Intermediate Shaft and Spoil Site – Extent of Works North ...planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning Application/811000... · 12/02/2015 1:25,000 ROYAL HASKONINGDHV

465000

465000

466000

466000

467000

467000

468000

468000

469000

469000

470000

470000

5130

00

5130

00

5140

00

5140

00

5150

00

5150

00

5160

00

5160

00

Le g e nd:

T itle :

Proje ct:Clie nt:

York Potash Lim ite d

Drawn: Scale :Ch e cke d:Date :Re v:

Drawing No:

Size :

British National Grid

Fig ure :

Co-ordinate syste m :

© Haskoning DHV UK Ltd. © Crown copyrig h t and database rig h ts 2014. Ordnance Surve y 0100031673

±

1:25,00012/02/2015

ROYAL HASKONINGDHVINDUSTRY, ENERGY & MINING

0 GC MH A4

0 200 400Me tre sRIGHTWELL HOUSE

BRETTONPETERBOROUGH

PE3 8DW+44 (0)1733 33 44 55

www.royalhaskoningdhv.com

Inte rm e diate Sh aft and Spoil Site – Exte nt of WorksLockwood Be ck

5 PB1110-NT S-1-005

Inte rm e diate Sh aft and Spoil Site – Exte ntof WorksNorth York Moors National Park

L:\Applications\YPL\MXDs\Mine _MT S_SEI\NT S\Fig _5_LockwoodBe ck_Boundary_20150212.m xd

Part: NT S

Contains Ordnance Surve y data © Crown copyrig h t and database rig h t 2014

York Potash Proje ctRe place m e nt NT S

461000

461000

462000

462000

463000

463000

464000

464000

465000

465000

5160

00

5160

00

5170

00

5170

00

5180

00

5180

00

5190

00

5190

00

Le g e nd:

T itle :

Proje ct:Clie nt:

York Potash Lim ite d

Drawn: Scale :Ch e cke d:Date :Re v:

Drawing No:

Size :

British National Grid

Fig ure :

Co-ordinate syste m :

© Haskoning DHV UK Ltd. © Crown copyrig h t and database rig h ts 2014. Ordnance Surve y 0100031673

±

1:25,00012/02/2015


0 LB PW A4

0 200 400Me tre sRIGHTWELL HOUSE

BRETTONPETERBOROUGH

PE3 8DW+44 (0)1733 33 44 55


Inte rm e diate Sh aft and Spoil Site – Exte nt of Works T ocke tts Lyth e

6 PB1110-NT S-1-106

Inte rm e diate Sh aft and Spoil Site – Exte ntof WorksNorth York Moors National Park

L:\Applications\YPL\MXDs\Mine _MT S_SEI\NT S\Fig _6_T ocke ttsLyth e _Boundary_20150212.m xd

Part: NT S

Contains Ordnance Surve y data © Crown copyrig h t and database rig h t 2014

York Potash Proje ctRe place m e nt NT S

456000

456000

457000

457000

458000

458000

459000

459000

460000

460000

5210

00

5210

00

5220

00

5220

00

5230

00

5230

00

5240

00

5240

00

Le g e nd :

Title :

Proje ct:York Potas h Proje ctReplace m e nt NTS

Clie nt:

York Potas h Lim ite d

Drawn: S cale :Che cke d :Date:Rev:

Drawing No:

S ize :

Britis h National Grid

Fig ure :

Co-ord inate syste m :

© Has koning DHV UK Ltd . © Crown copyrig ht and d atabas e rig hts 2014. Ord nance S urvey 0100031673

±

1:25,00026/09/2014


0 LB PW A3

0 200 400Metre sRIGHTWELL HOUSE

BRETTONPETERBOROUGH

PE3 8DW+44 (0)1733 33 44 55


MHF and MTS Portal – Exte nt of Works

7 PB1110-NTS -1-007

MHF and MTS Portal – Exte nt of WorksNorth York Moors National Park

L:\Applications\YPL\MXDs \Mine _MTS _S EI\NTS \Fig _7_MHF_Bound ary_20150212.m xd

Part: NTS

Contains Ord nance S urve y d ata © Crown copyrig ht and d atabas e rig ht 2014

York Potash Project Mine, MTS and MHF Environmental Statement – Replacement Non-Technical Summary © HaskoningDHV UK Ltd 14

The MTS Portal works would begin with the construction of a working platform. Once this is completed 1.1.41

the Portal walls would be constructed, along with the excavation of the tunnel ramp. After this the initial

tunnel excavation would be undertaken and the tunnel walls, roof and base would be completed.

For the MHF, all process buildings would be steel framed structures, fully clad to minimise dust and 1.1.42

noise. It is expected that a mix of reinforced concrete and piling would be required for the foundations

of some buildings. Onsite storage would be available for 440,000 tonnes of granulated polyhalite.

During decommissioning all process machinery would be dismantled and removed and the demolition 1.1.43

of onsite buildings would occur. Where possible material removed would be recycled and foundations

left in place. The site would be returned to as close to ‘green field’ conditions as possible. The MTS

Portal would be in-filled and exposed concrete broken up and removed for recycling.

Scheme updates since the planning submission

Notable changes to the detail of aspects of the proposed development post-submission, which are 1.1.44

specifically addressed in the SEI report, are:

Scheme update 1 Removal of a Mine ventilation shaft and relocation of MTS access shaft at DNF.

Scheme update 2 Revised landform design at DNF.

a. Revised earthworks.

b. Revised lighting phasing plans.

c. Revised water management (including the removal of treated water discharge to Sneaton

Thorpe Beck and groundwater drainage amendments).

Scheme update 3 Provision of an operation phase bridleway around DNF.

Scheme update 4 Expansion of the detail in the Summary Construction Scheme.

Scheme update 5 A description of ‘early polyhalite’ management (note that this contingency plan is

included in the assessments described in the SEI).

Scheme update 6 Revised landform contours at the MTS intermediate shaft sites.

Scheme update 7 Relocation of the operations access entry point into Lady Cross Plantation.

Scheme update 8 Verification of the effectiveness of air quality mitigation at DNF and the MTS

intermediate shaft sites.

The EIA Process and Method

Legislation

As a mining project with surface infrastructure, EIA is required for the YPP as detailed in the 1.1.45

Environmental Impact Directive (EIA Directive 85/337/EEC) and Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations

(Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011).


As detailed above, an application has been made jointly to the NYMNPA and RCBC for the Mine and 1.1.46

MTS. A separate application has been made to RCBC for the MHF. Applications have also been made

to SBC and the NYMNPA (via NYCC) for the Construction Village and P&R and the Whitby Operational

P&R facilities respectively.

The need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been ‘screened’ under Regulation 61 of 1.1.47

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). An HRA, has been

undertaken to assess the implications of all elements of the YPP on sites internationally-designated for

nature conservation. The first stage of the HRA (screening) identified the relevant designated sites that

could be affected by YPP, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This stage

concluded that the YPP had the potential to have a significant effect on a number of designated sites

and the sites below were carried forward for further assessment which is summarised in Section 5:

North York Moors SAC – from the Mine with respect to potential nitrogen deposition and

groundwater effects and from the Lockwood Beck site with respect to nitrogen deposition;

North York Moors SPA – from the Mine and Lockwood Beck site with respect to potential

disturbance; and

Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site – the Harbour facility with respect to

habitat loss, water quality, disturbance and the potential alteration of coastal processes, and the

MHF with respect to disturbance/displacement.

The Water Framework Directive (Council Directive 2000/60/EC) (WFD) was adopted by the European 1.1.48

Commission in December 2000 and transposed into law in England and Wales by the Water

Environment (WFD) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003. It requires all EU Member States to

ensure that new schemes do not adversely impact upon the biology, hydrology, geomorphology and

chemistry of all rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater.

