasons ground contamination is not considered to be a significant environmental issue and is not considered any further within this ES. Soil Borne Gas

1



Two ground gas monitoring visits have been undertaken to date. Measurements of oxygen, methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide together with groundwater levels, barometric pressure and gas flow rates were made within each of the instruments installed as part of the Chelmer Site Investigation (August 2011). The results of which are presented in Appendix 1.9.



Methane (CH4) was recorded at concentrations ranging from 0.1% to 0.7% during the monitoring visits. Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations ranged between <0.1% and 2.2%. CO2 in excess of 1.5% were recorded in BH2 and BH3. Gas flow rates ranged between -1.2l/hr to a maximum of 0.7l/hr. When concentrations of carbon dioxide are compared to the criteria outlined in CIRIA C6651 the gas screening value (GSV) (litres of gas per hour) of 0.0264 l/hr for carbon dioxide has been calculated.



This places the site within ‘Characteristic Gas Situation 1’ (based upon modified Wilson and Card methodology). However, further gas monitoring will be undertaken to confirm the low risk and would include monitoring over varying scenarios e.g. during falling atmospheric pressures.

CIRIA, Report C665: Assessing the risks posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings, 2007 Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 29

Archaeology and cultural heritage An archaeology and cultural heritage assessment was undertaken as part of the previous planning application with the results reported in the 2006 ES. The following reports were submitted with the previous planning application: 

Desk based assessment of the development site;



Two phases of archaeological investigation; and



Brief for archaeological excavation works.

Subsequent to the above, the following activities were undertaken on the land to the north of the A127 (which is within the existing permission boundary but does not form part of the current application site): 

Written scheme of investigation;



Archaeological fieldwork in accordance with the above; and



Preliminary summary report.

The archaeological evaluation included 55 trial trenches on the land to the north of the A127. Archaeological finds included evidence of activity from the Mesolithic, Early Iron Age and post medieval periods. The 2006 ES Cultural Heritage assessment chapter concluded that the development would not have significant adverse effects on the built heritage or the historic landscape. This chapter also assessed the current application site area as an area known to have been disturbed and the likelihood of surviving buried archaeological remains in this area was considered to be nil or very unlikely. For the reasons above together with the fact that the application site area has undergone significant enabling works as part of the ESS/04/07/BAS planning permission to bring the site levels up for flood protection reasons it was concluded very unlikely that the development will have any significant adverse effects on the built heritage, the historic landscape or archaeological remains. This approach was agreed with the County Council’s Senior Historic Officer and therefore Archaeology and Cultural Heritage is not considered to be a significant environmental issue and so is not considered further in this ES.

Environmental statement Chapter 1 - Introduction Page 30

2.0

The site and its setting 2.1. Site location

The application proposes the development of a MBT Facility, Visitor and Education Centre and associated ancillary development. The site is located on Courtauld Road off the A132 between the A127 and A13 within a predominantly industrial area north east of Basildon, Essex at Ordnance Survey (OS) grid TQ 7426 9082. A site location plan is presented as Figure 1. 2.2. Site description The application site is approximately 8.5 hectares in area. The site already benefits from a planning permission for a waste management facility. In 2006 the County Council together with Integra submitted a planning application (ESS/04/07/BAS) to develop an integrated waste management facility on land off Courtauld Road. Planning Permission for the development was granted by the Local Planning Authority in October 2008. As part of the planning permission it was deemed necessary to provide a compensation area to replace habitat which would be lost on the site including grassland areas and habitat for invertebrates and reptiles. The area of land identified as suitable to provide this mitigation habitat is to the north of the A127. Full ecological translocations and enhancements have now been undertaken. The existing permission also required compensatory flood alleviation and this again was provided on the land to the north. To further mitigate against the risk of flooding on the application site it was also deemed necessary to raise the ground level of the site. The site has been subject to the import of inert material in order to raise its level to above 11.58m AOD. All of these works have now been completed. The Nevendon Bushes Brook which previously flowed through the site has been diverted to the western perimeter of the existing permission boundary. This realignment will allow the brook to overflow onto the compensatory land. Vegetation clearance has also taken place with only partial vegetation remaining around some of the site’s boundaries. All of the above mentioned works have been undertaken and the environmental baseline for purposes of the environmental assessments takes this into account. 2.3. The wider environmental setting 2.3.1. Land uses The site is situated within the Burnt Mills Employment Area on the edge of the existing industrial estate; other businesses on the industrial estate include waste facilities such as transfer stations and breakers yards with light industrial uses such as vehicle distribution centres, storage facilities and more specialist services. Environmental statement Chapter 2 – Site Setting Page 31

The site is framed by the A127 to the north and Courtauld Road to the south. Industrial units and Hovefields Caravan Park (a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site) are situated immediately to the east of the site. The plot of land immediately to the west of the site is currently vacant but may in the future be subject to separate development proposals. Basildon sewage treatment works is situated beyond the vacant plot of land to the west. To the north of the application site are open fields beyond which lies the town of Wickford. 2.3.2. Designations There are no sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites), National Nature Reserves or Local Nature Reserves within 2km of the application site. Benfleet and Southend Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) is located just over 5km from the site and Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA is approximately 10km from the site. 2.4. Committed development within the area A number of planning permissions have been granted in the area by both Essex County Council and Basildon District Council since the grant of the existing permission in 2008. A search was carried out to identify committed developments within 1km of the proposed development. From the ones identified those considered to have potential implications for the environmental assessment of the development site have been considered where appropriate. 

Biowaste facility - the site directly to the west of the proposed application site was included in the existing permission and may still be developed as a treatment facility for household green and food waste. Although this would be need to be the subject of its own planning application and considered on its merits at that time.



Basildon Rifle and Pistol Club – proposed commercial development adjacent to proposed Facility on Courtauld Road



Cranes Farm Road – committed residential development located approximately 1 km away from proposed Facility



Phoenix Freight International Ltd – committed commercial development opposite proposed Facility on Courtauld Road.

2.4.1. Existing planning permission As discussed the application site and a wider area beyond benefits from full planning permission for an integrated waste management facility. The application for the existing planning permission was submitted in 2006 and was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The informal scoping exercise undertaken to inform this application was informed by the environmental assessments from the previous application.

Environmental statement Chapter 2 – Site Setting Page 32

3.0

Description of the development 3.1. Introduction

This chapter considers the general design and layout of the Facility and describes the main stages of development identifying in broad terms the environmental impacts of the Facility; these are then considered in further detail in Chapters 5 to 11 of this ES. The Facility has been designed in order to meet the Authority’s requirements to manage approximately 377,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of residual waste, plus additional C&I waste up to 416,955 tpa. The Facility will achieve high levels of recycling and landfill diversion whilst being able to produce a high specification of output material. Further details of recycling and waste reduction performances are provided below. The Facility has been designed to provide flexibility in terms of the volumes of waste received as well as the final output product, in order to meet any future changes in waste generation and/or end market variations. The waste received will be processed in the following three stages: 

Pre-processing;



Biostabilisation; and



Refining.

In broad terms, the pre-processing stage will allow for the recovery of high levels of recyclable material from the residual stream with the remaining fraction being passed through to the biostabilisation phase. The biostabilisation process will facilitate mass loss through the aerobic treatment of the waste; it will also reduce the moisture content of the waste. After a seven week period, the output will either take the form of Stabilised Output Material (SOM) or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF). This output material is then subject to a refining process which involves the screening of the outputs into different sized material dependent on the market requirements or if it is to be sent for disposal to landfill. 3.2. Design and Layout The design of the Facility has been developed to reflect; 3.2.1. Authority requirements Primarily the design of the Facility has focused on meeting the waste management requirements of the Authority’s. Through the design of the Facility the Applicant has ensured that the Authority’s future predicted waste generation will be treated through a process which is flexible with regards to waste tonnage, seasonal fluctuations and potential future changes in waste composition. The Facility will achieve high levels of recycling and landfill diversion whilst being able to produce a high specification of output

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 33

material. Further details of recycling and waste reduction performances are provided below. 3.2.2. Development of design and layout The layout design of the site has sought to achieve the best balance of operational and logistical requirements while respecting the constraints and opportunities of the site’s location and its wider environmental context. The needs of the immediate neighbours and people visiting or working at the Facility have also been accounted for in the design process. Primary considerations that influenced the arrangement of elements are: 

The proximity of Hovefields Caravan Park site.



The visibility of the site from all adjoining viewpoints;



The need to set the weighbridge facility back both from the public highway and the internal spine road to mitigate against the potential for vehicles to queuing on the public highway;



On site traffic circulation and management in order to minimise traffic conflicts with incoming and outgoing vehicles;



The site tapers in two directions on plan therefore the largest single element (the biostabilisation halls) have been located at the widest portion of the site;



Clear separation of public and operational zones (pedestrians and vehicles);



To provide a ‘statement’ entrance, centred on the Visitor and Education Centre to create a sense of arrival and place.



The desire to ensure all loading and unloading of waste and outputs will be carried out within the building envelopes.



The scale of the Facility to minimise its visual impact.

The design has developed through an iterative process and has been informed by the findings of a number of disciplines via the EIA process and through consultation with key stakeholders and local communities. Details of the design iterations are provided within the Design and Access Statement which accompanies the Planning Statement. 3.2.3. Public/Stakeholder Consultation Public Information events have been held during January to March 2012. These events presented the scheme proposals and allowed for appropriate comments to be fed into the design process. The exhibitions have been held at a number of local venues enabling maximum attendance by all sections of the community. Specific consultation was also held in February 2012 with the residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site in particular, regarding the proposals and to discuss the most appropriate perimeter treatment on the eastern boundary in terms of landscape planting. Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 34

3.3. Descriptions of the buildings at the Facility The individual elements of the Facility are described below and illustrated in the site layout shown in Figure 3. 3.3.1. Reception Building This is made up of three main elements, the Reception Hall, the Crane Hall and the Processing Hall. Each element has its own steel frame, with appropriate spans to accommodate the function within, and the floors are all a mixture of in-situ or precast concrete on piled foundations. The building faces Courtauld Road and is where the workers and visitors will arrive, and has been designed to have a ‘welcoming face’ to what otherwise might be a daunting building. It will also be viewed in conjunction with the landscape proposals that include the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) pond and will be within the context of an urban park, open to the public during the day. The building is clad in vertical timber staves in parallel horizontal bands that articulate the large surfaces, and there is a large projecting bay window that is accessible to the public to provide a dramatic view along the length of the Crane Hall. The elevation on the east face, towards the service/delivery yard, will have profiled steel sheet cladding. The roof is clad in painted profiled steel sheeting with regularly spaced transparent polycarbonate panels to allow a good level of natural daylight into the interior. The approximate external floorspace of the Reception building to the ground floor is 13,080m2 and to the first floor 12,583m2. The general height to parapets is 15.20m with the Crane Hall at 20.70m. 3.3.2. Maturation Halls This trio of large footprint buildings house the biostabilisation process and for both master planning (widest part of the site) and aesthetic reasons (so that they are not particularly evident on Courtauld Road) these have been sited on the northern side of the development. The buildings are wide span steel portal frame in 3 long bays over each of the halls, on large in-situ concrete bases that are used to stiffen the frame by reducing the height of the stanchions. The cladding is comprised mainly of painted vertical trapezoidal steel panels with projecting large square framed panels that use a horizontal painted metal half-round profile. As a formal composition these square panels are spaced along all the facades. The roof is also clad in painted profiled steel cladding, and has regularly spaced transparent polycarbonate panels to allow a safe minimum level of natural light.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 35

The southern face of the roof to the Maturation Hall, which adjoins the Visitor and Education Centre and offices, will have 2,000m2 of photo voltaic panels. These will supply electricity to the Visitor and Education Centre and offices. The approximate external floorspace of the maturation halls is 29,960m2 and the general height to parapets is 12.90m. 3.3.3. De-Stoner/Product Storage Building & Vehicle Workshop/Transformer Buildings These are attached directly to the maturation halls, and their cladding and general details are similar in design to the maturation halls. 3.3.4. The Visitor and Education Centre This building will play an important part in providing a sense of welcome that staff and visitors will feel upon arrival. It will be a BREEAM Excellent management and education facility, linked to the welfare facilities that adjoin the car park providing changing and locker space plus canteen facilities. It is a 3 storey steel frame building, with large areas of larch timber cladding, louvered windows and ribbons of glazing on the ground and second floors that are both well shaded. It is proposed to use an ‘E’Stack ventilation system that links night time trickle ventilation cooling and natural ventilation through stacks from each main space. A key message from the Centre will be sustainability and some examples of its sustainable credentials include the electricity provision from 2,000m2 of PV Panels, ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting and a green roof. The approximate floorspace of the Centre is 406m2 to the ground floor, 504m2 to the first floor, and 755m2 to second floor and the height to the top of the roof is 13.25m and first floor parapet 8.20m. 

The ethos for the Centre is that it will act to provide both an educational function as well as a Facility that the local community can utilise as a multi-functional space and conference venue. The key message from the Centre will be sustainability and this is carried through the design. The design will incorporate a natural ventilation system; PV panels from the roof together with PV panels on the main Facility buildings will ensure the Visitor and Education Centre is self sufficient in its power requirements. Rainwater harvesting from the Visitor and Education Centre and the waste treatment Facility roofs will take place, where feasible, in order to reuse water within the buildings or within the processing operations.



There will be safe views into the process area with reception and break out areas as well as exhibition rooms and a terrace. Solar shading will be incorporated to minimise glare and the construction will take place using precast units to reduce wastage of construction materials on site.

The following ancillary works will also be developed at the site;

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 36

3.3.5. Access road and roundabout The proposal also includes a purpose built 4-arm roundabout on Courtauld Road and a 305m long spine road to the site entrance. This roundabout and spine road has been designed to a standard that will provide vehicular access to both the proposed development site along with the currently undeveloped parcel of land to the west An emergency access point to the Facility is provided from Courtauld Road. 3.3.6. Surface water management Clean surface water and roof water generated on the site will be collected, via a petrol interceptor, by a SuDS pond to the frontage of the site. Flow rate from the SuDS to the ultimate point of discharge in the Nevendon Brook will be controlled by Environment Agency Discharge rates. The drainage scheme will include provision for rain water harvesting to reduce the use of potable supplies. 3.3.7. Water storage and treatment tanks The following waste water will be collected: 

Leachate from the biostabilisation process;



Liquid waste water from the air treatment process; and



Dirty water from the treatment areas.



The waste water will then be sent to an on-site waste treatment system located in the northwest corner of the site. Flows from this treatment system will be recirculated back into the process to offset potable supply. Any surplus treated water will be discharged to the public sewer in Courtauld Road.



Due to the topography of the site, the foul water flows will be pumped to the discharge point in Courtauld Road. Two package pumping stations are proposed for this purpose.

3.3.8. Screening/Acoustic bunds The proposed layout incorporates comprehensive landscape measures to northern, eastern and partially southern boundaries. This will include earth mounding on the northern, eastern and south-eastern edge which will comprise 4m high screening bunds. The screening on the south eastern boundary will also include a 1m high closed boarded acoustic fence to minimise noise impact to neighbouring properties. 3.3.9. Site Security The site will be surrounded by a 2.1m high steel grating fence with lockable steel gates at the site entrance. The gates will be closed at all times when the site is not open for the receipt of waste. The fencing will undergo regular inspection to ensure the security of the site. Operational security will be maintained with a combination of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) monitoring, directed inwards and sympathetically located, and security patrols. Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 37

3.3.10. Weighbridge complex There are three weighbridges on the northern haul road for incoming and outgoing vehicles. On the northern haul road will be the weighbridge cabin, a single storey building occupying a footprint of 100m2. There is also a remote weighbridge on the eastern haul road. 3.3.11. Parking The proposal includes provision of 75 standard car parking spaces for staff and visitors located in the undercroft parking area within the ground floor of the reception building. Provision for 4 mobility-impaired parking spaces has also been made with easy access to the Visitor and Education Centre. Secure parking for six motorcycles for staff and visitors together with a secure bicycle parking area will also be provided in the undercroft parking area. A drop off/parking area for visitors arriving by coach is provided adjacent to the Visitor and Education Centre. Two coach parking bays are provided at a hammerhead to the northern point of the spine road. 3.3.12. Lighting The site access road luminaries will be free standing columns. Lighting for the external working areas and security provision will be provided by surface mounted floodlights. Lighting around the site entrance and Visitor and Education Centre will be via LED bollard structures. Lighting Design Methodology Carriageways Design for highway lighting along Courtauld Road will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the British Standard for the design of road lighting BS 5489-1 along with published guidance from the Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP). Carriageways to be adopted by the Local Authority will be designed to a conflict area classification due to the proximity of junctions and a proposed pedestrian crossing whilst the spine road entrance to the site will be designed to a traffic route classification. Column heights will be limited to 8m mounting height and deep bowls will not be used in order to limit spill light beyond the highway boundary as far as practicable. The Facility Lighting for the recycling centre will be undertaken in accordance with the British Standard for lighting of Outdoor Workplaces BS EN 12464. From this standard it can be determined that the site location falls into Environmental Zone E3, appropriate for medium district brightness areas such as industrial or residential suburbs. Achieved lighting levels will be compared with published obtrusive lighting levels for zone E3 locations. Roadways internal to the site will be designed to 20 lux average and vehicle turning areas to 50 lux average in accordance with BS EN 12464.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 38

Mounting heights will be restricted to 10m mounting height with asymmetric luminaires positioned to direct light downwards and into the site. Positioned along the eastern boundary of the site is a residential development which will require consideration to obtrusive light when positioning luminaires in the vicinity. In mitigation there will be a 4m earth bund, 1m noise barrier and planting will be provided between the site and the residential properties. In proximity of the development columns will be positioned such that luminaire peak beams are angled away from the development further limiting light spill into residential properties. 3.3.13. Biofilter The biofilter material will be contained within a reinforced concrete structure to the north of the site with a footprint of 3,360m2. Treated emissions will exit the biofilter via a 2.7m diameter stack which will be 20.5m in height. A screening bund will be provided to the north of the structure with vegetation being established on the external facing slope. 3.4. Site preparation and construction It is anticipated that the construction works will commence in early 2013 after a short period of site establishment. The required enabling works together with the main construction programme are anticipated to take approximately 17 months. 3.4.1. Enabling works The initial enabling works will involve the construction of the site access roundabout, the site spine road and the establishment of temporary office and welfare facilities. The temporary site offices will be located close to the south eastern boundary of the site and will be connected to service connections which will be incorporated into the construction of the spine road. The site compound will be located in the south east of the application site, within the confines of the site and away from sensitive receptors. Earthworks activities including the bunding along the eastern boundary will be undertaken as a priority. It is also proposed that the existing vegetation along the northern boundary will be retained as a temporary measure to provide screening of construction works until such time as the land is needed for construction when it will be reduced to provide the basis for a managed hedgerow with hedgerow trees on the site edge. 3.4.2. Foundations A piling mat will be placed once the earthworks are sufficiently progressed. Driven piling works will commence in three areas in parallel: 

Piles supporting the ground floor slab in the maturation building;



Piles supporting the steel frame in the maturation building; and



The piling for the reception pit.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 39



Once areas of piles are completed the pile caps will be constructed. The aeration channel and platform base slab and walls will be dependent on plumbing and lining the portal columns of the steel frame; and will be a later phase of substructure work.

The suspended ground floor slab and the non structural plenum floor above it will be constructed once the roof construction is sufficiently progressed. In order to facilitate the installation of the large gantries, the section of roof structure at the western end of the maturation building will not be installed until these gantries are fitted to allow for more convenient craneage from the area adjacent to the spine road. 3.4.3. Construction plant & equipment The construction operations are likely to involve a range of mobile and static plant including, but not limited to, the following: 

Delivery lorries



Excavators



Piling rigs



Tipping lorries



Dump trucks



Pumps



Generators



Cranes



Mobile hoist



Compactors



Loading shovels

3.4.4. Construction working hours Construction activities will take place during the following hours which have been discussed and agreed with the Basildon EHO: Day

Proposed Construction Hours

Monday to Friday

7.00am to 7.00pm for general works 8.00am to 7.00pm for works such as concrete breaking, angle grinding and pile driving

Saturday

8.00am to 5.00pm for all works audible at site boundary

Sundays and Bank Holidays

8.30am to 5.00pm – no works to be audible at the site boundary

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 40

3.5. Operation of the Facility 3.5.1. Staffing The Facility will employ 85 members of operational staff. A double shift pattern will operate from 7.00am to 3.00pm and 3.00pm to 11.00pm In addition to shift staff, a number of office based staff will also be employed during office hours from 9.00am to 5.00pm. Description

Proposed Staff Numbers

Office Based Staff

18

Site Operatives, maintenance etc.

34

Morning shift – 7.00am to 3.00pm Site Operatives, maintenance etc.

33

Afternoon shift – 3.00pm to 11.00pm 3.5.2. Proposed Working Hours The proposed hours of delivery are designed to fit in with the waste collection service provided by the District and Borough Councils, along with the hours required for the removal of output materials (recyclables, aggregates, output and reject material). The receipt and removal of waste and outputs shall take place between the following hours, however vehicles movements will generally be much reduced after 4.30pm and on Sundays and Public Holidays. Day

Proposed Hours for HGV Movements

Monday to Friday

7.00am to 8.00pm

Saturday

7.00am to 4.30pm

Sunday and Public Holidays

8.30am to 4.30pm

Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day

No HGV movements

The proposed hours for operation of the facility are as follows: Day

Proposed Operation Hours

Monday to Friday

7.00am to 11.00pm

Saturday

7.00am to 11.00pm

Sunday and Public Holidays

8.30am to 5.30pm

Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day

No operations (except those set out immediately below)

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 41

This enables the material delivered to be processed. However some of the operations in the buildings such as the air management/treatment system and biostabilisation processes will be in operation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The maintenance and cleanliness of the plant requires the wash down of parts of the process on a periodic basis and this may need to be outside of the site operational hours above. 3.5.3. Transport Entrance to the site Access to the site will be via a purpose built 4-arm roundabout entrance on Courtauld Road to the south of the site. The spine road runs north from the roundabout and will provide access to the proposed Facility at two points. The first will provide access to the Visitor and Education Centre and staff and visitor parking. The second access, at the most northerly point of the spine road, is for waste delivery and collection vehicles. The spine road will also provide access to the adjoining (currently undeveloped) site to the west. The onsite access road runs around the perimeter of the proposed Facility. The weighbridge complex is located on the internal access road to the north of the Facility and has been set back from the entrance to the site to avoid vehicles queuing along the spine road. There are two weighbridges for incoming vehicles to help prevent congestion at the site entrance, and a further weighbridge for vehicles leaving the site. Vehicles involved in the collection of materials will access and egress the site in the same manner. Movement around the site and exit Once the waste delivery vehicles are on site they will follow the perimeter access road and will access the reception hall via an enclosed ramp and fast acting roller shutter doors. A traffic light system will enable control of vehicles accessing this building. A further set of traffic lights will be installed down the eastern haul road. It is not anticipated that these will be in permanent operation however they will provide traffic management in cases of vehicle breakdown, machinery problems or other issues which may cause a queue of traffic from the reception hall. The traffic control system will also be used to prevent any stationary vehicles queuing directly opposite the Hovefields Caravan Park in order to minimise the impact on residents. Queuing vehicles would also be required to switch off their engines. A one way system operates within the reception hall and vehicles will exit the building half way up the access road on the eastern side of the site. Vehicles will then follow the access road back to the weighbridge complex and exit the site via the spine road and roundabout. Vehicles accessing the product storage building will utilise the perimeter access road and enter and exit the building via the access points towards the north east corner of the spine road. Access to all buildings will be via roller shutter doors. The doors will be kept shut when not in use.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 42

Turnaround time The site is designed to comply with various turnaround time limits depending on the type of vehicle. This turnaround time applies to vehicles accessing the site to unload residual waste as well as vehicles on site to load recyclable products or the end product from the biostabilisation process for onward transport. An Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology will identify and record vehicles as they enter through the site gate. This system will be linked to the site information system which will then correlate the site entrance time with the exit time, recorded as the weighbridge checkout time. This system allows efficient monitoring of vehicle turnaround times without adding an extra traffic barrier. Parking The main staff and visitor parking area is located in the undercroft parking structure within the reception hall building. The car park is strategically located close to Courtauld Road and will not be accessed by waste vehicles. This arrangement will minimise the potential on-site conflict between cars and waste vehicles. Waste vehicles It is anticipated that during the morning peak hour (8.00am to 9.00am) a maximum of 21 HGVs will access the site either to deliver residual waste for treatment or to collect the outputs from the plant (SRF/SOM and recyclables). During the same time approximately 18 staff and visitors will arrive on site. In the afternoon peak hour, 5.00pm to 6:00pm it is anticipated that no HGVs will access or egress the site however it is estimated that approximately 18 staff and visitors will depart from the site. 3.6. The process 3.6.1. Pre-processing Waste reception Entrance into the Facility will be from the top of the spine road at the northern perimeter of the site where a weighbridge complex will be located. This complex will comprise an operator/guard kiosk and three weighbridges, two for incoming vehicles and one for outgoing vehicles. Access into and out of the Facility will be monitored via Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology to identify and record vehicles as they enter through the site gate. This system will be linked to the site information system which will then correlate the site entrance time with the exit time, recorded as the weighbridge checkout time. This system allows efficient monitoring of vehicle turnaround times without adding an extra traffic barrier. The weighing operation will be fully automated and all data will be automatically stored into an electronic Management Integrated System (MIS) that will produce reports to the Authority.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 43

The vehicles will access the waste reception building via an enclosed ramp where waste will be tipped into one of three bunkers. Two of the bunkers have a volume of 3750m3 each and these will accept WCA Residual Waste, Trade Waste and Street Sweepings. The third smaller bunker which has a volume of 1500m3 will receive HWRC and Bulky Waste only. The capacity of all three bunkers will provide a minimum of two days of additional storage capacity to the Facility, to be used either as a contingency measure in the case of an unexpected shutdown, or to absorb any peak inputs in the waste tonnages received. A visual inspection platform is provided in the bunker area, and will be used to inspect the tipped loads and identify any bulky or untreatable waste. Untreatable waste will be removed from the Facility for appropriate management or disposal. Bulky waste will be shredded prior to further treatment. Overhead grabs operating on crane bridges will transfer the waste from the bunkers into one of three plate feeders. The waste will then be transferred onto conveyor belts to transport it to the processing area.

Insert 3.1: Typical Crane bridges and bunker arrangement

Mechanical processing

The waste will initially go through mechanical bag splitters, this will open the bags and will allow for improved recovery rates to be achieved through the mechanical treatment element of the process. The waste undergoes a series of manual and automated separation processes to separate out the recyclable elements. The various mechanical sorting processes are outlined below: 

Manual sorting – this will be undertaken as the first stage to separate out bulky ferrous items, cardboard and packaging film.



Trommel screens – material will be screened in a cylinder with a 120 mm / 150-300 mm mesh and will be used to separate materials by size. The cylinder rotates with the waste flow rolling down due to the trommel’s downward incline. This material will be separated into three streams a) 120mm, b) <150x300mm and; c) > 150x300mm. Insert 3.2: Trommel



Manual sorting will also be undertaken at the end of the mechanical treatment process in order to increase the materials recovery rate and recyclables quality.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 44

The residual waste will then undergo further screening which will separate the material based on size and composition. The following processes will be employed: 

Ballistic separators – sorts materials due to their ballistic properties and will separate the organic fraction, the flat fraction (paper, cardboard, plastic film, textiles) and the rolling fraction (heavyweight fraction e.g. bottles). This machine utilises a paddle system to separate the items. In addition, the material is cleaned of dust and dirt

Insert 3.3: Ballistic Separator



Magnetic separators – will remove ferrous metals from the main stream as they pass below a rotating conveyor with magnets placed on it.

Insert 3.4: Magnetic Separator



Eddy current separators – will remove non-ferrous metals such as aluminium, die-cast metal, and copper from non-metallic material. Material will be fed onto the conveyor belt of the separator, which moves it across the magnetic rotor where separation occurs. The two streams of material discharge into a housing which has a splitter to divide the nonferrous metal from non metallic materials including paper, plastic and wood. Insert 3.5: Eddy Current Separator Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 45



Optical separators – will remove plastics which will be automatically sorted and baled by type of plastic - High-density polyethylene (HDPE) (coloured or natural), High-density polyethylene (PET) (coloured or natural) and miscellaneous. Insert 3.6: Optical Separator

The products of these separation processes will be baled for removal from the site for reprocessing or recycling. Maturation The maturation building will comprise of three maturation halls. The biostabilisation process will significantly reduce the biodegradable content of the residual waste arriving from the mechanical pre-treatment. A mass reduction will happen through an aerobic process resulting in the evaporation of water and the digestion of the organic matter. Waste will arrive at the maturation halls via conveyor and these will automatically distribute the material evenly in layers across each hall to form a pile. Each maturation hall will have its own piling system with similar characteristics and be capable of treating up to 105 tph. At nominal capacity the pile height will be 3.5m however this can be increased to 3.7m as a temporary measure to provide flexibility according to the variation in input volumes. A bucket wheel (see Insert 3.7) will be fitted in each of the maturation halls to perform periodic turning cycles in the pile.

Insert 3.7: Typical maturation hall and bucket wheel The biostabilisation process will last for seven weeks. During this period the bucket wheel will perform turning cycles twice a week in the first two weeks and once a week thereafter. The thorough blending of feedstock by the bucket wheel ensures a uniform air Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 46

distribution and process control which results in a homogenous final product. The water content of the mixed waste pile is monitored, with recycled waste water added as necessary by the bucket wheel to ensure optimum process parameters. This stabilises the material, so it is no longer biodegradable, and also reduces the volume of waste due to moisture loss. The Facility operates on different ventilation models depending on the location within the facility. Negative forced aeration operates in the processing area with the main discharge area having a positive aeration system. The air removed from the waste reception and mechanical treatment areas will be passed to the first maturation hall and circulated as part of the aeration process. The aeration of the other two maturation halls will be via fans that input clean air from the outside. During the biostabilisation process the piled material will be turned and shifted backwards by a bucket wheel at intervals until it has arrived at the rear end of the building. The feeding process, turning process and bed height are fully automated processes. Here the material is reclaimed by the turning machine and loaded onto the two discharge conveyor silos running across the rear end of the hall.

Insert 3.8: 3D Model of biostabilisation halls

Refining The Facility can operate in two modes, the process being identical for both BioStabilisation and SRF Modes. A single Treatment Output common to both operational modes will be produced depending on the market requirements: Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 47



a Stabilised Output Material (SOM) or



a Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF).

The refining process will finely screen the Treatment Output to enhance the quality of the output by removing aggregates. This process will also act to increase the Facility’s recovery and recycling performances. The Treatment Output stream coming from the maturation halls falls into a vibrating splitter that will divide the stream into two equal parts which will flow by conveyor to two trommels. The two trommels will screen the fraction into: 

Treatment Output <15mm fraction



Treatment Output >15 mm fraction

Insert 3.9: Refining Process

The overflow fractions from both trommels (Treatment Output>15mm), will be removed by conveyors that will guide the streams to the storage building where nine bays will be provided for automatic storage of the material. The <15mm fraction from both trommels will be transferred by conveyors up to a set of two de-stoner machines. Each de-stoner machine will screen the <15mm fraction according to its density. Screened materials will be classified as follows: 

Aggregates or Heavy Fraction (removed from below each de-stoner machine and stored in an independent aggregate storage area);



Fine Aggregates or Light Fraction (removed by conveyor and sent to the aggregates storage area); and



Treatment Output<15mm (free of Aggregates) (removed by conveyor and sent for storage in the storage building – mixed with the >15mm fraction).

The final Treatment Output product will be a biodegraded stabilised material which will be suitable for either disposal to landfill (SOM) or which will meet the specification for SRF, and be suitable for use in appropriate combustion facilities. The recovered aggregate will be reprocessed for use in the construction industry. The refining plant has been designed to be flexible enabling the <15mm and >15mm Treatment Output fractions to be split and stored separately in case of future market demand.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 48

Insert 3.10: 3D Model of refining and product storage

Water management and drainage A Waste Water Treatment (WWT) plant will be located in the northwest corner of the site. This will use the cross-flow BIOMEMBRAT® membrane bioreactor (MBR) process (or similar) to treat all the water effluents from the Facility and will have the capacity to treat up to 67m3/day. The leachate generated in the maturation halls, will be collected in the aeration floor and drained to tanks. From there, part of the leachate will be pumped up to the WWT storage tanks and the remainder will be re-circulated into the biostabilisation process to ensure optimum humidity levels are achieved, necessary to trigger the process. The waste water from the air treatment will also be pumped to the WWT storage tanks and treated together with the leachate. The recycled clean water resulting from the water treatment plant will be used in cleaning activities in various parts of the Facility. These activities will frequently take place in the processing area, reception area, refining and output storing areas. The majority of the waste water resulting from these cleaning actions will be collected and stored in the maturation hall tanks, to be used in the biostabilisation process. The remaining fraction will be discharged to the public foul sewer in Courtauld Road. The principles for surface water management at the site include: 

Rainwater from the paved areas is collected within traditional trapped gullies;



The roof areas discharge to a siphonic drainage system;

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 49



Silt traps will be provided at critical collection points to ensure silts are removed from the system prior to entering the attenuation pond;



Bypass petrol interceptors to be provided for site prior to discharge to the attenuation pond;



The attenuation pond and flow control pump will limit the discharge to the permitted run-off rate;



In addition it is proposed that, where feasible, rainwater harvesting of the roof run-off from the Visitor and Education Centre and the waste treatment Facility will take place in order to reuse water within the buildings or within the processing operations. This would reduce the overall volume of water which would need to be discharged from the site.

Air treatment The proposed air treatment system, which has been designed by Urbaser in collaboration with a potential supplier, comprises a chemical cleaning system (acid scrubber) for the removal of ammonia (NH3) in the raw air; following this, the scrubbed air will be directed to the biofilter system for the removal of odours, prior to being discharged to atmosphere via a stack. An exhaust grid will be fitted in the interior of the Facility to remove the air which has been circulating inside the buildings to the air treatment plant, where this air will be cleaned. This grid has been dimensioned according to the volume of air anticipated within each building, to ensure the required negative pressure and a suitable working environment is maintained. The exhaust grid will keep the buildings under negative pressure (i.e. air drawn into the Facility from outside) to ensure that all air is transferred through the treatment system avoiding the potential for odour and other emissions to escape from the Facility. The air is then carried through the treatment system avoiding the potential for odour and other emissions to escape from the Facility. The air removed from the waste reception and mechanical treatment areas will be conducted to the first maturation hall and circulated as part of the aeration process. Due to insufficient air flow, the aeration of the other two maturation halls will be supported by fans that input clean air from the outside. The output storage building and the refining building will also be kept under negative pressure. All the air flows resulting from the buildings described above will be sent to the Air Treatment Plant. The Scrubber will reduce the concentration of NH3 in the raw air through an acid washing process. The air will then be passed through the biofilter which comprises a mix of inorganic and organic media. The biofilter will biodegrade the odorous and other volatile organic compounds to carbon dioxide and water.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 50

Treated emissions will exit the biofilter via a 2.7m diameter stack which will be 20.5m in height. The height of the stack has been designed to ensure the effective dispersion of treated air to the atmosphere in accordance with Environment Agency guidance.

Environmental statement Chapter 3 – Description of the Development Page 51

4.0

The need for the scheme and alternatives considered 4.1. Introduction

This section demonstrates the need for the proposed Facility in terms of European, National, Regional and Local Legislation, Strategies and Policies. It also considers the alternative technology solutions considered in order to manage the Authority’s waste arisings. The principals of Need and Alternatives associated with the development of a waste facility at the Courtauld Road site were also examined through the planning application and Environmental Statement submitted in 2008. The Local Planning Authority’s assessment of those proposals was set out in the planning permission report which stated: “The proposed development would make provision for innovative waste management facilities envisaged within the County Council’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy to increase recycling and meet landfill diversion targets by contributing towards self-sufficiency, moving waste up the hierarchy, and complying with the proximity principle in the county context consistent with Government advice, the emerging Adopted East of England Plan May 2008 (Regional Spatial Strategy) and the Essex and Southend Adopted Waste Local Plan”. The principle of the development of a waste facility at the site is therefore considered to have been tested and accepted through the granting of planning permission ESS/04/07/BAS in October 2008. 4.2. Current waste management services, achievements and issues Essex County Council is the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) for the district and borough councils (Waste Collection Authorities) within Essex of which there are 12. As such, the County has the responsibility of treating and disposing of MSW generated within the boroughs and districts. The County boasts a recycling and composting rate of 50.05%, for the year ending 2010/11, this includes recycling and composting from the Recycling Centres for Household Waste (RCHW). However, this means 49.95% is landfilled. Essex has a target to recycle or compost 60% of MSW by 2020 which is 10% above the national target. In addition to the environmental impact of landfill there is a large financial cost involved. The Essex Council website states that in 2010 £15.8 million was spent on landfill tax alone. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, as a unitary authority, provides waste collection and disposal services to their residents. This includes a pink sack collection for paper, cardboard, metals, plastic packaging including bottles and trays and glass, a clear sack for textiles, a blue bin for food waste and sacks or bins for garden waste. They also collect residual waste on a weekly basis from black sacks.

Environmental statement Chapter 4 – Need and Alternatives Page 52

The current recycling and composting rate is 41% and they aim to achieve 60% by 2015. They also collect waste at 2 Household Waste and Recycling Centres (HWRC) in the borough. Southend has two landfill sites within its administrative boundary, Pitsea and Barling, both sites have permissions in place until 2013 with the option to extend the use of the sites. 4.3. Needs Assessment This section demonstrates the need for the proposed Facility in terms of European, National, Regional and Sub-regional drivers in the form of legislation, strategies and policy documents. Waste Framework Directive The Revised Waste Framework Directive (Waste FD) was adopted in December 2008, with Member States being required to implement the revisions by December 2010. The overriding aim is to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment. Article 4 also states that the waste hierarchy shall apply as a priority order in waste prevention and management legislation and policy: The proposed Facility will assist the Authority’s in meeting the objectives of the Directive as it will provide an alternative to landfill as the main method of managing waste generated from within Essex and Southend-on-Sea. Landfill Directive One of the most notable pressures at present is the Landfill Directive (Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste) which was agreed in Europe in 1999 and has now been transposed into UK law. This seeks to prevent or reduce possible negative environmental effects from the landfilling of waste by introducing uniform standards throughout the EU. The Directive sets ambitious targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) that is disposed of to landfill. National Diversion Targets have been set up as follow: 

By 2010 biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) must be reduced to 75% of the total BMW (by weight) produced in 1995



By 2013 BMW must be reduced to 50% of the total BMW (by weight) produced in 1995



By 2020 BMW must be reduced to 35% of the total BMW (by weight) produced in 1995

The proposal for the Facility will ensure that the Authority meets its requirement for diverting waste from landfill.

Environmental statement Chapter 4 – Need and Alternatives Page 53

Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 Local Authorities in England have been set targets to deal with municipal waste arisings however they must also abide by European Union and UK Government policies and legislation. The Government Review of Waste Policy in England aims towards a “Zero Waste Economy” and a “Green Economy”. The targets are to: 

Achieve 50% household waste recycled by 2020

In addition, the review announced that while a reduction in BMW is still a major driver, the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) which to date has provided financial incentive to Local Authorities (LAs) to divert BMW from landfill will come to an end of in April 2013. However as a whole the UK must still achieve the targets from the Landfill Directive which are outlined above. The Facility will contribute towards achieving these European and National goals. Essex Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2008-2032 The Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) has been developed by the thirteen waste authorities of Essex, comprising Essex County Council, as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), and the twelve District and Borough Councils, as the Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs), in Essex. It constitutes a 25 year plan for the future of recycling and waste management in Essex to 2032. The proposed strategy for waste management has the following main aims, to: 

Reduce the amount of waste produced and reuse waste where possible;



Achieve 60% recycling and composting by 2020 through a combination of further improvement in the performance of recycling and composting kerbside collection schemes, and the recovery of recyclable materials through new treatment plants;



Favour composting treatments such as Anaerobic Digestion for source segregated organic wastes; and



Explore innovative disposal solutions, based on Mechanical Biological Treatment family of technologies, to assist in diverting biological municipal waste from landfill and recycle and recover more value from residual wastes.