A detailed assessment was undertaken to determine whether the proposed developments at the Mine, 1.1.49

MTS and MHF sites have the potential to impact upon surface waters and groundwater. Each scheme

component was divided into separate phase activities, and the impact of each activity on surface and

groundwater bodies was assessed individually and cumulatively. This is summarised in Section 5.

The EIA

EIA is a tool used to assess the nature of a project's likely environmental impacts (commonly 1.1.50

categorised as adverse or beneficial, and from minor (or slight) to major) to enable authorities, and the

public, to understand the potential impacts of the project when considering the merits of the project for

consent. The final reporting of this EIA process, through the ES and the SEI report, provides:

A description of the development, including any alternatives considered.

A description of the existing environment at the site and surrounding areas.

A prediction of the potential impacts on the existing human, physical and natural environment at the

site and assessment of the perceived effects. Generally impacts of moderate or major levels are

considered to be ‘significant’.

A description of mitigation measures employed to avoid or reduce any perceived significant effects.


Consultation is an ongoing part of an EIA, enabling assessments and views of the planning authorities, 1.1.51

statutory agencies, companies and individuals which may be impacted by the application (stakeholders)

to inform the proposals.

Assessment Methodology

In order to assess the impacts that a project may have with respect to a particular environmental topic 1.1.52

(e.g. air quality; recreation) it is important to look at the current conditions (or baseline) in the area that

could be affected (the study area). This can include desk study or site survey (or both).

Assessment methodologies differ between topics but largely follow a similar overall approach. This 1.1.53

identifies any people, places, characteristics and habitats that may be affected (‘receptors’) and

determines how sensitive they receptor is to impacts (‘sensitivity’), based on their importance,

adaptability, tolerance and recoverability.

Effects that could arise due to the project are identified and the severity of the effect (‘magnitude’) is 1.1.54

predicted dependent on how much change the receptor is likely to experience from baseline conditions.

In this stage of the assessment a ‘reasonable worst case scenario’ is assumed.

The magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of a receptor are then used to determine the significance 1.1.55

of the ‘impact’. In general terms, where impacts are predicted to be moderate or major, they are

considered to be ‘significant’.

If negative impacts are predicted to occur mitigation is identified that can be used to reduce the impact. 1.1.56

Mitigation tends to be in two forms: mitigation that is built into the design of the project to reduce

impacts that are identified at an early stage; and mitigation that is proposed in response to the impacts

predicted in the EIA. Impacts are then reassessed, taking into account the proposed mitigation

measures, to provide a residual impact.


2 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED MINE

2.1 Introduction

This section summarises the findings of the technical assessment chapters for the Mine site. It provides 2.1.1

a summary of the impacts assessed and details mitigation measures proposed to alleviate the impacts

predicted; including details of mitigation incorporated into the proposed scheme during the design

development stage.

For more detailed information this chapter can be read in conjunction with the ES and the SEI, as well 2.1.2

as the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP; submitted with the ES) which

sets out an indicative environmental management framework for the YPP construction activities. The

Outline CEMP contains details of the proposed requirements and responsibilities of YPL and their

contractors during the construction phase and provides detail of the checking, monitoring and auditing

process that is to be implemented to ensure the works are undertaken in accordance with the

requirements established in the ES, or as conditioned as part of the planning approval.

Each topic is assessed in turn. Impacts are summarised in tables but where no impact has been 2.1.3

predicted this is not shown. Potential impacts of the proposed development on the ‘Special Qualities’ of

the NYMNP are summarised in Section 3. Cumulative impacts predicted to arise due to the combined

effects of the YPP, and the effects of the YPP together with other plans and projects, are summarised

in Section 5.

2.2 Traffic and Transport

This section summarises a traffic and transport assessment and describes the predicted combined 2.2.1

impacts of the Mine, MTS, MHF and Harbour (i.e. all YPP elements) on the highway environment within

an identified study area. It takes into account the proposed Construction and Operation P&Rs, as well

as other committed developments within the study area. The assessment considers impacts upon 45

specific ‘links’ of the transport network.

An overarching YPP Transport Strategy was developed with a package of bespoke embedded 2.2.2

mitigation measures, as follows:

1. Clearly defined delivery routes for HGV deliveries using the ‘A’ road network for all trips (save for

direct access to the Mine which utilises the B1416).

2. Stockpiling provision to manage the daily and hourly flows of HGVs on the network.

3. P&R facilities at Whitby for Mine construction personnel and/or direct bus /minibus transport to site.

4. P&R facilities at Whitby Cross Butts and Scarborough (A64) for Mine operational personnel.

5. A landscape strategy to retain the majority of Mine arisings on site.

6. A landscape strategy to retain MTS arisings at shaft site locations.

7. Restricted parking at the Mine, MTS intermediate shaft sites, MHF and Harbour for both construction

and operational personnel.

8. A car sharing policy for direct trips to the MTS sites, MHF and Harbour during construction.

9. A car sharing policy for direct trips to the Mine during operation.


Table 2.1 provides a summary of the various traffic effects forecast to arise from the realistic worst 2.2.3

case scenario assessed. Residual impacts in relation to traffic and transport during the construction and

operational phases of the YPP are forecast to be of minor adverse significance at worst.

Table 2.1 Summary of predicted impacts of the York Potash Project on Traffic and Transport

Description of Impact Key Mitigation Measures Maximum

Residual Impact

Construction (weekdays, Saturday and Sundays)

Severance

Proposed mitigation for the effects of severance upon the users of links

21 and 23 (in Whitby) comprises of the following measures:

Provision of a new footway along the A171 between Fairfield Way

and Enterprise Way. Provision of dropped kerbs and tactile paving at side roads along

the A171. Provision of improved crossing points on the A171 for pedestrians

on the bend on Helredale Road outside Helredale Stores. Improved crossing points on the A171 for pedestrians using bus

stops on Mayfield Road just east of Pembroke Way. A contribution to the funding of an NYCC improvement scheme for

the traffic signals at Mayfield Road junction, which would include improved provision for pedestrians and junction capacity at the intersection of links 21 and 23.

Enhanced travel planning measures providing a minibus shuttle service

between Scarborough and the Mine surface development site.

For users of link 45 (near Lady Cross Plantation), temporary diversion

of the PRoW so that pedestrians do not have to walk along the road to

reach the opposite side.

Minor adverse

Pedestrian amenity

The implementation of a temporary speed limit of 30mph for cyclists and

pedestrians utilising the B1416.

The temporary diversion of the PRoW near Lady Cross Planation so

that pedestrians do not have to walk along the road.

Minor adverse

Fear and intimidation

Proposed mitigation for the effects of fear and intimidation upon the

users of link 17 (in Whitby) comprises measures to provide a new

footway along the A171 Guisborough Road from Holmstead Avenue to

Broadings Caravan Park and on to the Whitby car boot field access.

For the users of link 21 and 23 the mitigation measures proposed under

Severance equally apply to fear and intimidation.

Proposed mitigation for the effects of fear and intimidation upon the

users of link 24 and 30 would comprise enhanced travel planning

measures providing a minibus shuttle service

Minor adverse



Residual Impact

Construction (weekdays, Saturday and Sundays)

Pedestrian delay No mitigation further to that embedded within the scheme design is

considered to be necessary. Minor adverse

Highway safety Road safety monitoring strategy through the construction period, with

awareness raising and targeted works at Normanby Bends Minor adverse

Driver delay

Proposed mitigation for the effects of driver delay upon Junction 1

(Mayfield Road) would comprise a contribution to the funding of an

enhanced NYCC scheme to the traffic signals to increase junction

capacity and management of trips to the P&R.

Minor adverse

Operation (weekdays and Saturday)

Severance

No mitigation further to that embedded within the scheme design is


Pedestrian amenity


Pedestrian delay

Highway safety

Driver delay

Operation Sunday

Severance No mitigation further to that embedded within the scheme design is


Pedestrian amenity

Proposed mitigation for pedestrian amenity impacts is the

implementation of a management strategy to reduce the take up of

parking spaces at the Mine for 7am to 8am.

Minor adverse


No mitigation further to that embedded within the scheme design is


Pedestrian delay

Highway safety

Driver delay


Decommissioning of the scheme would be subject to its own traffic assessment, informed by a 2.2.4

screening exercise prior to the end of operations.

2.3 Amenity and Recreation

This section summarises an assessment of the potential impact of the mine surface development on 2.3.1

amenity and recreation in the study area and in the North York Moors National Park (NYMNP). The

assessment is informed by other assessments of traffic, air quality, noise and vibration and landscape

and visual effects.

Impacts assessed include: 2.3.2

Obstruction to Public Rights of Way (PRoW), and disturbance to their users (including cyclists and

horse-riders) from traffic, noise, dust, and landscape and visual changes.

Obstruction to sports and recreation facilities, open access land and public open space, and

disturbance from traffic, noise, dust, and landscape and visual change during the various

development stages.

Following the scheme updates outlined in the SEI document, the creation of a new bridleway around 2.3.3

the Mine site during the operational phase results a minor beneficial impact. Other residual impacts

during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases are summarised in Table 2.2, with

impacts being predicted to be of minor adverse significance at worst.

Table 2.2 Summary of predicted impacts of the York Potash Project Mine on amenity and recreation

Description of Impact

Key Mitigation Measures Maximum residual Impact

Construction

Obstruction to PRoW

Speed limits of 30mph enforced on B1416, A169, A170 and A171 at PRoW crossing points

Negligible

Disturbance to users of PRoW

No mitigation further to that embedded within the scheme design, or

identified to mitigate specific noise and vibration, air quality, or landscape

and visual effects is considered to be necessary.

Minor adverse

Obstruction (cyclists and equestrians)

Speed limits of 30mph enforced on B1416, A169, A170 and A171 at National Cycle Route crossing points

Negligible

Disturbance (cyclists and equestrians)




Minor adverse

Disturbance to users of sports & recreation facilities




Negligible



Key Mitigation Measures Maximum residual Impact

Obstruction to open access land and public open space

Speed limits of 30mph enforced on B1416, A169, A170 and A171 at PRoW crossing points connecting open access land / public open space

Negligible

Disturbance to users of open access land and public open space




Minor adverse

Operation

Obstruction to PRoW

Provision of an operational phase bridleway Minor beneficial

Disturbance to users of PRoW, cyclists and equestrians, users of sports & recreation facilities, users of open access land and public open space




Negligible

Obstruction (cyclists and equestrians)

No proposed mitigation measures Negligible

Decommissioning





Negligible


2.4 Noise and Vibration

This assessment predicted the noise and vibration effects at the closest receptors of the proposed 2.4.1

minehead development. Individual activities were defined and considered during both the construction

and operational phases.

The assessment was undertaken in accordance with approaches agreed with the Environmental Health 2.4.2

Departments of SBC and NYMNPA, and accounted for relevant statutory and technical guidance on

noise and vibration impacts of infrastructure developments. Such guidance has been used to determine

the significance of each identified impact. Where appropriate, consideration was given to mitigation

measures and the residual impacts are summarised in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Summary of predicted impacts

Description

of Impact Key Mitigation Measures Residual Impact

Construction Noise

Phased shaft

construction

and

earthworks

Acoustic screening, i.e. close-boarded fencing, around the night time

temporary laydown area. Implementation of a CEMP, which can include measures such as:

Informing local residents about the construction works, including the timing

and duration of any particularly noisy elements, and providing a contact telephone number to them;

Avoiding operating particularly noisy equipment at the beginning and end of

the day; Keeping potentially noisy deliveries, such as skips and concrete, to the

middle or less sensitive times of the day where possible; Locating noisy static plant, such as diesel generators, away from residential

properties; Using the most modern equipment available and ensuring equipment is

properly maintained; and Where possible, using silencers/mufflers on equipment.

Minor at one

receptor during initial

shaft sinking, and

otherwise Negligible

Blast-Induced

Noise and Air

Overpressure

Best management practice should be implemented to minimise impacts

including:

Choosing alternative, lower impact equipment or methods where possible;

Scheduling the use of vibration-causing equipment at the least sensitive

time of day; Routing, operating or locating high vibration sources as far away from

sensitive areas as possible; Sequencing operations so that vibration-causing activities do not occur

simultaneously; Isolating the equipment causing vibration on resilient mounts; and

Keeping equipment well maintained.

Negligible


Description

of Impact Key Mitigation Measures Residual Impact

Vibration

Ground borne

construction

vibration

Ground borne vibration levels are predicted to be significantly lower than

0.3mm/s at all nearby sensitive receptors, i.e. below levels which are

considered to be just about perceptible in residential environments.

Negligible

Blast-induced

vibration

impact

Indicative vibration levels are all within the specified limits during daytime and

‘other’ hours for up to 5 blasts per day regardless of shaft depth or receptor. Negligible

Offsite

construction

road traffic

Staggering of shift patterns to outside of the 06:00-07:00 and 22:00-23:00

periods to allowing a dilution of worker construction flows over a greater time

period.

Negligible to Minor

Operation

Mining

activities Implementation of embedded mitigation in the minehead scheme. Negligible

Offsite

operational

road traffic

Typical level changes over a full daytime period

Embedded mitigation measures to be incorporated into the transportation

proposals for the operational mine

Minor

Negligible

The decommissioning of the Mine would be informed by a Decommissioning Plan. Noise and vibration 2.4.3

impacts associated with decommissioning activities would be expected to be similar to those identified

for construction, but would occur over a shorter period of time.

2.5 Air Quality

This section summarises predicted air quality impacts associated with the construction and operational 2.5.1

phases at the mine surface development site, based upon a detailed air quality assessment. As for

noise, air quality impacts associated with decommissioning activities would be similar, but would occur

over a shorter period of time to those identified in the construction phase.

Impacts are predicted to fall into three categories: 2.5.2

Fugitive dust and fine particulate matter from the Mine construction phase.

Road traffic emissions from the mine construction and operational phase and construction phase

mine shaft, generator and mobile plant emissions.

Operational mine vent emissions.


A range of conventional, good practice mitigation measures would be employed in the construction 2.5.3

phase and these, together with residual impacts identified in the air quality assessment, are set out in

Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Summary of air quality impacts


Residual Impact

Construction

Fugitive dust and

particulate matter from

the mine construction

phase works

Carrying out earthworks during dry and/or windy conditions should be

avoided if reasonably practicable

Spoil materials extracted from the site should be recycled elsewhere on

site, when and where appropriate.

Plant should be fitted with appropriate dust control measures, such as

enclosed conveyors, rubble chutes and water suppression, where

reasonably practicable, to reduce potential dust emissions.

Water suppression should be available and used throughout the

demolition of existing structures.

Screening and shielding to be provided around works activities (e.g. for

debris and spoil) and bunding for stored materials (e.g. sand and

cement)

Potentially dusty materials such as sand and other aggregates should be

stored in bunded areas and not allowed to dry out.

Regular site inspections to monitor compliance with dust control

procedures set out within the CEMP should be undertaken.

Negligible

Road traffic, mine

shaft, generator and

mobile plant

emissions: nitrogen

dioxide, PM10 and

PM2.5 concentrations at

human receptors

A range of measures for vehicle movements (e.g. hard standing and haul

road installation, wheel washing, speed restrictions). Negligible

Road traffic, mine shaft, generator and mobile plant emissions (nitrogen and acid deposition rates at designated

ecological sites) are addressed in the Ecology section

Operation

Road traffic and

operational mine vent

emissions: mineral

deposition and PM10




Scheme changes presented in the SEI resulted in a reduction in anticipated impacts at human and 2.5.4

ecological receptor locations, when compared to those previously reported in the ES.