Southend-on-Sea Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2004-2020 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council’s Waste Management Strategy was adopted in 2004. The strategy utilises the public consultation exercise undertaken by Essex County Council “War on Waste” together with additional polling of its own residents. The aim of the Strategy is to keep waste arisings to a minimum through activities such as the promotion of waste minimisation and reuse schemes; increase recycling and composting as much as possible. It identifies that the following treatment technologies appear promising and cost effective: Autoclave, Mechanical Biological Treatment and Anaerobic Digestion. Environmental statement Chapter 4 – Need and Alternatives Page 54

The strategy states its aim to progressively reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill. The Facility will contribute towards achieving these European and National goals. 4.3.1. Conclusion Essex has traditionally relied on landfill as its primary waste disposal method. Under current environmental policies (outlined above) landfill is no longer an acceptable means of disposal for the vast majority of municipal solid waste. The Authorities are therefore obliged to develop alternative means of disposal which optimises recycling and recovery. The proposed Facility will enable significant recovery and recycling which will contribute to the various national and local targets and reduce the waste that will be sent to landfill. 4.3.2. Alternatives Considered The consideration of alternatives is central to the EIA process. In many cases adverse environmental effects can be avoided or minimised through consideration of alternative means of achieving a development proposal, for example, through the use of different sites, alternative technologies, and/or implementation of different scales of development The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 provide detailed guidance on the need for, and content of an EIA. Schedule 4 (Part II) of the regulations states that environmental statements should include: “An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects”. 4.3.3. Alternative Technologies This section describes the consideration given to alternative methods of dealing with the waste. In 2002 a public consultation was undertaken entitled ‘War on Waste’. This proposed the following options for dealing with waste in Essex and also included Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock councils: 

To achieve 27% recycling and 33% composting by 2010 with a low level of MBT required beyond 2020;



To achieve 27% recycling and 33% composting by 2010 with a low level of advanced thermal treatment beyond 2013;



To achieve 22.5% recycling and 22.5% composting by 2010 and a moderate level of advanced thermal treatment beyond 2010;



To achieve 22.5% recycling and 22.5% composting by 2010 and a significant amount of conventional thermal treatment beyond 2010;



To achieve 16.5% recycling and 16.5% composting by 2010 and a significant amount of conventional thermal treatment beyond 2007; and

Environmental statement Chapter 4 – Need and Alternatives Page 55



To achieve 16.5% recycling and 16.5% composting by 2010 and a moderate amount of conventional thermal treatment beyond 2007 and a small amount of MBT beyond 2010.

Option 1 which looked to achieve 27% recycling and 33% composting by 2010 with a low level of MBT required beyond 2020 was seen as the most environmentally friendly and achievable. This produced the Framework for a Joint Waste Management Strategy for Essex. This included consultations with Community groups such as the Essex County Council Citizens Panel, through focus groups and with 400 organisations. Suggestions were then made to the draft strategy. This was then further consulted on using a wide range of methods to fully engage with the public. A further consultation in 2005 was carried out on the development of the strategy and this identified that 84% of respondents favoured ECC’s plan to use biotreatment for the residual fraction. Whilst responses to the 2008 consultation show that 88% of respondents said they would “prefer it if part of the material from the MBT process was used to produce fuel for energy rather than it being sent to a landfill site.” Information from the 2009 outline business case provides more information on these later consultations. Development of the preferred technology - supporting documents Enviros carried out an options appraisal of disposal options for the council in 2005. This study compared an Energy from Waste option with landfilling and MBT options to treat MSW. MBT was chosen and became the preferred technology for the Essex Waste Partnership. This was followed in 2009 by the formulation of an Outline Business Case (OBC) for the Essex Waste Management Partnership. This includes a reference project which meets the requirements of the waste strategies and included production of a Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) in the future as the markets for this develop. The outputs from the biostabilisation process to be sent to landfill in the interim. These studies provided the Essex Waste Partnership with a preferred option for the type of residual waste treatment Facility which would be used to treat the residual waste arisings in the County. 4.3.4. Development of the consortium proposal The solution required by the Authority in the contract negotiations for a waste solution for Essex stated that specified that technologies which are regulated under the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) were not permitted to be included as solutions to the process. In addition, the councils were keen that the Facility could operate in either biostabilisation mode or SRF mode to allow flexibility depending on the availability of end markets. The proposed development allows a simple transition from one product to the other by altering the settings on the fans in the maturation halls. This could even allow both products to be simultaneously produced.

Environmental statement Chapter 4 – Need and Alternatives Page 56

The proposed development has included the standards in the Essex design Initiative which promotes inspirational and sustainable architectural and technical solutions. It is also based on the proven technology currently in operation by Urbaser on numerous sites. This solution achieves the outputs requested by the Councils and for the specification of the products themselves. 4.4. Alternative sites Consideration was given to alternative sites for the development of a waste facility during the previous planning application. This was supported by an evaluation of potential alternative sites throughout the county that might fulfil the same waste management function as was proposed on the Courtauld Road site. The search correctly concentrated on the identified sites within the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan. This culminated in the promotion of Courtauld Road as the preferable site within which to seek planning permission. The assessment was undertaken pursuant to the requirements of PPS25: Development and Flood Risk. With the site now being removed from an area at risk of flooding, and sitting within Flood Zone 1, there is no requirement to undertake a consideration of alternative sites. The site is ideally located to serve the waste management requirements of both Essex and Southend-on-Sea and the site benefits from full planning policy support for waste management uses through its allocation within the Waste Local Plan. With the site now benefiting from full planning permission for the development of a large IWMF, and enabling works having already been completed pursuant to the provisions of that permission, there is no requirement or justifiable reason to consider alternatives to it. The site is available, suitable and deliverable for the development of the proposed Facility.

Environmental statement Chapter 4 – Need and Alternatives Page 57

5.0

Traffic and transportation

Summary of Assessment: 

The assessment has been carried out in line with DfT Guidance on Transport Assessments, 2007 and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s (IEMA) “Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”.



An assessment of the baseline situation indicates that the development is located in a predominantly industrial area where any adverse effects relating Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic will be less significant.



Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data showed no apparent clustering and no common manoeuvres or causal factors likely to be exacerbated by the proposals.



The calculations for the proposed Facility show the increase in HGVs is 145% and 37% on the same roads, respectively.



The biggest percentage increase in HGVs over a 12 hour period is predicted during the operational phase on Courtauld Road and A132 Nevendon Road which will have a 179% and 45% increase respectively.



Mitigation measures are proposed to alleviate the impact of the additional traffic on key receptors in the area. Following the mitigation measures there will be a slight adverse residual impact on driver delay and a moderate adverse residual effect on residential amenity, specifically relating to the residents of Hovefields Park Caravan site.



The assessment shows that the proposed Facility will generate fewer trips compared to those agreed in the previous planning application highlighting the Facility’s acceptability in highway terms.

5.1. Introduction This chapter is concerned with the potential transport and traffic environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Facility. The existing traffic conditions on the surrounding highway network have been assessed and are presented within the baseline conditions section of this chapter. An assessment has been made of both the HGV and total traffic impacts arising from the proposed Facility. It should be noted that this chapter considers both the short term construction impacts and the long term operational traffic implications resulting from the proposals. Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 58

The application site benefits from an existing planning permission for a waste management facility. Planning permission ESS/04/07/BAS was secured at the site in October 2008 by Essex County Council and Integra. A Transport Assessment (TA) was produced by Integra Ltd to support that application, which involved a larger site than subject to the current application. The transport documents and findings associated with this previous permission have been referenced in this chapter where applicable; however this report represents an independent assessment of effects of the revised proposals. It should be noted that the existing planning permission relates to a wider site area than the current application and contained processing capacity to deal with the residual waste as well as the food and green waste (Biowaste). This Biowaste element of waste will not be managed via the proposed development and will require treatment in another facility. The vacant site immediately west of the proposed Facility is a potential site for this Biowaste facility. Therefore following discussion with the Local Highways Authority it was agreed that this traffic assessment will consider the traffic generated by the proposed MBT Facility and also the Biowaste element and compare this to the proposed traffic levels agreed as acceptable under the existing permission. In addition to provide context, this section will also consider the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed MBT Facility only. 5.2. Regulatory, planning and policy context The Government considers that land use planning has a key role to play in promoting sustainable travel by shaping the patterns of development and influencing the location, scale, density, design and mix of land uses. Planning Policy Statement One (PPS1) – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) – ‘Transport’ require new development to be well related to public transport and services and facilities as part of creating sustainable communities and patterns of sustainable development. PPG13 in particular, states that local authorities should locate sites close to major transport interchanges and / or that are highly accessible by public transport. The guidance states that walking and cycling have the potential to replace short car trips, particularly under two kilometres for walking, and five kilometres for cycling. This can be achieved by paying particular attention to the design, location and access arrangements of new developments to help promote these modes. In terms of waste management sites, Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) – ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ provides information on the design of waste management sites. This statement notes planning authorities should ensure that new waste development sites make sufficient provision for waste management and promote designs and layouts that secure the integration of waste management facilities without having a detrimental impact on the street scene or the local landscape. The statement also highlights that in terms of traffic and access considerations should include the suitability of the road network and the extent to which access would require reliance on local roads.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 59

This assessment of the traffic and transport impacts has been informed by the Department for Transport (DfT) ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments’ which supersedes ‘Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments’ produced by the Institution of Highways and Transportation. The scope of the assessment has also been informed by the following guidance documents: 

Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’; and



Department for Transport, 2008. ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5, HA 205/08 ‘Assessment and Magnitude of Environmental Effects’

The IEMA guidelines suggest a range of topics to be considered when determining the magnitude and significance of the environmental impacts of development proposals. These topics include: noise, vibration, severance, driver and pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety, hazardous loads, dust and dirt and ecological effects. This chapter focuses on severance, driver and pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety and hazardous loads, with all other impacts being covered in other chapters within the ES. The IEMA guidelines state two ‘rules of thumb’ regarding the scope of the links that should be assessed for EIA purposes. The first rule advises on the inclusion of highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or where HGV flows will increase by more than 30%). The second rule advises on the inclusion of any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows (or HGV flows) are predicted to have increased by 10% or more. DMRB volume 11 provides guidance for determining the significance of environmental effects. The guidance states that the ‘criterion for arriving at the assessment of environmental effects can be considered in a formulaic manner. In most cases the output of an environmental impact assessment will be to report on the significance of a particular effect.’ This formulaic approach is considered in more detail in the assessment methodology section below but generally speaking the significance of the effect is formulated as a function of the receptor or resource environmental value (or sensitivity) and the magnitude of project impact (change). In other words, significance criteria are used to report the effect of the impact. 5.3. Assessment Methodology The scope and methodology employed for this EIA has been developed in consultation with Essex County Council (ECC) Highways Department. The methodology used for the assessment is as follows: 

The existing traffic conditions on the surrounding highway network have been assessed and are presented within the baseline conditions section;



The principal routes used within the study area have been identified, as have the junctions on the surrounding highway network that will be affected by the scheme. Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 60

The traffic assignment and hence the access routes have been derived from the Transport Assessment for the previous permission and in consultation with ECC; 

Traffic counts have been undertaken to establish the existing traffic flows and speeds on these principal routes;



Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data for the immediate highway network has been obtained and analysed to identify any road safety issues which are likely to be exacerbated by the presence of operational and construction traffic;



Peak (worst case) and typical day construction and operational traffic generation for the scheme has been estimated based on information provided by Urbaser (operational) and Balfour Beatty (construction);



An assessment has been made of both the HGV and total traffic changes/impacts arising from the construction and operation of the facility;



The traffic impact and environmental impacts of the proposed traffic have been assessed with reference to the thresholds stated within the IEMA guidelines; and



Mitigation measures to reduce any adverse effects resulting from increased traffic have been developed as necessary.

Initial consultation with ECC suggested the impact of an increase in traffic particularly HGVs on the following links should be assessed: 

Courtauld Road;



Nevendon Road;



A132 East Mayne to the A127;



A132 East Mayne/South Mayne to the A13; and



Burnt Mills Road.

Impacts have been considered for the above links plus any other links which are predicted to experience HGV or total traffic increases of greater than 30%, as per the IEMA guidelines. The key receptors of traffic impact are predominantly related to human health and wellbeing and relate to pedestrians, local residents, cyclists and other road users. These receptors have been considered during the determination of the significance of the effect and are described in more detail later in this chapter. The significance of the environmental effects is determined by the ‘magnitude of impact’ and the value / importance of the affected asset or resource. The overall methodology can be summarised as a three-step process, as follows: 

The determination of the value of a resource or receptor and its sensitivity to an impact;



Prediction of the magnitude of the impact of the scheme; and,

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 61



Determination of the nature and extent of the effect resulting from impact (of a certain magnitude) on a resource (of a particular value) and its severity and significance.

Environmental Value (Sensitivity)

More specifically the degree of significance has been determined in accordance with the DMRB Volume 11 guidelines HA 205/08 ‘Assessment and Magnitude of Environmental Effects’. This provides typical descriptors and criteria for magnitude of impact (degree of change) and receptor sensitivity but does not provide specific descriptors for the assessment of road traffic. The typical significance of effects categories as detailed in Table 5.1 have been taken from the DMRB guidelines and used in this assessment. Negligible

Minor

Moderate

Major

Very High

Slight

Moderate or Large

Large or Very Large

Very Large

High

Slight

Slight or Moderate

Moderate or Large

Large or Very Large

Medium

Neutral Slight

or

Slight

Moderate

Moderate or Large

Low

Neutral Slight

or

Neutral or Slight

Slight

Slight or Moderate

Negligible

Neutral

Neutral or Slight

Neutral Slight

or

Slight

Table 5.1 – Establishing the Significance of Effect 5.4. Magnitude of Change The guidance states “that change can be either beneficial or adverse, and effects can also, therefore, be either beneficial or adverse. In some cases the significance is shown as being one of two alternatives. In these cases a single description should be decided upon with reasoned judgement for that level of significance chosen.” It should be noted that where the existing baseline HGV or total traffic flows are very minor, an increase of only a few vehicles would produce a large change in magnitude whereas in real terms the increase in traffic may still be considered to be neutral or slight. Such an assessment requires appropriate judgements to be made. The determination of the importance/sensitivity of the receptors and the magnitude of change specifically relating to road traffic have been informed by the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ however as stated above a degree of professional judgement has been applied. This assessment is included in the sections of this chapter that follow. For the purpose of this report, the potential HGV and total traffic magnitude of impacts resulting from the proposed development are classified as follows: Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 62



Negligible Change/Impact: The traffic from the development creates no perceptible change on the surrounding highway network;



Minor Change/Impact: The traffic from the development creates a scarcely perceptible change on the surrounding highway network;



Moderate Change/Impact: The traffic from the development creates a noticeable change on the surrounding highway network; and,



Major Change/Impact: The traffic from the development creates a significant change on the surrounding highway network.

Other than percentage impact in traffic flows, no quantifiable range is available to determine the magnitude of each change on key receptors. As such, in all cases a degree of professional judgement has been applied when determining the significance of the effects, taking into account all local conditions. The effects have been considered for users of the highway network and for any key receptors potentially impacted upon by the changes in traffic conditions. In the assessment of residual effects (post mitigation) effects are categorised as direct / indirect and an assessment of the duration of impact made with each impact being classed as permanent or temporary and either short, medium or long term. 5.5. Baseline Conditions The local highway network characteristics were established during a site visit undertaken in the highway AM network peak hour on the 19th July 2011. The spatial scope has also been informed by initial consultation with ECC Highways Department who are the local Highways Authority (LHA). At the time of the site visit no capacity constraints were noted and no queuing beyond that which would be deemed acceptable was observed. 5.5.1. Existing Access Access to the development site is currently from Courtauld Road via a priority junction (as shown in Insert 5.1) to the east of Harvey Road. The access is, at present, a temporary access designed to serve the site clearance and preparation works undertaken on the basis of the previous permission for the site.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 63

Insert 5.1 – Existing Site Access on Courtauld Road 5.5.2. Local Highway Network Courtauld Road Courtauld Road, from which the site is accessed, is a wide road with predominantly industrial frontage. It provides access to Burnt Mills Industrial Estate via three main access points, all of which are priority junctions with ghost island right turn lanes. The road is subject to a 40mph speed limit, and has a no-waiting traffic sign for vehicles over 7.5T in weight (between 8pm and 6am). The only residential frontage to Courtauld Road is that of Hovefields Caravan Park site. This area will form the eastern boundary of the proposed site and is considered a potential sensitive area in terms of traffic movements. Courtauld Road/A132 Junction To the west of the site Courtauld Road joins the A132 East Mayne via a four arm roundabout. The roundabout appears to operate within capacity in the AM Peak with limited queuing or delay observed. This junction has been improved since the TA, which formed part of the previous permission, was submitted. This improvement includes part time signals on the southern East Mayne arm (see Insert 5.2). The predominant movement at the junction is one of north/south along the A132. This heavy flow makes it difficult at times for traffic to join the roundabout from Courtauld Road, particularly for HGVs due to their slower acceleration.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 64

Insert 5.2 – Courtauld Road / A132 Junction The Courtauld Road arm of the junction has a three lane approach however road markings are faded (as shown in Insert 5.3) and can result in drivers changing lanes on approach to, or on the roundabout itself.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 65

Insert 5.3 – Courtauld Road / A132 Junction (Courtauld Road Arm) A132 East Mayne/A127 Junction This junction connects the roads of the A132 East Mayne and the A127, which is located to the north west of the site. The A127 is a dual carriageway which links to the M25 to the west and Southend-on-Sea to the east. This is a flyover junction with the A127 passing over the top of the A132 which runs beneath. The junction itself is a two-lane traffic light controlled roundabout with four arms that passes underneath the A127. Site observations during the AM peak found that traffic flows were high; however this did not appear to cause significant queuing or delay. A132 East Mayne/Felmores Junction Located to the south west of the site, is the junction of A132 East Mayne and Felmores. This is a four arm roundabout which appears to be operating within capacity in the AM peak. The predominant movement at this junction is in a north-south direction along the A132.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 66

Burnt Mills Road Burnt Mills Road is subject to a 40mph speed limit and is located directly south of the site. The road can be accessed either via the A132 East Mayne southbound or by continuing east along Courtauld Road. Burnt Mills Road is located within a residential area and thus would not be suitable for sustained access by HGVs. Pound Lane Pound Lane is located to the east of the site and is accessed via Burnt Mills Road. It is a single carriageway road with a predominantly residential frontage and has a rural feel. It is, for the most part, subject to a posted speed limit of 30mph with enforcement aided by traffic calming in the form of a chicane (priority to northbound traffic) (see Insert 5.4). Pound Lane provides a north/south link and may be used as an alternative route to the A13 and A130 to avoid the higher traffic flows on the A132. This road is therefore considered unsuitable for HGV traffic.

Insert 5.4 – Pound Lane Chicane Traffic Calming Feature

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 67

A132 Nevendon Road The A132 Nevendon Road is single carriageway (from 300m north of the A127 Roundabout) and is subject to a 40mph speed limit, enforced by a speed camera in both directions. There is a shared use cycle/footway on the western side of the road of approximately 1m in width with a 0.5m grass verge segregating pedestrians and cyclists from the carriageway. The road frontage largely consists of open fields with some individual residential dwelling frontage. Properties are, on the whole, detached and set back from the edge of the carriageway. Nevendon Road becomes Golden Jubilee Way after its junction with Cranfield Park Road. Golden Jubilee Way itself is dual carriageway with some residential frontage albeit set back from the carriageway and well screened by mature trees. There are no footways or cycle ways on this section although there were no apparent desire lines that would warrant such infrastructure. 5.5.3. Road Safety PIA data has been obtained for the surrounding road network for a recent five year period (01/07/2006 to 30/06/2011). Table 5.2 summarises the accidents that occurred in the past five years in vicinity of the site, while Insert 5.5 displays the location of these accidents. Accident Severity

Total

PIA Rate / Year

Slight

Serious

Fatal

01/07/2006 - 30/06/2007

19 (1)

4 (1)

0

23 (2)

22

01/07/2007 - 30/06/2008

21 (1)

5

0

26 (1)

26

01/07/2008 - 30/06/2009

24 (4)

1

0

25 (4)

25

01/07/2009 - 30/06/2010

12 (1)

3 (1)

0

15 (2)

15

01/07/2010 - 30/06/2011

11 (1)

4 (2)

0

15 (3)

15

TOTAL

87 (8)

17 (4)

0

104 (12)

-

Note: Numbers in brackets ( ) are the number of accidents involving vulnerable users (pedestrians and cyclists) Table 5.2 – Personal Injury Accidents in the vicinity of the site

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 68

Insert 5.5 – Accident Locations The following trends can be drawn from Table 5.1 and Insert 5.5: 

Over the past five years, there have been 104 accidents in the surrounding area (an average of 21 per annum);



Of these accidents, 87 were classed as ‘slight’ and 17 were ‘serious’;



The number of accidents in the area has decreased over time, from 26 PIA per annum in 2007/08 and 2008/09 to 15 per annum in 2009/10 and 2010/11; and



There were 12 accidents which involved a pedestrian or cyclist.

Table 5.3 summaries the number of PIAs in the last five years at the key links and junctions in the vicinity of the site. Eight of the PIAs occurred on Courtauld Road, all of which were classified as slight and none involved pedestrians or cyclists. These accidents occurred at intermittent points on Courtauld Road with no evidence of clustering and no common manoeuvres or causal factors were noted. None of the accidents involved HGVs. There were 13 PIAs which occurred at the Courtauld Road/A132 junction all of which were classified as slight. None of the accidents involved pedestrians or cyclists. The accidents were largely a combination of rear shunts as vehicles waited to enter the roundabout and accidents caused by vehicles entering the roundabout when it was not safe to do so or by vehicles changing lanes whilst on the roundabout. Seven of the Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 69

accidents involved goods vehicles though no common causal factor was noted for these accidents. Accident Severity

Total

PIA Rate / Year

Slight

Serious

Fatal

Burnt Mills Road

4

4

0

8

1.6

A132 East Mayne

21

7

0

28

5.6

A132

2

0

0

2

0.4

A132 / A127

25

2

0

27

5.4

A132 / Courtauld Road

13

0

0

15

2.6

Courtauld Road

8

0

0

8

1.6

Table 5.3 – Personal Injury Accidents at key links / junctions 5.5.4. Base Traffic Volumes The base traffic volumes were derived from seven day Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC) collected between 14/07/11 and 20/07/11 undertaken at the following locations: 

Burnt Mills Road (west of Wood Green)



Burnt Mills Road (east of Courtauld Road)



A132 East Mayne (south of Crane Farm Road)



A1235 Crane Farm Road (east of Cranes Close)



A132 East Mayne (north of Crane Farm Road)



A132 Nevendon Road (west of Old Nevendon Road)



Courtauld Road (east of Harvey Road)

Table 5.4 outlines details of the base traffic at the key links on the highway network in the vicinity of the site. The traffic figures provided are average weekday totals. The table shows total vehicles with HGV numbers shown in brackets. As well as presenting weekday totals. The table also details the volume of traffic that is anticipated to arrive and depart at the Facility during the peak hours of the day i.e. 8am to 9am in the morning and 5pm to 6pm in the evening. These periods are when the Highways network is generally at its busiest.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 70

Time Period Link

Location

Burnt Mills Road

West of Wood Green

417 (0)

505 (1)

3826 (6)

Burnt Mills Road

East of Courtauld Road

730 (3)

838 (2)

6336 (27)

A132 East Mayne

South of Crane Farm Road

2716 (82)

2896 (70)

29456 (819)

A1235 Crane Farm Road

East of Cranes Close

1463 (53)

1777 (35)

16413 (380)

A132 East Mayne

North of Crane Farm Road

2844 (113)

2568 (77)

29486 (1226)

A132 Nevendon Road

West of Old Nevendon Road

2466 (25)

2432 (53)

27113 (349)

Courtauld Road

East of Harvey Road

797 (22)

804 (16)

7914 (280)

AM Peak (two- PM Peak (two- 12 Hour (twoway) way) way)

Note: The table shows total vehicles with HGV numbers quoted in brackets Table 5.4 – Summary of Two-Way Link Traffic Data from ATCs 5.6. Design Evolution and Operational Procedure Changes to Avoid or Reduce Potentially Significant Effects This section outlines those measures identified and incorporated during the evolution of the design and operational procedure changes to avoid; reduce or remedy potential adverse effects in relation to transport and access. 5.6.1. HGV Traffic Access Route A preferred route for both construction traffic and operation HGV traffic has been identified, based on the findings of the site visit and the comments from the LHA. This involves the following route from the site onto the local highway network: 

Depart from the site turning right onto Courtauld Road;



Travel west on Courtauld Road; and



Continue onto the A132 East Mayne or A1235 Crane Farm Road via the Courtauld Road/A132 roundabout junction.



Traffic arriving at the site would follow the same route in reverse. This route has been determined on the following basis:



This is the shortest route to the strategic Highway Network; and



This route avoids residential frontages and sensitive land uses.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 71

5.6.2. Internal Access Arrangements and Access Junction The internal access arrangements have been designed so as to provide substantial stacking capacity within the site. This will, at times of peak operation avoid any instances whereby traffic would block back onto the highway network. The roundabout access junction has been designed to accommodate the largest vehicles that require access to the site whilst providing sufficient capacity to ensure minimal driver delay. 5.6.3. Noise Bunding and Planting In order to minimise the effects from traffic on the nearest sensitive receptor, Hovefields Caravan Park site, a 4m bund and 1m acoustic fence will be constructed on the eastern perimeter. 5.6.4. Traffic Operational Procedures A number of measures have been put in place to manage the flow of traffic which would minimise engine noise from idling vehicles and noise from reversing bleepers near noisesensitive receivers such as Hovefields Caravan Park site. 

Traffic has been circulated in a managed one-way system in a clockwise direction at the eastern part of the site to minimise onsite traffic conflicts from waste vehicle movements.



Traffic light systems will be put in place to enable control of waste vehicles accessing reception hall and further traffic lights at the start of the one-way system would manage traffic queues in cases of vehicle breakdown or issues with processing plant. The traffic light system would prevent any stationary vehicles queuing directly opposite the Hovefields Caravan Park site.



The undercover car park will be strategically located close to Courtauld Road and will not be accessed by waste vehicles. This arrangement will minimise conflict between cars and waste vehicles. 5.7. Traffic Generation

5.7.1. Construction Traffic Generation A forecast of the traffic anticipated to be generated by the construction works for the Facility has been calculated by the Applicant. No assessment has been made for the potential construction traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed Biowaste site to the west of the Facility which if developed would need to be the subject of a new planning application and would require a traffic assessment as part of that application. It is also not anticipated that the construction phases for the two developments would overlap and so it is considered inappropriate to assess them together. Details of the peak trip generation during the construction period are displayed in Table 5.5. It is estimated that the construction phase of the development will last for approximately two years.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 72

Weekly Flows

Equivalent Daily Flows

One Way

Two Way

One Way

Two Way

HGV deliveries

248

496

50

100

Lights (staff and operatives)

231

462

46

92

Total

479

958

96

192

Table 5.5 – Construction Traffic Generation The data given in Table 5.5 represents the worst case in terms of construction traffic. It is anticipated that the most intensive phase of construction will take place over a period of nine weeks. During this nine week period it is forecasted that there will be 50 deliveries per day (assumed to be by HGV) i.e. 100 two-way HGV movements per day. It is assumed that the HGV trips will be spread throughout the day, assuming a ten hour day it is anticipated that there will therefore be 10 two-way HGV movements per hour. In addition to the HGV traffic it is estimated that there will be 92 (two way) light vehicle movements to/from the site per day for staff and other operatives (assumed 40 staff working onsite) and ‘other deliveries’. Staff arrivals are anticipated to be prior to the network AM Peak hour but some staff departures may be during the PM Peak hour. The remainder of the light vehicles are likely to arrive/depart throughout the course of the day. In total this amounts to 192 two way vehicle trips per day during the nine week peak construction phase. This is below operational levels of traffic (discussed further below) and will last for a relatively short period of time. 5.7.2. Operational Traffic Generation As stated there is the potential that a Biowaste facility could be sited on the land to the west of the proposed Facility. As discussed in 5.1 whilst the Biowaste facility is not within the red line planning boundary for the Facility, it was within the previous planning permission site boundary. In agreement with ECC as the LHA this EIA will take account of both facilities so as not to preclude the development of the Biowaste facility in the future. If brought forward the Biowaste development would however need to be the subject of its own planning application. The anticipated traffic generation figures for the Facility have been calculated by the Applicant with HGV estimates being based on the expected average tonnages per day to each of the sites and consideration of operational requirements as well as the working practices of the District Councils who will deliver waste to the Facility. The HGV traffic estimates for the proposed Biowaste facility has been calculated utilising information provided by ECC as Waste Disposal Authority with staff and visitor traffic estimated by the Applicant.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 73

This section will assess the total traffic anticipated to be generated by both facilities (MBT and Biowaste); however it also provides traffic generation figures for the proposed MBT Facility only, in order to illustrate the level of traffic that is anticipated to be generated by the Facility to which this application pertains. The volume of waste produced by households varies throughout the year therefore this Chapter will consider what is classed as a typical operating day for the Facility; this is the volume of waste anticipated on any given day and the waste that will require treatment, based on annual tonnages and existing data. The assessment also considers a peak capacity day which is the maximum amount of waste the Facility can accept/process in any one day. This is considered to be an irregular occurrence as there is not sufficient waste being generated by Essex and Southend residents to sustain these peak day volumes. The same typical day and peak day calculations have also been applied to the Biowaste facility. The assessment considers both the volumes of total traffic generated by the facilities as well as HGV movements only. Total Traffic Volumes The total traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the two developments during a typical day is given in Table 5.6. The table presents the daily totals as well as the traffic volumes accessing and exiting the sites in the AM and PM peak hours. It can be seen that during a typical day a total of 748 two way traffic movements are predicted to be generated by the two facilities (MBT and Biowaste) over a 12 hour period (7.00am7.00pm) of which a total of 604 vehicles are associated with the MBT Facility. AM PEAK Arr

PM PEAK

Dep

2-Way

Arr

12hr (7.00am-7.00pm)

Dep

2-Way

Arr

Dep

2-Way

MBT Facility

39

21

60

0

18

18

282

282

564

MBT Facility Visitors

20

0

20

0

20

20

20

20

40

Biowaste facility

11

3

14

0

8

8

72

72

144

Total Both Facilities

70

24

94

0

46

46

374

374

748

Total MBT only

59

21

80

0

38

38

302

302

604

Arr = Arrivals, Dep = Departures Table 5.6 – Typical Day Operational Traffic Generation (Total Traffic) The peak day calculation, shown in Table 5.7, presents the worst case scenario and highlights the anticipated traffic generation at the two facilities is a total of 930 two way

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 74

traffic movements predicted over a 12 hour period (7.00am-7.00pm) of which 786 are associated with the MBT Facility. As stated previously it is acknowledged that the site will be accessed on an infrequent basis by visitors, notably school trips that will typically arrive by coach and therefore associated traffic impact will be negligible. Nevertheless, for robustness it has been assumed that up to 20 visitors (vehicles) will arrive in the AM peak and depart in the PM peak. AM PEAK Arr

PM PEAK

Dep

2-Way

Arr

12hr (7.00am-7.00pm)

Dep

2-Way

Arr

Dep

2-Way

MBT Facility

53

35

88

0

18

18

373

373

746

MBT Facility Visitors

20

0

20

0

20

20

20

20

40

Biowaste facility

13

5

18

0

8

8

72

72

144

Total Both Facilities

86

40

126

0

46

46

465

465

930

Total MBT only

73

35

108

0

38

38

393

393

786

Arr = Arrivals, Dep = Departures Table 5.7 – Peak Day Operational Traffic Generation (Total Traffic) HGV Traffic Volumes While the tables above present data on the total traffic numbers anticipated to be generated the following tables illustrate anticipated HGV movements only.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 75

AM PEAK Arr

PM PEAK

Dep

2-Way

Arr

12hr (7.00am-7.00pm)

Dep

2-Way

Arr

Dep

2-Way

MBT Facility

21

21

42

0

0

0

206

206

412

MBT Facility Visitors

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Biowaste facility

3

3

6

0

0

0

44

44

88

Total Both Facilities

24

24

48

0

0

0

250

250

500

Total MBT only

21

21

42

0

0

0

206

206

412

Arr = Arrivals, Dep = Departures Table 5.8 – Typical Day Operational Traffic Generation (HGVs) From Table 5.8 it can be seen that a total of 500 two-way HGV movements will be generated over a 12 hour period on a typical day. This equates to an average of one HGV accessing or departing the site approximately every 1.5 minutes. For the MBT Facility only it can be seen over a typical day a total of 412 two way traffic movements (206 vehicles) are predicted to be generated. This equates to an average of one HGV accessing or departing the site approximately every 1.5 to 2 minutes. Table 5.9 identifies the number of HGVs estimated to be generated by the MBT Facility and Biowaste on a peak day over a 12 hour period (7.00am-7.00pm). It can be seen that a total of 682 two-way HGV movements will be generated over a 12 hour period on a more typical, typical day. This equates to an average of one HGV accessing or departing the site approximately every minute.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 76

AM PEAK Arr

PM PEAK

Dep

2-Way

Arr

12hr (7.00am-7.00pm)

Dep

2-Way

Arr

Dep

2-Way

MBT Facility

35

35

70

0

0

0

297

297

593

MBT Facility Visitors

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Biowaste facility

5

5

10

0

0

0

44

44

88

Total Both Facilities

40

40

80

0

0

0

341

341

682

Total MBT only

35

35

70

0

0

0

297

297

594

Arr = Arrivals, Dep = Departures Table 5.9 – Peak Day Operational Traffic Generation (HGVs) It is evident that the operational traffic estimated to be generated from the proposed development will be greater than HGV movements generated through the construction phase. In the main this transport chapter will therefore focus on the impact of the operational traffic as the impact of the operational traffic will be greater in terms of number of vehicles and impact duration compared to the construction phase. Nevertheless, for completeness the construction phase impacts will be considered further in this chapter. 5.8. Significance of Effects As stated in the methodology section of this chapter, the significance of the environmental effects will be determined by the ‘magnitude of change/impact’ and the value / importance of the affected asset or resource. This section demonstrates how the magnitude of change/impact and the value/importance of the affected asset or resource have been defined and assessed and in turn how this equates to the assessment of significance for each potential effect. 5.8.1. Assessment of Magnitude of Change/Impact The magnitude of change in the number of HGVs and total development traffic has been considered for the operational traffic over a 12 hour period. Environmental impacts are most typically considered over 12 hour periods or longer. Essentially, the generation of HGVs during traditional peak hours, when compared to the total traffic generation, is limited; however, as HGV movements will occur throughout the day, their sustained contribution disturbance to key receptors should be considered. As discussed earlier in this report this chapter concentrates in the main, on the impact of the operational traffic as opposed to the construction traffic and this represents a worst case in terms of number of vehicles and duration of the impact. Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 77

As stated previously the IEMA guidelines state two ‘rules of thumb’ regarding the scope of the links that should be assessed for EIA purposes. The first rule advises on the inclusion of highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the number of HGVs will increase by more than 30%). The second rule of the IEMA guidelines regarding the scope of the links that should be assessed for EIA purposes advises on the inclusion of any specifically sensitive areas where total traffic flows have increased by 10% or more. Whilst this guidance is used to determine only which links to appraise it does give an indication as to the level of traffic increase which is deemed to be material in terms of the environmental appraisal of road traffic. A summary of the change in HGV volumes on the key highway links is presented in Table 5.10. The impact assessment has been undertaken on the basis of a typical day as opposed to the peak day given that the peak day will occur only on a very occasional basis and therefore any impact will be temporary. 12-hour Two-way Flows Link

Base HGV Total HGVs % Increase Total HGVs % Increase Flows (Operational) in HGVs (Operational) in HGVs Both Facilities

MBT Facility only

Burnt Mills Road (West of Wood 6 Green)

0

0%

0

0%

Burnt Mills Road (East of Courtauld 27 Road)

0

0%

0

0%

A132 East Mayne (South of Crane 819 Farm Road)

108

13%

89

10%

A1235 Crane Farm Road

101

27%

83

22%

A132 East Mayne (North of Crane 1226 Farm Road)

295

24%

243

20%

A132 Nevendon Road

349

158

45%

130

37%

Courtauld Road

280

500

179%

412

147%

380

Table 5.10 – Summary of HGV Impacts during Operation For the majority of links, the number of HGVs will increase by less than 30% as a result of the operational traffic. The only exception to this is Courtauld Road and A132 Nevendon Road, where HGV flows are predicted to increase by 180% and 45% respectively. These figures drop to 147% and 37% respectively when considering just the proposed MBT Facility. On this basis Courtauld Road and A132 Nevendon Road are the only links whereby a material increase in HGV traffic is notable. These links will be considered in Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 78

more detail in the assessment of significance of effects section of this chapter. Nevertheless, for completeness, and on request of ECC highways consideration will be given to all links regardless of the magnitude of change. Table 5.11 looks at the total traffic impacts (light vehicles and HGVs) for links in the vicinity of the development for a 12 hour period on a normal day. 12-hour Two-way Flows Link

Base Traffic Total Traffic % Impact flows (Operational) Both Facilities

Total Traffic % Impact (Operational) MBT Facility only

Burt Mills Road (west of Wood 3826 Green)

20

0.5%

16

0.4%

Burnt Mills Road (East of Courtald 6336 Road)

43

0.7%

35

0.6%

A132 East Mayne (South of Crane 29458 Farm Road)

148

0.5%

119

0.4%

A1235 Crane Farm Road

16413

139

0.8%

112

0.7%

A132 East Mayne (North of Crane 29486 Farm Road)

370

1.3%

299

1.0%

A132 Nevendon Road

27113

197

0.7%

159

0.6%

Courtauld Road

7914

748

9.5%

604

7.6%

Table 5.11 – Predicted Increases in Total Vehicles (Normal Day) For the majority of links the total number of vehicles will increase by less than 2% as a result of the operational traffic. The exception to this is Courtauld Road, where total traffic flows are predicted to increase by 9.5%. The only link which could be considered ‘sensitive’ to traffic impacts is Burnt Mills Road due to its residential nature. On this link flows are predicted to increase by less than 1% with none of this increase in the form of HGV traffic. A comparison of the total traffic (light vehicles and HGVs) generated by the proposed waste facilities on a normal and peak day compared to that of the previous permission is presented in Table 5.12.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 79

AM PEAK

PM PEAK

Arr

Dep

2-Way

Arr

Dep

2-Way

Previous Application Site (2024)

97

29

126

8

75

83

Proposed MBT Facility (Typical Day)

59

21

80

0

38

38

Proposed MBT Facility (Peak Day)

73

35

108

0

56

56

Proposed MBT Facility and Biowaste facility 70 (Typical Day)

24

94

0

46

46

Proposed MBT Facility and Biowaste facility 86 (Peak Day)

40

126

0

56

56

Difference between previous application and -38 MBT Facility (Typical Day)

-8

-46

-8

-37

-45

Difference between previous application and -24 MBT Facility (Peak Day)

+6

-18

-8

-19

-27

Difference between previous application and -27 MBT and Biowaste Facility (Typical Day)

-5

-32

-8

-29

-37

Difference between previous application and -11 MBT and Biowaste Facility (Peak Day)

+11

0

-8

-19

-27

Table 5.12– Traffic Generation Comparison (Vehicles) Table 5.12 demonstrates that the proposed MBT Facility and adjacent Biowaste facility will generate fewer trips in the highway network peak hours on a typical day compared to that agreed in the previous planning application. On a peak day there are fewer trips in the highway network pm peak hours with an equal number for the am peak hours. Whilst this cannot be used to determine the magnitude of change compared to baseline traffic volumes it does demonstrate the magnitude of change beyond that previously agreed by way of planning approval at the site. For the purpose of this assessment the categories for potential effects have been derived from the IEMA guidelines. When determining the magnitude of change table 5.13 has been used.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 80

Potential Effect

Magnitude of Change/Impact Negligible

Small

Medium

Large

The traffic generated creates no perceptible change on the surrounding highway network

The traffic generated creates a scarcely perceptible change on the surrounding highway network

The traffic generated creates a noticeable change on the surrounding highway network

The traffic generated creates a significant change on the surrounding highway network.

People are likely to be deterred from making pedestrian journeys to an extent sufficient to induce a reorganization of their activities. Those who do make journeys on foot will experience considerable hindrance. Change in total traffic flow of greater than 90%.