2.6 Socio-Economics

The socio-economic assessment considered impacts of the realistic worst case scenario upon the 2.6.1

issues including employment opportunities, tourism and demand for accommodation by employees (as

summarised in Table 2.5).

A number of socio-economic impacts, including national effects, can only be assessed at a project wide 2.6.2

level. Rather than being considered under the Mine, MTS and MHF sections these are summarised in

Section 5.

Table 2.5 Summary of socio-economic impacts

Description of Impact Key Mitigation Measures Residual Impact

Construction

Peak construction employment;

Impact on temporary accommodation

supply;

Indirect employment effects resulting from

construction expenditure: LEP level;

Induced employment effects resulting from

construction expenditure

No mitigation required Minor beneficial

Impact of construction employees on

demand for social and community

infrastructure; Indirect employment effects

resulting from construction expenditure: UK

level

No mitigation required Negligible

Increase in GVA resulting from construction

expenditure: NYMNP / district level No mitigation required Major beneficial


expenditure: LEP level No mitigation required Moderate beneficial

Indirect effects of construction on the local

economy – tourism: NYMNP level

Negative effects could be limited further through a marketing programme to offset negative perceptions

Minor adverse



Crime and fear of crime

Secure perimeter fencing and

mechanism to regularly monitor potential breach.

Having at least two registered security

guards on duty at all times. Design of site cabins to limit access

point/vulnerability and alarm systems. Limiting the quantity of expensive

materials stored on-site as much as is practical.

Access control via appropriate

mechanism including photograph. High quality and 24hr CCTV stored for

31 days. Consideration of tools stored in cars –

limiting or securing as much as is practical.

Negligible

Operation

Employment effects during operation:

NYMNP level;

Indirect and induced employment effects

resulting from operational expenditure: LEP

level

No mitigation required Major beneficial

Employment effects during operation: travel

to work area level No mitigation required Moderate beneficial

Employment effects during operation: LEP

level No mitigation required Minor beneficial

Demand for accommodation by operational

employees;

Impact of operational employees on

demand for social and community

infrastructure



resulting from operational expenditure: UK

level

YPL’s commitment to use local businesses in

their supply chain wherever possible. Negligible

Crime and fear of crime Security measures listed as per construction Negligible



Decommissioning

Loss of direct and indirect employment

Providing opportunities for staff to work

on decommissioning; Provide training and assistance to

enhance employment opportunities outside the Company including transferable skills

Take measures to maximise

opportunities for locally based businesses to secure involvement as contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers in decommissioning work.

Negligible

No impacts identified in the ES were altered as a result of the scheme updates outlined in the SEI. 2.6.3

2.7 Ecological Impact Assessment

The ecological assessment identifies the potential impacts associated with the construction, operation 2.7.1

and decommissioning phases on international and national designated sites, habitats and protected

and notable species. The assessment, and development of appropriate mitigation, was informed by

ecological information obtained through a desk study, ecological walkover surveys, and specific

surveys for badger, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, breeding and overwintering birds, bats

(inspections and surveys), otters and water voles, as well as a botanical survey. Due to the legal status

of badgers, specific information about them is reported separately in a confidential report.

The proposed development would give rise to a number of adverse impacts that would require careful 2.7.2

mitigation. These include:

Indirect (emissions) impacts on the North York Moors.

Impacts on bats and birds due to tree and building removal.

Direct impacts on common reptile species due to vegetation removal.

Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential impacts on designated ecological sites, 2.7.3

bats, birds and reptiles. These should ensure that significant adverse impacts can be avoided. The

residual impacts are summarised in Table 2.6.


Table 2.6 Summary of ecological impacts

Receptors Type of effect Mitigation Significance of

residual impact

Construction phase

Habitats

Habitat loss permanent

Majority of trees where possible would be

retained

Landscape Strategy would be implemented.

Approximately 54.5ha of land would be taken

for construction

Minor adverse

Indirect temporary dust

emissions Dust control measures (and natural screening)

Negligible

Moderate adverse

Birds Temporary, adverse

Any vegetation removal would be undertaken

outside the bird breeding season

Landscape Strategy would be implemented

Moderate adverse

Bats Permanent and

temporary, adverse

Adherence to ‘soft stripping’ methodology for

works where a bat roost has been confirmed as

present.

Lighting proposals to consider Bat Conservation

Trust guidance

Moderate adverse

Reptiles Temporary, adverse

Precautionary Method of Working proposed to

include habitat manipulation (e.g. vegetation

stripping) and tool box talks with contractors

Negligible

Operational phase

Habitats Permanent Loss of 54.5ha of land (due to construction). Moderate beneficial

Birds Permanent Landscape Strategy would be implemented and

installation of additional bat roost boxes. Moderate beneficial

Bats Permanent Landscape strategy would be implemented Moderate beneficial

Reptiles Permanent Landscape strategy would be implemented Minor beneficial


For the decommissioning phase, landscape restoration would have established and the areas of belt 2.7.4

plantations would have been subject to long term management to increase biodiversity value.

2.8 Landscape and Visual Environment

The landscape and visual environment assessment identifies the potential impacts of the construction, 2.8.1

operation and decommissioning phases of the Mine development.

The proposed Mine surface development site is located just below the crest of a ridge within an area of 2.8.2

extensive broadleaved and coniferous woodland cover at Dove’s Nest Farm, near Ugglebarnby Moor

within the North York Moors National Park. The existing site is currently in productive agricultural and

forestry use.

Proposed construction phase operations would comprise remodelling of the existing site landform, 2.8.3

including accommodation of excavated material from shaft and MTS tunnel construction, the installation

of three temporary winding towers, the use of mobile cranes, and the erection of two temporary

generator stacks along with general site support structures, ground level activity, vehicle movement and

24 hour lighting.

Within the footprint of the site, permanent physical landscape impact would arise through alteration of 2.8.4

the existing landform within the extent of works boundary. Medium to long term reversible physical

impacts would include the removal of existing woodland and hedgerows within the site. These changes

would result in minor adverse physical impact on the Coast and Coastal Hinterland (4b) Whitby –

Cloughton landscape character area as a whole.

Permanent landscape character impacts would include the loss of farmland and landform changes 2.8.5

within the Coast and Coastal Hinterland. Temporary and reversible construction phase landscape

character effects would include significant adverse impact on character across parts of the NYMNP.

Temporary and reversible construction phase visual impacts would include significant adverse visual 2.8.6

impacts associated with views of winding towers, generator stacks, cranes and ground level

construction activity from public rights of way, including the Coast to Coast Walk, rural lanes and areas

of open access land to the east and north-east of the site. Temporary significant adverse visual

impacts would arise for the same set of receptors on the western flank of Little Beck valley and

moorland areas to the west of the site, where the upper sections of winding towers, generator stacks

and cranes would be visible. Visual impacts on residential receptors would occur at outlying properties

and settlements to the east and north-east of site and at outlying properties across the western flank of

Little Beck valley. Significant adverse impacts on residential receptors would be limited to a small

number of properties located to the north-east of the site.

Temporary construction phase impacts on the Special Qualities of the North York Moors National Park 2.8.7

would include significant adverse impacts within views from adjoining areas of moorland,

archaeological features and the local public rights of way network and a moderate adverse effect on

night-time tranquillity due to construction lighting. Minor adverse, medium to long term reversible


impacts on landscape structure would occur due to loss of woodland, although much of the area

proposed to be removed is coniferous plantation which would be cropped in the future in any event.