Generic Description All

Effect Specific Description Severance

Little or no hindrance to pedestrian movement. Change in total traffic flow of less than 30%.

All people wishing to make pedestrian movements will be able to do so, but there will probably be some hindrance to movement. Change in total traffic flow of 30% 60%.

Some people, particularly children and old people, are likely to be dissuaded from making journeys on foot. For others, pedestrian journeys will be longer or less attractive. Change in total traffic flow of 30% 60%.

Driver Delay

There is no perceptible change queuing and delay at local junctions.

There is a scarcely perceptible change in queuing and delay at local junctions.

There is a There is a significant noticeable change change in queuing and in queuing and delay at local junctions. delay at local junctions.

Pedestrian delay and Change in total Change in total amenity including traffic flow or HGV traffic flow or HGV fear and intimidation flow of less than flow of 30% - 60%. 30%.

Change in total Change in total traffic traffic flow or HGV flow or HGV flow of flow of greater than greater than 90%. 60% - 90%.

Accidents and Safety Residential Amenity

Professional judgement applied to assess the implications of local circumstances, and factors which may elevate or lessen risks of accidents This encompasses elements of noise, dust and dirt, visual effects and air pollution in broad terms relating to traffic. Professional judgement has been applied using the parameters set out in the generic description.

Table 5.13 – Magnitude of Change/Impact

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 81

5.8.2. Importance of Receptors/Resources The sensitivity, importance or value of a resource or receptor has been derived from an assessment of: 

The number of individual receptors, such as residents;



An empirical assessment on the basis of characteristics such as condition; and



A receptors ability to absorb change.

The relative importance of each receptor is presented in Table 5.14.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 82

Resource/Receptor

Description

Importance/value

People at home

This includes local residents, most notably those in High Importance and around Burnt Mills Road. This includes residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site particularly those within 50m of the access corridor. In the absence of further guidance it is considered that, as with noise assessments, properties within 50m of the access corridor (carriageway) will be most susceptible to changes in traffic flows and composition. This level of susceptibility to change will reduce with increased distance from the carriageway. A high level of importance has been applied given their lower ability to absorb change.

People at work places

These include local businesses, most notably those Medium Importance on Courtauld Road and particularly those within 50m of the access corridor. A medium level of importance has been attributed to this owing to the relatively high ability to absorb change in this relatively industrial area.

Pedestrians and Cyclists

This includes pedestrians and cyclists, most notably Medium Importance those who travel along Courtauld Road. A medium level of importance has been applied given the relatively low number of individual receptors balanced by their relatively low ability to absorb change.

Existing road users

This includes road users in vehicles, most notably Low Importance those along Courtauld Road, Nevendon Road, Crane Farm Road and East Mayne. Whilst the number of individual receptors is high it is considered they have a higher ability to absorb change than people at home or pedestrians and as such an importance factor of Low has been applied.

Highway Network

This refers to the highway network as a resource as Low Importance opposed to road users as receptors and includes Courtauld Road, Nevendon Road, Crane Farm Road and East Mayne.

Table 5.14 – Relative Importance of Receptors/Resources 5.8.3. Assessment of Significance of Effects This section provides an assessment of the significance of potential effects left after incorporation of inherent measures in terms of design and operational procedure changes Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 83

to avoid or reduce potentially significant effects as set out in the previous sections. It should be noted that this assessment is prior to the implementation of any add on mitigation measures which are considered in the assessment of residual effects section of this chapter. When determining the significance of the effects the definitions of magnitude of change and receptor importance in sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 have been used as well as a degree of professional judgement, taking into account all local conditions. Operational traffic estimated to be generated from the proposed development will be greater than HGV movements generated through the construction phase and therefore operational traffic only will be considered in the assessment of the significance of effect. Mitigation for construction traffic effects will be considered later in this chapter. Noise and Vibration Traffic data for the noise and vibrations assessments have been provided and the results of these can be found in Chapter 8 of this ES. Severance Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery. It is common with heavily trafficked roads or where the road becomes a physical barrier itself, however it can also relate to quiet minor traffic flows if it impedes access to essential facilities. People walking and cycling are the receptors most likely to be affected by severance and these have been identified as being of low importance due to the relatively low number of individual receptors. The largest increase in traffic is predicted to occur on Courtauld Road. It is predicted that 748 additional vehicles will use Courtauld Road which will result in approximately one additional vehicle per minute over the course of 12 hours although there will be peaks and troughs throughout this period. The number of local facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site is limited; therefore the need to cross Courtauld Road is also limited unless one is travelling to the proposed site for work. On the wider network the impact will be diluted and existing footways, cycle ways and crossing points will do much to mitigate any potential severance issues associated with the proposals. On Courtauld Road and on all other links, the increase in overall traffic flows is less than 30% and therefore the magnitude of change is negligible and as such the significance of effect can be categorised as neutral or slight. Given that the overall increase in traffic is less than 10% on Courtauld Road and less than 2% on the wider network the significance of effect has been classified as neutral. Driver Delay Driver delay to non-development traffic can occur at several points on the network surrounding the site including site entrances, the roads in the immediate vicinity of the site and key junctions along the highway. This includes side roads which may be affected by acceptance gaps in the traffic flow being reduced. An impact of driver delay is most likely to occur during the AM and PM peak periods when base traffic flows are at their highest. It is estimated that the development will generate a Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 84

total of 127 additional vehicle movements in the AM peak and 56 additional vehicle movements in the PM peak. In the AM peak this will result in two additional vehicles per minute on the local highway network. As the traffic dissipates over the network the impact of the traffic is diluted, therefore this is unlikely to have a major impact on driver delay. Table 5.12 demonstrates that the proposed MBT Facility and adjacent Biowaste facility will generate fewer trips in the highway network peak hours on a normal day compared to that agreed in the previous planning application. This development was granted planning consent on the basis of capacity assessments at local junctions that had been reviewed by the LHA and as such, a minor magnitude of impact is anticipated which, combined with a low level of receptor (road users) importance, a slight adverse effect is predicted. The Transport Statement that accompanies this application (see Appendix 5.1) shows that no queues or delays are predicted to occur at the proposed site access junction and considers the impact of driver delay in more detail. Pedestrian and Cyclist Delay and Amenity Change in the volume, composition or speed of traffic may affect the ability for pedestrians to cross the road. Pedestrian delays are also dependent upon the general level of pedestrian activity, visibility and physical conditions of the site. Due to the industrial nature of the immediate area around the site, on site observations showed that pedestrian activity in the vicinity of the site is low. An existing footway is located on the southern side of Courtauld Road which is separated from the carriageway by a grassed verge. A 45% increase in HGVs is also predicted on Nevendon Road. Once again pedestrian activity in this area appears to be low; therefore the increase on traffic on this link is unlikely to have a major impact on pedestrian delay or amenity. The magnitude of change has been classified as minor and the importance of receptor (Pedestrians and cyclists) as medium therefore a slight adverse effect is anticipated on Courtauld Road and Nevendon Road only. Beyond these links the effect will be neutral. It should be noted that mitigation works are proposed to improve the existing footway on the southern side of the road. In addition a footway is also proposed to be installed along the proposed site frontage. The southern and northern footways will be linked by a Toucan crossing across Courtauld Road. This will help reduce the effect of the development traffic on pedestrians travelling to and from the proposed facility, particularly improving safety but this will not reduce the significance of effect as the traffic volume changes will remain greater than 30% on Courtauld Road and Nevendon Road. Pedestrian and Cyclist Fear and Intimidation Due to the nature of the development, the majority of traffic produced will consist of HGVs. Pedestrian and cyclist ‘fear and intimidation’ is one of the factors that is affected by an increase in HGVs. It is outside the remit and competence of this chapter to assess the impact of the additional traffic directly upon levels of ‘fear’ however this chapter does

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 85

assess predicted increase in HGVs and this will be used as a proxy for ‘fear and intimidation’ impacts. The largest increase in HGVs is predicted on Courtauld Road and the A132 Nevendon Road, both greater than 30%. As discussed previously, the southern footway on Courtauld Road is separated from the carriageway by a grassed verge. This will help reduce the impact on the levels of fear and intimidation for pedestrians. Nevendon Road A132 is located to the north of the site and provides a direct link to Wickford. A shared use cycle/ footway is present on the western side of the road separated from the carriageway by a narrow grass verge. Pedestrian and cycle activity along this road appears to be relatively low and any activity by vulnerable road users will be off carriageway. As a result, a minor magnitude of impact is anticipated which, combined with a medium level of receptor (pedestrians and cyclists) importance, a slight adverse effect is predicted on Courtauld Road and Nevenden Road only. On the wider network the impact is diluted further. The existing traffic flows are relatively high and pedestrian and cycle facilities tend to be segregated from traffic. As such the impact on pedestrian and cyclist fear and intimidation is likely to be neutral beyond Courtauld Road and Nevendon Road. As discussed previously, mitigation proposals are in place that will provide an improved footway / cycleway on the southern side of Courtauld Road and the northern side of the road along the frontage of the site. A new footway / cycleway will allow cyclists to travel off road and avoid sharing the carriageway with HGVs. While this will be a significant improvement, it will not reduce the significance of effect which is constrained by the percentage increase in HGVs on Courtauld Road and Nevendon Road. Residential Amenity The term residential amenity is one that is difficult to define and there are no clearly quantifiable standards of amenity which could be justifiably used to assess the impact of the development. For the purpose of this assessment it is defined as a general, all encompassing term for the attractiveness of the residential environment, most notably the benefit enjoyed from physical external space which is part of the private home. The assessment includes elements of noise disturbance, visual intrusion and air quality but in more general terms. The determination of the magnitude of effect has taken account of local circumstances and the nature of the locality but relies solely on professional judgement. Residential amenity in this case, affects receptors including people at home and sensitive groups and locations including the residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site. The significance of effect on residential amenity can be related to the impact of magnitude of the increase in the number of vehicles and the composition of these vehicles. The increase in total vehicles is such that the magnitude of impact is likely to be negligible and hence the effect is not likely to be significant, however the composition of the traffic, being largely HGVs, is likely to adversely affect the significance of effect. The proposed site is located in an industrial area, away from residential dwellings in the main with the exception being Hovefields Caravan Park site located directly to the east. Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 86

As stated previously, it will be an operational requirement that all HGVs, both operational and construction vehicles are routed to and from the site via the A132 to the west of the site. This removes completely, the magnitude of change on sensitive links and reduces the impact of HGVs on residential properties in the area around Burnt Mills Road, Pound Lane and to a lesser extent Hovefields Caravan Park site. On proposed access links, residential properties are few in number and those that do front the carriageway are set back. Given the proximity of the site to Hovefields Caravan Park site the importance of the receptor (people at home) must be considered high due to the number of individual receptors affected. It is anticipated that the magnitude of change from traffic will be minor given that traffic will not directly pass the residential properties and considering that any on site visual intrusion and noise impacts associated with traffic will be mitigated with bunding, fencing and appropriate operational procedures. As such the resulting significance of effect can be considered moderate adverse for the residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site and neutral elsewhere. Air Quality Traffic data for the air quality assessments have been provided and the results of these can be found in Chapter 9 of this ES. Dust and Dirt Dust and dirt is considered appropriate to assess, most notably during the construction phase of the development as this is likely to be when most dust and dirt is generated by traffic. This will be considered further in the air quality section (Chapter 9) however mitigation relating to dust and dirt associated with vehicular traffic is identified in section 5.9.1. Any impacts related to dust and dirt during construction will be short lived and localised. Beyond Courtauld Road impacts are likely to be negligible. 5.9. Mitigation It is acknowledged that the proposed traffic generation of the development once operational will be greater than that during the construction phase both in terms of total volume of vehicle traffic generated and HGV volume. Whilst some mitigation measures will apply to both construction and operation, due to the different function of the traffic, mitigation measures specific to the construction traffic have also been provided. 5.9.1. Construction Period The implementation of a comprehensive construction traffic management plan would do much to mitigate the character and impact of the construction traffic. It is proposed that the measures set out below would form the basis of a traffic management plan that would be discussed and agreed with both the highway authority and the local planning authority prior to commencing the construction of the proposed development.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 87

Highway Mitigation Whilst no junction assessments have been undertaken on site observations suggest that it is likely that the local junctions can accommodate the proposed construction traffic and as such no mitigation is proposed. Restriction of Access Route The use of the proposed access route as described previously would be a contractual requirement for all contractors working at the site. Contractor performance will be regularly monitored so as to enforce the access route. Signing Signs will be posted at all junctions, advising construction traffic to use agreed routes. Keeping the Route Clean A contractual requirement will be placed upon the contractor to provide wheel wash facilities for vehicles on departure from the construction site. This will help keep the route clean and prevent impacts associated with dust and dirt. Should a temporary haul road be provided this will be damped down in dry conditions so as to prevent dust being emitted by HGV traffic. Restriction on Working Hours Access to the construction site will be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 5.00pm on a Saturday and 8.30am to 5.00pm on a Sunday. Timing of Arrivals and Departures HGV trips to and from the site will, where possible, be evenly spread during the day. The spreading of trips will minimise the impact of HGV traffic during the peak hours and reduce any impacts on driver delay. Presence of Personnel to Guide Construction Traffic Construction personnel will be present on site to manage the construction traffic on and off the site as it is important that arrivals and departures are carefully managed so no conflicts or blocking back to the highway network occurs. 5.9.2. Operational Period The implementation of a comprehensive traffic management plan would mitigate the character and impact of the operational traffic. It is proposed that the measures set out below would form the basis of a traffic management plan that would be discussed and agreed with both the LHA and the LPA prior to the proposed development becoming operational. Highway Mitigation On site observations and junction assessments undertaken as part of the previous permission in 2008 suggest that it is likely that the local junctions can accommodate the proposed operational traffic and as such no operational mitigation is proposed. Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 88

Restriction of Access Route 

The route will be enforced by means of a contractual agreement with appropriate penalties for non compliance. A means for the public to report any non compliance will be provided.

Signing Access to the site will be signed from the A132 East Mayne only. Signing will make it clear to operational vehicles and visitors how to access the site by the appropriate route and more importantly discourage use of less appropriate routes. Restriction on Working Hours Contract waste will be accepted at the facility during the following opening hours as defined in Table 5.15. Day

Proposed Hours for HGV Movements

Monday to Friday

7.00am to 8.00pm

Saturday

7.00am to 4.30pm

Sundays and Bank Holidays

8.30am to 4.30pm

The Facility will not accept waste on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Years Day. Table 5.15– Typical Site Delivery Hours Cycle and Walking Infrastructure As part of the previous permission, a number of planning conditions were outlined by the local planning authority which needed to be addressed before the Facility became operational. The conditions relating to highway improvements are presented below (text has been taken directly from the First Schedule ‘Description of Highway Works’): 

A new footway/cycle route to be constructed by the Developer before the Waste Treatment Plant becomes operational along the southern side of Courtauld Road eastwards from the existing footway/cycle route (which currently terminates to the west of Archer’s Field) to a point east of Harvey Road in the vicinity of the site access to link to the Toucan Crossing in (ii) below;



A new toucan crossing in Courtauld Road to be constructed by the Developer before the Waste Treatment Plant becomes operational to connect the footway/cycle route in paragraphs (i) (iii) and (iv) of the Highway Works to the site;



A footway/cycle route to be constructed by the Developer before the Waste Treatment Plant becomes operational on the northern side of Courtauld Road along the site frontage from the toucan crossing in (ii) above to Hovefields Caravan Park site;



A footway/cycle route to be constructed by the Developer before the Waste Treatment Plant becomes operational along the eastern side of Harvey Road to connect the existing cycle route from Burnt Mills Road to Harvey Road with the new Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 89

footway/cycle route Facility in Courtauld Road and the associated new toucan crossing in (ii) above; 

A new access onto Courtauld Road to serve the Site with an associated footway/cycle route to link the Development to the toucan crossing in paragraph (ii) of the Highway Works above.

It is anticipated that these highway improvements will remain applicable to any new application and if so they will be required to be carried out in accordance with planning conditions associated with this application. 5.10. Residual Effects 5.10.1. Construction Period The construction phase of the development will be for a limited time only and therefore any impact on the local area will be temporary. The number of HGVs on the network does increase due to the proposed construction activities however this is relatively short lived and less than the traffic impacts associated with the operational activities of the site. The most significant impact will be for a relatively short period of time (9 weeks). The total traffic impact significance across the surrounding highway network would be slight, a maximum increase of 192 vehicles over the 12 hour period (worst case). 5.10.2. Operational Period The number of HGVs on the network is estimated to increase due to the proposed operational traffic on the highway network. A total of 500 additional HGV movements are expected on the highway network over a 12 hour period (7.00am to 7.00pm). This will result in a large increase on Courtauld Road, however due to the industrial nature of the area this is not envisaged to have a substantial effect on the environment in the vicinity of the site. As stated in section 5.9.2 a traffic routing is to be implemented for the Facility for vehicles in control of the Applicant, this will ensure these vehicles do not use Courtauld Road to the east of the applicant site. The summary of significant residual transport effects during the operational period is presented in Table 5.16.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 90

5.11. Cumulative effects ECC were contacted to ascertain what (if any) committed developments need to be considered as part of this assessment. In addition to the proposed Biowaste facility immediately adjacent to the west of the site, they identified the following: 

Rifle & Pistol Club, including clubhouse and indoor 25m shooting together with outdoor 100m, 50m and 25m shooting ranges;



Phoenix Freight International Ltd, vehicular access (no egress) onto Courtauld Road; and



Application for 128 dwellings - Cranes Farm Road (application no. BAS/00240/08).

A review of these developments has demonstrated that the cumulative impact of traffic generated by these developments will not adversely affect any receptors beyond that attributed to the development alone. As such the cumulative effects are not considered material to this assessment. 5.12. Conclusions The assessment shows that the proposed MBT Facility and adjacent Biowaste facility will generate fewer trips in the highway network peak hours on a normal day compared to that agreed in the previous planning application albeit with the AM peak showing the numbers of vehicles will be similar to the existing permission. However, the assessment shows that the proposed MBT Facility will generate considerably fewer trips during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The mitigation measures described above will go some way to alleviate many of the potential effects on the local area. However, it is recognised that the development will generate a significant amount of HGVs on the highway network and despite the proposed mitigation measures there will be slight residual adverse effects on levels of pedestrian delay and amenity, fear and intimidation and driver delay within the local area. The effect on residential amenity will remain as moderate for the residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site owing to their proximity to the site.

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 91

Description of impact

Significance of before mitigation

Pedestrian Fear and Intimidation

Slight Adverse

effect

Slight Adverse

Improved footway / Neutral cycleway facilities and Toucan crossing on Courtauld Road.

Permanent

Residential Amenity

Moderate Adverse Permanent

Driver delay

Significance of residual impact

Improved footway / Neutral cycleway facilities and Toucan crossing on Courtauld Road.

Permanent

Pedestrian Delay and Amenity

Mitigation specification

Slight Adverse

Restrict access route Moderate Adverse and working hours. Permanent Timing of arrivals and Slight Adverse departures outside Permanent highway peak hours

Permanent

Table 5.16 – Summary of Residual Transport Effects during Operation

Environmental statement Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation Page 92

effect

6.0

Landscape and visual impact

Summary of Assessment: 

The views from the surrounding visual amenity receptors are dominated by the industrial development to the south of the A127.



Levelled and cleared site with no remaining features of landscape value other than low value tree/scrub belt fronting A127.



Visual envelope restricted due to existing developments, A127, topography and hedgerow pattern through the wider rural landscape.



Key visual receptors include the Hovefields Park Caravan site and Courtauld Road users.



Impacts will vary from minor beneficial, negligible to minor adverse.



Mitigation measures proposed including perimeter landscape bunding and planting.



It is concluded that the proposed development will be acceptable in terms of landscape and visual impact.

6.1. Introduction This section identifies the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing landscape character and visual amenity receptors within the identified study area. The study area for the assessment includes the application site and the wider landscape and visual context within which the proposed development has influence. The wide extent of the study area allows a better understanding of the overall landscape character in order to establish place specific mitigation measures. The study area covers an area of approximately 3.5km2 and is centred on the application site (see Figure 6.1). The methodologies used to collect this information are outlined and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce any identified impacts. The assessment of landscape character and visual amenity are two distinct but related areas. Landscape character assessment is the systematic description and analysis of the features within the landscape and their value, such as landform, vegetation cover, settlement, transport patterns and land use. Visual amenity assessment is the description of the view of the landscape from receptors which include public open space, footpaths, transport corridors, residential properties and places of work.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 93

6.2. Regulatory, planning and policy context 6.2.1. National level policy and legislation The need to enhance landscape character is endorsed by the Government in many of its Planning Policy Statements (PPS), in particular PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS2 – Greenbelt are relevant to this development. These PPS are disseminated through regional and local planning policies and are reflected in the relevant local policy as set out below. 6.2.2. Regional level policy and legislation The East of England Regional Assembly published a draft revision of the current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), The East of England Plan (May 2008) in March 2010. It covers the county and unitary authorities of Bedford, Cambridgeshire, Central Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Luton, Norfolk, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea, Suffolk and Thurrock. The revised plan sets out the vision and strategic framework for growth to 2031. Key policies which affect the site area and proposals include: 

SS7 – Green Belt



ENV1 – Green infrastructure



ENV2 – landscape conservation



ENV3 – Biodiversity and geodiversity

Sub-Regional policies have been prepared to address issues of local relevance, the proposed development site falls within the Essex Thames Gateway Sub-Region. The key policy which affects the site area and proposals is: 

ETG2 – Eco-region and green initiatives

Regional, sub-regional and local partners will work together to facilitate realisation of Thames Gateway as an eco-region. This will be achieved through a co-ordinated approach to a range of independent but linked initiatives. 6.2.3. District level policy and legislation The Courtauld Road site allocated in Schedule 1 of the Waste Local Plan as a Preferred Location for Waste Management.; this specifically notes that the development must have regard to the visual impact, including on Green Belt land to the north. Current local planning policy, as laid down in the council's Development Plan, is currently being reviewed and will, in due course, be replaced by the Local Development Framework (LDF). The current Development Plan comprises the Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan and the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies document, September 2007. The Saved Policies are policies that were originally part of the Basildon District Local Plan, adopted on March 1998, with Alterations in September 1999. Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 94

The Waste Local Plan presents the following key policy; 

POLICY W10E – Waste Management Development, including landfill, will be permitted where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the following criteria, provided the development complies with other policies of this Plan. – The following criteria are relevant to Landscape and visual considerations:



11. The effect of the development on the landscape and the countryside, particularly in the AONB, the community forest and areas with special landscape designations;



17. The effect of the development on nature conservation, particularly on or near SSSI or land with other ecological or wildlife designations; and



18. In the Metropolitan Green Belt, the effect of the development on the purposes of the green belt.

Key policies within the Saved Policies document which affect the site area and proposals include: 

Policy BAS GB1 Green Belt



Policy BAS C1,C2 and C4 Natural Environment & Nature Conservation



The District Council’s Local Plan includes:



Policy E10 Requirements for landscaping and screening

Further details on the implications of these policies are outlined below as relevant to the landscape designations covering the site and/or surroundings in full or in part. 6.2.4. Landscape designations Landscape designations are applied to areas of special value at international, national, regional or local level in response to particular qualities or historical or cultural associations. These areas are generally considered to be of a higher sensitivity to change and therefore the potential impacts of the proposals on designated landscapes must be considered independently; as contributors to sensitivity; and in light of the tolerance to accommodate change within the wider character area. There are a number of landscape relevant designations within the application site and within the study area. These are outlined below and shown on Figure 6.1 and 6.2. Tree Preservation Orders There are no Tree Preservation Orders on the proposed development site. Green Belt To the north of the application site and A127, the land is designated Green Belt under the Basildon District Local Plan (Policy BAS GB1). This area was designated in order to preserve the narrow gap between the communities of Basildon to the south and Wickford to the north. Whilst the application site is not within the Green Belt its proximity is such that consideration must be given to its effect on the visual quality of the Green Belt. Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 95

Within the Green Belt and covered by Policy GB8 (from the 1998 Local Plan) are “plotlands.” These include scattered residential development, small holdings, a permanent Gypsy and Travellers site, vacant plots and commercial activities which give a semi-rural character. The closest of these encompasses the greater part of Nevendon between the A127 and Cranfield Park Road to the north. Nevendon Bushes Local Nature Reserve Approximately 600m to the southwest of the application site is Nevendon Bushes Local Nature Reserve; one of the last remaining fragments of old woodland within the urban area of Basildon. The woodland is thought to be ancient. Policy BAS C4 states that “woodlands should be retained, especially where they are Ancient Woodlands”. Due to distance from the site and intervening development it is considered likely that the Reserve will not be directly or indirectly affected by the proposals. Wick Country Park Approximately 3km to the northeast of the application site is Wick Country Park. Policy BAS C2 states that the Council will not normally permit development which may adversely and materially affect the conservation or landscape value of a Country Park. Due to distance from the site and intervening development it is considered likely that the Park will not be directly or indirectly affected by the proposals. Listed Buildings There are ten Listed Buildings within the study area, the closest being approximately 1km to the west of the site, these will not be affected by the proposed development. 6.3. Assessment methodology This section follows the guidelines produced by the relevant professional bodies concerned with landscape character and visual amenity assessment. This includes the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment,’ (GLVIA), Second Edition, 2002, by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. The guidelines by the Countryside Agency, ‘Landscape Character Assessment’, 2002, is also referenced and simplified as appropriate to suit the level of detail as required. Following these guidelines, the assessment was undertaken through a combination of desk studies and field surveys. An initial desk study was undertaken to review existing map and written data relevant to the study area. Sources of information included: 

Countryside Character, Volume 6: East of England, The Countryside Agency, 1999



Essex County Council, Essex Landscape Character Assessment: Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan Review, Final Report, July 2002 Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 96



East of England Regional Assembly, East of England Plan to 2031, March 2010 (Revision)



Basildon District Council, Local Plan Saved Policies document, September 2007



MAGIC (www.magic.gov.uk)



National Trust website (www.nationaltrust.org.uk)



Open Access website (www.openaccess.gov.uk)



Ordnance Survey (OS) Explorer 175: Southend-on-Sea and Basildon: Brentwood and Billericay, 1:25,000



Living Landscapes, Essex Wildlife (www.essexwt.org.uk/protecting_wildlife/living_landscapes)

Trust,

2009

Information was also obtained from the Local Authority on TPOs and Listed Buildings. Consultation has taken place with the relevant stakeholders. An informal scoping opinion was submitted to ECC Planning and Landscape officers on 18th July 2011 and a response received on the 19th July 2011 commenting on the proposed scope. A further formal scoping exercise was undertaken in early 2012 with a formal Scoping Opinion received on 27 February 2012. The comments received have been considered in this assessment. Further detailed consultation has also taken place with ECC Planning and Landscape Officers in February 2012 regarding the perimeter screening treatment being proposed particularly in relation to the northern boundary. Site surveys and visits to the surrounding area were undertaken by a chartered landscape architect in summer and winter 2011 and in spring 2012 to gain an understanding of the existing landscape character and to determine the visual amenity receptors, potential impacts and mitigation measures. This supplemented the available information collected during the desk study. 6.3.1. Landscape character Based on the Countryside Agency guidance, existing landscape character is described in a ‘hierarchy’ of assessment. The assessment starts at a national level which is now under the remit of Natural England to undertake National Character Area (NCA) assessments. These descriptions are broad scale, used as a starting point in understanding landscape character for this assessment. County and district wide assessments are the next tier that were studied and described. Based on these assessments and on the site survey, the landscape within the study area was divided into areas of similar characteristics called ‘landscape character areas’. The descriptions of these landscape character areas are intended as a design tool for development. They establish whether the proposed development is responding to its context. They also inform the development of appropriate mitigation measures. The landscape character areas were assessed for their quality based on a review and analysis of the designations outlined by Basildon District Council in their Development Plan. Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 97

Landscape quality definitions are outlined in the table below: Quality

Description

Excellent

Includes areas that exhibit a strong positive character with valued and distinct features that combine to give the experience of unity, richness and harmony. These are landscapes that are considered to be of particular importance to conserve and which may be sensitive or very sensitive to change. Includes nationally recognised areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB’s).

Very Good

Includes areas with a strong landscape structure and a balanced combination of built development, landform and land cover including woodlands, trees, hedgerows and shrubs. Several landscape designations may apply including areas designated for their heritage or landscape value.

Good

Includes areas that exhibit positive character but which may have evidence of the degradation or erosion of some features, resulting in areas of more mixed character including a balance of developments. There is a reasonable distribution of trees and shrub cover and the overall view of the area is pleasant. It is potentially sensitive to change. In general change may be detrimental if inappropriately dealt with but may require special or particular attention to detail. Landscape designations of cultural and historical value may be present.

Ordinary

Includes areas with a distinguishable structure often dominated by land use, such as primarily functional development. There are some detracting features although there is scope to improve through management of vegetation. Land may have a local landscape designation.

Poor

Includes areas generally negative in character with few if any valued features. Mixed land use dominates and the lack of management or intervention has resulted in degradation. There are extensive or detracting features, although there is scope for positive enhancement. No landscape designations apply.

Table 6.1 – Landscape Quality This table was compiled through reference to the Natural England ‘Landscape Character Assessment’ and GLVIA. In addition, the sensitivity of the landscape character areas was also assessed. The determination of sensitivity was based on the evaluation of each key element or characteristic feature of the landscape likely to be affected. This includes such factors as landscape quality, value, contribution to landscape character and the degree to which a particular element or characteristic can be replaced or substituted. The criteria used to assess the landscape sensitivity are derived from the methodology and examples as outlined in GLVIA and include:

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 98



High – important landscape components or landscapes of particularly distinctive character; likely to be subject to national or regional designations; be vulnerable to relatively minor changes.



Medium – moderately important landscape components or landscapes; often with local landscape designations; reasonably tolerant of change;



Low – relatively unimportant immature landscape elements or landscapes; could be damaged or already heavily developed; tolerant of substantial change.

6.3.2. Visual amenity Visual amenity receptors were identified within the study area and their views assessed. As with landscape character, visual amenity receptors were also described according to their sensitivity. The sensitivity of the visual receptors is dependent on the location, context and the nature of those who can view the development. The criteria used to assess the sensitivity of visual amenity receptors are derived from the methodology and examples as outlined in GLVIA and include: 

High – Occupiers of residential properties including communities.



Medium – Users of all outdoor recreational facilities including footpaths, public open space and community facilities.



Low – People at their place of work, people travelling through or past the affected landscape in cars, trains or other transport routes.



Designation of receptors, such as a Listed Building, increases the sensitivity of the receptor.

6.3.3. Impact assessment All the information collected to describe the existing conditions formed the basis against which to review the magnitude and significance of predicted impacts. Impacts on both landscape character and visual amenity, as a result of the proposed development, were assessed. The significance of the landscape character and visual amenity impacts was determined by considering the relationship between the sensitivity of the landscape and visual receptors and the magnitude or degree of change as a result of the proposed development. Impacts were described as adverse, beneficial or negligible and graded from minor to major. Impacts are described in the table below.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 99

Grade

Description

Major adverse

Will be at considerable variance to the integrity of the landscape; effects cannot be fully mitigated and may cumulatively amount to a severe impact; will cause major damage to a high quality landscape; the proposed development will form a major and immediately apparent part of the view and will affect and change its overall visual amenity.

Moderate adverse

Will be out of scale with the landscape or at odds with the local pattern and landform; will adversely affect an area of recognised landscape quality; where proposed development will form a visible and recognisable new element within the view and will be readily noticed by the observer.

Minor adverse

Will not quite fit the landform and scale of the landscape; will affect an area of recognised landscape character; where the proposed development will form a visible new, but not major, element within the view; views may be long distance.

Negligible

Will complement the scale and form of the existing landscape; will maintain existing landscape quality; where the proposed development will be scarcely appreciated and, on balance, will have little effect on views.

Minor beneficial

Will fit the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape; potential to improve the landscape quality and character; enable restoration of valued characteristic features that have been partially lost; will partially screen existing adverse views.

Moderate beneficial

Will fit the landscape character well; will improve the quality of the landscape by removal of damage caused by existing uses; will screen and improve existing adverse views.

Major beneficial

Will cause a significant improvement to the existing landscape and view.

Table 6.2 – Significance of Impacts This table was compiled through reference to GLVIA. The impacts were also assessed at significant stages during the development period. These include: 

Construction Impacts – Due to construction activity



Immediate Impacts – Immediately after completion



Residual Impacts – Post construction (after 15 years) when it is assumed that the landscape mitigation measures are in place and have had time to mature

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 100

6.3.4. Landscape character impact assessment Landscape character impacts are changes in the fabric, character and quality of the landscape as a result of the proposed development. The landscape character impact assessment considered: 

Direct or indirect impacts on acknowledged and recognised areas of interest or value, such as designated landscapes, conservation sites and sites with cultural associations



Direct impacts on specific landscape elements such as the loss of hedgerows and woodlands



Indirect impacts on the overall pattern of elements that give rise to landscape character and regional and local distinctiveness

6.3.5. Visual amenity impact assessment Visual amenity impacts are changes in views as a result of the proposed development from visual amenity receptors within the visual envelope assessed. As with landscape character impacts, any changes in view from visual amenity receptors (the viewers) were compared with the existing views of the surrounding development and infrastructure that the viewers already experience. The distance of views and the seasonal effects were also taken into account when assessing the impact. 6.4. Baseline conditions The assessment in this section provides a brief description of the existing situation or baseline conditions of the site and surrounding area, including the presence of existing land use and protected landscape designations. These conditions are taken into account in assessing the landscape quality, character and views. The landscape and visual analysis of the site is illustrated on Figure 6.3. 6.4.1. Landscape character Character is what makes landscapes distinct and gives a particular sense of place. This section involves the identification of those features or combinations of elements that contribute to the character of the landscape, thereby enabling the uniqueness of an area to be understood. Identification of character is not intended to describe the quality of the landscape. National landscape character Natural England is responsible for Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) at a national level, dividing the landscape into National Character Areas (NCAs) based on similarity of landscape character. The study area falls within NCA 111 - Northern Thames Basin. This is broadly characterised as a diverse, open plateau, regular landscape dominated by large towns and infrastructure.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 101

The Northern Thames Basin NCA consists of four sub-character areas; the proposed development site sits within the London Clay Lowlands area. The key characteristics of this area are: 

Flat, extensive tract of traditionally unproductive farmland on heavy clay soils



Ancient planned landscape of long hedgerow boundaries and rectangular fields of mainly pasture – a contrast to the more evolved landscape of the adjacent boulder clays, wooded hills and ridges, and coast



Historical dominance of elm in the shrub and tree content of hedgerows



Overall landscape pattern reflects the simple rectilinear character of the fields and hedgerows

Regional landscape character Essex County Council has prepared a comprehensive LCA which classifies the county into landscape character types, used to define local landscape character areas. The study area is classed as an urban landscape character typology. This is broadly characterised as: 

Extensive areas of urban land use which dominate the open skyline



Consisting of large areas of 20th century residential and commercial developments, usually surrounding a historic core



Distinctive, but fragmented areas of open space such as formal parks and gardens, allotments, playing fields. Urban fringe countryside of mixed land use around settlements is also common



River valleys and coastal estuaries are present



The study area is within the G3 - South Essex Coastal Towns landscape character area. This is broadly characterised as:



An area of mixed character, unified by the dominance of development, with frequent views of the urban skyline



The major urban areas are spread over gently undulating or flat land and industrial and residential edges are prominent. The urban areas are adjacent to open arable farmland. The edges are often hard and abrupt with few hedges and woodlands remaining



The landscape is separated by a complex network of major transport routes and pylons



Large expanses of farmland and extensive flat coastal grazing marshes are occasionally divided by large blocks of woodland, some of which are Ancient



The condition of the urban areas is mixed. Poor quality intrusive commercial ‘shed’ development is common within the area

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 102



The area has been subject to very significant change with massive expansion of urban areas. Urban development pressure is likely to be a significant ongoing trend

Living Landscapes, Essex Wildlife Trust, 2009 Living Landscapes are large areas of the countryside like river valleys, forested ridges, whole estuaries or diverse mosaics of grasslands, hedgerows and heaths. The vision of Living Landscapes is to bring these fragmented landscapes back to life; to work with a wide range of owners and partners so that these important areas can function as a whole so they benefit both wildlife and the people who live there. The Living Landscapes Vision has been progressed through the Essex Local Area Agreement as Local Indicator 10.1. This Agreement, which ran until July 2010, was made between the Government and Essex Partnership of public, private and third sector organisations including the Essex Wildlife Trust and the Essex Biodiversity Project. The Agreement gave a good launch to the writing of Living Landscape Statements, and Essex Wildlife Trust is continuing as the lead organisation for this project, to continue to promote the objectives on the Living Landscape Statements and encourage action on the ground. The Site sits on the edge of Character Area 32 - Nevendon Mosaic; however the detail and character of this awaits description. Detailed landscape character The site itself as part of works under the 2008 planning approval, has been cleared of vegetation, other than to the northern boundary; levelled and hoarding erected around the perimeter. As such it is of very low landscape value. Following the desk based review of the wider landscape character and setting of the proposed development area, a detailed LCA was undertaken of the immediate area based on field survey. The landscape was classified into four landscape character areas as described below. The locations of the character areas are shown on Figure 6.2. Photographs of views of the site from each of the landscape character areas are shown on Figures 6.6.1 – 6.6.8. Landscape character area 1: Courtauld Road and surrounds This urban landscape area is defined by the A127 to the north and the edge of the built environment to the west, following Rushley and Tyefields. This is a flat to gently sloping area dominated by built development and major roads including the A127, A132 and A1235 as well as Courtauld Road. The linear roads connect and separate the regular geometric built development. In areas the roads are lined by bands of native planting and semi-ornamental trees which form avenues and help to break up the dominance of the built development. Large regular industrial ‘sheds’ are focussed towards the north of this area adjacent to the A127 although there are some residential and retail developments, including some listed buildings, nestled amidst the largely industrial development. The south of the area

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 103

has a more residential character, but is still connected by a dominant network of straight roads. Within the dense, tightly packed development are a number of open areas. These include some areas of parkland, recreational space and derelict land. Some open spaces are associated with the residential areas to the south including Northlands Park and Nevendon Bushes Local Nature Reserve. Within this landscape character area is the application site. It is an open area within an otherwise densely developed landscape adjacent to the A127. The site is currently screened by 2m+ painted timber hoardings and fencing to the south, east and west, however these hoardings are only temporary in nature. This provides screening to the application site area. There remains a dense scrub and tree belt on the northern boundary, parallel to the A127, which screens views into the site other than from gaps at the point the diverted drain exits the site and at limited points to the east of the site. The vegetation is of mixed age and species and of varying quality. It covers a dip in the ground, including drainage ditch, between the A127 and the site, the site levels now being raised above existing ground levels. The Tree Survey undertaken in September 2011 (see Appendix 6.1) noted the generally poor quality of the vegetation on the northern boundary. This is a functional landscape character area of variable quality. The landscape to the west is better maintained and of higher quality than the landscape to the east. The application site, previously of poor quality, is now an open, featureless platform of fill. Overall, this is an area of ordinary to poor quality with a low sensitivity to change. Landscape character area 2: Nevendon farmland Nevendon Farmland comprises the predominantly agricultural landscape to the north of the A127, west of Nevendon. The northern extent of the area is defined by the urban edge of Wickford. This is a gently sloping agricultural landscape within the Green Belt which rises to a minor high point on the fringes of Wickford. The high point at 40m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) is marked by a telecommunications tower. The area is dominated by farmland, predominantly pasture. The large and regular fields are divided by a diverse mix of hedgerows, linear bands of trees, small copses and fencing which provide some enclosure in an otherwise expansive landscape. The area is crossed by a number of straight transport corridors including roads such as the A127 and the A132 as well as a number of minor lanes and public rights of way. These connect to the scattered farms, houses and hamlets. The houses, some of which are listed, tend to be set within their own gardens and are well integrated into the surrounding landscape. The area is crossed by a number of pylons and other power lines. These bisect the landscape and create a strong vertical linear element in an otherwise low lying, undulating landscape. Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 104

Land north of the A127, which formed part of the 2006 planning application and has subsequently been utilised as flood alleviation and an ecological mitigation site has been fenced with post and wire fencing to secure unwanted access. Overall, this is a good quality landscape with a medium sensitivity to change Landscape character area 3: Wickford urban fringes Comprising the southern urban fringe of Wickford, defined by the edge of the urban development, this is a flat to gently sloping urban landscape dominated by recent residential development. The dense residential development is bisected by major transport routes including the A132. There are pockets of commercial development, such as retail outlets, within the residential areas, generally on the junctions and the main roads. There is an abrupt contrast between the urban development to the north and the more rural landscape to the south. The boundary of the urban area is marked by a thick band of largely deciduous vegetation which screens and divides the urban development from the more open rural landscape to the south. Overall this is an ordinary quality landscape with a low sensitivity to change. Landscape character area 4: North Benfleet to Nevendon fringes Bounded by Wickford to the north and Basildon to the west, this area comprises a flat to gently sloping landscape within the Green Belt. The area has an intermittent land use of linear well spaced housing, predominantly single storey, and buildings set within their own grounds. These have been identified as “plotlands” within the local plan. This creates a distinctive semi-rural landscape pattern. The sporadic low rise development is connected by straight roads, lanes, tracks and public rights of way including the A127. The straight transport corridors reinforce the ‘gridlike’ pattern of the plotlands. Scattered within the intermittent development are a number of Listed Buildings. These are generally focused to the south. Between the built developments are regular medium sized fields divided by a mix of trimmed hedges, linear bands of trees and fencing. Small blocks of woodland are also present. This is an ordinary quality landscape with a medium sensitivity to change. 6.4.2. Visual amenity receptors The extent of the visual envelope and locations of visual amenity receptors are shown on Figure 6.4. Photographs from these viewpoints are shown on Figures 6.5.1 – 6.5.6. The surrounding large scale industrial buildings to the east and west have exposed views over the application site however the number of receptors are limited and the nature of the development is such that, whilst the massing is large, the number of viewpoints from each receptor is limited. The western boundary is buffered by the extensive Basildon Sewage Treatment Works. This together with the landform and intervening vegetation Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 105

provides a substantial buffer to views from the small wedge of housing between the sewage works, industrial units and the A132. Views over the application site from Courtauld Road are currently screened by site hoardings however it is apparent that traffic on Courtauld Road and the single storey business units on the elevated ground south of the road will have open views across the site (Viewpoint 1). Adjacent to the southeast corner of the site is the Hovefields Caravan Park site. This comprises single storey static home housing with gardens/plot area with views above the boundary fence level of the site. This residential area is the most sensitive visual receptor for the development (Viewpoint 2). Opposite the A127, to the northeast of the site the dense linear vegetation surrounding the intermittent low rise development, including the often mature garden vegetation, restricts views into the wider landscape. It was not possible to gain views to the site from publically accessible points in this area and the single storey properties with tall, dense built or vegetation boundaries around properties will screen or severely restrict views from the Nevendon ‘Plotland’ (Viewpoint 3). East of the site the landform is gently undulating forming a natural edge to the zone of visual influence approximately 1km east of the site. Immediately to the east a similar situation pertains with the industrial development on Hovefields Avenue, though there is a slightly greater arc of receptors including intermittent views from the road and the footway that links through to the A127 (Viewpoint 4). The ‘bowl’ shaped landform of the application site and surrounding industrial development of the Burnt Mills Industrial estate limits views from the southern arc to partially obscured views from the roadside developments (Viewpoint 5). Views from the north from the A127, a very busy arterial road, are restricted by the surrounding mature linear tree and shrub planting. There are potential views into the site from traffic on the A127 as it passes the site, from the footpaths either side and from the layby on the southern side. These will be most evident at the time the existing boundary vegetation is brought under management (Viewpoint 6 and 17). The existing large scale industrial buildings to the south of the road are visible above the linear vegetation (Viewpoint 7). As the road rises to the east, whilst intervening vegetation still acts as an effective screen, there will be views of development above the tree line from, in particular the garage and restaurant receptors on the east bound carriageway. Immediately north of the site, linking into the northern A127 footpath, a Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs north along the eastern bank of the stream to join the A132 as it enters Wickford. Approached from the north, the footpath quickly becomes overgrown and impenetrable with no views out. There is limited access from the south but again the footpath is lost and impenetrable at the first hedgerow. Views back are dominated by the overhead power line and substantially screened by stream-bank hedgerow and trees and by vegetation to both sides of the A127 (Viewpoint 8 and 9). The A132 connects the A127 with Wickford to the northwest of the application site. Intermittently lined with vegetation and residential properties, views into the surrounding Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 106

landscape are variable depending on local screening by garden vegetation, hedgerows and trees and shrubs in the wider landscape. Glimpses from the A132 and scattered houses to the north around Great Bromford are possible, although wider views are largely restricted by the ‘layered’ effect of the numerous lines of trimmed hedgerows in the intervening landscape. Views are either limited to first floor glimpses or not available from the properties on Old Nevendon Road between the A132 and the A127 which runs at a height above the housing as it drops down from the flyover to the A127/A132 junction (Viewpoint 10). Further north, bands of tree and shrub planting forms the boundary between the urban residential area of Wickford and the more rural landscape to the south. This vegetation combined with the linear vegetation in the wider landscape forms an effective screen. Views are restricted within the dense residential development of Wickford by the dense housing which reduces views into the wider landscape. The east west power line which parallels the A127 is dominant in most views (Viewpoint 12). To the northwest, the undulating agricultural landscape rises slightly towards a ridgeline with small rises that runs east west through Wickford and Crays Hill, screening views from the north. Scattered houses and public rights of way cross the rising undulating farmland to the west of the A132 and will have some views but these will be variable for these receptors depending on local screening by vegetation, subtle variations in landform and built development. The layering effect of numerous hedgerows within the wider landscape also limits many views (Viewpoint 13). The farmland rises to a local high point to the northwest of Doeshill Farm where exposed views over the surrounding landscape are possible, including over the site and distant industrial buildings on the fringes of Basildon. These views have public access via the footpath running north from the A132/A127 junction, through Doeshill farmyard and over the crest to drop down to join the A129 London Road on the western edge of Wickford. Similarly there are views from the footpath and bridleway running east west from the A132 along Borwick Lane before rising up hill from the Doeshill farm access to enter Crays Hill on Gardiners Lane, just at the start of the 30mph residential zone (Viewpoints 14, 15, 16 and 18). Photomontages of the site from a number of these viewpoints (from Courtauld Road, the A127 and Borwick Lane) are shown in Figures 6.6.1 to 6.6.3. 6.5. Environmental Impact Assessment 6.5.1. Key environmental effects to consider Landscape and visual effects may result from either direct (physical) or indirect (views of) changes in the landscape resources, such as site vegetation, land cover and land form as well as built features, the landscape character of the area and the existing site use. As noted under 6.4.1 above, the site itself has been cleared and levelled and as such has limited landscape value. The potential effects on landscape resources were identified as follows:

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 107



Some loss of boundary vegetation on the southern side, minimal due to realigned roundabout



Loss of existing, poor quality vegetation on the northern boundary to the A127



Planting and earthworks as part of the boundary treatment strategy



Construction of the MBT building which will be visible from views up to 2.5km away



Site activity with regular vehicle movements



Potential lighting impacts through hours of darkness.

6.5.2. External works and landscape Details of the proposed development can be found in Chapter 3 of this ES. The scheme recognises that the buildings are of a size where it would be unreasonable to expect a landscape scheme to completely screen the development, in line with the guidance provided in ‘Designing Waste Facilities – a guide to Modern |Design in Waste’ (for Defra by Enviros Consulting Ltd) (Chapter 6 – Core Design). As such the building has been designed to have a high quality visual appearance with strong architectural definition, visually linking it to the development character of the area but setting a higher standard which recognises the status of the building, the changing development pattern in the area and the importance of the A127 frontage as a gateway to Basildon. It is also important to recognise that, whilst the assessment has been undertaken solely for this development proposal, Planning Approval has already been granted for a larger and more extensive development covering land north as well as south of the A127. The landscape has been designed with 5 main objectives: 

To maintain a landscape boundary to the A127, with the retention, in part, and strengthening of the existing frontage boundary vegetation to form a hedgerow and creating and maintaining an appropriate new perimeter bund with new native tree and shrub planting to this important boundary



To screen views of low level ‘clutter’ and vehicle movements especially from the north, east and eastern end of the southern boundaries through the use of earth retaining structures and bunding



To provide an attractive educational landscape resource with public access to the main frontage



To increase biodiversity e.g. by providing ecological corridors around the site



To provide an enhanced landscape frontage to Courtauld Road



A copy of the hard landscape plan is presented in drawing PLA_025 and the planting plan in drawing PLA_027. Sections through the landscape bund are presented in drawing PLA_026.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 108

Ground works strategy Adverse visual impact from low level activities, short term storage of materials, parked vehicles, vehicle movements and pedestrians can be considerable. In large part this comes from the resultant un-coordinated colour ‘scheme’ and because the human eye naturally focuses on any movement. Screening of these factors as proposed reduces such adverse impacts whilst softening the setting of the building, framing views, breaking up the outline and blurring the junction between built form and site. Primary screening is provided by a 4m high geotextile reinforced landscaped earth bund to the north and east. This will provide initial screening, whilst vegetation matures, and long-term screening in winter views. It is recognised that in some situations a bund of this size can itself be an adverse visual impact as a result of its alien nature in the landscape. It is proposed to mitigate this for this scheme by, on the more open sides to the north and south slackening the outer face so that it appears as more of a natural rise and provides a side slope that can be planted with trees and shrubs (the internal face will be vegetated with low maintenance climbers or native seed mix): 

To the A127, this will abut the side walls of the bio-filter, allowing the external sloping face to rise up to the side wall of the filter building, allowing new vegetation to screen the upper part of the concrete wall and climbers to further screen this and the roof.



To the Courtauld Road frontage the bund will run into the building at the point the internal service ramp starts to rise up, screening this and providing a green platform for the building to sit on.



Along the eastern boundary the bund narrows to a steeply angled profile on both sides. This allows tree planting to be set further back from the boundary to the caravan site, meeting one of their key requirements to minimise tree overhang and leaf drop from the site whilst at the same time providing visual screening. New garden fencing will screen very low level views where required to the residential properties.



On the south west corner of the site the batter to the Reception Hall makes a smooth transition through to the side slopes of the attenuation lagoon, leaving a generally flat, open aspect at ground level visually linking through from the road and focusing on the reception building.

6.5.3. Landscape strategy The soft landscape strategy has three main elements: Firstly, to the north and east boundaries the soft landscape is designed to assist in screening the building and bund and to provide a soft frontage to the development in views in. The planting scheme is based on a local native provenance tree and shrub mix with grass sward seeded and managed to promote wildflower value. The promotion of linear rows of poplars along the A127 frontage will extend the locally distinctive vertical, prominent vegetation and enhance valuable visual screening. Retention of the existing A127 boundary vegetation will provide important screening during construction and Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 109

retention of the vegetation to the highway edge will form a boundary hedgerow providing ‘day 1’ impact and maturity in front of new planting to the bund, whilst proactive management and interplanting will provide for long-term retention of this valuable asset. Along the eastern boundary planting will follow similar principles but lower shrub with occasional specimen trees and areas of wildflower sward will balance the potentially conflicting aims of screening the building and service yard in views from the caravan park and Courtauld Road, whilst ensuring the properties on the boundary of the caravan park are not overshadowed. Secondly, the southern frontage to Courtauld Road transitions from the natural style of the eastern boundary to a more parkland setting, more in keeping with the existing style of the existing estate landscape and creating a visitor-friendly approach to the Visitor and Education Centre. The avenue trees approach is extended and a greater emphasis on specimen trees and grassland. The landscape will provide a recreational and educational resource for visitors whilst creating a prestigious approach to the development Thirdly, the area fronting the Processing Hall and Visitor and Education Centre will provide landscape mitigation, with these elements of the building designed to a high visual quality in themselves. The western end of the Maturation Hall will benefit from well established existing screening to the wider retained belt fronting the A127, from the large PMS International building and to the west from tree and shrub planting on Courtauld Road. In the following sections the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme are identified for the construction and operational phases and assessed first without mitigation and then with mitigation, summarising any residual impacts. The assessment outcomes are summarised in tables 6.3, for construction, and table 6.4 for the operational phase and described more fully within the text of the report.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 110

6.5.4. Construction impacts Description of impact

Significance before mitigation

Mitigation specification

Significance of residual impact

Movement of plant and vehicles, in particular taller machinery such as cranes

Minor –ve to Negligible, I, T

NA

Minor –ve Negligible

to

T Lighting required when working during hours of darkness in winter months and for site security at night

Minor –ve,

Encroachment on Green Belt / Intensification of industrial activity

Negligible

Planting and Negligible earthworks to screen / enhance views

Landscape planting scheme and boundary enhancements

Negligible

Incorporate into Minor +ve scheme proposals D,P

Visibility of large new structure

Negligible

High quality Negligible design and sensitive boundary treatment

I, T

Workday restrictions

Negligible

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive;

-ve = negative

D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 6.3 – Summary of landscape & visual effects during construction Impacts on landscape designations Construction activity will indirectly impact on the Green Belt primary through movement of plant and other vehicles, including taller machinery such as cranes and any required lighting. These activities will be viewed in the context of the surrounding development and industrial activities. Impacts will be negligible. The proposed development will be screened by landform and intervening vegetation in views from receptors in the ‘plotlands’ within the Green Belt during construction and operational phases. Impacts will be negligible.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 111

The proposed development will not affect Nevendon Bushes Local Nature Reserve during construction or operational phases. Impacts will be negligible. The proposed development will not affect the Listed Buildings during construction or operational phases. Impacts will be negligible. Impacts on landscape features There will be no or very limited direct impacts on landscape features as a result of the proposed development. Site clearance and engineering works have left a levelled area, free of vegetation other than along the A127 boundary. There may be very minor loss of existing grassland verge in order to construct the new roundabout. This will have a negligible impact on landscape features. Impacts on landscape character areas The impact on the local landscape character areas will be minimal. The construction activity will be viewed as part of the wider industrial facilities to the east, south and west. It will be contained both physically and visually by the A127. The introduction of large built elements will ‘fit’ in with and be in keeping with the character of the area. Impacts will be minor adverse to negligible. Impacts on visual amenity Due to the scale and location of the proposed development construction activities will be visible on both immediate surrounding receptors including the adjacent sewage works, industrial buildings as well as from the wider visual envelope. These activities will be viewed in the context of the surrounding development and industrial activities. As such it will be comparable to the existing conditions. Impacts will be minor adverse to negligible. In consideration to the proximity of the development to the Hovefields Caravan Park site and nature of the proposals, development of the site may potentially impact on views from the caravan park once construction reaches above the level of the existing garden fences. Though the residential properties are considered to be highly sensitive receptors, the development will be in keeping with the wider industrial nature of the area. Impacts will be minor adverse. Retention of all the A127 boundary vegetation for as long as possible during construction will provide an element of visual screening in views from the Green Belt. This will be maintained to a significant degree by the long term retention of vegetation as managed hedgerow.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 112

6.5.5. Operational Impacts Description of impact

Significance before mitigation

Mitigation specification

Significance of residual impac

Encroachment on Green Belt / Intensification Negligible of industrial activity

Planting and Negligible earthworks to screen / enhance views

Landscape planting scheme and boundary Negligible enhancements

Incorporate into Minor +ve scheme proposals D, P

Visibility of large new structure

High quality Negligible design and sensitive boundary treatment

Negligible

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive; -ve = negative D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 6.4 – summary of landscape & visual effects during operation Impacts on landscape relevant designations The proposed built development to the south of the A127 will indirectly impact on the Green Belt through the increased perception of development. The proposed built development will be viewed in the context of the surrounding development, particularly the large, white mass of the PMS International Group building to the west; the strong lines of the overhead power lines; the lit, 4-lane A127, existing boundary vegetation to the A127 and new earth bunding and new planting. As such it will be comparable to the existing conditions. Impacts will be negligible. Impacts on landscape features The proposed development incorporates landscape proposals, with a comprehensive boundary treatment strategy. Over time the proposed planting and earthworks to the site boundary will establish to enhance the existing streetscape; on day one the proposed development will consist of young planting and therefore the building will be visually dominant and comparable to the existing conditions. Impacts will be negligible.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 113

Impacts on landscape character areas The impact on the Courtauld Road and surrounding landscape character area will be minimal. An increase in vehicle traffic is anticipated, however the proposed development and activity will be viewed as part of the wider industrial facilities to the east, south and west. It will be contained both physically and visually by the A127, as shown on the photomontages. The introduction of large built elements will ‘fit’ in with and be in keeping with the character of the area. In addition, the new entrance and approach will promote and enhance the quality of the industrial area. Impacts will be minor beneficial. The proposed development will be perceived as part of the wider industrial buildings from the Nevendon Farmland landscape character area. It will be viewed as one development amidst many similar types visible above the linear vegetation lining the A127 and within the surrounding agricultural landscape. Impacts will be negligible. The combination of the density of the built form, screening provided on the urban fringes and the layered effect of numerous hedgerows, field boundaries and intermittent properties ensures the proposed development will not affect the Wickford Urban Fringes landscape character area. Impacts will be negligible. The combination of existing low rise development, linear bands of hedgerows and the screening within the wider landscape ensures the proposed development will not affect the North Benfleet to Nevendon Fringes landscape character area. Impacts will be negligible. Impacts on visual amenity Due to the scale and location of the proposed development it will be visible from the immediate surrounding visual receptors including the adjacent sewage works, industrial buildings and Hovefields Caravan Park site. In consideration to the proximity of the development and nature of the proposals, the development will potentially impact on views from the caravan park, above the level of the existing garden fences, due to the structure of the new building, though vehicle movements and operational activities will be screened by the perimeter bund and planting. Though the residential properties are considered to be highly sensitive receptors, the development will be in keeping with the wider industrial character of the area and the scheme proposals incorporate boundary treatment works to provide a ‘soft’ frontage and mitigate impacts from operational activities. A number of meetings have been held with the residents of the caravan park and the design developed to reflect their requirements, for example through the omission of tree planting along this section of the boundary. Immediate impacts will be minor adverse, decreasing to negligible over time as the landscape enhancements establish. The proposed development will be visible from Courtauld Road and business/industrial properties along it. These are considered to be low sensitivity receptors and views will be perceived as similar to the views of the surrounding development. Site operations and activities will have cumulative effects. Impacts will be negligible. Views of the proposed development will also be possible from the low sensitivity A127 users. These visual receptors will experience only a very brief period of exposure to the Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 114

view. The road corridor is currently visually dominated by the existing industrial and mixed development to the east and west of the proposed development site, in particular the adjacent sewage works off Hovefields Avenue to the east of site and the prominent PMS International building to the west. The proposed development will increase the dominance of large scale industrial units; however views will be similar to the surrounding developments and new planting together with bring existing vegetation under hedgerow management will improve the local character. Impacts will be initially minor adverse becoming negligible. Views of the proposed development will also be possible from the moderately sensitive users of the public rights of way which cross the flat farmland immediately to the north and broadly parallel to the A127. Impacts will be minor adverse. Views from the transport corridors including roads and public rights of way to the north, east and west will be variable. Views will vary depending on the screening provided by the surrounding hedgerows and linear vegetation, subtle variations in landform as well as intermittent development in the wider landscape. To the north, glimpsed views over the proposed development will be possible from the A132, from public rights of way and from the scattered largely detached properties along this busy road. Impacts will be minor adverse. To the northeast, views from the public right of way and the fringes of Nevendon will be largely limited by the hedgerow and linear vegetation lining the A127. Views of the built development will be possible. Impacts will be minor adverse. To the northwest, as the landform gradually begins to rise, elevated but distant views will be possible from the scattered residential properties and public rights of way. Views will be possible over the proposed development, only partially screened by the surrounding linear, layered vegetation. Views of the proposed development will be perceived as one development amidst many other similar types. Impacts will be negligible. 6.6. Mitigation The assessment has identified some impacts which could have a minor adverse impact if the development did not contain measures to remove or reduce these impacts. The proposed mitigation measures focus on the following aims. 

Reduction of impacts on landscape character and visual amenity receptors.



Preservation and enhancement of existing areas and features of good quality and high landscape value. Proposed development will respect the surrounding landscape.



Promotion of high quality design to create attractive and sustainable communities which builds on an appreciation of context and is sympathetic to the wider environment.



Strengthening of physical and visual links with the proposed development and the wider landscape.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 115



Reducing views of low-level movement and storage through bunding.



The following mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the proposals:



As agreed in meetings with the Waste Planning Authority (10th February 2012), retention of some existing vegetation along the A127 boundary as a managed hedgerow with hedgerow trees; with further extent of this vegetation retained as a temporary measure to provide screening of construction works until such time as the land is needed for construction.



New native tree and shrub planting along the A127 and along the eastern and western boundaries to supplement and including the diversity of vegetation. Poplar, oak, willow and ash will be planted as tree species



Ornamental planting and hard landscapes to the south of the proposed development, particularly around the entrance to and along Courtauld Road. This will promote a prestigious approach, entrance and feature to the built development



Lighting adjacent to A127 will be carefully designed to avoid light spill on the wider rural landscape character to the north



Bunding and landscaping to the eastern boundary will mitigate visual impact on adjoining occupiers



Lighting adjacent to Hovefields Caravan Park site will be designed to avoid light spill. Where possible lights will be dimmed or turned off during night time hours. 6.7. Residual effects

The maturing of the tree and shrub vegetation on the boundaries will help reduce and limit views of the proposed development from the surrounding visual amenity receptors. To the south of the A127, views from the immediate industrial development and Courtauld Road will be improved through the development of the application site. Impacts will be minor beneficial. Views from the north of the A127 will be limited. The built development to the south of the A127 will be visible in many views. It will however be perceived as part of the surrounding industrial development. Impacts will be negligible. 6.8. Cumulative effects Land immediately to the west of the application site, within the boundary of the existing planning permission for a waste management facility, has been identified for a potential biowaste treatment facility. There is also currently an application for a gun and pistol club development fronting onto Courtauld Road, adjacent to the site, which could potentially contribute to cumulative effects. Due to the Green Belt status of the land to the north of the A127 it is considered unlikely that any major development will be proposed within this area. As such, whilst the Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 116

cumulative impacts of the proposed development and potential Biowaste facility will be an intensification of the industrial character of the area, with particular visual impact on road users on the A127 and Courtauld Road, the developments are contained by the existing industrial development to the south, east and west. The developments will not cause any further encroachment into the rural landscape character. Impacts are anticipated to be negligible, with the potential for beneficial effects through appropriate boundary treatments. 6.9. Conclusions Following the 2008 planning approval, the application site has recently undergone intensive enabling works to ready it for development. The site now comprises a level and cleared development plateau of poor residual landscape and visual quality. The proposed development therefore will make a considerable improvement to the landscape and visual quality of the site through the quality of the building, of the landscape and through the ground modelling which will screen operational activity and vehicle movements outside the building. The views from the surrounding visual amenity receptors are dominated by the industrial development to the south of the A127.To the north of the A127, views over the sloping agricultural landscape are influenced by built development including roads, urban fringes and pylons. Whilst the proposed development will impact on both landscape character and visual amenity receptors; the implementation of the mitigation measures including bunding, planting on the boundaries and within the proposed development will reduce the impacts to minor or negligible. The proposed development is set within an industrial landscape and will be perceived as part of this development matrix. In line with guidance, the landscape treatment does not seek to fully screen the building, rather to provide a strong framework against which the design quality of the building will be seen. Retention of some existing vegetation to the A127 boundary will provide initial landscape screening, retain some of the existing biodiversity, and create a framework for the new landscape treatment; enhancing the quality of this important boundary. The treatment to Courtauld Road will provide positive benefits in the improvement of the landscape and visual quality of the frontage, providing a level of traffic calming and pedestrian safety and creating new, publically accessible landscape with a strong educational intent. Photomontages (Figures 6.6.1 to 6.6.3) have been prepared from selected viewpoints to illustrate the extent of the potential visibility of the development from the immediate area, from receptors further to the north and shows the efficacy of the proposed landscape mitigation measures and the quality of the building design within the surrounding development. These photomontages support the conclusions of the landscape and visual impact assessment.

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 117

Description of impact

Significance of Mitigation effects before specification mitigation

Significance of residual effects

Movement of plant and vehicles, in particular taller machinery such as cranes

Minor –ve to Negligible, I, T

Minor –ve to Negligible

NA

T Lighting required when working during hours of darkness in winter months and for site security at night

Minor –ve,

Encroachment on Green Belt / Intensification of industrial activity

Negligible

I, T

Workday restrictions

Negligible

Planting and earthworks to screen / enhance views

Negligible

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive; -ve = negative D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 6.3 – Summary of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment effects during construction

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 118

Description of impact

Significance of Mitigation effects before specification mitigation

Significance of residual effects

Encroachment on Green Belt / Intensification Negligible of industrial activity

Planting and earthworks to screen / enhance views

Negligible

Visibility of large new structure

High quality design and sensitive boundary treatment

Negligible

Negligible

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive; -ve = negative D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 6.4 – summary of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment effects during operation

Environmental statement Chapter 6 – Landscape and Visual Impact Page 119

7.0

Water and flood risk

Summary of Assessment: 

Discussions with the Environment Agency suggest that the site is now located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore at a low risk of flooding.



Groundwater is not considered a receptor at this site due to the low permeability of the London Clay and Head deposits underlying the site and is not investigated further within this impact assessment.



There are no environmentally sensitive water related designated sites within 2km of the development which could be impacted by the proposed scheme.



The Nevendon Bushes Brook is the principal receptor and is located some way from the site’s western boundary.



Without mitigation the significance of potential surface water impacts during the construction without mitigation is slight adverse. Mitigation such as good construction practice and the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance measures will be implemented.



During operation there will be a neutral to slight beneficial impact from the proposed development due to the treatment of surface water run-off within the surface water drainage scheme.

 7.1. Introduction Built development has the potential to impact local groundwater and surface water flow and quality during both the construction and operational phases. This chapter has been prepared to: 

Identify the key issues with respect to the water environment as a result of the development.



Identify potential mitigation measures to ensure there is no significant impact from the development on the water environment.

A review of current water resources forms the basis against which impacts associated with the development will be assessed. The proposed development is explained in detail in Chapter 3 of this ES.

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 120

7.2. Regulatory, planning and policy context This assessment has been prepared taking into account the statutory and non-statutory guidance set out in national, regional and local plans. 7.2.1. National planning policy guidance National policies of relevance include the National Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)2. This sets out guidance on how flood risk should be considered at all stages of the planning and development process in order to reduce future damage to property and loss of life. Planning policy with respect to the contamination of land and pollution control is considered within Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23)3. Appendix A of PPS23 identifies matters that require consideration in the preparation of Development Plans and in decisions on individual planning applications; those of relevance to the water environment are: 

The potential sensitivity of the area to adverse effects from pollution, in particular reflected in… surface waters..., water supply…and the need to protect natural resources.



The need for compliance with any statutory environmental quality standards or objectives (including…the water quality objectives prescribed in EU legislation including the 1991 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones identified under the 1991 Nitrates Directive).



The possible adverse impacts on water quality and the impact of any possible discharge of effluent or leachates which may pose a threat to surface or underground water resources directly or indirectly through surrounding soils.



Existing action and management plans with a bearing on environmental quality including: River Basin Management Plans (Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC), Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (prepared by the Environment Agency), Catchment Flood Management Plans (prepared by the Environment Agency).

With respect to pollution control and the planning system, PPS23 makes the following statement: ‘The planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary… The planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves. Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it’. 2 3

Environment Agency, 2010, Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23)

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 121

7.2.2. Regional planning policy guidance The East of England Regional Assembly published a draft revision of the current Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), The East of England Plan (May 2008) in March 2010. It covers the county and unitary authorities of Bedford, Cambridgeshire, Central Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Luton, Norfolk, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea, Suffolk and Thurrock. The revised plan sets out the vision and strategic framework for growth to 2031. The over-riding aim of the RSS is to promote the region’s economic potential and provide a high quality of life for its people and at the same time it will reduce its impact on climate change and the environment and strengthen its stock of environmental assets. Policy WAT3 for Integrated Water Management suggests that the Environment Agency and water industry should work with local authorities and other partners to develop an integrated approach to the management of the water environment. Policy ENV4 for Agriculture, Land and Soils aims to encourage more sustainable use of water resources through winter storage schemes and new wetland creation. Policy WAT4 relates to flood risk which prioritises defending existing properties from flooding and locating new developments where there is little or no risk of flooding. This should be assessed through Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and policies to identify and protect flood plains from development. The policy also requires that sustainable drainage systems are incorporated in all appropriate developments. 7.2.3. Local planning policy guidance The current local planning policy is laid down in the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan and Basildon Council's Local Plan Saved Policies. Policy W4A of the Waste Local Plan seeks the protection of surface and ground waters and states Waste Management Development will only be permitted where: 

There would not be an unacceptable risk of flooding on site or elsewhere as a result of impediment to the flow or storage of surface water;



There would not be an adverse effect on the water environment as a result of surface water runoff;



Existing and proposed flood defences are protected and there is no interference with the ability of responsible bodies to carry out flood defence works and maintenance.

Policy W4B of the Plan states Waste Management Development will only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwaters or of impediment to groundwater flow. This assessment has been prepared taking into account the statutory and non-statutory guidance set out in national, regional and local plans.

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 122

7.2.4. Local planning policy guidance The current local planning policy is laid down in the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan and Basildon Council's Local Plan Saved Policies. Policy W4A of the Waste Local Plan seeks the protection of surface and ground waters and states Waste Management Development will only be permitted where: There would not be an unacceptable risk of flooding on site or elsewhere as a result of impediment to the flow or storage of surface water; There would not be an adverse effect on the water environment as a result of surface water runoff; Existing and proposed flood defences are protected and there is no interference with the ability of responsible bodies to carry out flood defence works and maintenance. Policy W4B of the Plan states Waste Management Development will only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and groundwaters or of impediment to groundwater flow. 7.3. Assessment methodology Owing to the nature of the proposed development the potential impacts on local water bodies, watercourses and groundwater have been assessed. This report forms the basis of this assessment by: 

Identifying the existing surface water and groundwater baseline conditions;



Consulting with the Environment Agency to determine any potential environmental objections the Environment Agency may have to the proposed scheme;



Identifying potential risks in terms of flooding;



Identifying potential impacts with respect to the water environment and resources, in terms of both construction and operation of the scheme.

When assessing the impacts in terms of water quality the assessment is based on a source-pathway-receptor methodology. The principles of such an assessment are detailed in the Defra 2000, Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, and it utilises the “connection between the source (of the hazard), the pathway, the receptor, and the impact. It is important that connectivity or potential connectivity between these four components can be shown. If any of these components is missing then the risk assessment need go no further.” In addition to this, the assessment criteria have been used based on the methodology for appraising the impact of projects (plan level appraisal) set out in the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.3.64 and the specific

4

The Water Environment Sub-Objectives, Tag Unit 3.3.6, June 2003, Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guide (TAG) Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 123

guidance for the water environment sub-objective set out in TAG Unit 3.3.115. Although this methodology has been developed for the assessment of transport projects, it can be used to assess the impacts of other developments such as this proposed development. The methodology takes into account the importance, magnitude and significance of predicted impacts on the water environment. Importance is based on the value of the feature or resource (See Table 7.1), where the magnitude of a potential impact is estimated based on the likely effects and is independent of the importance of the feature (Table 7.2). The severity of a specific potential effect is then derived by considering both the importance and sensitivity of the feature and the magnitude of the impact (impacts must be quantified where possible, also estimating the change from the baseline conditions and the range of uncertainty). The significance of the impacts must be identified. This has been addressed in the derivation of significance of potential effects in Table 7.3 as a function of the sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of impact.

5

The Water Environment Sub-Objectives, Tag Unit 3.3.11, June 2003, Department for Transport, Transport Analysis Guide (TAG)

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 124

Importance

Criteria

Examples EC Designated Salmonid/Cyprinid fishery, WFD Class ‘High’, Site protected/designated under EC or UK habitat legislation/ Species protected by EC legislation

Very High

Attribute with a high quality and rarity, regional or Principal aquifer providing a regionally important resource national scale and limited or supporting site protected under EC and UK habitat potential for substitution legislation or SPZ1 Floodplain or defence protecting more than 100 residential properties from flooding

High

Medium

Low

Attribute with a high quality and rarity, local scale and limited potential for substitution attribute with a medium quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution

WFD Class ‘Good’, Major Cyprinid Fishery, Species protected under EC or UK habitat legislation

Attribute with a medium quality and rarity, local scale and limited potential for substitution attribute with a low quality and rarity, regional or national scale and limited potential for substitution

WFD Class ‘Moderate’

Principal aquifer providing locally important resource or supporting river ecosystem or SPZ2 Floodplain or defence protecting between 1 and 100 residential properties or industrial premises from flooding

Aquifer providing water for agricultural or industrial use with limited connection to surface water or SPZ3 Floodplain or defence protecting 10 or fewer industrial properties from flooding

WFD Class ‘Poor’ Attribute with a low quality and rarity, local scale and Unproductive strata limited potential for Floodplain with limited constraints and a low probability of substitution flooding of residential and industrial properties

Table 7.1 – Importance of water feature or resource

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 125

Magnitude

Criteria

Examples Compliance failure with EQS values

Major

Loss or extensive change to a fishery Results in loss of attribute Loss or extensive change to a designated Nature and/or quality and integrity Conservation Site of the attribute Loss of, or extensive change to, an aquifer Increase in peak flood level >100mm Partial loss in productivity of a fishery

Moderate

Results in impact on Partial loss or change to an aquifer integrity of attribute or loss Potential medium risk of pollution to groundwater of part of attribute Increase in peak flood level >50mm

Minor

Results in some Measurable changes in attribute, but of limited size and/or measurable change in proportion attributes quality or Increase in peak flood level>10mm vulnerability The proposed scheme is unlikely to affect the integrity of the water environment

Negligible

Results in impact on Discharges to watercourse but no significant loss in attribute, but of insufficient quality, fishery productivity or biodiversity magnitude to affect the use No significant impact on the features economic value or integrity No measurable impact upon an aquifer Negligible change in peak flood level <10mm

Table 7.2 – Magnitude of potential impacts

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 126

Magnitude of Importance / Sensitivity of Attribute Potential Impact Very High High

Medium

Low

Major

Very Large

Large/Very Large

Large

Slight/Moderate

Moderate

Large/Very Large

Moderate/Large

Moderate

Slight

Minor

Moderate/Large

Slight/Moderate

Slight

Neutral

Negligible

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Table 7.3 – Derivation of significance of potential effects In applying this methodology, significant effects would be those of slight significance or above. Effects of neutral significance are termed insignificant. If an adverse significant effect is identified, whether it is of slight, moderate, large or very large significance, then mitigation measures will be identified to reduce or mitigate this effect. When beneficial effects are identified, then opportunities for further environmental enhancement can be considered. 7.4. Baseline conditions This section details the environmental site setting information for the site and surrounding area and identifies the receptors and resources that could be impacted by this scheme. 7.4.1. Study area A topographical survey was carried out by McKenzie Geospatial Surveys Limited in January 2011, this shows that the land raise activities have left the site with an elevation of approximately 12m AOD. 7.4.2. Data collection The following information was collected for the production of this chapter: 

Envirocheck Report, 2011 (Ref: 35707953_1_1);



British Geology Survey (BGS) Geology Mapping;



Details of the proposed development;



Aquifer Vulnerability and Source Protection Zones;



Topography of the ground levels at the proposed development site;



Brand Leonard, May 2005, Flood Risk Assessment.

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 127

7.4.3. Geology The Envirocheck Geological Report6 utilises the British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 Scale Geological Map Sheet 258 ‘Southend and Foulness’ (Solid and Drift). The natural geology of the local area comprises the London Clay Formation of Eocene age. This stratum is described as a fine, sandy, silty clay which is glauconitic at its base. Superficial deposits are recorded as overlying half of the site and consist of Quaternary Head deposits. These are polymict deposits comprising gravel, sand and clay. The deposits are generally poorly sorted and stratified, formed mostly by solifluction and/or hillwash and soil creep. As part of the planning conditions for the existing permission the site was required to be partially raised to a specific level (above 11.58m) to reduce flood risk. Approximately 155,000m3 of inert material has been used to raise the site and the development platform has been levelled at approximately 12m AOD. The imported material generally comprised ‘soft to stiff yellow brown, brown grey and brown slightly sandy, slightly gravelly clay and locally silty clay’. The gravel fraction consisted of brick, concrete, flint and chalk, with rare cobbles. 7.4.4. Hydrogeology The clays of the London Clay Formation are considered ‘Unproductive Strata’ by the Environment Agency7. This is defined by the Environment Agency as ‘rock layers or drift deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow’. The superficial Head deposits are classified as a ‘Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifer’. This is defined by the Environment Agency ‘where it has not been possible to attribute either category A or B to a rock type and in most cases, this means that the layer in question has previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifer in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type’. The Envirocheck report states that the soils in the area are unclassified on the groundwater vulnerability map (Sheet 40 Thames Estuary 1:100,000), which covers the site and the surrounding area. There are no Source Protection Zones within the vicinity of the site. The closest Source Protection Zone (Zone III) is located approximately 12.5km to the south west of the site and is associated with an abstraction at Linford. The Envirocheck Report identifies no current groundwater abstraction licenses within 1km of the site.

6

Landmark Information Group, August 2011. Envirocheck Geological Report (Ref: 35707953_1_1) May Gurney, November 2010, Final Factual Report: Courtauld Road, Report No. SI1651 http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk 7

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 128

7.4.5. Hydrology The proposed development area is located within the catchment of the River Crouch and is located close to the newly diverted water course (the Nevendon Bushes Brook). The water course historically flowed through the application site from its southerly corner in a north-easterly direction. The water course has been diverted to the west of the application site boundary to enable the development of the application site. This work was carried out under the existing permission. Within the vicinity of the site the Jolly Cricketer’s Ditch flows into the Nevendon Bushes Brook to the south west of the development site at NGR TQ 7370 9059. The Nevendon Bushes Brook then flows to join the River Crouch at the A132 and A129 roundabout approximately 2.4km north of the site at NGR TQ 7479 9330. There are a number of small water courses which flow into the Nevendon Bushes Brook and the River Crouch in the vicinity of the site. The site, prior to raising, was an integral part of the drainage strategy for Basildon as well as protecting the downstream town of Wickford from flooding. The site was used as “washland” and used to provide the associated storage. This washland has been relocated to the area to the north of the development site and A127 and will be managed as a privately owned nature reserve. 7.4.6. Flood risk A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out for the site and is included in Appendix 7.1. While the flood map produced by the Environment Agency shows the site to be located within Flood Zone 3 the previous hydraulic modelling to assess the impact of the diversion works for the Nevendon Bushes Brook and the construction of the development plateau to levels of approximately 12m AOD shows the site to be out of Flood Zone 3. Historical discussions with the Environment Agency suggest that the site is now located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore at low risk of flooding. The Basildon Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (BBCSFRA)8 has been reviewed for the FRA and it suggests that the relocation of the washland to the north of the A127 has now enabled the proposed site to be suitable for development in relation to flood risk. 7.4.7. Existing drainage system There are currently no existing surface water drainage arrangements for the site. The site has been categorised as Greenfield in terms of the hydrology assessment (this is the surface water runoff regime from a site before development, or the existing site conditions for brownfield redevelopment sites) and has historically been used for agriculture purposes as well as a managed flood plain by the Environment Agency.

8

Basildon Borough Council, June 2011, Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 129

The only surface water drainage within the vicinity of the site is highway drainage which discharges to local ditches. There is a network of ditches draining this relatively flat area to the north of the A127. The site lies to the east of an existing foul sewage treatment plant with a rising main running eastwards across the site. 7.4.8. Surface water quality The Environment Agency monitors the water quality for the River Crouch between Outwood Common Brook and immediately downstream of the Nevendon Bushes Brook tributary. The monitoring data are summarised in Table 7.4. Chemistry

Biology

Nitrates

Phosphates

Year

C (Fairly Good)

-

4 (Moderate)

6 (Excessively High)

2009

Table 7.4 – Environment Agency’s River Crouch water quality monitoring data Two surface water abstractions have been noted within the Envirocheck report and these are from a) Basildon Water Mill upstream along the Nevendon Bushes Brook and b) the North Benfleet Brook at Sappers Farm. The Nevendon extraction is located approximately 1.6km to the south west of the site however no other details are supplied and the North Benfleet Brook abstraction 1.8km east of the site is used as top up water. 7.4.9. Designated sites There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar designated sites or Local and National Nature Reserves within 2km of the proposed development9. 7.4.10. Water related receptors The baseline review identified a single receptor in the area surrounding the site and this is detailed in Table 7.5. Due to the designation of the London Clay and Head deposits as unproductive strata and secondary undifferentiated aquifer respectively and the low permeability of such ground conditions, groundwater is not considered a receptor at this site and is not investigated further within this impact assessment.