Operational phase impacts on landscape and visual receptors would include initial minor adverse 2.8.8

impacts at year 1, when new mounds would be recently completed, changing to minor beneficial

impacts as landscape restoration works mature and integrate the site physically and visually into its

landscape setting. The sunken shaft head design would avoid the need for traditional permanent

winding towers, with surface operational buildings being low, of relatively small scale and of agricultural

appearance. Operational Mine buildings and surface activity would be mostly hidden within an

enveloping framework of mounds and woodland/ scrub cover. Lighting at the site would be discreet but

residual minor adverse impact would occur due to increased vehicle movements in the local area, due

to Mine activity, and lighting associated with planned maintenance and emergency events. In character

terms, the Mine surface development site would be seen as part of, and would reinforce the existing

wooded character of the Ugglebarnby Moor ridge. Long term management of existing broadleaved and

coniferous woodlands within the site would provide additional landscape benefits.

Decommissioning phase works would be mostly contained within the hidden core of the site, with short 2.8.9

term and minor adverse effects arising through visibility of mobile cranes. Removal of Mine buildings

and surface features, and restoration of the residual site to new complimentary habitats, would provide

a further minor benefit to physical landscape character. The long term residual effect of the restored

site post-decommissioning would be a beneficial contribution to the essential wooded character of the

Ugglebarnby Moor ridge, including continued biodiversity, habitat linkage, woodland cover and

landscape character benefits.

Scheme updates described in the SEI resulted in additional loss of existing vegetation at the Mine site, 2.8.10

new temporary landforms, minor re-location of the temporary MTS shaft winding tower and revised

permanent landforms. Red aviation warning lights have also been confirmed as no longer required on

the temporary winding towers. These changes did not significantly alter the previous impact

assessment.

Following the scheme updates construction phase lighting (specifically the headlights of vehicles 2.8.11

moving on landforms at the southern edge of the) site would become more visible from some areas

south of the site, resulting in increased impacts during summer and winter (minor adverse and

moderate adverse respectively).

In summary, the proposed scheme would result in a range of short term significant adverse landscape 2.8.12

character and visual impacts within this part of the National Park. Following the establishment of site

restoration proposals, the Mine would operate without significant adverse effect on local visual and

landscape receptors or on the wider National Park and would provide a minor landscape benefit. As the

restoration scheme matures, and post-decommissioning, the site would continue to make a positive

contribution to National Park landscape character.


2.9 Cultural Heritage

Through an assessment of cultural heritage a small number of non-designated heritage assets have 2.9.1

been identified within the proposed Mine surface development site, making them susceptible to impact.

Potential mitigation measures are set out in Table 2.7.

Given the nature of the archaeological resource, any impacts are expected to occur during the 2.9.2

construction stage; with no physical impacts predicted during the operation or decommissioning stages.

There are no heritage assets in the wider vicinity that would be permanently significantly adversely

affected by changes to their setting as a result of the mine development (surface development area).

Table 2.7 Summary of cultural heritage impacts and key mitigation


Construction

Possible enclosure

(Heritage Asset 14)

Archaeological monitoring of groundworks – topsoil and subsoil

stripping – taking place in the vicinity of the possible enclosure might

allow for the identification of the possible enclosure, should it exist,

and provide the opportunity for it to be recorded to an appropriate

standard.

Slight adverse

Enclosure (Heritage Asset

13)

Archaeological monitoring of groundworks – topsoil subsoil stripping

– taking place in the vicinity of the enclosure would provide the

opportunity for it to be recorded to an appropriate standard.

Slight adverse

Dove’s Nest Farmhouse

(Heritage Asset 24)

Archaeological monitoring should be maintained during the

demolition of the building and the removal of the building’s

foundations.

Slight adverse

Embanked boundary

(Heritage Asset 28)

Archaeological monitoring during any construction works affecting

the bank would provide the opportunity for it to be recorded to an

appropriate standard.

Negligible

Earthwork (Heritage Asset

33)

In order to ascertain the nature of this earthwork a programme of

test-pitting / evaluation trenching, agreed in consultation with the

National Park Archaeological Officer, is recommended. This

investigation should be undertaken in good time, in order to allow for

the timely analysis of the results and the formulation of any further

works and / or mitigation that might be required on the basis of

those results.

If the mound is found to be archaeological then it would require an

appropriate level of archaeological recording agreed with the

National Park Archaeological Officer.

Slight adverse

Post-medieval / modern Archaeological monitoring during any construction works affecting Slight adverse



agricultural features

identified test pit excavation

such features would provide the opportunity for them to be recorded

to an appropriate standard.

Further commentary, provided as an ‘Assessment of Whitby Abbey’ within the SEI, identifies that there 2.9.3

would be no adverse non-physical impact on the heritage significance of Whitby Abbey headland or any

of its associated heritage assets via alteration to setting as a result of the Mine development.

The proposed Mine would also have a negligible residual impact upon the historic landscape and upon 2.9.4

the Special Qualities of the National Park. Overall, the EIA has identified nothing that would preclude

the development of the proposed Mine on heritage grounds.

2.10 Geology and Hydrogeology

The proposed development comprises earthworks and substructures that would penetrate the 2.10.1

superficial deposits into the bedrock strata and interact with the groundwater system. The EIA includes

a detailed hydrogeological risk assessment which identifies four groups of sensitive receptors: bedrock

aquifers (principally the Ravenscar Formation); internationally designated habitats (i.e. Ugglebarnby

Moor and Sneaton Low Moor); water supplies (springs and boreholes); and, springs discharging to local

small streams.

The potential for environmental impacts has been considered throughout the design process and 2.10.2

appropriate mitigation incorporated into the design includes:

1. A grout wall along the western and southern perimeter of the shaft platform.

2. A groundwater pressure relief drain to the west of the grout wall.

3. A recharge trench to discharge surface runoff from this structure into the Moor Grit aquifer.

Further measures to control environmental risks during construction would be included in a CEMP. 2.10.3

Residual impacts are summarised in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8 Summary of geology and hydrogeology impacts – Mine site

Description of Impact Key Mitigation Measures

Maximum Residual

Impact (across all

receptors)

Physical impacts

Alteration of bedrock Groundwater levels and flowpaths

due to shaft platform construction; grouting; dewatering

(all phases); groundwater discharge to Sherwood

Sandstone (construction only); and Permanent

Extractive Waste Facility (operation and

decommissioned).

No additional mitigation required. Minor adverse


Description of Impact Key Mitigation Measures

Maximum Residual

Impact (across all

receptors)

Chemical impacts

Groundwater / surface water pollution from: grouting

(construction and decommissioning); surface runoff

from shaft platform and, discharge of waste water via

deep groundwater recharge well (Sherwood

Sandstone) (construction only); and from Permanent

Extractive Waste Facility (all phases) and temporary

extractive waste facility (first 2 years of operation only);

No additional mitigation required. Minor adverse

2.11 Hydrology and Flood Risk

This assessment addressed the potential impact of the mine development on the Mine site, Sneaton 2.11.1

Thorpe Beck (the main watercourse that drains the site), and surrounding water bodies, in terms of

hydrology, flood risk, water quality and geomorphology. Due to the nature of the potential impacts this

chapter was concerned only with the proposed surface development. The assessment also includes a

stand-alone Flood Risk Assessment and a Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance assessment.

Residual impacts during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases are predicted to be 2.11.2

of minor adverse significance at worst. Table 2.9 provides a summary of the potential impacts and

mitigation.

Table 2.9 Summary of predicted impacts of the York Potash Project Mine surface development site on

Hydrology and Flood Risk


Key Mitigation Measures Residual Impact

Construction

Increased sediment supply

Minimise the exposure of subsoil and retain strips of undisturbed

vegetation where possible. Restrict traffic movement to minimise the potential for surface

disturbance. Maximise on-site retention of sediment by routing all drainage through

the site drainage system. Include an additional row of silt fences in parts of the site that are in

close proximity to the headwater channels of Sneaton Thorpe Beck.

Negligible

Direct disturbance of surface watercourses

Minimise the introduction of artificial structures to the watercourse,

particularly in unmodified natural channels. Reinstate the natural bed and banks once outfalls have been installed.

It would be necessary to install bed and bank protection adjacent to the outfalls to reduce erosion risk and minimise the chance of future geomorphological adjustment. This should use bioengineering techniques and be scaled appropriately to the size of the channel.

Negligible

Accidental release of fuels, oils, lubricants and

Ensure that the working methodology adheres to the Environment

Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance notes (including PPG01, PPG05, PPG08 and PPG21) and construction industry good practice

Negligible




construction materials

guidance recommended in CIRIA (2001). In particular, stockpiles should be covered to prevent runoff, silt fences should be installed to reduce runoff from bare ground, built-up mud should be removed from roads.

The wheels of all vehicles should be washed before leaving site, as

stated in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. Note that it is assumed that the wheels of all vehicles delivering materials to site will be washed on departure from their point of origin.

Concrete and cement mixing and washing areas should be situated at

least 10m away from the nearest watercourse. These should incorporate settlement and recirculation systems to allow water to be re-used. All washing out of equipment should be undertaken in a contained area, and all water should be collected for off-site disposal.

All fuels, oils, lubricants and other chemicals should be stored in an

impermeable bund with at least 110% of the stored capacity. Spill kits should be available at all times, and damaged containers should be removed from site. All refuelling should take place in a dedicated impermeable area, using a bunded bowser. Biodegradable oils should be used where possible.

Have spill kits available on site at all times. Sand bags or stop logs

should also be available for deployment on the outlets from the site drainage system in case of emergency spillages.

Operation

Increased surface water flows from site drainage

No further mitigation is considered necessary Minor adverse

Decreased spring flows

No mitigation required. Negligible

Potential decommissioning effects would be expected to be similar to those identified for construction. 2.11.3

2.12 Land Use and Soils

An assessment of the potential impacts of the Mine development on land use and soils predicted 2.12.1

residual impacts during the construction and operational phases to be of minor adverse significance at

worst. Table 2.10 provides a summary of the potential impacts predicted to arise. The scheme updates

presented in the SEI resulted in no change in these.

Table 2.10 Summary of predicted impacts of the York Potash Project Minehead on Land Use and Soils



Construction

Land taken out of existing use

Minimisation of land take to the area absolutely required to site the

minehead infrastructure and associated landscaping; Landscape restoration in accordance with the Landscape Restoration

Plan; and Restoration of additional north east area to agricultural use

Minor adverse




Degradation of soils

Soils handling, storage and reinstatement by a competent contractor

under Defra (2009) Construction code of practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites.

Topsoil stripping within all construction areas and storage adjacent to

where it is extracted, where practical. Storage of the excavated subsoil separately from the topsoil, with

sufficient separation to ensure segregation. Handling of soils according to their characteristics – e.g. within wooded

areas it is unlikely that topsoil resources of any quality could be separated and preserved for reuse. If current wooded areas are to be used for storage it would not be necessary to undertake topsoil stripping. Topsoils from agricultural land may be treated as a single resource for stockpiling and reuse.

Where necessary, tree roots would be removed by screening.

Where under storage areas, loosening of subsoils is proposed when dry

to improve permeability before the topsoil is replaced. During wet periods, limiting mechanised soil handling in areas where

soils are highly vulnerable to compaction. Restricting movements of heavy plant and vehicles to specific routes

and avoidance of trafficking of construction vehicles in areas of the site which are not subject to construction phase earthworks.

Minimising the excavation footprint where possible.

In circumstances where construction has resulted in soil compaction,

further remediation may be provided, through an agreed strategy Soil Management through a SMP. Detailed method statements would be

produced and agreed with the relevant regulator, in advance of the works. Contractors would be required to comply with these.

Minor adverse

Loss of soil resource - erosion

Only working in appropriate weather conditions where soil type dictates;

Appropriate soil storage;

Maintaining effective drainage systems during construction;

Ensuring reinstatement of individual fields occurs as soon as practical

after construction; Planting vegetation shortly afterwards

Minor adverse

Loss of soil resource - removal

Reinstatement of site soils where possible;

If this is not feasible then re-use of soils on site where a need has been

identified within the site in accordance with the waste hierarchy ; and Treatment of soil where feasible to enable reuse on site.

Separation of tree roots and soil by screening.

Splitting and shaking stumps during extraction to separate soil.

Negligible

Alteration of existing drainage systems

Location of existing drainage arrangements and removal of field

drainage only where necessary within the site; Excavation of soil only in suitable weather conditions, dependent on soil

type; and During the decommissioning phase, full reinstatement of drains to their

former condition and functioning, where possible.

Specifically within the additional north-eastern spoil area:

Consultation with pre-existing landowners and occupiers to establish

existing drainage arrangements, location of drains (ideally access to drainage plans where available) and any other relevant information;

Development of working method statements should any removal and

reinstatement of drainage system systems prove to be necessary; and Repair of any damaged field drains should evidence of damage (e.g.

Negligible




waterlogging of previously well drained areas) become apparent post-construction.

Biological contamination

Careful cleaning of equipment upon arrival and departure. Negligible

Re-routing of services

Selected of the diversion methodology to ensure continuity of supply

Dialogue with the occupiers of Soulsgrave Farm

Negligible

Disturbance and disruption of activities

No mitigation further to that embedded within the scheme design is considered to be necessary.

Negligible

Operation


Minimisation of land take to the area absolutely required to site the

minehead infrastructure and associated landscaping; and Planting of broadleaved woodland to replace removed conifer woodland.

Minor adverse

Loss of areas subject to Environmental Stewardship Agreements


Negligible

Soil sealing

Areas of impermeable hardstanding within the development would be

kept to a minimum; and Topsoil would be stripped prior to laying of hardstanding to be reused

within landscaped areas.

Negligible

Decommissioning

Restrictions on land use

No further mitigation is considered necessary Minor adverse

Degradation of soils

See construction phase mitigation Negligible Loss of soil resource - removal


No further mitigation is considered necessary Negligible Disturbance and disruption of activities

2.13 Summary

A wide range of information has informed the assessment of impacts predicted to arise due to the 2.13.1

construction and operation of the Mine. The majority of the topic-specific assessments have identified

impacts that would be of negligible or minor adverse significance. However impacts of moderate and

major adverse significance have been identified relating to:

Ecological impacts upon habitats associated with dust emissions, and upon nesting birds and bats

associated with habitat loss at the Mine site.

Visual impacts associated with the infrastructure at the Mine surface development site upon the

Heritage Coast and other receptors.


All predicted moderate or major adverse impacts occur during the construction phase, and would be 2.13.2

temporary. Some major beneficial impacts are predicted during the operation of the Mine, specifically:

Ecological impacts upon habitats, nesting birds and bats at the Mine surface development site.

Visual impacts associated with the landscaping proposals at the Mine surface development site.

Socio-economic impacts arising from an increase in GVA resulting from construction expenditure,

employment effects and indirect and induced employment effects resulting from expenditure during

operation.


3 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED MINERAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM

3.1 Introduction

This section summarises the findings of the technical assessment chapters for the MTS intermediate 3.1.1

shaft sites. It provides a summary by topic of the impacts assessed and details mitigation measures.

Impacts are summarised in tables but where no impact is predicted, this is not shown.

Cumulative impacts predicted to arise due to the combined effects of the MTS intermediate shaft sites 3.1.2

and the rest of the YPP and the combined effects of the YPP with other plans and projects are

summarised in Section 5. For more detailed information these sections can be read together with the

ES and the SEI, as well as the Outline CEMP.