9

http://www.magic.gov.uk/

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 130

Receptor

Receptor Type

Direction from the Importance Site

Nevendon Bushes Brook

Surface Water

west

Medium

Table 7.5 – Receptors in the area surrounding the site 7.5. Environmental Impact Assessment The proposed development and site baseline conditions detailed in Section 7.4 have been used in this environmental assessment. The assessment methodology included in Section 7.3 has been followed to complete the environmental assessment to identify the significance of the impacts of the development on the water environment. The proposed development could have the potential for the deliberate or accidental discharge of polluting material into controlled waters which is an offence under the Water Resource Act 199110 if undertaken without consent and could lead to major adverse impacts without mitigation. The proposed development creates the potential for a change to the volume of water contributing to run-off and potential increased surface water pollution. The effect the development may have during construction and operation has been considered within the following sections. 7.5.1. Construction effects The construction of the proposed development creates the potential for increased run-off and subsequent pollution. The effect during the construction phase has been considered with respect to surface water. Surface water quality: construction period The surface water receptor for this development is the Nevendon Bushes Brook adjacent to the site. Construction materials could pose a potential surface water quality risk should they become entrained in the surface water flow and discharged to the local water course. An increase in the volume of sediment within the Nevendon Bushes Brook and surface water run-off may occur due to excavation and construction works. The magnitude of impacts associated with contamination or sediment introduction to the Nevendon Bushes Brook from run-off during the construction is considered to be “Minor” due to the location of the water course and material present on site.

10

Office of Public Sector Information, Water Resources Act 1991

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 131



The significance of the potential impacts to surface water quality from the proposed development, during construction, were identified as slight negative and so mitigation measures will be implemented.

Flood risk: construction period As detailed in the FRA included in Appendix 7.1 and Flood Risk Section (7.4.6) the site is raised above the 0.1% annual probability flood plain. The FRA identifies that the site is at low risk of fluvial, groundwater, infrastructure or sewer flooding. Pluvial flood risk is detailed in the surface water flow section below. 

Therefore, without mitigation the significance of the potential impacts to surface water flow as a result of the proposed development were identified as neutral significance during the construction phase.

Surface water flow: construction period The hydrology of the receiving water bodies and watercourses are unlikely to be affected by the change to the impermeable surfaces at the site due to the current impermeable nature of the local geology and therefore the magnitude of impact is considered “Negligible”. 

Therefore, without mitigation the significance of the potential impacts to surface water flow as a result of the proposed development were identified as neutral significance during the construction phase.

7.5.2. Operational effects The effect that the proposed Facility may have during operation on the surrounding surface water environment in terms of quality and flow has been addressed in this section. Surface water quality: operational period The operation of the Facility has the potential to impact surface water quality from pollutants collected in run-off. However the processing of the waste on site would be carried out within the proposed on-site structures and therefore any potential contamination from the waste materials would be removed through the internal drainage systems and discharged to the sewer through the foul drainage network. An indicative drainage layout can be found in Figure 3. Potential contamination of run-off external to the buildings may include heavy metals, suspended solids and organics derived from vehicle movements and wear, oil and dust suppression. This contamination could lead to longer-term problems and impact on existing uses of the local surface water bodies for amenity, water abstraction and habitats. Mitigation measures built into the design of the Facility ensures that run-off entering the surface water drainage system will pass through an oil interceptor, silt traps and attenuation pond before leaving the site. Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 132

The magnitude of change to surface water quality from the proposed development is considered to be “Negligible” with the implementation of the surface water drainage system. 

Therefore the significance of the potential effects on surface water quality as a result of the proposed development is identified as having a neutral significance during the operational phase.

Flood risk: operational period As detailed in the FRA included in Appendix 7.1 and Flood Risk Section (7.4.7) the site is raised above the 0.1% annual probability flood plain. The FRA identifies that the site is at low risk of fluvial, groundwater, infrastructure or sewer flooding. Pluvial flood risk is detailed in the surface water flow section below. 

Therefore the significance of the potential effects on flood risk as a result of the proposed development is identified as neutral significance during the operational phase.

Surface water flow: operational period PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk identifies that the issue of flooding is not confined solely to the floodplain and as a consequence of this the alteration of natural surface water flow patterns during and after development can lead to knock-on effects elsewhere within the catchment, most notably downstream. An example of such would be the replacement of previously vegetated areas with roofs, roads and other paved areas. This change in land use can increase the total and peak flow of surface water run-off from a development site. In addition where development is occurring on previously developed land the current drainage system may not have the capacity to contain this additional runoff. It is recognised that the development of sites may lead to increased run-off as permeable and/or vegetated surfaces are replaced with impermeable surfaces which incorporate drainage designed to remove water rapidly. This may lead to increased risk of flooding and increased flood magnitude downstream of the development. In order to reduce the impact of development upon the rate and volume of run-off Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can be used to manage surface water and replicate, as far as possible natural run-off rates as per the PPS25 Guidance. The site is currently classed as Greenfield in hydrology terms and the proposed development will increase the impermeable area significantly. Although this effect is reduced due to existing ground conditions, the volume of run-off is likely to increase significantly. Therefore the proposed surface water drainage system has been developed to ensure: 

No flooding occurs in a 1 in 30 year design storm;



Flooding in a 1 in 100 year event (allowing for 30% increase in rainfall intensity due to climate change) will be managed within the site such that property and safe means of access and egress are protected. Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 133



Surface water flows will be subject to a ‘SuDS management train’ in accordance with current best practice and The SuDS Manual - Ciria C697;



Surface water discharge from the site to the nearby watercourse will be limited to the run off rates to be agreed with the Environment Agency. A formal application for consent to discharge into the Nevedon Brook at a calculated rate of 74 l/s has been made to the Environment Agency.



Rainwater harvesting of the roof run-off and the green roof of the Visitor and Education Centre will reduce water volumes for discharge from the site.

The proposed surface water drainage for the site will be designed to best practice guidelines. Pipe sizes and storm water attenuation will be limited to the size required to accommodate a 1 in 30 year storm (3.33% chance of flooding in any given year). The components of the surface water management system are summarised below: 

Rainwater from the paved areas will be collected within traditional trapped gullies



The roof areas will discharge to a siphonic drainage system



Silt traps will be provided at critical collection points to ensure silts are removed from the system prior to entering the attenuation pond



Bypass petrol interceptors to be provided for site prior to discharge to the attenuation pond



The attenuation pond and flow control pump will limit the discharge to the permitted run-off rate

In addition it is proposed that, where feasible, rainwater harvesting of the roof run-off will be carried out to utilise water within the processing operations. This will reduce the overall volume of water which would be discharged from the site, as would the green roof of the Visitor and Education Centre. The management of surface water in line with the requirements above will ensure the consequences in terms of flood risk from this input are considered negligible. Consequently, with the implementation of the surface water drainage system the development is not considered to increase the risk of pluvial flooding. The magnitude of change to surface water flow from the proposed development is considered “Negligible”. 

Therefore the significance of the potential effects on surface water quality as a result of the proposed development without mitigation is identified as neutral during the operational phase.

7.5.3. Flood risk As detailed in the FRA included in Appendix 7.1 and Flood Risk Section (7.4.6) the site is raised above the 0.1% annual probability flood plain. The FRA identifies that the site is at low risk of fluvial, groundwater, infrastructure or sewer flooding with foul water managed through the foul drainage system. Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 134

7.6. Mitigation The above assessment identifies that without appropriate mitigation measures, negligible or slight adverse effects to the surrounding water environment may result from the works undertaken. To ensure that the development of the site does not detrimentally affect the surrounding surface water receptors mitigation measures will be required during the site development. Mitigation of the issues identified within this report will be addressed separately for the construction and operation phases under the headings of: 

Surface water quality



Surface water flow

7.6.1. Surface water quality: construction mitigation The assessment of the impacts on surface water quality during construction identified an insignificant impact due to the ground conditions and current receptor importance and therefore no mitigation measures have been identified. However while the impact on water quality is considered insignificant during the construction phase the risk of pollution could be further reduced by the adoption of good working practices and all site activities carried out in accordance with the Water Resources Act . In addition, the mitigation measures put forward in the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) will be followed during the works. In particular these will include: 

PPG1 General Guide to the Prevention of Water Pollution



PPG3 Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water Systems



PPG5 Works in near or liable to affect Watercourses



PPG6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites



PPG21 Pollution Incident Response Planning



Guidelines on silt pollution and how to avoid it

If an accidental spill at the site occurred it could lead to the pollution of a “controlled water” identified under the Water Resources Act11. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified below can control the occurrence of pollution incidents during the construction phase. 

On-site availability of oil spill cleanup equipment including absorbent material for use in the event of an oil spill or leak



Use of drip trays under mobile plant



Preparation of incident response plans, prior to extraction, which should be present on site throughout the extraction phase to inform staff of required actions in the event of a pollution incident



Daily visual inspections of the ground for evidence of contamination should be undertaken e.g. sheens, increases in turbidity Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 135



Oils11 or chemicals used on the site will be stored in a suitable bunded area



Machinery will be kept in good working order to minimise the risk of leaks and drip trays should be used where necessary



Machinery and equipment should be stored in designated areas which have protective ground surfaces to prevent infiltration of contaminants



Use of biodegradable lubricating and hydraulic oils in accordance with the Environment Agency of England & Wales: Mandatory requirement to utilise biodegradable, non-toxic lubricants in tracked excavators (1998) and biodegradable fuel where possible



Earth moving operations that have potential to give rise to contaminated drainage will be undertaken in compliance with BSI Code of Practice for Earthworks BS6031, 1987



All refuelling should only occur in an appropriately bunded and managed areas within compound sites

7.6.2. Surface water flow: construction mitigation The hydraulics of the receiving water course is unlikely to be affected by the change to the impermeable surfaces at the site due to the current impermeable nature of the site (compaction of the ground materials and low permeability of the London Clay and head deposits). The proposed development area may temporarily change the volume of run-off that reaches the receiving watercourse during the installation of the site’s surface water drainage system. However it is considered that no mitigation measures are required given the temporary nature of this change. 7.6.3. Surface water quality: operational mitigation The surface water drainage system will discharge surface water run-off through an oil interceptor, silt trap and attenuation pond to ensure that contamination does not occur within the local water courses. The site would discharge to the Nevendon Bushes Brook. The site drainage will be controlled through a discharge consent and therefore any contaminants of concern would be referenced in the discharge consent along with their maximum allowable concentrations. Monitoring would be required of the discharge to ensure that the conditions within the discharge consent are not breached. A response plan will be completed to identify the actions should a breach in the discharge consent occur. Some run-off from the roofs will be diverted to the rainwater harvesting scheme for use with the onsite processes. The nature of this run-off is such that it would be solely rainfall which has fallen on the roofs. It is not expected that mitigation measures to improve the 11

Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 136

quality of this water, other than those highlighted above, would be required to ensure no surface water contamination. 7.6.4. Surface water flow: operational mitigation 

The revised surface water drainage system will discharge surface water run-off to the Nevendon Bushes Brook. The site drainage will be controlled through a discharge consent and at volumes in line with the negotiated discharge rate agreed with the EA. As stated a formal application for consent to discharge into the Nevedon Brook at a calculated rate of 74 l/s has been made to the Environment Agency.

7.6.5. Flood risk As detailed in the FRA included in Appendix 7.1 and Flood Risk Section (7.4.6) the site is raised above the 0.1% annual probability flood plain and therefore is at low risk of flooding. No mitigation measures are proposed with respect to fluvial, groundwater, infrastructure or sewer flooding. 7.7. Residual effects Following the implementation of mitigation measures to manage the potential effects on surface water quality the residual effect is neutral. The FRA at Appendix 7.1 details further the residual flood risk. 7.8. Cumulative effects There is the potential for the scheme and future schemes (those currently with or without planning) in combination, to generate cumulative effects on the water environment. However following the completion of the development the impact on surface water quality and flow would be negligible it is therefore highly unlikely that this site would be a significant contributor to negative impacts on the water environment. 7.9. Conclusions A summary of the effects on the water environment during construction and operation along with the proposed mitigation measures are included in Tables 7.6 and 7.7. As stated in 7.4.10, due to the underlying geology, groundwater (contamination and flooding) is not considered to be affected by this development. All residual effects were assessed as neutral.

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 137

Description of impact

Significance of Mitigation specification effects before mitigation

Significance residual effect

The impact on surface water quality as a result of the construction process is considered to be minor as there is the potential for the migration of contaminated runoff (water rich in suspended solids) migrating into the Nevendon Bushes Brook. Contamination of Surface Water

Minor -ve, S,T

Change to Surface Water Flow Negligible Regime ve, T, ST

Fluvial Flood Risk

Negligible

However good working Negligible practices will be adopted and all site activities carried out in accordance with the Water Resources Act. In addition, the mitigation measures put forward in the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) will be followed during the works.

The hydrology of the receiving water bodies and watercourses are unlikely to be affected by - the change to the impermeable Negligible -ve, surfaces at the site due to the T, ST current impermeable nature of the site – no mitigation is proposed. The site is located outside Flood Zone 3 therefore - no Negligible mitigation is proposed

Key to significance Very Large, Large, Moderate, Neutral, Slight, Negligible +ve = positive;

-ve = negative

D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 7.6 – Summary of effects on the water environment during construction

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 138

of

Description of impact

Significance of Mitigation specification effects before mitigation

Significance residual effect

Negligible

The development of a new surface water drainage system with interceptors and silt traps along with discharge of contaminated water to the foul drainage system would ensure no contamination of the surface water courses. The silt Negligible traps and settlement in the attenuation lagoon may provide some betterment of the water environment by preventing the discharge of suspended sediments from the run-off into the water course

Change to Surface Water Flow Negligible Regime

The hydrology of the receiving water bodies and watercourses are unlikely to be affected by the change to the impermeable Negligible surfaces at the site due to the current impermeable nature of the site and the surface water discharge being limited

Fluvial Flood Risk

The site is located outside Flood Zone 3 therefore - no Negligible mitigation is proposed

Contamination of Surface Water

Negligible

Key to significance Very Large, Large, Moderate, Neutral, Slight, Negligible +ve = positive;

-ve = negative

D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 7.7 – Summary of effects on the water environment during operation

Environmental statement Chapter 7 – Water and flood risk Page 139

of

8.0

Noise and vibration

Summary of Assessment: 

Potential impacts from typical operation of the facility including fixed plant and processes and on-site heavy vehicle movements will be minimised through design of the proposed facility.



During the busiest parts of the day and for short periods of time, the noise levels at the Hovefields Park Caravan site are likely to increase due to the shutter doors having to be open on the eastern facade of the reception hall. However this would not significantly affect the average noise emissions over a typical working day.



Construction noise and vibration impacts will be minimised through good working practices.



The design process has given considerable thought to the site layout to ensure that the site layout has been optimised in a way to ensure the process buildings are as far away from the noise-sensitive receivers as possible at the eastern boundary of the site.



Further mitigation measures include the construction of a 4m high screening bund and 1m high acoustic barrier along the eastern boundary.

8.1. Introduction This chapter presents the noise and vibration assessments for the Facility. It includes the relevant legislation and policy, assessment methodology, baseline description and identification of potential impacts during the construction and operation phases of the development. It provides recommendations on mitigation measures to minimise potential impacts and highlights any residual effects following the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Cumulative effects arising as a result of the proposed Facility and other planned development are also addressed. 8.2. Regulatory, planning and policy context This section provides the details of plans, policies and regulations relevant to noise and vibration considerations.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 140

8.2.1. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) The proposed development falls under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 and therefore must follow the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulatory system. Specific guidance is given for noise and thus the operational assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H3 Parts 1 and 2. Reference to vibration impact assessments is also made in that document. Horizontal Guidance Note for Noise IPPC H3 PART 1 – Regulation and Permitting, 2004 This part of the guidance outlines the main considerations relating to the regulation and permitting of noise and vibration. It is intended to inform the needs of the Regulators. It outlines the main noise and vibration information that should be included in an application, how Best Available Technique (BAT) should be determined and options for permit conditions and ongoing regulation, compliance and enforcement. Horizontal Guidance Note for Noise IPPC H3 PART 2 – Noise Assessment and Control, 2002 This guidance provides more detailed information for the noise and vibration impact assessment requirements for new and existing industrial sites. The aim of the guidance is to assist in determining the BAT for noise for a given installation. Section 2 outlines the measurement and evaluation procedures that should be followed. It describes the key components of a noise assessment which include; identification of the sensitive receptors, review of complaint history, risk assessment, impact assessment and implementation of noise control measures if required. It advises the use of BS 4142:1997 Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas, for determining the impact of the installation, and it advises the use of BS 7445:1991 Description and measurement of environmental noise, Parts 1-3, for guidance on the measurement of environmental noise. It states that construction noise and vibration may need to be addressed and that this area is covered under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, planning legislation and Statutory Nuisance Law which are enforced by the local authority. It outlines methods for the prediction of noise which include noise modelling of the operational Facility to predict the noise levels at receptors due to the Facility. Modelling is a useful tool to identify potential noise problems due to a Facility and it allows the testing of mitigation measures if required. The guidance document explains that (in paragraph 2.3.3.9) most modelling software can use a number of prediction methods, an important one being ISO 9613-2 1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Section 3 gives guidance on noise control techniques and technologies. The general principles of noise reduction at source and barriers/screening of noise sources are detailed. Specific advice for a number of common noise sources is provided.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 141

The guidance refers to the possibility that vibration may need to be assessed. It recommends that specialist advice is sought if impacts from vibration are considered to be a risk. 8.2.2. Environmental Protection Act, 1990 Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on local authorities to inspect their areas periodically for statutory nuisances and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance. Section 79 (1(g)) includes “noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. These nuisances are then dealt with under Section 80. Under this section, where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, the local authority is obliged to serve an abatement notice requiring the abatement of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its occurrence or recurrence. Local authorities can defer serving an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act for statutory nuisance from noise for up to seven days in order to take other appropriate steps to abate the statutory nuisance. The optional seven day deferral was introduced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. 8.2.3. Control of Pollution Act, 1974 Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA) gives local authorities the power to serve a notice imposing requirements which dictate the way in which construction works are to be carried out. BS 5228 provides guidance to enable compliance with Section 60 and is applicable throughout the UK. Under Section 61 of COPA, the person intending to carry out works may apply in advance to agree the methods and timetabling of the works to be carried out. By gaining consent under Section 61, the contractor gains protection from action under Section 60 of the COPA, whereby a stop or enforcement notice cannot be served on the contractor, as long as the works are carried out in accordance with the details in the application. However the approval of such a consent by the local authority and compliance by the contractor does not mean that a nuisance action cannot be taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or under common law. 8.2.4. Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG 24): Planning and Noise PPG24 gives guidance to local authorities in England on how to use their planning powers to minimize the impacts of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise. PPG 24 recommends the use of BS 4142 to assess the likelihood of complaints from residential receptors for noise from an industrial type development.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 142

Noise from construction sites is considered in Annex 3 and reference to BS 5228 is made for general advice on construction noise mitigation, and a method for predicting noise from construction sites. Further information on these documents is presented below, under the heading of ‘Assessment Methodology’. BS 4142 and BS 5228 have been updated since PPG24 was written; the latest versions have been used in this assessment. 8.3. Assessment methodology This section provides details of calculation methodologies and guidance documents used in undertaking the noise and vibration assessments described in this report. 8.3.1. Construction noise and vibration The construction noise and vibration impacts associated with on-site activities from the proposed development will be assessed in accordance with the guidelines given in BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, Part 1 – Noise and Part 2 – Vibration. The assessment will address the impact at residential receptors. BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, Part 1 - Noise Part 1 of the Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites provides guidance on the methods that can be used to predict and measure noise from construction activities and how to assess the impact on those exposed to it. In particular Annex F sets out the methods of estimating noise from construction sites which take into account distance, ground effects, reflections from surfaces, and screening by obstacles. Annexes C and D of Part 1 of the Code of Practice provide generic source noise data for various items of plant used on open sites which can be used in the absence of measured data. Part 1, Annex E ‘Significance of noise effects’ of BS5228 presents various methods of determining the significance of noise effects due to construction works. In this assessment, the ABC method detailed in Annex E.3.2 has been used, where for the appropriate period (night, evening/ weekends or day), the measured ambient noise level is rounded to the nearest 5 dB. This is then compared with the total noise level, including construction. If the total noise level exceeds the appropriate category value, then a significant effect is deemed to occur. The example threshold for significant effects at dwellings is shown below in Table 8.1.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 143

Assessment category and threshold value period Threshold value, in decibels (dB) (LAeq) Category A Category B

Category C

Night-time (11.00pm to 7.00am)

45

50

55

Evenings (7.00pm to 11.00pm weekdays) and 55 weekends (1.00pm to 11.00pm Saturdays and 7.00am to 11.00pm Sundays)

60

65

Daytime (7.00am to 7.00pm) and Saturdays 65 (7.00am to 1.00pm)

70

75

Table 8.1 – Example threshold of significance effect at dwellings The values in Category A, B and C are the threshold values to be used when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than, equal to, or higher than the values in Category A column, respectively. BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites, Part 2 - Vibration Part 2 of the Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites gives guidance on methods for measuring vibration and how to assess its effects on the environment and people. The main vibration impacts are likely to arise from piling activities or heavy construction vehicle movements near sensitive receptors. Annex B gives guidance on the significance of vibration effects in terms of human response to vibration (see Table 8.2) and structural response to vibration (see Table 8.3). Vibration Level

Effect

0.14mm/s

Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most vibration frequencies associated with construction. At lower frequencies, people are less sensitive to vibration

0.3mm/s

Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments

1.0mm/s

It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents

10mm/s

Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level

Table 8.2 – Guidance on effects of vibration levels perceptible to humans

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 144

Peak Component Particle Velocity in Frequency Range of Predominant Pulse

Type of Building

4 Hz to 15 Hz Reinforced or framed structures Industrial and heavy commercial buildings Unreinforced or light framed structures Residential or light commercial buildings

15 Hz and above

50mm/s at 4 Hz and 50mm/s at 4 Hz and above above 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 20 mm/s at 15 Hz increasing to 20 mm/s at increasing to 50 mm/s at 15 Hz 40 Hz and above

Table 8.3 – Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage Annex D of Part 2 of the Code of Practice provides some historical measured vibration levels for various piling methods and Annex E gives empirical formulae for the prediction of the resultant peak particle velocity vibration levels for various types of piling. The formulae found in Annex E can be used to estimate the vibration levels when detailed information about the piling method is known. If only general information is known about the piling activities then a range of levels can be obtained from the historical data presented in Annex D. 8.3.2. Operational noise The guidance documents used for assessing the potential impacts of fixed and mobile noise sources within the development, once it is operational, are described below. There are no known sources of operational vibration which could result in significant impacts and operational vibration impacts have not been considered. ISO 9613 Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, Part 2 General method of calculation, 1996 ISO 9613 Part 2 provides an engineering method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors and for predicting the levels of environmental noise at a distance from a number of sources. The method described in Part 2 can be applied to a wide variety of noise sources, and covers most of the major mechanisms of attenuation. A number of algorithms are provided as part of the method to deal with geometrical divergence, atmospheric absorption, ground effects, reflection from surfaces and screening by obstacles. This standard has been used to predict noise levels from a number of fixed and mobile items of noise sources within the proposed development site. BS 4142: 1997 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas BS 4142:1997 describes methods for determining and assessing noise levels from fixed plant with a view to determining the likelihood of complaints. The likelihood of complaints about noise from the occupiers of nearby residential properties can be assessed using the method described in BS4142:1997. This method Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 145

compares the rating noise level to the measured background noise level in the absence of the source. Rating noise level is defined as the noise level from the source, adjusted for certain acoustical features. It is measured in terms of dB LAeq which is an energy based acoustic indicator. The standard defines the ‘specific noise level’ as the LAeq of the source, and the ‘background level’ as the LA90 level without the source operating. Guidance on how to measure the background noise level, LA90, is also provided in the standard. The length of measurement should be sufficient to obtain a representative value for the background noise level and should cover all periods when the specific noise will operate. The standard states that “Certain acoustic features can increase the likelihood of complaint over that expected from a simple comparison between the specific noise level and the background noise level. Where present at the assessment location, such features are taken into account by adding +5 dBA to the specific noise level to obtain the rating noise level. A +5 dBA correction is applied if one or more of the following features occur, or are expected to be present for new or modified noise sources: 

The noise contains a distinguishable, discrete, continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum, etc)



The noise contains distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, or thumps)



The noise is irregular enough to attract attention

The standard then rates the likelihood of complaints by comparing the rating noise level with the background noise level: 

Where the rating noise level is more than 10 dB above the background level, then complaints are likely



Where the rating noise level is more than 10 dB below the background noise level, then this is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely



Where the rating noise level is 5 dB above the background noise level, then this is of marginal significance

BS 8233: 1999 Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of practice BS 8233 considers, amongst other matters, appropriate noise levels within various rooms under different conditions. Included within these is reasonable resting or sleeping conditions for living rooms and bedrooms. For these two spaces, the following noise levels are recommended. Design Range LAeq,T Db Room Type

Good

Reasonable

Living Rooms

30

40

Bedrooms

30

35

Table 8.4 – BS8233 recommended design ranges

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 146

It is also stated that for a reasonable standard in bedrooms at night, individual noise events should not normally exceed 45 dB LAmax,fast. Outside the bedrooms, this noise limit would correspond to 60 dB LAmax,fast when the windows are open. For gardens and balconies, it is desirable that the steady noise levels do not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T and 55 dB LAeq,T should be regarded as the upper limit. 8.3.3. Road traffic noise The impacts of road traffic noise generated during the construction and the operation of the development on the existing road network are assessed in accordance with the methods in the DMRB which uses calculation procedures from the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise. Department for Transport Memorandum, Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, 1988 The Department for Transport Memorandum, Calculation of Road Traffic Noise provides methods for measuring and calculating noise levels from road traffic, which are assessed over an 18 hour period from 6.00am to 12.00am, using annual average weekday traffic (AAWT) flows. The basic noise level for a road segment can be calculated using the traffic flow, traffic speed and percentage heavy vehicles for a road segment. The traffic data will be based on the construction methods that are to be employed and information from the traffic assessment. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11 Section 3 Part 7 HD 213/11, February 2011 The DMRB details the assessment methodology relating to noise and nuisance exposure. It provides guidance on the significance of changes in road traffic noise, identifying that changes in noise smaller than 1 dBA are not perceptible in the short term. Assuming no changes to percentage composition of heavy goods vehicles or traffic speeds, an increase in traffic volume of 25% is required to alter the noise levels by 1 dBA. 8.4. Baseline conditions The nearest noise-sensitive receivers to the site are Hovefields Caravan Park Site to the south-eastern site boundary, commercial / office areas to the south along Courtauld Road and residential areas to the northeast, off Hovefields Avenue. A baseline noise survey was undertaken by Entec on 17/18 May 2011, on behalf of Essex County Council, in relation to this site, in order to determine the background and ambient noise levels at locations representative of the noise-sensitive receivers. The main findings are summarised in Table 8. 5, which is from the Entec technical memo titled ‘Courtauld Road Baseline Noise Monitoring 17th/ 18th May 2011’. A plan showing noise monitoring locations is shown below and also in Figure 8.1.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 147

Figure 8. 1 – Noise monitoring locations

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 148

Table 8. 5 – Summary of measured noise levels in study area (by Entec) At night, the lowest background noise level representative of noise-sensitive receivers adjacent to the Hovefields Caravan Park site was measured as 37 dB LA90,5min. During day-time, the lowest measured background noise at the same location was approximately 46 dB LA90,5min. The average night-time ambient noise level representative of noise-sensitive receivers adjacent to the Hovefields Caravan Park site was measured as approximately 51 dB LAeq,8hr. During day-time, the average measured ambient noise at the same location was approximately 57 dB LAeq,16hr. The findings of this survey have been used in the following sections to assess the likely impacts. 8.5. Environmental Impact Assessment 8.5.1. Key environmental effects to consider Consultation was undertaken with Graham Bannister, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at Basildon District Council, to discuss the general approach to the assessment of Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 149

noise and vibration impacts. The above general methodology was deemed appropriate for the assessment of noise impacts in this instance. This section undertakes an assessment of the likely impacts with reference to appropriate methodology and guidance. 8.5.2. Key environmental effects to consider The key environmental effects that are considered are: 

Noise and vibration impacts from fixed and mobile plant within the site boundary on sensitive receptors during construction of the development.



Noise impacts from fixed and mobile plant within the site boundary on sensitive receptors during operation of the development.



Noise impacts associated with the road traffic generated by the development in the wider road network both during construction and operation of the development.

Apart from the potential impacts from the main groups of activities identified above, no other impacts are expected. 8.5.3. Construction noise and vibration Noise calculations At the time of producing this report, a detailed list of plant to be used at the site was not available. Based on experience of previous similar projects, some of the typical plant and equipment likely to be used during construction works and the corresponding noise levels (LAeq,T dB) at a reference distance of 10 metres is summarised in Table 8.6. It should be noted that, in practice, there could be differences in the plant and equipment used due to variations in the preferred construction methods by the appointed contractor however the following levels are deemed representative of the likely plant and machinery which will be used at the site.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 150

Plant/ equipment

BS 5228 Noise level (dB) Reference LAeq,T at 10m

Bulldozer

Table C.2 - 12

81

Dumper trucks

Table C.2 - 30

79

Excavator

Table C.4 - 63

77

Towed roller

Table C.2 - 36

81

Mini digger

Table C.4 - 67

74

Telehandler

Table C.2 - 35

71

Piling rig

Table C.3 - 2

87

6T Dumper

Table C.4 - 6

79

55T Crane

Table C.4 - 45

82

Concrete pumps

Table C.4 - 26

75

Table 8.6 – Anticipated plant and associated noise levels The nearest sensitive receiver to the site is the Hovefields Caravan Park site adjacent to the south-eastern site boundary, approximately 45 metres from the nearest proposed building within the site. For the purposes of calculations, it is therefore assumed that various items of plant could be situated as near as 45m to the Caravan Park. In practice, it is likely that they would be located further away from noise-sensitive properties during the majority of the construction period, minimising the impacts. At this distance, the noise levels from various items of plant would be reduced by 13 dB(A) (relative to noise level at the reference distance of 10m), not taking into account any screening effects from any bunds or barriers or ground absorption. Assuming an item of equipment could be in operation during at least 50% of a typical assessment period (i.e. a full working day), the resulting construction noise levels at the Hovefields Caravan Park would be as follows;

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 151

Plant/ equipment

Construction Noise levels dB LAeq,T at Hovefields Caravan Park

Bulldozer

65

Dumper trucks

63

Excavator

61

Towed roller

65

Mini digger

58

Telehandler

55

Piling rig

71

6T Dumper

63

55T Crane

66

Concrete pumps

59

Table 8. 7 – Calculated construction noise levels at Hovefields Caravan Park The potential impacts of the resulting noise levels are considered below. Assessment of noise impacts Regarding the assessment of construction noise impacts (BS 5228), it was advised by Basildon Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) that limits should be set based on existing ambient noise levels using methodologies outlined in BS5228 (for example, ‘ABC method’). The ambient noise levels near the Hovefields Caravan Park site were measured as 57 dB LAeq. Therefore according to the BS 8223 ABC method, Category A values would apply as a construction noise limit. Construction noise levels, when combined with ambient noise levels in the areas, should therefore not exceed 65 dB LAeq during day-time periods 7am 7pm and on Saturdays 8am -5pm and Sundays 8.30am to 5pm. The suggested construction activity periods have been derived in consultation with the Local Authority EHO. It is proposed that no construction activities would take place in the evenings (7.00pm – 11.00pm) or on Sundays and Bank Holidays, which could generate audible noise levels at the site boundary. In order to avoid significant impacts at the sensitive receivers, the calculations below indicate that contributions from construction activities should be 64 dB LAeq or lower.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 152

Construction activity period (LAeq)

Noise Levels in dB LAeq Ambient Noise

Daytime (7.00am-7.00pm) Saturdays (7.00am-5.00pm)

and 57

Construction Noise

Combined Threshold Ambient and Value Construction Noise

64

65

65

Table 8.8 – Construction Limit Values It is shown in Table 8.7 that noise levels generated by most activities would be around this limit value or lower. Some activities could exceed 64 dB LAeq by up to 2 dB(A) resulting in ‘minor’ noise impacts. The noise levels from piling activities are likely to exceed the limit of 64 dB LAeq by up to 7 dB(A) resulting in ‘moderate’ impacts. Cumulative impacts from a number of construction activities occurring at the same time could be higher. This assessment does not take into account the noise mitigation measures and assumes that various items of plant may be as close as 45m from the Hovefields Caravan Park site. Piling vibration calculations It is understood that considerable piling activities would be undertaken as part of the proposed construction works. It is currently proposed that percussive (driven), sheet and continuous flight auger methods may be used during the construction. Vibration calculations have been based on percussive (driven) piling as a worst-case scenario. Continuous flight augering methods would not be expected to result in significant levels of vibration. It is assumed that piling activities would take place at least 45m away from various sensitive receivers surrounding the site. Table 8.9 gives predicted peak particle velocity (PPV) levels in mm/s at incremental distances from percussive piling with nominal hammer impact energy of 30kJ for different ground conditions. Distances given are along the ground surface and the pile toe depth is 1m, to give the maximum expected level from various piling types.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 153

Peak Particle Velocity (mms-1) at incremental distances

Ground Conditions

@45m

@60m

@80m

@100m

@200m

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

1.8

1.3

0.9

0.7

0.3

3.7

2.5

1.7

1.3

0.5

6.1

4.2

2.9

2.2

0.9

Pile toe being driven through: Soft cohesive soils Loose granular soils Loose fill Organic soils Pile toe being driven through: Stiff cohesive soils Medium dense granular soils Compacted fill Pile toe being driven through: Very stiff cohesive soils Dense granular soils Fill containing obstructions which are large relative to the pile cross section Piles driven to refusal

Table 8.9 – Predicted PPV levels from percussive piling works Assessment of piling vibration impacts Comparing the above values with the vibration assessment criteria within Table 8.2 shows that, with the assumed hammer energy of 30kJ, vibration levels could be perceptible up to several hundred metres from percussive piling activities and could result in complaints, depending on the ground type. However the levels can be tolerated if prior warning is given to residents. However it is not considered likely that beyond 45m, piling activities would result in cosmetic damage to properties. It is important to note that the values are for well maintained and structurally sound properties and they should be considered an absolute maximum not an allowable level. Other vibration impacts Vibration levels from typical mobile construction equipment are generally imperceptible at distances greater than around 20m from the source. The delivery routes used by trucks and lorries should avoid residential areas as far as possible and a preferred traffic route to and from the site is proposed in Chapter 5 – Traffic and Transportation. Where possible, vibration generating machinery will be situated away from the noise-sensitive receivers. These measures will help minimise noise impacts as well as vibration. Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 154

8.5.4. Operational noise Noise modelling A 3D noise modelling exercise was undertaken using SoundPlan software included in Figure 8.2 (Appendix 8). All calculations were in accordance with ISO 9613 ‘Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, Part 2 General method of calculation’, dated 1996. The calculations have taken into account both the sources of noise inside the buildings (fixed plant and mechanical processes) and the lorry movements on the access road within the site. The operation of noise generating equipment and plant would be limited to 7.00am to 11.00pm on Mondays to Saturdays and 8.30am to 5.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Waste will not be accepted at the Facility after 8.00pm in the evenings and all doors into the facility will be closed after that time. For noise sources located inside buildings, acoustic absorption within buildings and noise breakout from the buildings (through building fabric, shutter doors, or other weaknesses) were taken into account in the assessment. For noise propagation in the external environment, the effects of distance, ground cover, source directivity, facade reflections, air absorption and the presence of noise barriers and bunds have all been taken into consideration. The impacts of potential lorry manoeuvring (idling, reversing, accelerating/ decelerating etc) have been minimised via site design, as discussed in the mitigation section. A location map illustrating the assumed source locations is included in Figure 8.3 and Figure 8.4 (Appendix 8). The assumed noise emission characteristics of various sources are shown below.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 155

Plant Item

Number

Sound Power

Data Source

dB LWA Bag Opener

4

106.1

Urbaser

Trommel

3

112.0

Urbaser

Ballistic Separator

3

112.3

Urbaser

Optical Separator

6

103.0

Urbaser

Magnetic Separator

4

86.0

Urbaser

Shredder

1

106.1

Urbaser

Bale Feeder

1

91.0

Urbaser

Baler

1

105.3

Urbaser

Sorting Cabin

2

88.0

Urbaser

Waste Reception Pit

3

112.4

Measured

Destoner

4

98.9

Urbaser

Refiner Trommel

2

104.3

Urbaser

RCV

106.3

BS5228 C.8.18

Road Lorry Empty

111.0

BS5228 C.6.22

Road Lorry Full

108.6

BS5228 C.6.21

108.0

BS5228 C.2.27

Loading shovel

2

Table 8.10 – Source data Noise calculations Noise calculations have been undertaken for 2 operational scenarios, as summarised below. Scenario 1 (7.00am – 8.00pm) – this scenario represents the expected typical operation of the Facility where the process activities inside the buildings and external lorry movements occur at the same time and on a continuous or regular basis. When not in use all access doors to the buildings will remain closed. However, due to the number of heavy vehicles expected at the site, it seemed prudent to assume in the modelling that the entrance and the exit doors in and out of the reception hall would be open at all times during the day. In addition to the entrance and exit doors, it is assumed that 1 further shutter door would be open in the processing hall on a temporary basis. There are 2 doors for vehicles access on the eastern side of the building directly opposite the Caravan Park. They would normally only be open while allowing heavy vehicles in and out of the buildings to collect the recyclable fraction of waste. Taking into consideration the anticipated vehicle movements, it is expected that there would 1 vehicle per hour accessing each of these doors. It is assumed that the second door would be kept shut Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 156

while one of the doors is open, however the total time during which both doors are open could be 7.5 minutes every hour. It is also expected that one of the shutter doors situated to the northern end of the product storage building would be open on a temporary basis. For the purposes of noise calculations, it has been assumed that it would remain open for up to 25 minutes in a given hour. It is also assumed that the other doors on this building would be kept shut if any one of the other doors is open. Whilst the modelling assumes that a number of the roller shutter doors will be open during the delivery periods it should be noted, that when not in use all doors will be kept closed. Scenario 2 (8.00pm-11.00pm) – During the hours when deliveries or collections will not take place, the doors would be kept shut to minimise any noise from process activities inside buildings. The noise calculations have been repeated for the evening period when all the shutter doors would be kept closed while all other internal plant and processes would be in full operation. A summary of calculated noise levels is given in Table 8.11 and Table 8.12 at a number of noise-sensitive receivers, for scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. Calculated noise level, dB LAeq,1hr Receiver

Fixed noise sources

External lorry movements

Hovefields Caravan Park (ID 1)

43

50

Hovefields Caravan Park (ID 10)

44

49

Hovefields Caravan Park (ID 22)

42

51

Carlton Court

32

51

Nobel Square

46

51

Table 8.11 – Summary of calculated operational noise levels for Scenario 1 (7.00am to 8.00pm)

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 157

Calculated noise level, dB LAeq,T Receiver

Fixed noise sources

External lorry movements

Hovefields Caravan Park (ID 1)

39

No deliveries 8.00pm

Hovefields Caravan Park (ID 10)

40

Hovefields Caravan Park (ID 22)

39

Carlton Court

32

Nobel Square

41

after

Table 8.12 – Summary of calculated operational noise levels for Scenario 2 (8.00pm to 11.00pm) A noise contour map showing the combined contributions from fixed plant and mechanical processes within the buildings as well as the heavy vehicle movements on the access road within the site is shown in Figure 8.5 (Appendix 8). The noise map is based on the situation when 2 of the main shutter doors into the reception hall are open continuously, 1 of the doors on the processing hall is open for up to 7.5minutes/ hour and 1 further door on the product storage building is open for up to 25minutes/hour. The map shows calculated noise levels at a height of 1.5m above local ground, which is representative of the height of a typical ground floor window. Assessment of operational noise impacts On assessing noise impacts from typically operating fixed mechanical plant using BS 4142, it was agreed with Basildon Council’s EHO that the rating noise level from the fixed plant and processes at the Facility should not exceed the measured background noise levels measured (Daytime 7.00am-8.00pm LA90 = 51dB, Evening 8.00pm-11.00pm LA90 = 46dB, Night-time LA90 = 37dB) at the Hovefields Caravan Park site, which is the nearest residential receptor. In line with best practice an A +5 dB acoustic feature correction was assumed since the various sources could exhibit tonal or non-continuous characteristics. As advised by the EHO, potential impacts of atypical events of sporadic duration (for instance occasional regular testing of certain plant), during a typical working day, were not assessed. It should be noted however that strict controls would be applied to any such activities during night-time. The assessment is summarised below for both day-time (scenario 1 – 7.00am and 8.00pm) and evening (scenario 2 – 8.00pm and 11.00pm) operation.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 158

BS 4142 Assessment steps

Operational scenario Scenario 8.00pm)

1

(7.00am- Scenario 2 11.00pm)

Calculated specific noise level, dB LAeq,T at the most 43 exposed noise-sensitive property

39

Acoustic feature' correction, dB(A)

+5

+5

Rating level, dB LAr,Tr at the nearest residential 48 property

44

Measured background noise level, dB LA90,T at 51 nearest noise-sensitive receiver

46

Excess of rating level over background noise level, -3 dB(A)

-2

(8.00pm-

Table 8.13 – BS 4142 assessment for different operational scenarios It is shown that under typical operational conditions, the rating levels averaged over 1 hour would be less than the background noise levels. The use of BS 4142 for assessing impacts from lorry manoeuvring within a site is not typically considered appropriate. Therefore it was agreed that the use of BS 8233 design ranges would form a suitable alternative assessment methodology for activities which are not industrial in nature but nevertheless could result in nuisance. Accordingly, an internal noise level of 30 dB LAeq would be considered a ‘good’ design standard in bedrooms and living rooms. Internal noise levels of 35 dB LAeq and 40 dB LAeq would still be considered a ‘reasonable’ design standard in bedrooms and living rooms respectively. Considering that the external lorry movements are expected to be limited to day-time periods (7.00am8.00pm) when the caravans are more likely to be in use as living spaces rather than for sleeping, it would be appropriate to aim for internal noise levels of 35 to 40 dB LAeq. The noise calculations indicated that the external noise levels at the facades of the noise sensitive receivers are likely to be around 50 dB LAeq during the expected peak delivery hours. These levels would result in reasonable internal resting conditions with windows open, assuming noise reduction of 15 dB between the inside and outside of a property when a window is open. Furthermore, noise levels in external living areas would be within the BS 8223 recommended limit of 55 dB LAeq. It is assumed there would be no lorry movements after 8pm in the evening. Other operational noise impacts Some processes within the buildings such as air extraction and filtration processes and management of the bio-stabilisation process would operate on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 159

These systems would be designed appropriately to ensure that night-time rating noise levels (i.e. including the 5 dB acoustic feature correction) do not exceed the relevant night-time background noise levels. 8.5.5. Road traffic noise Noise calculations The additional traffic generated by the development could have impacts on the noisesensitive receivers along the existing road network. No changes are expected in traffic speeds. The expected changes in traffic flows and composition of heavy goods vehicles are summarised in Table 8.14.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 160

Site Reference

Road Link

Base Flows All Vehicles

Development Flows

Combined Base and Development Flows

HDVs

% HDVs

All Vehicles

HDVs

All Vehicles

HDVs

% HDVs

A

A132 E Mayne (South of Cranes 36619 Farm Road)

920

3

149

108

36768

1028

3

B

A1235 Cranes Farm Road (East of 20882 Cranes Close)

531

3

140

101

21022

632

3

C

A132 E Mayne (North of Cranes 36853 Farm Road)

1381

4

372

295

37225

1676

5

D

Courtauld Rd (East of Harvey 9191 Road)

343

4

752

504

9943

847

9

E

Burnt Mills Road

30

<1

43

<1

7512

30

<1

F

Burnt Mills Road (West of Wood 4762 Green)

7

<1

20

<1

4782

7

<1

G

A132 South Mayne

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

H

A132 Nevendon Road. (West of 34437 Old Nevendon Road)

400

1

198

158

34635

559

2

7469

-

Table 8.14 – Summary of traffic data used in noise assessment

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 161

The resulting changes in the roadside noise levels at a reference distance of 10m from the edge of the road would be as shown in Table 8.15. Road Link

Roadside noise levels dB Roadside noise levels Noise impacts due LA10,18hr without scheme dB LA10,18hr with scheme to scheme dB(A)

A

A132 E Mayne (South of 74.0 Cranes Farm Road)

74.1

+0.1

B

A1235 Cranes Farm Road 71.4 (East of Cranes Close)

71.6

+0.2

C

A132 E Mayne (North of 74.0 Cranes Farm Road)

74.3

+0.3

D

Courtauld Rd (East of 68.8 Harvey Road)

70.2

+1.4

64.8

64.9

+0.1

Burnt Mills Road (West of 64.4 Wood Green)

64.4

0.0

-

-

73.2

+0.2

E Burnt Mills Road F

G A132 South Mayne

-

A132 Nevendon Road. H (West of Old Nevendon 73.0 Road)

Table 8.15 – Noise impacts in the wider road network Assessment of permanent impacts As shown above, the adverse scheme impacts would be limited to between 1 to 2 dB(A) on Courtauld Road (east of Harvey Road). This increase could have a ‘perceptible’ effect at residential properties in the short term. It is noted that this part of Courtauld Road is predominantly industrial/ commercial in nature and therefore the impacts would be limited. The resulting noise changes along the rest of the road network would be negligible (less than 1 dB(A)). Assessment of temporary impacts Heavy vehicle traffic generated during construction would be limited to 100 heavy vehicles per day and 70 to 90 cars per day. This is not expected to result in significant noise changes in the wider road network.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 162

8.6. Mitigation 8.6.1. Construction noise and vibration When the construction methods are established, it is recommended that a more detailed assessment is undertaken to identify the likely noise impacts and to determine the exact nature of mitigation measures. An assessment is likely to be based on the guidance in BS 5228:2009. The consultations with the EHO identified that a best practicable means method would be advisable over a more formal Section 61 agreement. For minimising construction impacts, it may be necessary to employ a combination of ‘quieter’ plant/ equipment in conjunction with good working practices such as careful selection of working hours and activity durations. In addition, noise barriers, and enclosures may need to be considered around some of the fixed plant such as generators. It was advised by the EHO that that the construction operations should be restricted to the following hours: Day

Operation and Proposed Hours

Monday to Friday

7.00am to 7.00pm for general works 8.00am to 7.00pm for works such as concrete breaking, angle grinding and pile driving

Saturday

8.00am to 5.00pm for all works audible at site boundary

Sundays and Bank Holidays

8.30am to 5.00pm – no works to be audible at the site boundary

This is consistent with the construction hours proposed in Chapter 3 of this ES. A number of mitigation measures and good working practices are described below. Where appropriate noise barriers should be in use throughout the works between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers. For example, BS 5228 allows an approximate attenuation of 5 dB to be adopted in the cases where there is a barrier, building or other topographic feature between the source and the receiving position, and the top of the plant is just visible to the receiver over the noise barrier. In situations when the noise screen completely hides the source from the receiver, an attenuation of 10 dB can be assumed. The effectiveness of barriers at distances beyond several hundred metres is assumed to be zero, irrespective of the amount of screening. Construction of the 4m bund and 1m acoustic fence on the eastern perimeter will take place as advance works prior to the main construction works taking place. All vehicles and mechanical plant used for the purpose of the works will be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and should be maintained in good and efficient working order. All compressors and generators will be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which should be kept closed whenever the machines are in Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 163

use, and all ancillary pneumatic percussive tools will be fitted with mufflers or suppressers of the type recommended by the manufacturers and should be kept in a good state of repair. Machines in intermittent use will be shut down in the intervening periods between work or where this is impracticable, throttled down to a minimum. Where practicable, plant with directional noise characteristics will be positioned and directed to minimise noise at adjacent properties. Concrete mixers will not be cleaned by hammering the drums. When handling materials, care will be shown not to drop materials from excessive heights. In order to avoid significant vibration impacts from piling activities, foundation techniques involving percussive piling will not be undertaken within 40m of a structure. The local residents will be kept informed of the progress of the works. Information will include when and where the activities will be taking place and how long they are expected to last. The contractor or company carrying out work on site will appoint a responsible person to liaise with the public. All noise complaints will be effectively recorded, investigated and addressed. 8.6.2. Operational noise As part of this assessment, a significant amount of information regarding the number, location and power rating of the noisy items of plant and details of other noisy activities was available and has been used in determining the mitigation requirements. The following is a description of various measures incorporated into the design of the Facility. Site layout The design process has given considerable thought to the site layout to ensure that the site layout has been optimised in a way to ensure the process buildings are as far away from the noise-sensitive receivers as possible at the eastern boundary of the site. Some of the noisy external activities such as the waste water treatment plant and the weighbridge Facility are situated behind the process buildings and are sited away from the noise-sensitive properties. A number of measures have been put in place to manage the flow of traffic which would minimise engine noise from idling vehicles and noise from reversing bleepers near noisesensitive receivers. 

The site has been designed to avoid the unnecessary queuing of vehicles off site during peak times.



Traffic has been circulated in a managed one-way system in a clockwise direction at the eastern part of the site to minimise onsite traffic conflicts from waste vehicle movements.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 164



Traffic light systems will be put in place to enable control of waste vehicles accessing reception hall and further traffic lights at the start of the one-way system would manage traffic queues in cases of vehicle breakdown or issues with processing plant. The traffic light system would prevent any stationary vehicles queuing directly opposite the Hovefields Caravan Park site.



The undercover car park will be strategically located close to Courtauld Road and will not be accessed by waste vehicles. This arrangement will minimise conflict between cars and waste vehicles.

Plant and equipment Where reasonably practicable, the use of quiet plant and equipment has been preferred. This would be achieved through selection and design of plant and equipment as appropriate. A list of all significant items of plant and equipment used in this noise assessment and their expected noise emissions are listed in Table 8.10. If necessary, plant and equipment will be fitted with silencing equipment (e.g. enclosures, baffles, attenuators) to ensure the levels specified in this report are achieved. A regular maintenance programme will be implemented for all waste handling and processing plant and equipment, to ensure the noise emissions do not increase over time due to equipment wear and tear. Working methods and site practices Good working methods and site practices can be very effective in minimising noise impacts. However it is important to ensure that these practices do not interfere with the efficient operation of the facilities. Some examples are summarised below. The operation of noise generating equipment including tipping and processing activities and plant will be limited to 7.00am to 8.00pm on Mondays to Saturdays and 8.30am to 5.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Waste will not accepted at the Facility after 8.00pm in the evenings. All waste processing activities will take place within the buildings and as far as practicable with the doors closed or in areas of the site that are remote from noise-sensitive locations (for example, weighbridge facility). All loading and unloading would be carried out within the building envelopes. The traffic management measures described above would contribute to avoiding unnecessary revving or idling of engines and use of reversing bleepers. Queuing vehicles would be required to switch off their engines. The speed of waste vehicles would be limited to 15mph. Reducing the speed of onsite vehicle movements would minimise potential body slap from empty lorries. Minimising the number of vehicles/heavy plant that are active on site at any one time. Undertaking regular maintenance of vehicles to ensure there are no loose body parts rattling or exhausts generating excessive noise. No vehicles will be parked near noise sensitive areas. Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 165

The road surfaces and paved areas will be maintained to avoid irregularities or uneven surfaces which can be a cause of noise and vibration. The drivers will be made aware of the potential for noise to cause annoyance or disturbance to local residents and that drivers show due regard upon entering and leaving the site (e.g. no unnecessary horn blowing). All noise complaints will be effectively recorded, investigated and addressed. The working methods and site practices discussed above are mainly intended for ensuring potential noise impacts are controlled at the source. A number of additional measures are discussed below which would attenuate the noise in its path to the noisesensitive receivers. Design of process buildings The overall sound reduction performance of the buildings will be determined by the sound insulation performance of the individual building elements such as walls, roofs, doors, rooflights and louvers as well as the presence of any gaps/ weaknesses inherent in the construction. The internal reverberant noise levels within the process buildings will be controlled by the application of a suitable absorptive material within the process buildings containing the main noisy plant and processes. This will need to comprise Class A absorbers equivalent in area to at least 50% of the total internal surface area of the product storage building and the reception hall. Sound absorption coefficients of a Class A absorber at various octave band frequencies are summarised below. 250Hz

500Hz

1kHz

2kHz

4kHz

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

Table 8.16 – Absorption coefficient for a Class A absorber The walls, roofs, rooflights and shutter doors of the process buildings will be acoustically designed to achieve high sound insulation through the building fabric. Where practicable, all shutter doors would be kept closed at all times, unless being used by vehicles, when waste handling and processing equipment or plant is operating inside the buildings. All roller shutter doors in the buildings will be acoustically sealed to minimise acoustic weaknesses in the construction. All permanent openings in the process buildings such as the ventilation louvers for supply or extraction of air will be designed to minimise noise breakout from the process buildings. As a minimum, the various building elements will have the following minimum sound insulation performance values. It should be noted that the following sound insulation values are recommended in order to observe the environmental noise limits. The sound

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 166

insulation requirements between the Visitor and Education Centre and the rest of the Facility have not been considered in this assessment. Building name

Building element

Minimum sound reduction index, Rw

Product Storage/ De-stoner

External Walls

32

Roof

32

Roof light

20

Shutter doors

32

External internal walls

and 32

Processing Hall

Roof

32

Roof light

20

Shutter doors

32

Acoustic Louvers

32

Table 8.17 – Summary of minimum sound insulation values for various building elements Noise Barriers A 4m high earth bund stretching along the northern and eastern site boundary will be constructed as a priority. This earth bund will be augmented by approximately a 170m long and a 1m high noise barrier along the south-eastern site perimeter to protect the Hovefields Caravan Park site. Figure 4 shows the proposed location of the perimeter bunding as well as the position of the noise barrier. 8.6.3. Road traffic noise The noise impacts associated with temporary (construction) and permanent (operational) road traffic in the wider road network would not be significant and no mitigation measures are required. 8.7. Residual effects 8.7.1. Construction noise and vibration With appropriate noise mitigation measures, it would be possible to minimise the duration and extent of significant construction noise effects. After the application of best practical means, there would be ‘minor’ residual effects which are temporary and short term.

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 167

8.7.2. Operational noise It is expected that with the use of appropriate mitigation measures described in the report noise and vibration impacts associated with the operation of this Facility will be greatly minimised. 8.7.3. Road traffic noise The noise impacts associated with road traffic changes in the local road network would not be significant and only minor residual impacts are expected. 8.8. Cumulative effects The noise contributions from existing developments and sources of noise have been taken into account as part of the measured ambient noise levels in the area. Therefore the assessments presented above represent the combined effects of the proposed development and other existing local developments in the area. It is understood that there is the potential for a Biowaste facility to be located immediately adjacent to the west of the site. Although this is not a committed development, there could be potential cumulative impacts, when both facilities are in operation. The potential Biowaste facility to the west and the proposed MBT Facility would share an access road. Noise calculations have taken into account the combined effect of expected heavy vehicle traffic from both facilities on this access road. The cumulative road traffic noise effects of the two facilities on the wider road network are expected to be minor. The details of other fixed plant and processes in the Biowaste facility are not known in detail at this stage. Although there could be potential cumulative impacts, it is expected that with appropriate design, these impacts could be greatly minimised. It should be noted that the Facility subject of this application is situated much closer to the main noisesensitive receivers at the Hovefields Caravan Park site and would act as a ‘noise-barrier’ against any noise from the proposed Biowaste facility. There are a number of proposed or committed developments in the area, granted since the existing permission, as detailed below 

Basildon Rifle and Pistol Club – proposed commercial development adjacent to proposed Facility



Cranes Farm Road – committed residential development 1 km away from proposed Facility



Phoenix Freight International Ltd – access to commercial development opposite proposed Facility

The traffic assessment has indicated that the traffic generated by the committed developments is expected to be negligible. There could be cumulative impacts on the Hovefields Caravan Park site, due to the operation of Basildon Rifle and Pistol Club and vehicle access to Phoenix Freight International Ltd in combination with this proposed development. However the operational details of these facilities are not known and a detailed assessment cannot be undertaken at this stage. Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 168

8.9. Conclusions 8.9.1. Construction noise and vibration At the time of producing this report, a detailed plant list was not available. The activities could affect the Caravan Park during different phases of construction. With appropriate noise mitigation measures, it will be possible to minimise the duration and extent of significant construction noise effects. A number of noise control measures have been described in this report. The Applicant will liaise with the residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site throughout the construction period to inform residents in advance of particularly noisy activities taking place. This interaction will provide a forum for any issues regarding the site to be raised by the residents and allow them to be appropriately dealt with by the Applicant. 8.9.2. Operational noise It is shown that under typical operational conditions, the rating levels would be less than the background noise levels, which is in line with the agreed noise limits. The noise calculations indicated that the levels at the facades of the noise sensitive receivers are likely to be around 50 dB LAeq during the expected peak delivery hours. These levels would result in reasonable internal resting conditions with windows open, assuming noise reduction of 15 dB between inside and outside of a property when a window is open. Furthermore, noise levels in external living areas would be within the BS 8223 recommended limit of 55 dB LAeq. 8.9.3. Road traffic noise The noise impacts associated with temporary (construction) and permanent (operational) road traffic in the wider road network would be ‘negligible’ to ‘minor’. 8.9.4. Summary of noise and vibration effects

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 169

Description of impact

Significance of effects before mitigation

Construction noise – all activities on site

Minor to Moderate

Construction vibration – percussive piling

Operational noise – fixed plant and processes

D,T

D,T

ST

ST

Minor to Moderate -ve

BPM/ Non-percussive piling methods, where practicable

Minor -ve

D, T

D,T

ST

ST

Negligible

No additional measures required. All necessary measures have been incorporated into design of Facility

Negligible

Negligible

LT

No additional measures required. All necessary measures have been incorporated into design of Facility

Negligible

n/a

Negligible

-ve

Negligible -ve D, P

Road traffic noise – operational traffic generated on existing road network

Minor -ve

LT

Road traffic noise – construction traffic generated on existing road network

BPM

Significance of residual effects

-ve

D, P

Operational noise – external lorry movements within site

Mitigation specification

-ve D, P LT

-ve D, P LT

-ve

-ve

I, T

I, T

ST

ST

Minor

n/a

Minor

-ve

-ve

I, P

I, P

LT

LT

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive;

-ve = negative

D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term

Table 8.18 – Summary of noise and vibration effects during construction and operation

Environmental statement Chapter 8 – Noise and vibration Page 170

9.0

Air Quality

Summary of Assessment: 

The potential for emissions of construction dust has been considered qualitatively, to assess the potential for off-site effects. However it should be noted that the activity with the greatest potential to produce dust, site excavation and levelling, has already been undertaken. Given the mitigation measures that will be in place to manage the remaining construction activities and the limited number of sensitive receptors in the surrounding area, the potential for any material effects off-site is considered to be very low.



Road traffic emissions have been assessed in accordance with the Highways Agency and Environmental Protection UK guidance for local air quality assessments. There is the potential for a slight increase in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at one property in the opening year of the development; the effect at all other properties along roads affected by operational vehicles would be negligible.



An advanced atmospheric dispersion model has been used to determine the effects of residual odour emissions from the biofilter stack on local air quality. The modelled hourly average ground level pollutant concentrations have been evaluated in the context of the relevant odour criteria in H4 guidance. Concentrations at even the closest sensitive receptors were found to be below the Environment Agency’s criterion for “moderately offensive” odours.



Operational emissions of fugitive dust, bioaerosols and odour have been considered qualitatively, to assess the potential for effects from the handling and storage and biostabilisation of material in the main facility buildings. Given the mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the facility design, including closed buildings maintained under a negative pressure system, the potential for any material effects off-site is considered to be very low.

9.1. Introduction The main processes associated with the proposed development with a potential to affect air quality are: 

The mechanical treatment of mixed waste in a Facility incorporating air handling and filtration equipment and odour containment. Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 171



Enclosed maturation halls and associated biofilter.

The setting of the proposed development site is described in detail in Chapter 2 of this ES, while the project itself is described in Chapter 3. The project description addresses the mitigation measures to control atmospheric emissions that are inherent in the design of the plant, notably the full enclosure of all processing equipment. This chapter presents supplementary information about the proposed development and its potential impact on local air quality. It primarily addresses the potential effects of the key operational emissions on the atmospheric environment, although other issues relating to the control of construction dust and traffic emissions are also considered. In particular, the findings of a dispersion modelling study of odour from the biofilter stack are presented. The modelled ground level odour concentrations are evaluated in the context of Environment Agency assessment criteria. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at Basildon District Council was consulted with regard to the proposed approach to the air quality assessment for the Facility. In particular, the need for any additional baseline surveys and the methodology for the assessment of construction and operational emissions were discussed and consequently agreed. 9.2. Regulatory, planning and policy context 9.2.1. Air pollutants In most urban areas in the UK, sources of local air pollutants will generally include road and public transport, building heating systems and industrial processes. Of these sources, road transport tends to dominate. In recent years, the local air pollutants causing most concern have tended to be nitrogen dioxide and particulates. Once emitted, the pollutants are diluted and dispersed in the ambient air. The pollutants most relevant to traffic emissions, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, are addressed briefly below. A description is also provided for the potential operational emissions from the Facility i.e. dust, odour and bioaerosols. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a secondary pollutant produced by the oxidation of nitrogen monoxide (NO). In high concentrations nitrogen dioxide can affect the respiratory system. Nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide are collectively termed nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitrogen monoxide does not have any observable effect on human health at the range of concentrations found in ambient air. The majority of oxides of nitrogen emitted from vehicle engines and combustion processes are in the form of nitric oxide, which oxidises rapidly in the presence of ozone to form nitrogen dioxide. Particles Particles in vehicle exhaust gases consist of carbon nuclei onto which a wide range of compounds are absorbed. These particles have an effective aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers (µm). Particles in this size range are referred to as PM10. Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 172

About a quarter of primary PM10 emissions in the UK are derived from road transport. Particulate matter appears to be associated with a range of symptoms of ill health including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, on asthma and on mortality. Recent reviews by WHO and Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) have suggested exposure to a finer fraction of particles (PM2.5, which typically make up around two thirds of PM10 emissions and concentrations) give a stronger association with the observed ill health effects. Dust Dust is inevitably encountered in the outdoor environment. Construction activities have the potential to generate dust through materials handling and vehicular movements within the site. Dry ground may also be subject to wind erosion. Dust emissions from construction sites potentially arise from a range of diffuse sources and are termed ‘fugitive emissions’. Fugitive dust emissions can lead to a localised increase in dust deposition rates that may potentially cause soiling of cars, windows and other surfaces. Dust that may deposit in the local area close to a source of fugitive dust comprises particles between 10 and 75 micrometers (µm) in diameter, the larger size particles settling to the ground within a few tens of metres from the source. Small particles settle more slowly over a larger area and therefore contribute relatively little to the general ambient dust levels. Such particles are also more susceptible to being blown away. Excessive accumulations of dust on exposed surfaces, particularly in residential locations, may cause a perceived loss of amenity and give rise to public complaint. The ODPM Minerals Policy Statement 2, Appendix 1A12 provides the following description of dust, which may be used in the qualitative assessment of potential risk of annoyance, although it should be noted that this guidance relates to a much more significant dust source in the absence of mitigation: “Dust particles are dispersed by their suspension and entrainment in an airflow. Dispersal is affected by the size of the particles emitted, and wind speed as well as their shape and density. Smaller dust particles remain airborne for longer, dispersing widely and depositing more slowly over a wider area. Large dust particles (greater than 30 μm), which make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from mineral workings, will largely deposit within 100 metres of sources. Intermediate-sized particles (10-30 μm) are likely to travel up to 200-500 metres. Smaller particles (less than 10 μm) which make up a small proportion of the dust emitted from most mineral workings, are only deposited slowly but may travel 1000 metres or more. Concentrations decrease rapidly on moving away from the source due to dispersion and dilution.” Odour Odour arises from the properties of certain substances in the air that stimulate the olfactory receptors in the nose to give the sensation of smell, the odour thus perceived 12

ODPM, “Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England”, March 2005, HMSO

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 173

often being due to a complex mixture of a large number of substances. Odours may be described as pleasant or unpleasant. The latter category covers a range of varying degrees of offensiveness. Odour may cause a perceived loss of amenity or annoyance. If an unpleasant odour is sufficiently strong and regularly noticeable it may be regarded as a nuisance; however a nominally pleasant odour may also be regarded as a nuisance if frequently evident at a sufficiently high concentration. Unpleasant odour is generally associated with the decay of organic materials (e.g. vegetable matter). Handling, storage and processing of organic materials (contained within the residual waste) at the Facility have the potential to give rise to odorous emissions. Odour is measured in terms of ‘odour units’. In the UK the threshold of detection is defined as one European odour unit per cubic metre of air at standard temperature and pressure (ouE/m3); this is defined as the odour concentration at which half the people on a formal odour testing panel can discern between a sample of air with an odour and a sample of odourless air. Odour concentrations above 1 ouE/m3 reflect the number of times a sample would have to be diluted to reach the detection threshold, for instance a sample that has to be diluted five times to reduce to the threshold of detection is said to have a concentration of 5 ouE/m3. As the 1 ouE/m3 detection threshold is by definition not noticeable to half the members of a test panel, a somewhat higher concentration is required for an odour to be generally noticed, although not necessarily recognised as a particular smell. In practice, this is found to be at a concentration of 3 ouE/m3. For a particular odour to be clearly identified by a test panel the odour needs to be at a still higher concentration; empirical tests demonstrate that this odour recognition threshold is at 5 ouE/m3. The main source of research into odour impacts in the UK has been the wastewater industry and a study of the correlation between of modelled odour impacts and human response (dose-effect) was published by UK Water industry Research (UKWIR) in 2001. Based on a review of the correlation between reported odour complaints and modelled odour impacts in relation to nine wastewater treatment works in the UK with ongoing odour complaints, it was found that at modelled exposures of below 5 ouE/m3 as the 98th percentile of hourly concentrations, complaints are relatively rare. Only 3% of the total complaints registered were attributed to locations modelled as falling within this 5 ouE/m3 odour threshold. Bioaerosols Bioaerosols are defined as “microscopic living organisms or fragments of living cells suspended in air. In general, they consist of dust mites, fungi (yeasts and moulds), spores, pollen, bacteria, protozoa, fragments of plant material, and human and animal debris (skin cells, hair etc) which has been shed.”13 The relative proportions of each of these constituents will vary considerably depending on the main sources of the

13

ADAS, Bioaerosol Monitoring and Dispersion from Composting Sites, August 2005

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 174

bioaerosols. Of particular interest in terms of health effects are Aspergillus moulds (in spore and fungal forms). As with odours, there is potential for bioaerosol generation within the buildings during the handling, storage and processing of waste at the Facility. Composting operations likely to result in the uncontrolled release of high levels of bioaerosols are considered by the Environment Agency to include the shredding of waste and the turning of waste in the sanitisation, stabilisation and maturation stages of composting, where these operations are not contained or are not subjected to exhaust ventilation and scrubbing/filtering. 9.2.2. Air quality criteria Air quality criteria can be readily divided into two groups; those that are mandatory and those that are designed for guidance. Mandatory criteria that apply to the UK are the objectives from the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for the UK and the European Community Directive limit values, which are incorporated into regulations. The regulations that apply in England are further divided into two groups: 

Regulations implementing air quality objectives:



- Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/928)



- Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/3043)



Regulations implementing European Union Directive limit values:



- The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/64)



- The CAFE Air Quality Directive adopted in April 2008 (IP/08/570)

The UK Government’s Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland provides details of national air quality standards and objectives for a number of local air pollutants. These statutory criteria are defined in Regulations SI 2000/928 and SI 2002/3043. The standards define the level of pollution below which health effects are unlikely to be experienced even by the most sensitive members of the population. These are based upon the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS). The objectives are targets for air pollution concentrations which take account of the costs and benefits of achieving the standard. In the case of short-term targets, the permissible number of hours or days above the objective concentration is also specified. The number of permissible ’exceedences’ is considered when determining compliance with the shortterm objectives over an annual period. The AQS objectives also implement the requirements of European Directives on air quality. The first European Community (EC) air pollution limit values were introduced in the 1980s. The directives contain mandatory limit values that must be attained and more stringent, but non-obligatory, guide values. In April 2008, the European Commission adopted a directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC). This directive merged the previous Air Quality Framework Directive and the first three

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 175

daughter directives and introduced new objectives for PM2.5. This Directive has been transposed into UK regulations (SI 2010/1001). It should be noted that the UK air quality objectives only apply in locations where there may be a ‘relevant exposure’. These human health objectives are applicable where members of the public may be exposed to pollutant levels for periods equal to or exceeding the averaging periods set for these criteria. Locations of relevant exposure include building façades of residential premises, schools, public buildings and medical facilities. Places of work, other than certain community facilities, are excluded. The statutory air quality criteria for the protection of human health are outlined in the table below. Pollutant

Objective

Compliance Date

NO2

Hourly average concentration should not exceed 31 December 200 µg/m3 more than 18 times a year [1 January 2010]

2005

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 40 µg/m3 PM10

24-hour mean concentration should not exceed 31 December 2004 50 µg/m3 more than 35 times a year [1 January 2005] Annual mean concentration should not exceed 40 µg/m3

PM2.5

UK (except Scotland): annual mean 2020 concentration should not exceed 25 µg/m3 † [2015]

Exposure reduction^

UK urban areas: target of 15% reduction in Between 2010 and 2020 concentrations at urban background*

Notes: [ ] denotes EU Limit Value compliance date in UK Regulations EU limit value is 25 µg/m3 to be met by 2015, with a requirement in urban areas to bring exposure down to below 20 µg/m3 by 2015. ^ New European obligations for a target of 20% reduction * 25 µg/m3 is a cap to be seen in conjunction with 15% reduction †

Table 9.1 – National and European Air Quality Criteria The European Union has set limit values for the protection of vegetation for NO x based on the work of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and World Health Organisation (WHO); these limit values have been incorporated into the Air Quality Limit Value Regulations (SI 2007/64). The limit value for NOx for the protection of vegetation is 30 μg/m3 as an annual mean. This is the same as the AQS objective for vegetation. Assessment of compliance with the limit values for the protection of vegetation is undertaken at locations more than 20 kilometres from towns with more than 250,000 inhabitants or more than five kilometres from other built-up areas, industrial installations or motorways. As monitoring sites need to be representative of an area of 1000 square kilometres, the limit values do not have a Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 176

statutory basis in micro-scale environments such as those close to a road. However, the Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies’ (in England, Natural England) policy is to apply the 30 μg/m3 criterion, on a precautionary basis, as a benchmark, in internationally designated conservation sites and SSSIs. Critical loads for nitrogen deposition have been set by the UNECE that represent (according to current knowledge) the exposure below which there should be no significant harmful effects on sensitive elements of the ecosystem. The critical loads vary by type of ecosystem. 9.2.3. Planning and air quality management The land use planning system is integral to improving air quality and guidance has been prepared to assist local authorities incorporate air quality considerations into planning decisions. The contribution local planning policy can make to long-term improvements in air quality through strategic and development control planning, employing planning policy guidance, is described in Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23), which supersedes Planning Policy Guidance Note 23 (PPG23). PPS23 reiterates many of the principles in the original guidance and states that the potential effects of a development upon ambient air quality are likely to be particularly important: 

Where the development is proposed inside, or adjacent to, an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)



Where the development could in itself result in the designation of an AQMA



Where to grant planning permission would conflict with, or render unworkable, elements of a local authority’s air quality action plan.

However, Annex 1, Appendix 1G, of the statement is clear that it is not the case that all planning applications for developments within or adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if the development results in a deterioration of local air quality. Such an approach could sterilise development, particularly in those instances where the authority has designated their entire area as an AQMA. In addition PPS23 states that developers should discuss their proposals with both the planning and pollution control authorities, and with other legitimate authorities in preapplication discussions. 9.2.4. Environment Agency guidance Odour The Environment Agency provides guidance on odour management in the context of environmental permitting in the Horizontal Technical Guidance Note H414. This document provides odour assessment criteria for a range of odour types, ranked according to their “offensiveness”. These environmental benchmarks are an indicator of the concentration 14

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO0411BTQM-E-E.pdf

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 177

that can be considered to be acceptable for a particular type of odour and are nonstatutory. The guidance recommends benchmark values of 1, 3 and 6 ouE/m3 for the most offensive, moderately offensive and less offensive odours respectively. Moderately offensive odours are defined as those which do not obviously fall within the “high” or “low” categories. Modelled odour concentrations above these levels for the respective odour categories, after taking uncertainty into account, could indicate the possibility of “unacceptable odour pollution”. Bioaerosols The Environment Agency’s position paper on bioaerosols15 requires that a Site Specific Bioaerosol Risk Assessment (SSBRA) be completed if there is a dwelling or workplace within 250 metres of the site boundary and where composting is carried out in open windrows such that there is a reasonable risk of bioaerosols being generated and released off-site. Acceptable concentrations of bioaerosols (predicted or derived from direct measurements) attributable to the composting operations at sensitive receptors are set at 300, 1000 and 500 cfu/m3 for gram-negative bacteria, total bacteria and Aspergillus fumigatus respectively. 9.3. Assessment methodology 9.3.1. Construction dust The control of dust during construction is considered in the context of the overall scale and nature of the development and the potential sensitivity of neighbouring land uses. It is assumed that accepted good practice measures generally implemented on construction sites will be employed. There is no prescribed methodology for assessing dust impacts from construction. Generally, a qualitative or semi-quantitative assessment of risk of annoyance is undertaken. The main reason against undertaking quantitative assessments is the lack of reliable emissions data for fugitive sources, and hence this approach is not typically adopted. The ODPM Minerals Policy Statement described previously indicates that large dust particles, which make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from mineral workings, largely deposit within 100 metres of the source. Applying this spatial scope to the current assessment, it may be assumed that beyond 100 metres of the site boundary, even assuming no mitigation in place, the likelihood of construction dust being deposited is very limited. Research carried out by BRE Ltd16 on PM10 from a construction site shows that, if properly mitigated using best practice techniques, levels of even the finer particulate fraction may be indistinguishable from background at 150 metres from the source. 15

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/Composting__bioaerosols.pdf (accessed 01/08/2011) 16

Upton & Kukadia (2002) Measurements of PM10 from a Construction Site: A Case Study, prepared by BRE Environment for National Society for Clean Air

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 178

Generalised sensitivities of different receptor types to dust are indicated in Table 9.2. High Sensitivity

Medium Sensitivity

Low Sensitivity

Hospitals and clinics

Schools

Farms

Retirement Homes

Residential areas

Light and heavy industry

Hi-tech industries

Food retailers

Outdoor storage

Painting and furnishing

Glasshouses and nurseries

Food processing

Horticultural land Offices

Table 9.2 – Generalised sensitivities of different receptor types to dust The dust assessment for the Facility will identify the presence of medium and high sensitivity receptors within 100 metres of the construction site boundary. Where such receptors are identified, the potential for dust to be transported towards those receptors will be considered, with reference to the type and duration of construction activities being undertaken, the basic mitigation measures that will be applied, and the prevailing wind direction and speed. The Greater London Authority (GLA) in partnership with London Boroughs and the Association of London Government with assistance from the Building Research Establishment and the PRECIS Working Group (Partnership in Reducing Emissions from Construction Industry Sites), has produced a best practice guidance document for the control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition works. Whilst this document is aimed at construction activities within London, it contains robust practical advice which is of general relevance throughout the UK in the absence of specific local guidance. The best practice guidance presents a risk based approach to the assessment of dust emissions from construction sites and proposes a number of industry standard good practice control measures that are considered to be appropriate for the various risk categories. The guidance suggests certain additional mitigation measures as the potential risk increases. The assessment of the proposed Facility evaluates the site in terms of the potential for dust to be transported beyond the site boundary and provides recommendations as to the appropriate mitigation measures for dust control to be employed on the site. 9.3.2. Traffic emissions To assess the potential effects on local air quality due to road traffic during the construction and operation of the Facility, an assessment may be undertaken in accordance with the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) air quality assessment methodology (Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, May 2007). The assessment requires the following data to determine the impact of a scheme on local air quality: Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 179



Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows, speeds and fleet composition in terms of light duty vehicles (LDV – all less than 3.5 tonnes gross weight) and heavy duty vehicles (HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicles includes any vehicle greater than 3.5 tonnes gross weight).



Road type (motorway / ’A’ road, urban road or rural road).



Distance between the receptor façade and road centreline where roads are within 200 metres of the receptor.



Background annual mean pollutant concentrations.

A quantitative estimate of the change in air quality must be undertaken where the changes due to a development on local roads meet any of the criteria below: 

daily traffic flow will change by 1,000 AADT or more, or



HGV flows will change by 200 AADT or more, or



daily average speed will change by 10 kph or more, or



peak hour speed will change by 20 kph or more, or



road alignment will change by five metres or more.

If the changes due to the development are found to exceed the above criteria, pollutant concentrations are then estimated at representative receptors within 200 metres of the road edge, using the DMRB simple assessment method, and compared with statutory air quality criteria. Stack emissions The composting of waste in the biological treatment process will generate odorous emissions, composed of a mixture of compounds including ammonia, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hydrogen sulphide. The air circulating in the process hall and other operational areas will be drawn off, and passed through an air treatment system. The system, which has been designed by Urbaser in collaboration with a potential supplier, comprises a chemical cleaning system (acid scrubber) for the removal of ammonia (NH3) in the raw air; following this, the scrubbed air will be directed to an Advanced Biofilter (FBA) system for the removal of odours, prior to being discharged to atmosphere via a stack. A computer dispersion model has been used to determine the effect of the residual emissions of odour in the discharge from the biofilter stack on local receptors. The study uses information provided by Urbaser. The dispersion modelling of stack emissions was carried out using the US EPA model AERMOD PRIME version 09292. This model is the result of many years development by the US EPA and the American Meteorological Society. It has been developed as a regulatory model that incorporates the current understanding of atmospheric physical processes. This model is used by regulatory agencies, consultants and industry worldwide to assess the impact of air emissions from point, area, line, flare and volume Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 180

sources. The model is commonly used in the UK for planning and regulatory applications; it is also used by the Environment Agency. AERMOD is a steady-state Gaussian model which simulates essential atmospheric physical processes and provides refined concentration estimates over a wide range of meteorological conditions and modelling scenarios. The modelling system includes: 

An advanced meteorological pre-processor to compute site-specific planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameters



Highly developed dispersion formulations that incorporate current PBL understanding and variables for both convective and stable boundary inversions



Enhanced treatment of plume rise and plume penetration for elevated inversions allowing for effects of strong updrafts and downdrafts that occur in unstable conditions



Improved computation of vertical profiles of wind, turbulence and temperature



A “dividing streamline” approach for computations in complex terrain.