The Traffic and Transport assessment summarised in Section 2 above describes the predicted 3.2.1

combined impacts of the Mine, MTS, MHF and Harbour, as well as Construction Village and Park &

Ride facilities, (i.e. all YPP elements) on the highway environment within the identified study area.

Therefore there is no specific MTS Traffic and Transport assessment.


This section summarises the predicted impacts of the MTS intermediate shaft sites on amenity and 3.3.1

recreation in the study area and the NYMNP. Following the implementation of mitigation measures the

residual impacts in relation to amenity and recreation during the construction, operation and

decommissioning phases of the MTS intermediate shaft sites are predicted to be of minor adverse

significance at worst. Impacts are summarised in Table 3.1. No impacts identified in the ES were

altered by the scheme updates outlined in the SEI.

Table 3.1 Summary of predicted impacts of the York Potash Project MTS Intermediate Shaft Sites on

amenity and recreation



Construction

Obstruction to PRoW

A footpath diversion at Lady Cross Plantation will be agreed with

NYCC to ensure pedestrian amenity across the site is preserved during construction.

Traffic management and a footpath diversion at Lockwood Beck will be

agreed with NYCC to ensure pedestrian amenity across the site is preserved during construction.

It is proposed to temporarily divert the PRoW at link 45 to provide an

improved route for pedestrians and remove any pedestrian demand generated by the caravan site from the road.

Minor adverse

Disturbance to users of PRoW


identified to mitigate specific noise and vibration, air quality, or landscape and visual effects is considered to be necessary.

Minor adverse




Disturbance to cyclists and equestrians, users of open access land and public open space



Minor adverse

Disturbance to users of sports & recreation facilities



Negligible

Operation

Obstruction to PRoW

It is proposed that the PRoW lost during construction at Lady Cross

Plantation would be reinstated. Minor beneficial




Negligible

Decommissioning

Obstruction to PRoW




Negligible



The assessment of the proposed MTS intermediate shaft development with regard to noise and 3.4.1

vibration considered the effect of activities at each intermediate shaft site during both the construction

and operational phases, at the closest receptors to each site.

The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with approaches agreed with the Environmental 3.4.2

Health Departments of RCBC, SBC and NYMNPA, and has accounted for relevant statutory and

technical guidance on noise and vibration impacts of infrastructure developments. Such guidance has

been used to determine the significance of each identified impact. Where appropriate, consideration

has been given to mitigation measures.

The majority of impacts have been assessed as being of negligible significance, but blast-induced 3.4.3

vibration impacts at the Lockwood Beck and Tocketts Lythe shaft sites could be of major adverse

significance. Vibration caused by offsite construction traffic and phased shaft construction, as well as

earthworks during operation, are predicted to have impacts of negligible to minor significance (as

summarised with proposed mitigation in Table 3.2).

The decommissioning of the MTS would form part of a Decommissioning Plan. Noise and vibration 3.4.4

impacts associated with decommissioning activities would be similar, but over a shorter period of time

to those identified for construction.



Description of

Impact


Construction Noise

Phased shaft

construction and

earthworks

The results of the noise calculations indicate that the majority of

activities associated with the earthworks and landscaping have been predicted to be no more than 10dB above the existing background noise levels at the most proximate surrounding residential receptors and therefore satisfy the design guidance provided in BS 5228-1 and the PPG for the NPPF.

Where the need for additional acoustic screening has been identified,

i.e. close-boarded fencing, around the night time temporary laydown area, this would afford suitable attenuation.

A conventional approach to good construction noise management is

via the implementation of a CEMP, which can include measures such as:

Informing local residents about the construction works, including the

timing and duration of any particularly noisy elements, and providing a contact telephone number to them;

Avoiding operating particularly noisy equipment at the beginning and

end of the day; Keeping potentially noisy deliveries, such as skips and concrete, to

the middle or less sensitive times of the day where possible; Locating noisy static plant, such as diesel generators, away from

residential properties; Using the most modern equipment available and ensuring equipment

is properly maintained; and Where possible, using silencers/mufflers on equipment.

Although the combined effect of adopting such methods cannot be

quantified, it is expected that these methods could reduce source noise levels by some 5 - 10dB.

Negligible

Blast-Induced

Noise and Air

Overpressure

Best management practice for vibration should be implemented to

minimise vibration impacts including:

Choosing alternative, lower impact equipment or methods where

possible; Scheduling the use of vibration-causing equipment at the least

sensitive time of day; Routing, operating or locating high vibration sources as far away from

sensitive areas as possible; Sequencing operations so that vibration-causing activities do not

occur simultaneously; Isolating the equipment causing vibration on resilient mounts; and


Negligible


Description of

Impact


Ground borne TBM

construction noise

Surface noise levels were all predicted to be significantly below the

prevailing background noise levels, i.e. below levels which are considered

to be perceptible in residential environments. Implementation of a

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which can

include measures such as:

Informing local residents about the construction works, including the

timing and duration of any particularly noisy elements, and providing a contact telephone number to them;

Using the most modern equipment available and ensuring equipment

is properly maintained; and Where possible, using silencers/mufflers on equipment.

Negligible

Construction Vibration

Ground borne

construction

vibration




Negligible

Blast-induced

vibration impact

Lady Cross Plantation

Indicative vibration levels are all within the specified limits during

daytime and ‘other’ hours for up to 5 blasts per day regardless of depth

Lockwood Beck

Daytime and ‘other’ hours for up to 5 blasts per day regardless of

shaft depth or receptor Restriction to day and evening blasting for up to 3 blasts per day

regardless of shaft depth or receptor

Tocketts Lythe

During daytime and ‘other’ hours for up to 5 blasts per day regardless

of shaft depth or receptor Restriction to day-only blasting for up to 5 blasts per day regardless of

shaft depth or receptor

Negligible

Moderate / Major

Negligible

Moderate / Major

Negligible

Ground borne TBM

construction

vibration

Majority of ground borne vibration levels are predicted to be significantly

lower than 0.3mm/s at all nearby sensitive receptors, i.e. below levels

which are considered to be just about perceptible in residential

environments. Best management practice for vibration should be

implemented to minimise construction vibration impacts, including:

Choosing alternative, lower impact equipment or methods if possible;

Scheduling the use of vibration-causing equipment at the least

sensitive time of day; Isolating the equipment causing vibration on resilient mounts; and


Negligible


Description of

Impact


Offsite construction

road traffic

Staggering of shift patterns to outside of the 06:00-07:00 and 22:00-23:00

periods to allowing a dilution of worker construction flows over a greater

time period.

Negligible to Minor

Operation

Emergency

ventilation fans

All sites

None

Negligible

Offsite operational

road traffic

All sites

None

Negligible

Ground borne

operational noise -

mineral conveyor

and rail

Surface noise levels were all predicted to be significantly below the

prevailing background noise levels, i.e. below levels which are considered

to be perceptible in residential environments. Additional embedded

mitigation will be incorporated into the MTS operational design. An

operational Noise Management Plan (NMP) will also be implemented.

Negligible

Ground borne

operational

vibration - mineral

conveyor and rail




Additional embedded mitigation will be incorporated into the MTS

operational design. Best management practice for vibration should be

implemented to minimise operational vibration impacts.

Negligible

Although impacts from blasting are within specified limits for daytime, and effects would be negligible, it 3.4.5

may be necessary to blast overnight (after 2300hrs). Although this is not the intention, if undertaken at

shallow depths, moderate to major adverse effects may be experienced at some receptors. The

likelihood of night-time blasting at shallow depths (during the initial stages of shaft sinking) is limited.

3.5 Air Quality

The prediction of the impacts of the construction and operational phases of the MTS intermediate shaft 3.5.1

sites was supported by detailed air quality technical assessment and modelling. A summary of the

findings of the impact assessment, including a range of mitigation measures, is provided in Table 3.3.