AERMOD includes two data pre-processors for streamlining data input: AERMET, a meteorological pre-processor, and AERMAP, a terrain pre-processor. The model can address both local topography and building downwash effects concurrently, where relevant to the study. The model provides reasonable estimates over a wide range of meteorological conditions and modelling scenarios. The building downwash algorithms in AERMOD PRIME, using parameters calculated by the Building Parameter Input Program (BPIP), distinguish this model from earlier versions of AERMOD, which used simpler procedures to address downwash. Meteorological data A five year meteorological data file from Southend Airport containing over 43,000 hourly records was used to characterise local meteorology in terms of both extreme events and long-term average conditions for the purposes of dispersion modelling. This meteorological data is presented in the Baseline Conditions section. The meteorological pre-processor AERMET was used to process the data and estimate the necessary boundary layer parameters for dispersion calculations in AERMOD. The data were processed to take account of the location and surroundings of the meteorological station and of the modelled Facility. These parameters, together with observed near-surface wind and temperature data, were used to model how pollutants disperse in the atmosphere. The meteorological data pre-processor AERMET was used to create the site-specific surface and upper air data files required by AERMOD PRIME. The AERMET processing takes account of the location and surroundings of the Southend Airport meteorological station and of the modelled Facility.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 181

Stack characteristics The assessment of odour emissions from the biofilter was carried out using information provided by Urbaser. The odour emission rate was derived from the biofilter manufacturer’s expected performance guarantee of 1,500 ouE/m3 and a flow rate of 326,900 cubic metres per hour (m3/h). The temperature of the emission is expected to be between 30 and 40°C; for the purposes of the modelling, which requires a single value, the discharge temperature was conservatively assumed to be 30°C. The stack height was determined by means of a sensitivity study. The stack characteristics for the biofilter stack are summarised in Table 9.3. Parameter

Value

Location of stack (OS Grid Ref.), m

574371, 190968

Height of release point above ground level, m

20.5

Stack diameter, m

2.7

Exhaust gas temperature, °C

30

Exhaust gas exit velocity, m/s

15.8

Actual volumetric gas flow rate, m3/s

90.6

Odour emission rate, ouE/s

135,833

Table 9.3 – Biofilter stack parameters Receptors Ground level concentrations were modelled using a Cartesian receptor grid 1.5 by 1.5 kilometres wide spaced at 100 metres and centred on the site. A near-field grid of 25 metre resolution was also used to capture the maximum concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the site boundary. Site boundary receptors were specified, as were a number of discrete receptors representing the locations of nearby residential properties. Grid points falling within the site boundary were excluded from the model run as only the off-site effects are the subject of this study. The model was set up to report the maximum hourly average odour concentration found at each point on the receptor grid. As a five-year meteorological data file was used the maximum hourly result is the highest in over 43,000 hours processed. The model results presented thus robustly characterise the effects of the plant emissions on ambient concentrations due to both extreme short-term meteorological events and to long-term average meteorological conditions. Terrain elevations for all model objects and receptors were used in the dispersion model, as derived from Ordnance Survey digital terrain data files. The receptors within the site boundary were entered at a uniform elevation of 13.87 metres AOD which is the proposed building floor height.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 182

Buildings Buildings close to point source plume discharges that are more than 40% of the stack height may potentially cause downwash effects. The BPIP programme was used to calculate for each wind sector the direction specific building downwash parameters for the stack to be used by AERMOD PRIME in the dispersion calculations. The main buildings were entered in the model for the following ridge heights (N.B. these are the heights above the building floor elevation set at 13.87 metres AOD) 

Maturation halls

13.35 metres



Product store

15.24 metres



Vehicle maintenance

8.60 metres



Reception hall

15.2 metres



Processing hall

15.2 metres



Crane hall

20.7 metres



Biofilter

4.00 metres

Insert 9.1 shows a three dimensional view of the Facility buildings as entered in the model. The view is from the south east. The stack is visible in the right hand side of the picture, at the end of the biofilter. The small yellow dots are sensitive receptor locations; the purple dots are boundary receptors. The image shows both the fine, near-field receptor grid and the wider grid.

Insert 9.1 – 3D model representation of the MBT Facility

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 183

9.3.3. Fugitive emissions There is no prescribed or standard approach to assessing the impact of fugitive emissions e.g. dust, odour and bioaerosols from a new Facility. A limited number of studies have used dispersion modelling techniques although there is usually insufficient technical detail to accurately describe source terms. With regard to bioaerosols, standard methods of determining concentrations are available based on the Environment Agency’s present scientific understanding of bioaerosols, the way they behave and their health impacts. There is, however, not currently considered to be a suitable methodology for carrying out adequate quantitative risk assessments for new composting facilities. Fugitive emissions of dust, odour and bioaerosols from the Facility building have therefore been assessed qualitatively based on information on the Facility design, operational management and mitigation methods. 9.3.4. Local air quality To provide an indication of existing air quality, publicly available information has been drawn from the DEFRA Air Quality website17, the Review and Assessment reports of Basildon Borough Council and the Essex Air website18. All local authorities are required by Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to review air quality in their area and to assess present and likely future air quality against objectives set out in the Government’s Air Quality Strategy. Where a local authority anticipates an AQS objective is expected to be breached they must designate an AQMA and develop an action plan to improve pollution levels. Basildon District Council’s latest Review and Assessment of air quality is described in the 2011 Air Quality Progress Report. There are no noteworthy industrial sources of air pollutants in the immediate area; by far the most dominant sources of local air pollutants are the A132 which runs in a north-south line approximately one kilometre to the west, and the A127 approximately 50 metres to the north. The 2011 Progress Report concluded that pollutant concentrations throughout the borough are expected to meet AQS objectives including nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. No AQMAs have been declared. Monitoring data Basildon District Council commenced air quality monitoring surveys in the area in 2006. Until recently the council also operated a continuous monitoring station (CMS) measuring nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM10) at Gloucester Park, approximately 4.5 kilometres south west of the development site. The council decided to decommission the station as concentrations of air pollutants were recorded at below the national air quality objectives for four consecutive years. The nearest active CMS on the DEFRA 17

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/

18

http://www.essexair.org.uk

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 184

national monitoring network is in Southend-on-Sea, an urban background site in Chalkwell Park, approximately 160 metres from the A13. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and PM10 at these two continuous sites are summarised in Table 9.4. The council also undertakes diffusion tube monitoring of nitrogen dioxide at a number of locations; this survey was expanded in 2011 following the closure of the CMS. The survey includes roadside monitoring locations adjacent to the A127, including one at the junction with Honiley Avenue, around 500 metres to the east of the development. The measurements at this site are also reported in Table 9.4 below. Between 2007 and 2010 none of the sites recorded an exceedance of the annual mean objective. In January 2011, a new diffusion tube monitoring location was set up at no.44 Nevendon Road (parallel to the A132 between Courtauld Road and the A127, around 1 km from the site). The AQS objective for nitrogen dioxide of 40 µg/m3 was equalled19 in 2011. Site

Grid ref

2007

2008

2009

2010

Annual mean NO2 Gloucester Park (hourly Southend-on-Sea exceedences) Honiley Ave DT

32 (1)

34 (0)

32 (0)* †

34 (0)* †

25 (0)

23 (0)

20 (0)*

21 (0)*

35

36

37

37

Annual mean PM10 Gloucester Park (daily Southend-on-Sea exceedences)

27 (6)

24 (0)

23 (13)* †

29 (4)* †

21 (17)

20 (6)

n/a

n/a^

* Data capture less than 75% †

Value annualised by local authority using data from Thurrock, Chignal and Springfield Road

^ PM10 no longer measured, PM2.5 annual mean in 2010 was 12.6 µg/m3 Table 9.4 – Measured pollutant concentrations (µg/m3) Mapped data Estimates of background pollutant concentrations in the UK are available from the DEFRA local air quality management pages20. The background estimates, which are a combination of measured and modelled data, are available for each one kilometre grid square throughout the UK for a base year of 2008 and future years up to 2020. Annual background concentrations for the year 2011 for the grid square containing the proposed Facility (574500, 190500) are given in Table 9.5. The mapped background concentration for nitrogen dioxide is in line with the values measured at the Southend background site but notably lower than the measurements at Gloucester Park. This is recognised to be partly due to the fact the mapped estimates do not reflect the situation in

19

http://www.essexair.org.uk/AQInEssex/Monitoring/DiffusionTubes.aspx (accessed, 08/02/12). It is not clear whether this result is fully bias corrected. 20

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 185

London and the surrounding area, where background NO2 concentrations have been relatively stable since 200221. Pollutant

Background Concentration, µg/m3

Oxides of nitrogen

33.4

Nitrogen dioxide

22.0

PM10

19.0

PM2.5

12.9

Table 9.5 – Mapped Estimates of Background Concentrations 9.3.5. Dust Dust measurements are not routinely made in Basildon and therefore no information is available on levels in the vicinity of the development site. During a site visit undertaken on 11th August 2011, no visible evidence of excessive dust deposition was observed and there were not noted to be any obvious sources of dust. 9.3.6. Odour Monitoring of odour is not currently undertaken in the vicinity of the development site. The current odour characteristics in the area are therefore unknown but are likely to be influenced by surrounding activities, including those on the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate to the south, the sewage treatment works to the west and agricultural land to the north. The EHO has indicated that odour from the sewage treatment works occasionally gives rise to noticeable odours. A complaints record is maintained for the site and operations are reviewed on a regular basis. Two site walkover surveys were carried out in accordance with the methodology described in Environment Agency H4 guidance for “sniff testing”. The full details of the survey are provided in Appendix 9.1. The findings of this survey were: 

Odour was detectable within the development site, at an intensity of 2 to 4 at up to 380 metres from the sewage treatment works eastern site boundary; and



Odour was not detectable at the closest sensitive receptors (Hovefields Caravan Park site to the east and a property on Hovefields Avenue to the north east).

A second walkover survey was carried out on 31st January 2012, which found:

21



Odour was detectable at the entrance to the sewage treatment works on Courtauld Road at an intensity of 5.



Odour was not detectable at any other location including within the development site at the closest sensitive receptors (Hovefields Caravan Park site and Hovefields Avenue to the north east).

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/cat05/1108251149_110718_AQ0724_Final_report.pdf

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 186

9.3.7. Bioaerosols Potential existing local sources of pathogenic microorganisms that may occur as bioaerosols include the neighbouring sewage treatment works and agricultural land to the north. In a critical review of published data on bioaerosols undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 200322, it was reported that: “In the absence of any significant bioaerosol sources, natural atmospheric conditions in a typical suburban area were reported to give rise to 0 to 7.2 x 103 (mean 273) cfu/m3 mesophilic fungi, 0 to 193 (mean 2.1) cfu/m3 thermophilic fungi, 0 to 71 (mean 1) cfu/m3 Aspergillus fumigatus, 42 to 1.6 x 103 (mean 79) cfu/m3 bacteria.” (Note: Aspergillus fumigatus refers to Aspergillus fumigatus spores). Existing levels of bioaerosols were recorded during a site visit undertaken on 11th August 2011. The full details of the survey are provided in Appendix 9.2. The results are summarised as: 

Concentrations of total bacteria were below the Environment Agency threshold of 1000 cfu/m3 at all locations;



Concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus were below the Environment Agency threshold of 500 cfu/m3 at the two sensitive receptor locations;

Concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus were above the Environment Agency threshold at the two on-site locations and the background location. The concentrations of bacteria are in line with the levels reported by the HSE, however, the concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus on site were above the highest value reported by the HSE. It was recommended that a second suite of tests for Aspergillus fumigatus be carried out over shorter sampling periods in accordance with AFOR’s guidance to further investigate the exceedences. This was undertaken on 31st January 2012. The findings were: 

Concentrations of total bacteria were below the Environment Agency threshold of 1000 cfu/m3 at all locations;



Concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus were below the Environment Agency threshold of 1000 cfu/m3 at all locations.

The lower results from the second survey, in particular those for Aspergillus fumigatus, may have been influenced by the very cold and calm conditions on the day. Nonetheless it is noted that on neither occasion were concentrations above the Environment Agency thresholds at sensitive exposure locations. 9.3.8. Meteorology The most appropriate meteorological station with adequate records in the format required for the dispersion modelling study is Southend Airport. The meteorological station is 22

HSE, 'Occupational and Environmental Exposure to Bioaerosols from Composts and Potential Health Effects - A Critical Review of Published Data', Research Report 130, 2003

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 187

located at 51.57°N, 0.70°E, approximately 14 kilometres to the east of the development, located at 51.59°N, 0.52°E. The data from this station are considered to be suitably representative of the application site. Five years of hourly sequential meteorological data for the years 2006 to 2010 were used in the modelling. The meteorological data was used to generate a five-year frequency distribution of wind speed and direction. The data is presented as a wind rose diagram in Insert 9.2. The frequency distribution is shown in Table 9.6.

Insert 9.2 – Windrose for Southend Meteorological Station, 2006-2010

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 188

Direction

Speed

Bearing

Degree

< 1.54

1.54 3.09

to 3.09 5.14

to 5.14 8.23

to 8.23 to > 10.80 10.80

Total

N

0.0

0.920

1.160

2.270

0.590

0.060

0.010

5.000

NNE

22.5

0.680

0.710

1.660

0.600

0.050

0.010

3.710

NE

45.0

0.680

0.610

1.260

0.650

0.060

0.000

3.250

ENE

67.5

0.700

0.720

1.790

0.910

0.080

0.000

4.220

E

90.0

0.980

0.940

2.080

0.370

0.010

0.000

4.370

ESE

112.5

0.700

0.700

1.180

0.130

0.000

0.000

2.700

SE

135.0

0.560

0.590

0.710

0.090

0.010

0.000

1.950

SSE

157.5

0.510

0.660

1.120

0.310

0.020

0.000

2.620

S

180.0

0.500

0.710

2.040

0.980

0.140

0.020

4.380

SSW

202.5

0.610

0.970

3.440

2.260

0.500

0.080

7.870

SW

225.0

1.030

1.610

5.250

4.180

0.940

0.070

13.080

WSW

247.5

1.180

1.390

4.080

3.170

0.910

0.230

10.960

W

270.0

1.100

1.210

3.290

2.040

0.510

0.140

8.310

WNW

292.5

1.350

1.170

2.580

0.990

0.170

0.050

6.300

NW

315.0

1.200

1.120

2.300

0.930

0.110

0.010

5.680

NNW

337.5

1.190

1.250

1.940

0.740

0.080

0.010

5.190

Total %

13.880

15.510

36.960

18.950

3.660

0.640

89.600

Calms

10.040

Missing

0.360

Total %

100.000

Table 9.6 – Southend Meteorological Station Five Year Relative Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction, (%) Were the wind to be equally distributed from each directional sector, the frequency would be 5.6% in each sector excluding calms. Winds from the north-west occur at this frequency. It is evident from the data that there is a prevailing wind from the south west principally, and there are higher than average wind frequencies from the sectors between the south south west and west north west. Winds from these five sectors comprise almost 47% of total winds, rather than the 28% that would arise from an evenly distributed case. In contrast, winds from the seven sectors between north north-east and the south are relatively infrequent, particularly those from the south east and adjoining sectors. These eight sectors account for just 27% of total winds.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 189

Surface characteristics were specified to reflect the nature of the area surrounding the Facility. According to latest EPA guidance, the near-field land use within a one kilometre circle was evaluated to determine the surface roughness length. Land uses may be specified by directional sector. The Bowen ratio and albedo were determined by the dominant land use categories within the far-field, a 10 by 10 kilometre square. A subjective determination of the percentages of each type of land use was made based on maps and aerial photographs. The land use proportions are simply averaged over the area and are independent of distance or direction from the site. Urban, cultivated land, deciduous woodland and water comprised 53%, 43%, 3% and 1% respectively. The preprocessor generates appropriate default annual average values for these parameters based on the land use information. The values used for surface parameters are presented in Table 9.7. Direction

Land Type

Albedo

Bowen Ratio

Roughness Length, m

135 – 280

Urban

0.2382

1.215

1.0000

280 - 135

Cultivated land

0.2382

1.215

0.0725

Table 9.7 – Surface characteristics used in meteorological data processing Receptors The proposed development site is set on the north eastern outskirts of the town of Basildon. Immediately to the south and east of the site lies the Burnt Mills industrial estate, while to the west is a sewage treatment works. The area to the north, beyond the A127, consists of agricultural land and some isolated properties. The closest receptors to the site in terms of human health lie within the Hovefields Caravan Park site, adjacent to the south-eastern site boundary. There are a number of residential properties south of the industrial estate and to the west of the sewage treatment works. There are also properties to the north of the A127, for instance along Hovefields Avenue. There are no other particularly sensitive receptors (e.g. schools, hospitals and care homes for the elderly) within 500 metres of the site boundary. A selection of the nearest residential properties which have been included in the model as discrete receptors, are shown in Insert 9.3 and are identified in Table 9.8, which also shows the distance and direction of these properties to the biofilter stack. Ecological sites There are no statutory designated ecological sites within a two kilometre radius of the development site. There are furthermore no sites within 200 metres of roads in the surrounding area likely to be affected by traffic associated with the development. No assessment of effects on ecological sites has therefore been undertaken as part of the EIA.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 190

Insert 9.3 – Sensitive receptor locations included in odour model

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 191

Ref

Address

OS Northing

OS Easting

Distance, m

1

Hovefields NW

574416

190811

160 m SSE

2

Hovefields SW

574386

190762

210 m S

3

Hovefields SE

574460

190801

190 m SE

4

Frampton Farm House

573560

190842

820 m WSW

5

Southview, Hovefields Avenue

574705

190991

330 m E

6

The Orchard, Hovefields Avenue

574651

191078

295 m ENE

7

Chambers Cottage, Nevendon Road

573700

191183

700 m WNW

8

Calvert Drive, Burnt Mills

574296

190173

800 m S

Table 9.8 – Locations of sensitive receptors included in odour model 9.4. Environmental Impact Assessment 9.4.1. Key environmental effects to consider The key environmental effects associated with air quality, to be considered in the EIA, were identified during the scoping exercise. These are: Construction dust Consideration of potential air quality effects during the construction phase, in relation to dust raising activities. Traffic emissions Consideration of the potential for vehicle movements associated with the construction and operation of the Facility to affect local air quality. Sensitive receptors to vehicle pollutants are typically considered to include residential properties and locations where there are likely to be vulnerable occupants such as hospitals, nursing homes and schools. Stack emissions A quantitative consideration of the potential effect of the operation of the Facility in terms of odour emissions from the biofilter stack on sensitive receptors. Fugitive emissions A qualitative assessment of the potential effects of fugitive emissions of dust, odour and bioaerosols. There is a proven track record of new composting facilities effectively controlling fugitive emissions within the buildings. This is a result of the mitigation and management systems to be included as part of the Facility design and materials handling operations. Although this means that the potential for off-site effects is very low, nonetheless an assessment has been carried out.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 192

9.4.2. Significance criteria Dust There are no established criteria for assessing the significance of dust from construction activities. Dust is therefore considered in qualitative terms and reference to best practice guidance for dust control from the GLA. This approach evaluates the risks presented in terms of the scale of site and the mitigation measures anticipated to be inherent to the management of construction activities. Traffic For traffic emissions, the affected road network is defined in accordance with the DMRB change criteria described previously. The results of the local air quality assessment may be compared with the air quality objectives presented above in Table 9.1 Significance is interpreted on the basis of existing pollution levels, the magnitude of change and extent of any exceedance of air quality criteria, now or in the future, in line with EPUK guidance for development control (2010)23. Odour The results of the air dispersion modelling study are evaluated in terms of the 98th percentile of hourly ground level odour concentrations against the Environment Agency H4 criterion of 3 ouE/m3 for “moderately” offensive odours. The Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) states in its position statement on odours, that at exposures below this level “complaints are unlikely to occur” and are “unlikely to constitute significant pollution or significant detriment to amenity unless the locality is highly sensitive or the odour highly unpleasant in nature”. Bioaerosols There are no established criteria for assessing the significance of bioaerosols. The results of the bioaerosols assessment will be evaluated in qualitative terms and with reference to best practice guidance for control of fugitive emissions. 9.4.3. Assessment of construction dust During construction, dust levels may periodically be elevated above the normal range in the area around the site. Raised levels at receptors are most likely when conditions are dry with a wind blowing from the area where activities are undertaken towards a receptor. Activities Works to raise and level the ground have already been executed. The main construction works on site are programmed to commence in March 2013 after a short period of site establishment. This main construction phase is anticipated to last 17 months. The 23

http://www.environmentalprotection.org.uk/assets/library/documents/Air_Quality_Guidance_2010_(final2).pdf

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 193

individual phases are described in more detail in Chapter 3. The activities with the potential to create dust are considered to be: 

Enabling works - construction of the site access roundabout and the site spine road; earthworks activities including bunding along the northern and eastern boundaries and excavation of the lagoon



Piling - will commence in three areas in parallel: driven piles supporting the ground floor slab in the maturation building, driven piles supporting the steel frame in the maturation building and piling for the reception pit



Movement of mobile and static plant: excavators, piling rigs, compactors, delivery lorries, tipping lorries, dump trucks and loading shovels

The principal source of dust emissions during the construction period will be due to the movement of heavy vehicles travelling on unmade surfaces within the development site and activities associated with the movement of earth and fill material within the site boundary. Excavations for the foundations of the main building are likely to be the only substantial works of this nature on this level site. The subsequent construction stages are likely to involve a much lower level of potentially dusty activities such as intrusive ground works, bulk material handling, and vehicle movements both in terms of accessing and operating within the site. The majority of the works will take place during the typical working hours (7.00am until 7.00pm) Monday to Friday and between 8.00am and 5.00pm on Saturdays. While some Sunday and Bank Holiday working may also be necessary, no works would be carried out that may be audible at the site boundary (e.g. piling). Mitigation During the construction phase the nature of work, weather conditions, topography and prevailing wind direction will be taken into account when determining the level of dust control required. Dust levels will be monitored continuously by the site management personnel and action taken as appropriate. During dry spells, particular attention will be given to dust suppression measures such as: 

Damping down stockpiled materials likely to create airborne dust;



Covering dust-generating materials;



Providing hard surfacing for heavily used routes;



Prohibition of fires on-site;



Use of wheel-washing equipment;



Imposing a maximum site speed (15mph);



Covering vehicles carrying spoil and waste;



Providing solid site hoardings;



Ensuring water bowsers are available at all times; Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 194



Brushing down of hard surfacing;



Control of cutting or grinding materials; and



Use of an approved mechanical road sweeper.

Receptors The only sensitive receptors identified within 100 metres of construction areas are those within the Hovefields Caravan Park site to the east of the development boundary. The industrial units in the vicinity are not considered to be sensitive to dust deposition. Winds from the west to north-west, i.e. directions which may carry dust generated on site towards the receptors, are of above average to average frequency, occurring for 20% of the time. In the absence of effective mitigation and during dry weather, dust deposition may potentially occur at these receptors. In reality, however, the potential for dust to have any material effect off-site is very low as dust control measures that represent accepted best practice in the construction industry will be applied. Assessment Due to the relatively small scale and short duration of earthworks associated with ground preparation, the application of industry standard mitigation methods to control dust emissions, and the limited number of sensitive receptors within 100 metres of the site boundary, the effect of the development is considered to be of minor adverse significance. In accordance with the GLA site evaluation criteria, the site is considered to be of low risk as there is limited potential for effects on receptors. No additional mitigation measures are considered necessary. 9.4.4. Assessment of traffic emissions The development is well connected to the existing road network. The site entrance will be on Courtauld Road, which will be accessed from the A127 via and A132 north of the Courtauld Road/Cranes Road roundabout. Traffic emissions have the potential to influence air quality at sensitive receptors that are located within 200 metres of the edge of any affected road. The Hovefields Caravan Park site and several residential properties near the A132 have been identified as sensitive receptors close to roads which may be affected by changes in vehicle movements on routes used by vehicles during the construction and operation of the development. Construction An estimate of the number of vehicles associated with the construction of the Facility has been calculated by the Applicant. The main period of construction in terms of traffic movements will be over a nine week period, when up to 100 two-way HGV movements per day are anticipated, in addition to which there may be between 68 and 92 LGV movements associated with staff and operatives. The traffic associated with the construction of the site will be less than that generated by the site when operational. Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 195

As the number of HGV movements and total vehicles do not exceed the DMRB change criteria for affected roads, no further assessment has been undertaken. It may be concluded that the effect of construction traffic on local air quality would be insignificant. Operation All HGV traffic associated with the development when operational will access and depart the Facility via the Courtauld Road/Cranes Farm roundabout to the west. The A132 would be accessed from the south via the A13 or from the north via the A127. Some staff traffic (LGVs) would access the site from the east. Traffic data for a base year (2011) and opening year (2015) both with and without the development (termed the Do Something and Do Minimum scenarios respectively), were generated as part of the Transport Assessment. The traffic data were based on automatic traffic counts undertaken at a number of locations on the local road network including Courtauld Road, Burnt Mills Road, the A132 and A1235. Further information is contained within the Traffic and Transportation Chapter of this ES. The assessment of the effect on air quality for the current proposal has been carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Highways Agency DMRB methodology (released in May 2007). The DMRB requires a quantitative assessment to be undertaken where changes due to a scheme or development meet one or more of the thresholds described in Section 9.3.2. A review of the 24-hour AADT data and number of HGVs has been undertaken to determine any requirement for an assessment of air quality effects due to traffic associated with the proposed development. The relevant traffic data are presented in Table 9.9. It should be noted that the “Do Something” scenario includes the traffic associated with both the proposed development and the adjacent Biowaste facility.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 196

Road

AADT AADT AADT Increase in Increase Base Year Opening Year Opening Year total vehicles HGVs 2011 2015 DM 2015 DS

A132 East Mayne (S of Cranes Farm Rd) 35283

36906

37054

149

108

A1235 Cranes Farm Rd (E of Cranes Close) 20332

21267

21408

140

101

A132 East Mayne (N of Cranes Farm Rd) 35760

37405

37777

372

295

Courtauld (E of Harvey Rd)

8427

9179

752

504

34763

34962

198

158

in

Road 8057

A132 Nevendon Rd (W of Old Nevendon Rd) 33235 Notes:

2015 DM traffic flows were estimated from base year using a factor of 1.046 Traffic data for Burnt Mills Road is not presented as the total flow is less than 5,000 and the increase due to the development negligible at less than 30 LDV and 0 HGV. No base data provided for the A127, however, the total increase would be 115 vehicles (100 HGVs) or less. Table 9.9 – Traffic data associated with the development A comparison of opening year Do Minimum and Do Something traffic flows indicates that the increase in total vehicles due to the proposed development is below the threshold for the DMRB criterion of 1000 on all roads; the maximum increase in 24 hour AADT flow of 752 on Courtauld Road is around three quarters of the criterion. The maximum increase in HGV flow, however, exceeds the DMRB criterion of 200 vehicles per day on two road links, with increases of 504 on Courtauld Road and of 295 on the A132 East Mayne (north of Cranes Farm Road). Daily and peak hour traffic speeds are assumed to be unaffected by the proposed development. No road will undergo realignment by more than five metres. On the basis of these findings a simple calculation of the effect of the change in traffic flows is required. An assessment was made for The Haven property, which is the closest of the properties to the A132 and 100 metres north of Courtauld Road. The estimated changes at The Haven are estimated to be an increase of 0.5 µg/m 3 as NO2 annual mean24 and 0.05 µg/m3 as PM10 annual mean. There would be no change in the number of days above 50 µg/m3.

24

Using the DEFRA NOx to NO2 calculator, available at http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/nocalculator.html (accessed 09/09/11)

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 197

Although the Hovefields Caravan Park site is in close proximity to Courtauld Road, the total flow on this road is less than 10,000 AADT and as such, an assessment is not required (EPUK guidance); furthermore, the site entrance is over 50 metres to the west of the Hovefields site and the majority of HGV access to the Facility would be via the A132 to the west, therefore the DMRB criteria would not be met at this point. A detailed layout for the new housing proposed on Cranes Farm Road has not been identified, however, the change in pollutant concentrations at these proposed receptors would be less than that estimated for The Haven. This is because the increases in traffic on the roads closest to the development, the A132 South and on Cranes Farm Road, do not meet the DMRB change criteria. The result from the DMRB calculation at The Haven has been interpreted using EPUK guidance. According to the magnitude descriptors, there would be a “small” (0.4 to 2 µg/m3) change in annual mean concentrations of NO2 as a result of the additional vehicle flows associated with the proposed development. According to the criteria set out in Table 5 of the guidance, this change may be interpreted as “slight adverse”, as the annual mean concentration would be just above 40 µg/m3 with the development (based on the measured diffusion tube result for 2011 of 40 µg/m3). It should be noted that the result at the Haven represents the greatest change at any property along the affected routes. Almost all properties in the area would therefore be expected to experience a change of less than 0.4 µg/m3 i.e. an imperceptible and hence “negligible” change. The change in the annual mean concentration of PM10 at the Haven is “imperceptible” (<0.4 µg/m3) and may be interpreted as of negligible significance. 9.4.5. Assessment of stack emissions The maximum modelled hourly average ground level odour concentrations resulting from the biofilter stack emissions were derived for each of the individual years 2006 to 2010. These results were then processed in order to calculate the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations at each receptor for each year, for comparison with the Environment Agency odour exposure benchmark criterion adopted for use in the assessment. The results are shown graphically as contour plots overlaid on a base map in Appendix 9.2, for each of the years modelled. Note that contours shown with hachure marks (inward ticks) depict areas of lower concentration. The contour plots demonstrate that concentrations exceed 1 ouE/m3, the odour detection limit, over just a very small area to the north east and south east of the stack, and that within these areas, there are a limited number of receptors. The pattern of dispersion is similar across all five years, with just some variation closer to the stack. Concentrations decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the stack, such that concentrations almost halve within the length of the Hovefields Caravan Park site. In all cases, concentrations at properties on Hovefields Avenue (north of the A127) are between 1 and 1.5 ouE/m3; properties within the Hovefields Caravan Park site are between 1 and 2.5 ouE/m3; properties south of Burnt Mills are less than 1 ouE/m3;

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 198

concentrations around the sewage works are less than 1 ouE/m3 and over the industrial estate are between 0.5 and 3 ouE/m3. The results are summarised in Table 9.10, which shows the 98th percentile of hourly ground level concentrations at a representative selection of nearby sensitive receptors as well as the maximum in the entire model domain - for each of the individual years. In all years, the maximum modelled 98th percentile odour concentration does not exceed the odour exposure benchmark criterion of 3 ouE/m3 for “moderately offensive” odours at any of the sensitive receptors. These results also confirm that at some sensitive locations, odour is unlikely to be detectable as it is less than 1 ouE/m3. Receptor

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Field max

2.8

3.1

2.8

2.9

3.6

1

2.6

2.7

2.0

1.9

2.3

2

1.2

1.6

1.3

1.1

1.6

3

1.8

1.5

1.1

0.9

1.3

4

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.3

5

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.7

6

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.3

0.9

7

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

8

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.7

Table 9.10 – 98th percentile of hourly average odour concentrations (ouE/m3) The odour emissions from the biofilter are assessed as unlikely to give rise to complaints or result in any perceived loss of amenity in the vicinity. As such the potential for any effects of biofilter emissions may be considered negligible. Uncertainty The assessment has been based on a number of conservative assumptions: firstly it was assumed that the biofilter would continuously emit odour at the maximum concentration provided by the manufacturer as a performance guarantee and secondly that the plume temperature would always be at the lower end of the likely temperature range. The assessment used a five year meteorological data set and entails a sensitivity study evaluating the results for each individual year, thus ensuring that the least favourable meteorological conditions for dispersion were found and the highest results in five years were reported. The results were compared with the exposure criterion for “moderately offensive” odours, whereas some receptors may find the biofilter emissions to be “less offensive”, in which case a less stringent criterion would be appropriate. The conclusions drawn are therefore robust, and the uncertainty in the modelling is considered to be small in comparison with the overall scale of the safety factors built into the above assumptions. Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 199

9.4.6. Assessment of fugitive emissions Construction Fugitive emissions of dust during construction have been assessed above in Section 9.4.3. Emissions of odour and bioaerosols during the construction phase of the development are not anticipated to be problematic as the site has already been levelled, and the construction activities will not give rise to any foreseeable emissions, for instance as a result of excavation of soil. Operation The proposed Facility has been designed to minimise the potential for operational impacts associated with dust, odour and bioaerosols from the outset. The ventilation system of the Facility will constantly maintain a negative air pressure within the main building to ensure emissions such as odour, dust, bioaerosols as well as any litter, are drawn back into the building rather than being released directly to atmosphere. The air removed from the Waste Reception and Processing areas, and also over specific equipment items (trommels and ballistics) will be conducted to the first biostabilisation hall. The aeration of the other two biostabilisation halls is supported by fans that input clean air from outside. This system is automatically adjustable to maintain the ideal conditions for the biostabilisation process and removes the air to the Air Treatment Plant. The interior of the Facility will be fitted with an extraction grid to enable contaminated air from the inside to be captured and directed to the Air Treatment Plant for cleaning. The treatment system comprises a chemical cleaning system (acid scrubber) for the removal of ammonia as well as filtering out particulates, and an Advanced Biofilter (FBA) system for the removal of odours. Dust During operation of the Facility, delivery and processing of the waste has the potential to generate fugitive emissions of dust. The design of both the Facility itself and the processes being undertaken within it will, however, incorporate a number of measures to eliminate or minimise emissions including: 

high quality roadways and hard-standing which will be easily cleaned and maintained with low speed limits enforced for all vehicles



loading and unloading operations contained within buildings with fast action roller shutter doors



waste handling operations within enclosed buildings, which are maintained under negative pressure



areas of buildings where dust is likely to be generated fitted with probe units to provide a mist spray to control dust particles



sheeting of bulk vehicles removing material from the site. Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 200

The effective application of these mitigation measures will ensure that the potential for any noticeable effect of dust beyond the site boundary is negligible. Bioaerosols The potential sources of bioaerosols at the Facility include: 

Waste reception



Maturation halls



Output screening



Final product storage

There are dwellings (the Hovefields Caravan Park site and a few properties on Hovefields Avenue to the north east) and workplaces (the industrial units south and east of the Facility within the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate) within 250 metres of the above operations. The closest and most sensitive receptors are considered to be those within the Hovefields Caravan Park site. Bioaerosols may be transported towards this location when winds are between the west and north, i.e. around 28% of the time (as determined from the wind frequency and distribution table in Section 9.3.8). Exposure of workers on the industrial site to any elevated bioaerosol concentrations would be likely limited to working hours. The Environment Agency states in its position statement that operations likely to result in the uncontrolled release of high levels of bioaerosols include “the shredding of waste and the turning of waste in the sanitisation, stabilisation and maturation stages of composting where these operations are not contained or are not subjected to exhaust ventilation and scrubbing/filtering”. No such activities are proposed. All operations at the Facility will take place within enclosed buildings, which will be maintained under negative pressure and controlled by fast acting roller shutter doors. Air from the pre-processing building, waste reception, and waste water treatment will be directed to the biostabilisation area where it will be directed to an acid scrubber. This will remove particulate matter including any bioaerosols from the air. The baseline monitoring survey of bioaerosols at the development site found that existing concentrations of total bacteria were within the typical range that may be expected in the absence of a significant source but that levels of funghi (Aspergillus fumigates) were above the Environment Agency threshold however levels at receptor sites were found to be below the threshold levels. Bioaerosol monitoring will be undertaken 6 monthly in the first year of operation and on an annual basis thereafter. In the unlikely event that unacceptably high levels of bioaerosols are found to be emitted by the site, the matter would be investigated and remedied as soon as practicable in association with the Agency. Due to the mitigation measures that will be inherent in the design, however, it is not expected that there would be any material change in the existing background levels once the Facility is operational. The potential for any change due to fugitive operational emissions is considered to be negligible. Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 201

Odour As described above, all operations will take place within the enclosed Facility buildings, which are maintained under negative pressure and controlled by fast acting roller shutter doors. Air from the pre-processing building, waste reception, and waste water treatment will be directed to the biostabilisation area and on to the Air Treatment Plant. The process air will pass through an acid scrubber where the ammonia will be removed (to a concentration below 40 ppm) through contact with a sulphuric acid (H2SO4) mist. The air will then be directed to the odour control biofilter together with the air directed from the output storage and refining areas. Upon exiting the biofilter stack, the ammonia concentration will be less than 0.5 ppm. On entering the biofilter, the humid polluted air stream will pass through a porous packed media where microorganisms biodegrade the odorous and other organic compounds present, forming mainly carbon dioxide and water. During operation all waste handling activities will be undertaken in accordance with Urbaser’s Environmental Standard ES4: Nuisance Prevention. An Odour Management Plan that meets the requirements of the Environment Agency’s Technical Guidance H4 will be prepared for the Facility. The design of the Facility and the application of these management measures will ensure that the potential for any change in the existing odour levels due to fugitive operational emissions is negligible. 9.5. Mitigation The assessment described in the previous section took into account the mitigation methods inherent in the proposed design, i.e. the application of negative pressure in process buildings, the sending of all process building air streams through a scrubber and then a biofilter, and the discharge of residual biofilter emissions via a stack. No further mitigation is considered to be necessary in order to control these emissions to an acceptable level. The control of odour will be managed by means of the Odour Management Plan described above. This will include regular monitoring of, amongst other parameters, pH, humidity and acid dosing to check on the good operation of both the scrubber and the biofilter. Subjective odour testing will be undertaken daily by trained facility personnel to confirm that odour is not detectable at the site boundary. Standard industry good practice dust mitigation measures were outlined previously for minimising the production and dispersion of dust during the construction of the Facility. These measures were developed with reference to the GLA’s Best Practice Guidance for a low risk construction site. The proposed mitigation methods shall be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) or equivalent. The continued introduction of newer European vehicles standards, in particular Euro VI for HGVs, will in contribute to a reduction of road NOx emissions in future years.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 202

9.6. Residual effects Given the implementation of good practice and of the mitigation measures described in the assessment section, it is considered to be highly unlikely that there will be any noticeable residual effects of the Facility beyond the site boundary. It is nonetheless possible that on rare occasions, despite the application of good practice mitigation measures, dust emissions may be noticeable beyond the site boundary during short periods of adverse meteorological conditions. In the same way, it is possible that emissions of odour from the biofilter may result in very occasional perception of odour at the nearest residential properties immediately to the south east of the site boundary. Such residual effects would be minor, short-term and reversible. Should any complaints arise, these would be investigated in accordance with the site Odour Management Plan. 9.7. Cumulative effects The assessment of cumulative effects looks qualitatively at the combined effects of the proposed Facility and other local developments on receptors. The Biowaste facility proposed immediately adjacent to the west of the site is proposed to include a processing facility for kitchen and garden waste. Timelines for the development of the proposed Biowaste facility are unknown. However, it is not envisaged that the construction periods for these two developments will overlap and as such there is no potential for combined effects of construction dust. The traffic assessment included traffic generated by the Biowaste facility in the “Do Something” scenario. The assessment showed that the potential change in air quality pollutants would be negligible. The concurrent operation of the sewage treatment works, the Biowaste facility and the proposed MBT Facility has the potential to give rise to a cumulative odour impact at properties to the north east of the development site, when winds are from a south westerly direction, as all three odour sources would be aligned. The Hovefields Caravan Park site is unlikely to be affected in such a way, other than in the event of particularly odorous activities on agricultural land to the north. The 98th percentile of hourly average odour concentrations at the closest receptors on Hovefields Avenue were modelled to be 1.5 ouE/m3 or less i.e. around the limit of detection or more likely, below it. Any potential cumulative impacts are therefore considered to be negligible. The potential for fugitive emissions of dust, odour and bioaerosols due to the operation of the Facility was found to be negligible due to the extensive mitigation measures inherent in the design. It will therefore not contribute to cumulative effects. 9.8. Conclusions The conclusions of the impact assessment are summarised in the following tables.

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 203

Description of impact

Significance of Mitigation effect before specification mitigation

Dust generated during construction

Moderate -ve

Dust control Minor measures -ve

D,T ST Dust emissions

Minor -ve D,T, ST

Traffic emissions

Significance of residual effect

D,T ST GLA control Negligible measures

Minor -ve to Vehicle standards Negligible negligible e.g. Euro VI for HGVs I, P, ST

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive; -ve = negative D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 9.11 – Summary of air quality effects during construction Description of impact

Significance of Mitigation effect before specification mitigation

Significance of residual effect

Odour emissions from biofilter

Negligible

Included in design

n/a

Fugitive emissions during operation (dust, bioaerosols, odour)

Negligible

Included in design

n/a

Key to significance Severe, Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible +ve = positive;

-ve = negative

D = Direct; I = Indirect; P = Permanent’; T = Temporary S T= Short Term; MT = Medium Term; LT = Long Term Table 9.12 – Summary of air quality effects during operation

Environmental statement Chapter 9 – Air Quality Page 204

10.0 Socio-Economic

Summary of Assessment Three geographical areas have been identified and assessed; 

Local area: within the administrative boundaries of Basildon



Sub-regional area: within the administrative boundaries of Essex



Regional area: defined as the east area of England

A summary the socio-economic effects as a result of the proposed scheme during construction of the site are: 

Employment: Beneficial, temporary, moderate.



Impacts on residents relating to stress: Adverse, temporary, minor.

A summary of the socio-economic effects as a result of the proposed scheme during operation of the site are: 

Employment: Beneficial, permanent, moderate.

10.1. Introduction This chapter presents the socio-economic assessment for the Facility. It gives regard to relevant legislation and policy and sets out the assessment methodology and significance criteria used. It includes a baseline description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment of the construction and operational phases of the facility, mitigation measures, residual impact assessment and recommendations. There are a number of potential economic and social benefits associated with the proposed Facility which will greatly assist with achieving the goals of the strategie which include: 

Direct and indirect employment opportunities arising from the proposal (Job Creation) and local supply chain opportunities;



Benefits to Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council associated with the lower payments of landfill tax; and



Community benefits arising from the Visitor and Education Centre. 10.2. Regulatory, planning and policy context

Statutory requirements and Government advice have been taken into account to assess socio-economic impacts of the facility. These include: Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 205



Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures: A Consultation Paper, June 2000, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2000;



Amended Circular on Environmental Impact Assessment: A Consultation Paper, June 2006, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006; and



Additionality Guide: A Standard Approach to Assessing the Additional Impact of Interventions, Third Edition, English Partnerships (HCA), 2008

There are a number of strategies for Essex and Southend-on-Sea which seek to promote and regenerate the area, providing a stimulus for economic growth and regeneration. Some of the key strategies and policies are summarised below: 

The Integrated County Strategy (ICS)25 provides a shared vision for Essex, Southend, and Thurrock, to identify the priorities needed to achieve increased economic growth. The ICS will ensure that available funding is invested towards priorities which are most likely to generate long-term economic growth. A key Vision of the ICS for the sub region is ‘To undertake a major economic, social and environmental transformation of the urban areas in the sub-region through a programme of large scale regeneration, employment-led development and transport improvements, so that its local economy, quality of life of residents, and its natural and built environment is significantly improved’.



The Basildon Renaissance Partnership was set up in April 2002 to coordinate Basildon's Thames Gateway projects. The Thames Gateway is the Government’s national priority area for regeneration, and Basildon is the business hub for South Essex. The Partnership Regeneration priorities and programme focuses on five themes; Regeneration of Town Centres, Quality Housing, The Basildon Economy, Culture and the Environment, Health and Education. The Basildon Renaissance Partnership produced the Regeneration Framework (2007-2021)26. This aims to raise the employment rate of the District’s working age population from the current level of 76% to the South East of England level of 80%, which equates to an additional 4,000 Basildon District residents entering employment across the District, by (amongst others); creating local sustainable employment, improving local skills, increasing the local economic spending power and reducing the dependency on benefits.



Basildon’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2033 (Securing the Future of Basildon)27. The Basildon District Local Strategic Partnership produced its Community Strategy to set out key priorities for change within Basildon and the actions to deliver them. The overall Vision is “To make Basildon District a fair and inclusive place, where the community have healthy, safe place to live and work and to improve the quality of life now and for future generations”. A key Strategic

25

The Greater Essex Integrated County Strategy, December 2010.

26

Basildon District Regeneration Framework, 2007-2021. Basildon Renaissance Partnership.

27

Securing the Future of Basildon. Basildon’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2033. Basildon District Local Strategic Partnership.

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 206

Objective of the Strategy is to Develop a Prosperous Economy, providing for business growth and development, supporting regeneration and well-paid employment. 10.3. Assessment Methodology This section considers the assessment methodology of the socio-economic issues assessed for the construction and operational phases of the facility. 10.4. Baseline Conditions It was not considered necessary to undertake specific, field-based baseline surveys as part of the socio-economic impact assessment as information requirements could be met through the interrogation of secondary data sources. 10.4.1. Data Sources Establishing the baseline has been primarily a desk-top exercise, drawing on national, regional and local economic data and sources such as the Census, Office of National Statistics (ONS), Labour Force Survey and Indices of Deprivation, as well as publications from local and regional sources. The assessment is largely based on data and information on the Applicant’s employment needs. 10.4.2. Study area For the purposes of the study, three geographical areas have been identified for which socio-economic effects of the facility have been measured. These are: 

Local area: defined as the area surrounding the proposed scheme and within the within the administrative boundaries of Basildon ;



Sub-regional area: defined as the area within the administrative boundaries of Essex



Regional area: defined as the east area of England

10.4.3. Impact Assessment The socio-economic assessment includes three main components: 

Development of a socio-economic baseline;



Identification and quantification of impacts during the construction and operation phases; and



Assessment of potential effects and their appropriate mitigation measures (as relevant).

Impacts are considered through a qualitative assessment of the effects of the facility as indicated by changes relative to baseline socio-economic conditions. Key indicators used to measure potential changes included: 

Economic status, including employment; and Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 207



Population and community welfare. 10.5. Criteria of Assessment

The significance of the socio-economic effects has been based on defined assessment criteria. These criteria reflect the spatial areas identified above and have regard to the local and regional context. The effects are classified in terms of being adverse, negligible or beneficial according to the criteria listed below: 

Major beneficial – positive effect on economic or social activity at all three levels of regional, sub-regional and local;



Moderate beneficial – positive effect on economic or social activity at both a subregional and local level;



Minor beneficial – temporary or permanent effect on economic or social activity at a local level alone;



Negligible – little or no effect on economic or social activity at a local level alone;



Minor adverse – temporary or permanent adverse effect on economic or social activity at a local level alone;



Moderate adverse – negative effect on economic or social activity at both a subregional and local level; and



Major adverse – negative effect on economic or social activity at all three levels of regional, sub-regional and local level. 10.6. Baseline Conditions

This section provides an analysis of key socio-economic baseline conditions including population, economic activity and employment, education, deprivation and amenities. 10.6.1. Population According to 2001 Census data and 2010 Mid-year Estimates the population of Basildon has grown by 5.4% during this period, with a further population growth of 19.5% anticipated between 2010 and 2030. Data shows that there are high levels of outcommuting, with 47% of residents of the working age going outside of the Borough to work28.

2010

Basildon

Essex

East

England

175,200

1,413,000

5,831,800

60,462,600

Table 10.1 – Population Levels (2010)

Source: Census & Mid-year Estimates, ONS

28

Essex Local Economic Assessment, Appendix 2 Essex Economic Assessment, Districts, Boroughs, Unitaries and Partnerships

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 208

10.6.2. Economic Activity and Employment Basildon has the second largest economy in the Thames Gateway outside of Canary Wharf and employs over 77,000 people. However pockets of deprivation do exist, with skills shortages as a result of low aspirations and low educational attainment. Some key facts on the local labour market are set out below29: 

The proportion of the resident working age population who are employed in Basildon is low, with the area ranking in the bottom 40% of districts nationally;



The proportion of people who are unemployed in Basildon is high. The District ranks in the top 40% of districts nationally. In Basildon 4.2% of people are claiming job seekers allowance in 2009, compared with 3.59% in Essex and 4.09% nationally; and



11.68% of people in Basildon who are unemployed and have been claiming job seekers allowance for at least 12 months, compared with 12.58% in Essex and 13.57% nationally.

The following table provides a comparison of the proportion of the population who are economically active or inactive. Economically Active (%) Unemployed (% of Economically active) Basildon

78.5

21.5

Essex

78.6

21.4

East

78.9

21.1

England

76.2

23.8

Table 10.2 – Profile of Economic Activity (2010)

Source: ONS

Based on 2008 ONS data the table below illustrates more than half of total employment in the local area (56%) is in the distribution, hotels/restaurants or public administration education and health sectors. This pattern is largely in line with the regional and national employment profiles. The numbers of residents employed in the Construction and Manufacturing industries are higher than either the sub-regional, regional and indeed national profiles.

29

District Profile: A Summary Profile of Basildon. Local Futures, February 2010.

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 209

Basildon

Essex

East

England

Sectors

%

%

%

%

Manufacturing

14.6

10.4

10.3

10.2

Construction

6

6.3

5.4

4.8

Distribution, hotels and 25.8 restaurants

24.9

25

23.4

Transport communications

6.5

6

5.8

Finance, IT, other 19.4 business activities

19.8

21.4

22

Public administration, 24.3 education and health

26

25.3

27

Other Services

4.4

5.4

4.8

5.3

Tourism

5.6

7.9

7.7

8.2

and

5.1

Table 10.3 – Employment by Sector (2008)

Source: ONS

Basildon

Essex

East

England

%

%

%

%

Managers and senior 11.0 official

10.1

10.5

9.9

Professional

14.5

19.0

19.4

19.3

Associate Professional 10.1 and Technical

14.7

13.8

13.8

Administrative Secretarial

and 19.8

13.1

11.9

11.1

Skilled Trades

13.5

10.6

11

10.7

Caring, leisure and Other 9.1 Service

9.0

8.9

9.0

Sales and Service

Customer 5.1

7.7

7.7

8.2

Process plan and 8.9 machine operatives

6.1

6.3

6.5

Elementary

9.3

10.3

11

Sectors

7.3

Table 10.4 – Distribution of Employment by Occupation (2010)

Source: ONS

Based on ONS data, Table 10.4 shows that the type of occupations held in the local area follows from the employment profile with higher numbers in process plan and machine Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 210

operatives and Administrative and technical sectors. There exists a lower proportion of skilled professionals in the local area compared to Essex, the East and England, whilst there is a higher number of low skilled occupations in the local area than in the other spatial areas in question. However there are a higher number of managers and senior officials employed in the local area than the sub-regional and national position. 10.6.3. Qualifications When compared to the regional and national picture there is a lower proportion of the local population who have level of qualifications above level 1 when compared with the sub-regional, regional and national position. There are also a greater number of the population with no qualifications 12.3% compared to the regional average of 10.4% Basildon

Essex

East

England

Qualifications

%

%

%

%

No qualifications

12.3

11.1

10.4

11.3

Level 1

79.5

81.4

81.4

80.2

Level 2

56.3

63.4

65.8

67.3

Level 3

33.6

43.7

48.2

51

Level 4/5

16.7

23

28.5

31.3

Other qualifications/level unknown

8.2

11.1

8.2

8.2

Table 10.5 – Qualifications (2010)

Source: ONS

10.6.4. Deprivation In terms of deprivation, Basildon ranks 131st out of 326 districts on the 2010 average score rank, where 1 is the most deprived district and 326 is the least. 10.7. Key Environmental Issues This section identifies the potential impacts of the construction and operational phases of the facility. 10.7.1. Construction Employment Impacts The main construction works are expected to be carried out over a 17 month period, and it is anticipated that this will generate a total of 306 direct and indirect Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs. The Applicant is committed to providing local economic benefit and it is estimated that 193 of the new jobs created will be sub-regional (Essex

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 211

residents). Thus there are significant opportunities for temporary construction work and for the involvement of local contractors in the construction process. During the construction phase, the Applicant is committing to meeting a target of 7% of the workforce being made up of Apprentices, ensuring access to high quality training opportunities. In addition, to maximise the long term impact of the construction project within local communities; the Applicant is also setting an achievement target of 75% of all Apprentices completing their full framework. This is significantly higher than the current UK achievement rate (estimated at 40% for the construction sector). The model adopted by the Applicant is focussed on supporting continuous employment for Apprentices and therefore ensuring the apprenticeship completion rate is high. Local Economy Impacts Local businesses (including Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs)) will be targeted to compete for contract opportunities that will support small business growth and protect the local business base. In order to maximise the opportunities to local businesses for the Essex Residual Waste Treatment Contract the Applicant hosted a ‘Meet the Buyer’ event in September 2011. In total 64 SMEs were invited and the event was organised in partnership with Essex Chamber of Commerce to identify suitable suppliers, manufacturers and operators from trades in construction and facilities management together with specialist renewable technology and arts related businesses. The objectives of the ‘Meet the Buyer’ event were to raise awareness of potential contracts available to local companies, further develop the Applicant’s knowledge of local businesses capable of joining the supply chain and to support local firms in improving their capacity to compete for and win similar contracts in the future. There has been on-going dialogue with the local SMEs and further events are planned. Stress Impacts Potential impacts on local residents and businesses relating to transport, visual impacts, noise and air quality are addressed in Sections 5, 6, 8 and 9 respectively. Thus, the remainder of this section focuses on potential impacts to local receptors in relation to concerns and stress associated with the construction of the facility. It is assessed that, at worst, only minor adverse effects would be observed in relation to a potential increase in levels of stress due to changing circumstances, such as new construction activity in the area. 10.7.2. Operation Employment Impacts During operations at the Facility it is anticipated that 85 FTE staff will be engaged on the site. The staff will work in shift patterns, and it is anticipated that there would be around 45 staff members typically on duty during weekday day time periods (including office based admin staff). It is anticipated that through local recruitment targets the majority of the posts will be filled by Essex residents.

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 212

The Applicant is aiming to reduce the UK nationally recognised assumed leakage to other areas of the UK (with the do nothing scenario) on a major project of this type from 40% to 20%. This will significantly increase the employment opportunities for local people. Key interventions to achieve this are: 

Committing to a target of 7% of the total workforce being Apprentices during the construction phase;



Committing to provide two new apprentices every two years during the operational phase – resulting in a total of 50 apprentices over the life of the project;



Providing an interview guarantee for any suitably qualified Essex residents for new jobs created; and



Setting a target for the percentage of local spend with local businesses to create new vacancies within local communities

Stress Impacts Potential impacts on local residents and businesses relating to air quality, noise, transport and visual impacts are addressed in Sections 6, 7, 5 and 9 respectively. Thus, the remainder of this chapter focuses on potential impacts to local receptors in relation to concerns and stress associated with the operation of the facility. It is assessed that, at worst, only minor adverse effects would be observed in relation to potential increase levels of stress due to changing circumstances, such as industrial activity in the area which could entail increased traffic, and a perception of increased noise and reduced air quality for local residents. 10.7.3. Mitigation Construction Mitigation is not a requirement for beneficial impacts or for those assessed to be of negligible or minor significance. Thus, no specific mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase in relation to impacts associated with key socio-economic factors. However in terms of stress impacts the Applicant has already begun dialogue with the sites closest receptor, the residents of Hovefields Caravan Park site. The Applicant is committed to on-going dialogue with the residents and will keep them apprised of the construction programme and ensure that any issues/concerns raised will be dealt with. Operation Mitigation is not a requirement for beneficial impacts or for those assessed to be of negligible or minor significance. Thus, no specific mitigation measures are proposed for the operational phase in relation to impacts associated with key socio-economic factors.

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 213

10.7.4. Residual Effect Assessment Construction In order to reduce the effects on residents, the contractor will ensure that there is regular liaison with local residents regarding construction activities. Therefore it is anticipated that the residual effect of the construction will be slight adverse. Operation During the operational phase again regular liaison with local residents regarding operation of the facility with clear lines of communication regarding any issues arising from the Facility will be employed and therefore it is anticipated that that the residual effect of operations will be slight adverse. 10.8. Conclusions Overall, the proposed facility is likely to have mostly positive socio-economic impacts at both the local and regional levels. It is expected that the facility will not only provide temporary jobs, but will also create a number of permanent jobs. It is anticipated that the limited adverse impacts on the economic and social level would be related to stress caused by inconvenience. A summary of the socio-economic effects as a result of the proposed scheme during construction of the site are: Description of impact

Significance of effect Mitigation specification before mitigation

Significance of effect residual impact

Employment

Beneficial temporary No mitigation required. moderate

Beneficial temporary moderate

Impacts on residents Adverse relating to stress minor.

temporary, Regular liaison with local residents Slight Adverse regarding construction programme temporary, minor.

Table 10.6 – Summary of Residual Effects during Construction A summary of the socio-economic effects as a result of the proposed scheme during operation of the site are:

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 214

Description of impact Employment

Significance of effect Mitigation specification before mitigation Beneficial, permanent, moderate

No mitigation required.

Significance of effect residual impact Beneficial, permanent, moderate

Impacts on residents Adverse, permanent, Regular liaison with local residents Slight adverse, relating to stress minor. regarding operation of the facility permanent, minor. with clear lines of communication regarding any issues arising from the Facility. Table 10.7 – Summary of Residual Effects during Operation

Environmental statement Chapter 10 – Socio-Economic Page 215

11.0 Health Impact Summary 11.1. Introduction A Health Impact Assessment is a way to identify and improve the health consequences of any defined policy or development proposal. Although not a statutory requirement to the planning process, HIA can be a useful mechanism by which potential health risks are further assessed. These assessments play a useful role in assessing waste facilities particularly Energy from Waste Plants which pose a greater public perception concern. However it should be noted that this Facility does not include any energy from waste technology. Feedback from the public exhibition events has not highlighted great concern regarding the technology; more the individual elements e.g. noise and odour which has been fully assessed in chapters 8 and 9 respectively. Given the scope of the development it is not considered necessary to produce a full HIA for this Facility and instead a summary of the key impacts and potential effects are identified and an action plan is given as to how any impacts will be managed to minimise the effects on the local sensitive receptors. The section is seen as a useful tool in summarising the potential impacts and setting them into context in terms of the effects on the local community. It also seeks to identify and promote effective mitigation proposals and seeks to garner public support for the need for the Facility. The EIA process has identified a key receptor as Hovefields Park Caravan site due to the close proximity to the site however this section will also consider the Facility’s impacts on the wider area of Basildon 11.1.1. Assessment Methodology It was not considered necessary to undertake specific, field-based baseline surveys for this assessment as information requirements could be met through the interrogation of secondary data sources including information gathered for associated assessments within this ES. 11.1.2. Data Sources Establishing the baseline has been primarily a desk-top exercise, drawing on data and sources such as the Census, Office of National Statistics (ONS), Labour Force Survey and Indices of Deprivation, as well as guidance and publications from the Environment Agency and planning policy etc. 11.1.3. Study area For the purposes of the study, two specific areas have been considered: 

The local area surrounding the proposed scheme; and



The area within the administrative boundaries of Basildon ; Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 216

11.1.4. Impact Assessment The assessment stage draws upon appropriate technical topic areas within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to ensure the HIA is based upon realistic changes in environmental conditions directly attributable to the Proposal including: 

Qualitative appraisal of air emissions (drawing from the detailed air quality assessment of the ES in Chapter 9); and



n and operational noise (drawing from the detailed noise assessment of the ES in Chapter 8); and



-economical health impacts (drawing from the socio-economic section of the ES in Chapter 10). 11.2. Baseline Conditions

11.2.1. Environment Bioaerosols Existing levels of bioaerosols were recorded during a site visit undertaken in August 2011. The full details of the survey are provided in Appendix 9.2. Concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus were above the Environment Agency threshold at the two on-site locations and the background location. The concentrations of bacteria are in line with the levels reported by the HSE, however, the concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus on site were above the highest value reported by the HSE. Further levels were recorded in January 2012. Lower levels of Aspergillus fumigates were recorded during this time and this may have been influenced by the very cold and calm conditions on the day. However it should be noted that on neither occasion were concentrations above the Environment Agency thresholds at sensitive exposure locations Odour Monitoring of odour is not currently undertaken in the vicinity of the development site. The current odour characteristics in the area are likely to be influenced by surrounding activities, including those on the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate to the south, the sewage treatment works to the west and agricultural land to the north. Basildon Council’s EHO has indicated that odour from the sewage treatment works occasionally gives rise to noticeable odours. A complaints record is maintained for the site and operations are reviewed on a regular basis. Two site walkover surveys have been carried out. These found that whilst odour was detectable within the development site, no odour was detectable at the closest sensitive receptors (Hovefields Caravan Park site to the east and a property on Hovefields Avenue to the north east).

Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 217

Vehicle Emissions Basildon District Council’s latest Review and Assessment of air quality is described in the 2011 Air Quality Progress Report. There are no noteworthy industrial sources of air pollutants in the immediate area; by far the most dominant sources of local air pollutants are the A132 which runs in a north-south line approximately one kilometre to the west, and the A127 approximately 50 metres to the north. Annual background concentrations for the year 2011 for the area containing the proposed Facility are given in Table 11.1. Pollutant

Background Concentration, µg/m3

Oxides of nitrogen

33.4

Nitrogen dioxide

22.0

PM10

19.0

PM2.5

12.9

Table 11.1 – Mapped Estimates of Background Concentrations Noise A baseline survey was undertaken which identified that the lowest background noise levels were noted at night with levels adjacent to the Hovefields Park Caravan site measured as 37 dB LA90,5min. During day-time, the lowest measured background noise at the same location was approximately 46 dB LA90,5min. The average night-time ambient noise level representative of noise-sensitive receivers adjacent to the Hovefields Park Caravan site was measured as approximately 51 dB LAeq,8hr. During day-time, the average measured ambient noise at the same location was approximately 57 dB LAeq,16hr. 11.2.2. Socio Economic Local Demography According to Census data and Mid-year Estimates the population of Basildon has grown by 5.4% during this decade from 2001 to 2010. A further population growth of 19.5% is anticipated between 2010 and 2030. Data also shows that there are high levels of out-commuting, with 47% of residents of working age travelling outside of the Borough to work30.

2010

Basildon

Essex

East

England

175,200

1,413,000

5,831,800

60,462,600

Table 11.2 – Population Levels (2010)

30

Source: Census & Mid-year Estimates, ONS

Essex Local Economic Assessment, Appendix 2 Essex Economic Assessment, Districts, Boroughs, Unitaries and Partnerships

Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 218

Education When compared to the regional and national picture there is a lower proportion of the local population who have level of qualifications above level 1 when compared with the sub-regional, regional and national position. There are also a greater number of the population with no qualifications 12.3% compared to the regional average of 10.4%. Basildon

Essex

East

England

Qualifications

%

%

%

%

No qualifications

12.3

11.1

10.4

11.3

Level 1

79.5

81.4

81.4

80.2

Level 2

56.3

63.4

65.8

67.3

Level 3

33.6

43.7

48.2

51

Level 4/5

16.7

23

28.5

31.3

Other qualifications/level unknown

8.2

11.1

8.2

8.2

Table 11.2 – Qualifications (2010)

Source: ONS

Employment The type of occupations held in the local area shows high employment in process plan and machine operatives and Administrative and technical sectors. There are also a higher number of managers and senior officials employed in the local area than the subregional and national position. However there is a lower proportion of skilled professionals in the local area compared to Essex and the East and England.

Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 219

Basildon

Essex

East

England

%

%

%

%

Managers and senior 11.0 official

10.1

10.5

9.9

Professional

14.5

19.0

19.4

19.3

Associate Professional 10.1 and Technical

14.7

13.8

13.8

Administrative Secretarial

and 19.8

13.1

11.9

11.1

Skilled Trades

13.5

10.6

11

10.7

Caring, leisure and Other 9.1 Service

9.0

8.9

9.0

Sales and Service

Customer 5.1

7.7

7.7

8.2

Process plan and 8.9 machine operatives

6.1

6.3

6.5

Elementary

9.3

10.3

11

Sectors

7.3

Table 11.3 - Employment (2010)

Source: ONS

11.3. Proposed Development Considerations The following section outlines the activities associated with the proposed development that have the potential to create environmental or socio-economic impacts on residents. 11.3.1. Construction Environment The main construction works are anticipated to take place over a 17 month period. Construction activities will typically take place from Monday to Saturday. In agreement with Basildon Council’s EHO significant noise generating activities will be undertaken during the periods 8.00am to 7.00pm on weekdays. Potential environmental health pathways comprise emissions to air, dust, noise and vibration from construction plant, earthworks and normal construction activities. Off-site construction and staff traffic movements will also result in additional emissions to air, noise and potential risk of road traffic accidents. Socio-economic Non-environmental health pathways associated with the construction stage include direct and indirect employment and income opportunities to facilitate construction and accommodate staff. It is anticipated that the construction phase will generate 251 direct and indirect FTE jobs. Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 220

11.3.2. Operation Environment Once operational, the Facility will operate during the following hours; Day

Operation and Proposed Hours

Monday to Friday

7.00am to 11.00pm

Saturday

7.00am to 11.00pm

Sunday and Public Holidays

8.30am to 5.30pm

No deliveries are expected after 8.00pm during the week and after 5.30pm on Saturdays. The waste accepted at the Facility will consist of residual municipal waste, bulky waste, street sweepings and Household Waste Recycling Centre waste. There is also some capacity for Commercial and Industrial waste (C&I) derived within the Essex and Southend administrative areas. Due to the nature of the waste accepted considerably fewer deliveries are anticipated over the weekends and on Bank Holidays. The Facility will employ approximately 85 full-time employees comprising operator shift staff, maintenance, weighbridge, clerical and administrative staff and plant management. Once operational, the health pathways by which the Facility could potentially directly or indirectly influence human health include environmental pathways and socio-economic influences. The principal environmental health pathways relate to emissions to air (combustion emissions, dust, odour and noise) generated during the delivery and processing of waste. Socio-Economic “health” pathways include potential direct and indirect employment opportunities to run and maintain the Proposal. Another health pathway associated with the Facility is the heightened concern within the local community regarding the construction and operation of the Facility which can lead to increased stress and anxiety, as a consequence of the perceived risk and impacts of the Facility. Although it is not possible to assess the health consequence of perceived risk, it is possible to identify such concerns and provide information to aid in alleviating any concerns. 11.4. Assessment 11.4.1. Emissions to Air In terms of MBT Facilities there is no prescribed or standard approach to assessing the impact of fugitive emissions e.g. dust, odour and bioaerosols from a new Facility. A limited number of studies have used dispersion modelling techniques although there is usually insufficient technical detail to accurately describe source terms. With regard to bioaerosols, standard methods of determining concentrations are available based on the Environment Agency’s present scientific understanding of bioaerosols, the way they behave and their health impacts. There is, however, not currently considered to Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 221

be a suitable methodology for carrying out adequate quantitative risk assessments for new composting facilities. Fugitive emissions of dust, odour and bioaerosols from the Facility building have therefore been assessed qualitatively based on information on the Facility design, operational management and mitigation methods. All operations at the Facility will take place within enclosed buildings, which will be maintained under negative pressure and controlled by roller shutter doors. Air from the Facility will be treated prior to discharge from the Air Treatment Facility. Due to the mitigation measures in place through the design of the Facility, it is not expected that there would be any material change in the existing background levels of bioaersols once the Facility is operational. In terms of odour the assessment in Chapter 9 shows that with the employment of the air treatment system and also good practices utilised on site, odour concentration will not exceed the odour exposure benchmark criterion of 3 ouE/m3 for “moderately offensive” odours at any of the sensitive receptors. The results also confirm that at some sensitive locations, odour is unlikely to be detectable as it is less than 1 ouE/m3. 11.4.2. Road Traffic Emissions The key atmospheric emissions associated with road traffic are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter. All HGV traffic associated with the development when operational will access and depart the Facility via the Courtauld Road/Cranes Farm roundabout to the west. The A132 would be accessed from the south via the A13 or from the north via the A127. Some staff traffic would access the site from the east. The assessment of the effect on air quality for the current proposal has been carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Highways Agency DMRB methodology. This requires a quantitative assessment to be undertaken where changes due to a scheme or development meet one or more of the thresholds described in Section 9.3.2. According to the assessment, the Haven property, which is the closest residential property to the A132 would be subject to a small (0.4 to 2 µg/m3) change in annual mean concentrations of NO2 as a result of the additional vehicle flows associated with the proposed development. This represents the greatest change at any property along the affected routes. Almost all properties in the area would be expected to experience a change of less than 0.4 µg/m3 i.e. an imperceptible and hence “negligible” change. 11.4.3. Noise & Vibration A 3D noise modelling exercise was undertaken with the calculations taking into account both the sources of noise inside the buildings (fixed plant and mechanical processes) and the lorry movements on the access road within the site. During the construction phase there is the potential for the activities to result in noise generation. This impact is likely to be short term and limited to daytime hours. During the operational phase the assessment shows that typical noise levels generated by the Facility would be less than the current background noise levels. Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 222

11.4.4. Vehicle Noise The impacts of potential lorry manoeuvring (idling, reversing, accelerating/ decelerating etc) have been minimised via site design. Given the proposed routing agreement and industrial nature of the area it is not anticipated that the vehicles accessing the site will give rise to significant changes in noise levels. 11.4.5. Employment and Income During operations at the Facility it is anticipated that 85 FTE staff will be engaged on the site. The staff will work in shift patterns, and it is anticipated that there would be around 53 staff members typically on duty during weekday day time periods (including office based administrative staff). It is anticipated that through local recruitment targets the majority of the posts will be filled by Essex residents. 11.4.6. Stress Impact It is assessed that, at worst, only minor adverse effects would be observed in relation to potential increased levels of stress due to changing circumstances, such as industrial activity in the area which could entail increased traffic, and a perception of increased noise and reduced air quality for local residents. 11.5. Conclusions The actions presented below build on the information presented in the assessment chapter and provide a number of recommendations to address local circumstance, concern and needs. 11.5.1. Construction Phase The key health pathways with the opportunity to influence health during the construction stage include local level changes in air quality, noise and road traffic movements. As discussed in the assessment section, these changes are not of a level to result in any meaningful adverse community health outcome. In practice, construction activities present the opportunity to improve local and regional income and employment opportunities (direct, indirect and induced). The following initiatives are intended to further reduce and address potential disruption and annoyance, and improve the uptake of local socio-economic health benefits. The construction phase will create approximately 251 FTE jobs. The Applicant is committed to providing local economic benefit and it is estimated that 158 of the new jobs created will be sub-regional (Essex residents). Thus there are significant opportunities for temporary construction work and for the involvement of local contractors in the construction process. Good site management can reduce the potential for annoyance and disruption to the local community. In addition to the mitigation measures proposed in Chapters 8 and 9 to Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 223

reduce the potential impacts of emissions to air and noise, the following good site management techniques will be employed; 

An appropriate speed limit is to be implemented along the spine road and within the site;



Where appropriate, site plant equipment will be turned off when not in use to prevent unnecessary noise and emissions generation;



Vehicles parked/queuing within the site will turn off engines to prevent unnecessary noise and emissions generation;



Advanced notification of particularly disruptive construction activities will be communicated to local neighbours including residents of the Hovefields Caravan Park site;



Dust suppression measures will be implemented where appropriate



To reduce potential disruption from construction a HGV routing plan will be put in place;



The Applicant is committed to on-going dialogue with the residents and will keep them apprised of the construction programme and ensure that any issues/concerns raised will be dealt with; and



A construction complaint system will be in place with complaints logged, together with actions implemented to manage and prevent future annoyance.

11.5.2. Operation The operational phase of the development will lead to the provision of approximately 85 permanent positions. An economic strategy is in place which seeks to maximise the benefits for the local area. This includes coordination with local job centres particularly as it is likely that the required labour could be identified without difficulty in the immediate area. Good site management will also be utilised to reduce the impacts on the local community during the operational phase. This will include; 

An appropriate speed limit to be implemented along the access route and within the site;



HGV routing plan to be put in place;



Vehicles parked/queuing within the site will turn off engines to prevent unnecessary noise and emissions generation;



All doors to Facility will be kept closed when not in use;



Where appropriate, staff will be encouraged to make use of public transport systems or alternatives, including car sharing and cycling, to reduce the level of associated vehicles; and

Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 224



A complaint system will be in place with complaints logged, together with actions implemented to manage and prevent future annoyance

Environmental statement Chapter 11 – Health Impact Summary Page 225

12.0 Summary of effects 12.1. Introduction The Facility will operate under an Environmental Permit and work has begun to formulate the Application including discussions with the EA as to the nature and information required to issue the permit without delay. The development of the design of the Facility is an iterative process and has been influenced by the work carried out and findings of the EIA. Therefore environmental mitigation measures have already been included in the site layout, design and operational plans, such as the traffic lights down the eastern site road to prevent stationary traffic queuing next to the Hovefields Caravan Park site and the processing building to be kept under negative pressure to prevent odour from escaping. 12.2. Effects The 2011 EIA Regulations require “a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development”. Table 12.1 presents the possible effects which may occur during the construction and operational phases, the mitigation proposed and the overall residual effect. Environmental mitigation measures are also inherent in the design of the MBT process and the proposed operational controls, and as such are already included in the base description of the development on which this ES has been prepared. The significance of the effect takes into account the mitigation measures proposed and is reported in the table as a beneficial or adverse effect based on the following scale: 

Negligible beneficial/adverse (+ve/-ve);



Minor beneficial/adverse (+ve/-ve);



Moderate beneficial/adverse (+ve/-ve);



Major beneficial/adverse (+ve/-ve);



The nature of the residual effect is reported against the following criteria:



Direct (D), indirect or secondary effect (I);



Importance of the effect – international (II), national (NI), regional (RI) or local (LI);



Duration of the effect – short (ST), medium (MT) or long term (LT);



Permanence

of

the

effect

-

temporary

(T)

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of Residual Effects Page 226

or

permanent

(P).

Discipline/

ID

Effect

Mitigation proposed

Overall Significance of residual effect of proposed facility on aspect

5.1

Residential Amenity

A preferred route for construction traffic has been identified

Aspect



This is the shortest route to Network; and



This route avoids residential frontages and sensitive land uses.

Traffic:

6.1

Movement of plant and vehicles, in particular taller NA machinery such as cranes

Minor –ve to Negligible T

6.2

Lighting required when working during hours of Workday restrictions darkness in winter months and for site security at night

Negligible

6.3

Encroachment on Green Belt / Intensification of Planting and earthworks to screen / enhance views industrial activity

Negligible

6.4

Landscape planting scheme and boundary Incorporate into scheme proposals enhancements

Minor +ve D,P

6.5

Visibility of large new structure

High quality design and sensitive boundary treatment

Negligible

7.1

Contamination of Surface Water

Good working practices will be adopted and all site activities carried out in accordance with the Water Resources Act. In Negligible addition, the mitigation measures put forward in the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) will be followed

Landscape

Water and Flood Risk

Minor –ve the strategic Highway T

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of effects Page 227

Discipline/

ID

Effect

Mitigation proposed

Aspect

Overall Significance of residual effect of proposed facility on aspect

during the works. 7.2

Change to Surface Water Flow Regime

The hydrology of the receiving water bodies and watercourses Negligible to -ve, are unlikely to be affected by the change to the impermeable T, surfaces at the site due to the current impermeable nature of the ST site – no mitigation is proposed.

7.3

Fluvial Flood Risk

The site is located outside Flood Zone 3 therefore - no mitigation Negligible is proposed

8.1

All activities on site

Best Practice Methods

Minor -ve D,T ST

8.2

Vibration – percussive piling

Best Practice Methods and non-percussive piling methods, where practicable

Minor-ve D,T ST

8.3

Road traffic noise – construction traffic on existing road network

Restrict access route

Negligible to -ve I, T, ST

9.1

Dust emissions

Good Practice control measures

Negligible

9.2

Traffic emissions

Restrict access route

Negligible

Noise and Vibration

Air Quality

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of effects Page 228

Discipline/

ID

Effect

Mitigation proposed

Overall Significance of residual effect of proposed facility on aspect

10.1

Employment

No mitigation required.

Moderate +ve

Aspect

Socio-Economic

T, ST 10.2

Impacts on residents relating to stress

Regular liaison with local residents regarding construction Slight Adverse -ve programme T. ST

Table 12.1 – Summary of Environmental Effects Considered during CONSTRUCTION, the Mitigation Proposed and the Significance of the Residual Effect

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of effects Page 229

Discipline/

ID

Effect

Mitigation proposed

Overall Significance of residual effect of proposed facility on aspect

5.2

Pedestrian Fear and Intimidation

Improved footway / cycleway facilities and Toucan crossing on Courtauld Road.

Neutral

5.3

Pedestrian Delay and Amenity

Improved footway / cycleway facilities and Toucan crossing on Courtauld Road.

Neutral

5.4

Residential Amenity

Restrict access route and working hours.

Moderate -ve D, P

5.5

Driver delay

Timing of arrivals and departures outside highway peak hours

Negligible

6.6

Encroachment on Green Belt / Intensification of Planting and earthworks to screen / enhance views industrial activity

Negligible D, P

6.8

Visibility of large new structure

High quality design and sensitive boundary treatment

Negligible D,P

7.4

Contamination of Surface Water

Development of a new surface water drainage system with interceptors and silt traps along with discharge of contaminated water to the foul drainage system. Negligible The silt traps and settlement in the attenuation lagoon will prevent the discharge of suspended sediments from the runoff into the water course

7.5

Change to Surface Water Flow Regime

The hydrology of the receiving water bodies and watercourses are unlikely to be affected by the change to the Negligible impermeable surfaces and the surface water discharge being

Aspect

Traffic:

Landscape

Water and Flood Risk

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of effects Page 230

Discipline/

ID

Effect

Mitigation proposed

Aspect

Overall Significance of residual effect of proposed facility on aspect

limited to rates agreed with the EA 7.6

Fluvial Flood Risk

The site is located outside Flood Zone 3 therefore - no Negligible mitigation is proposed

8.4

Operational noise – fixed plant and processes

No additional measures required. All necessary measures have been incorporated into design of Facility including

Negligible -ve D, P LT

8.5

external lorry movements within site

No additional measures required. All necessary measures have been incorporated into design of Facility

Negligible -ve D, P LT

8.6

operational traffic generated on existing road network

Restrict access route

Minor -ve I, P LT

9.3

Odour emissions from biofilter

No additional measures required. All necessary measures have been incorporated into design of Facility

Negligible

9.4

Fugitive emissions during operation (dust, bioaerosols, odour)

No additional measures required. All necessary measures have been incorporated into design of Facility

Negligible

Employment

No mitigation required.

Moderate +ve

Noise and Vibration

Air Quality

Socio-Economic

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of effects Page 231

Discipline/

ID

Effect

Mitigation proposed

Aspect

Overall Significance of residual effect of proposed facility on aspect P, LT

Impacts on residents relating to stress

Regular liaison with local residents regarding operation of the Minor –ve facility with clear lines of communication regarding any P, MT. issues arising from the Facility

Table 12.2 – Summary of Environmental Effects Considered during OPERATION, the Mitigation Proposed and the Significance of the Residual Effect

Environmental statement Chapter 12 – Summary of effects Page 232

13.0 Conclusion The Applicant is proposing the development of the Courtauld Road MBT Facility in Basildon in order to manage the municipal waste arisings on behalf of Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. The proposed Facility will have a throughput of 416,599 tonnes per annum of waste. This ES has identified where the Facility may have an impact on environmental resources. The scheme has been developed through an iterative process of impact assessment and design such that many of the environmental mitigation measures are inherent in the scheme design. Further measures will be delivered through detailed design, construction and operational controls. The EIA process has been based on a range of desk-based and project specific investigations and surveys, and has considered the cumulative impacts of a number of other committed industrial developments in the vicinity of the proposed Facility. The EIA process has benefitted from consultations with statutory and non-statutory bodies regarding environmental data, appropriate methodologies for impact assessment and details of mitigation requirements. The EIA has also been informed by an informal and formal Scoping Opinion from the Local Planning Authority. During the scoping stage, impacts to ecology, ground conditions and the cultural heritage environment were ruled out as having any significant impacts, and so were not assessed further within the ES, however summary descriptions of these elements have been provided. Residual impacts Once the mitigation measures set out in this report are implemented, the following residual effects have been predicted. The number of HGVs on the network is estimated to increase due to the proposed operational traffic on the highway network. This will result in a significant increase on Courtauld Road; however due to the industrial nature of the area the negative effects on residential amenity will be of minor significance. The increase in traffic will also be less than the levels proposed and approved through the existing planning permission. With the implementation of mitigation measures overall residual effects on landscape character and visual impact will be negligible. Following the development of the Facility there should be a neutral to slight beneficial impact from the proposed development due to the management of surface water run-off within the surface water drainage scheme. Given the implementation of good practice and of the mitigation measures described in the assessment section, it is considered to be highly unlikely that there will be any noticeable residual effects of the Facility beyond the site boundary on sensitive receptors. It is nonetheless possible that on rare occasions, despite the application of good practice mitigation measures, dust emissions may be noticeable beyond the site boundary during short periods of adverse meteorological conditions. In the same way, it is possible that Environmental statement Chapter 13 – Conclusion Page 233

emissions of odour from the biofilter may result in very occasional perception of odour at the nearest residential properties to the south east of the site boundary. Such residual effects would be minor, short-term and reversible. It has been shown that under typical operation conditions, the rating levels would equal the background noise levels, which is in line with the agreed noise limits. The noise impacts associated with temporary (construction) and permanent (operational) road traffic in the wider road network would be ‘negligible’ to ‘minor’ adverse. Overall, the proposed facility is likely to have mostly positive socio-economic impacts at both the local and regional levels. It is expected that the facility will not only provide temporary jobs, but will also create a number of permanent jobs. It is anticipated that the limited adverse impacts on the economic and social level would be related to stress caused by inconvenience.

Environmental statement Chapter 13 – Conclusion Page 234