Further discussion of the impacts on designated ecological sites is set out in the ecology section. 3.5.2


As for noise, air quality impacts associated with decommissioning activities would be similar, but over a 3.5.3

shorter period of time to those identified for construction. The decommissioning of the MTS would form

part of a Decommissioning Plan.

Table 3.3 Summary of air quality impacts (MTS)

Description of

Impact Key Mitigation Measure Residual Impact

Construction

MTS construction

phase fugitive dust

and fine particulate

matter;

Ecological receptors

Numerous mitigation measures, along with dust management

proposals for the Mine and MTS sites, have been included within an

Outline CEMP, submitted with the ES

Negligible

MTS construction

phase road traffic

emissions and

construction phase

shaft, generator and

mobile plant

emissions at human

receptors

A number of road transport mitigation measures have been proposed

as part of the YPP to reduce the impact of road traffic movements

(and associated emissions) on the National Park. These include:

Designated routing for all staff traffic accessing the Mine and MTS

sites.

The use of a P&R facility for shift workers travelling from outside the

Whitby and Scarborough areas.

The use of a bus service from the Whitby and to minimise trips to and

from the Mine site.

Negligible

Operation

MTS operational

phase road traffic

emissions at human

receptors;

Ecological receptors;

Special Qualities

As above for construction Negligible

Scheme amendments described in the SEI are anticipated to result in a reduction in impact at human 3.5.4

and ecological receptor locations, when compared to those reported in the ES.

3.6 Socio-Economics

The socio-economic assessment considered impacts of the MTS development on issues including 3.6.1

employment, tourism and demand for accommodation. A number of socio-economic impacts cannot be

considered at the level of each scheme element, and these are summarised under Section 5.


A qualitative and (where possible) a quantitative assessment of the potential effects of the proposed 3.6.2

MTS estimated that approximately 26% of the workforce used to construct the MTS would be provided

by “home based” personnel and 74% would be brought into the area for the construction of the project.

This would lead to a number of benefits to the local economy both within and outside of the NYMNP.

As summarised in Table 3.4, the only potentially negative effects of the MTS on socio-economics 3.6.3

identified in the assessment would be that of crime and fear of crime but various measures suggested

by the North Yorkshire Neighbourhoods Team would be implemented. With these measures in place

the impacts are predicted to be of negligible significance. No significant adverse impacts upon Socio-

Economics have been predicted to arise as a result of the MTS element of the YPP and no impacts

identified were altered by the scheme updates outlined in the SEI document.

Table 3.4 Summary of socio-economic impacts and mitigation


Construction


Impact on temporary accommodation supply

within the NYMNP;


outside of the NYMNP: District level



outside of the NYMNP: all other levels;

Impact of Construction Employees on

Demand for Social and Community

Infrastructure


Indirect employment effects resulting from

construction expenditure

YPL has committed to maximising the number of

firms within the LEP that are able to access and

succeed in tendering for opportunities and is

working in partnership with the LEP stakeholders

towards this goal.

Minor beneficial

Induced employment effects resulting from

construction expenditure;


expenditure: UK level

No mitigation required Negligible to minor beneficial


expenditure: district level No mitigation required Major beneficial




expenditure: LEP level No mitigation required

Moderate beneficial

Indirect effects of construction on the local

economy: tourism No additional mitigation proposed Minor adverse

Crime and fear of crime

Secure perimeter fencing and mechanism to regularly monitor potential breach.

Having at least two registered security guards on duty at all times.

Design of site cabins to limit access point/vulnerability and alarm systems.

Limiting the quantity of expensive materials stored on-site as much as is practical.

Access control via appropriate mechanism including photograph.

High quality and 24hr CCTV stored for 31 days.

Consideration of tools stored in cars – limiting or securing as much as is practical.

Negligible

Operation


resulting from operational expenditure: UK

level



resulting from operational expenditure: LEP

level

No mitigation required Major beneficial

Crime and fear of crime As for construction Negligible

Decommissioning


Providing opportunities for staff to work on decommissioning;

Provide training and assistance to enhance employment opportunities outside the Company including transferable skills

Take measures to maximise opportunities for locally based businesses to secure involvement as contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers in decommissioning work.

Negligible


3.7 Ecological Impact Assessment

An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the effects of the construction, operation and 3.7.1

decommissioning of the MTS was informed by an extensive suite of desk and field studies undertaken

over a number of years (including in 2015).

Design proposals for each of the proposed intermediate shaft sites have sought to avoid or reduce the 3.7.2

significance of adverse impacts whilst seeking opportunities for beneficial effects and enhancements.

Mitigation measures which are embedded in the design include:

Timing vegetation clearance to have the least impact on sensitive ecological receptors.

Minimising the footprint of the works at each intermediate shaft location.

The implementation of a planting strategy providing new habitat.

Ensuring that lighting has as minimal effect as possible on ecological receptors.

The proposed development would give rise to a number of adverse impacts but if identified mitigation 3.7.3

measures are successfully implemented, significant adverse impacts can be avoided. Impacts and

mitigation (which would be contained in a CEMP) are as summarised in Table 3.5.

Any decommissioning activity would primarily take place behind existing tree cover and mounds and is 3.7.4

likely to involve the removal of all surface structures and features.

Table 3.5 Summary of ecology impacts

Impacts Mitigation Residual impact

Construction

Habitats Majority of trees where possible would be retained. Minor adverse

Birds Any vegetation removal would be undertaken outside the

breeding season. Moderate adverse

Reptiles

Precautionary Method of Working proposed to include habitat

manipulation (e.g. vegetation stripping) and tool box talks

with contractors.

Minor adverse

Bats Lighting proposals to consider Bat Conservation Trust (BCT)

and RSPB guidance. Minor adverse

Operation

Habitats;

Birds;

Reptiles;

Bats

Restoration and Landscape Strategy would be implemented Minor beneficial



This section summarises the impact of the three intermediate shaft access sites at Lady Cross 3.8.1

Plantation, Lockwood Beck and Tocketts Lythe on landscape and visual resources. The southern MTS

shaft and northern MTS Portal are integral to Mine and MHF developments as summarised in Section

2 and Section 4 respectively.

Due to the varying nature of the intermediate shaft sites at Lady Cross Plantation, Lockwood Beck and 3.8.2

Tocketts Lythe they were assessed separately, with a summary of impacts provided for each site

below. Cumulative project-wide and wider cumulative impacts are considered in the CIA.



the existing landform across the northern part of the site. Temporary construction phase alterations to

the landform of the southern field would be restored to original ground levels with the exception of the

footprint of the operational phase shaft top area and building, which would remain as permanent

changes. Medium to long term reversible physical effects would include the removal of small areas of

existing woodland and a stand of pine trees. These changes would result in a minor adverse physical

impact on the North York Moors National Landscape Character Area – Central Valley (8b) Lower Esk

Valley.

Permanent landscape character effects within this character area would result from the loss of arable / 3.8.4

agricultural grassland, landform changes and replacement with species rich grassland, woodland edge

planting and creation of the operational shaft top area and building. Temporary and reversible

construction phase landscape character effects would include significant local adverse impact on

character (due to intervisibility with the winding tower, generator stack and cranes), across parts of the

Central Valley (8b) Lower Esk Valley and the Coast and Coastal Hinterland (4a) Boulby – Whitby

landscape character areas, both of which are within the North York Moors National Park.

Temporary and reversible construction phase visual effects would include significant adverse visual 3.8.5

impacts associated with views of the upper sections of the winding tower, generator stack and cranes

from public rights of way (including a footpath that passes through the site), sections of roads and lanes

travelled by recreational users, a limited number of residential receptors in proximity to the site and

certain plots within the neighbouring caravan park. Minor adverse impact experienced by receptors

across the wider study area; including those along the upper northern flank of the Esk valley, across the

southern flank of the valley (properties at Grosmont and receptors to the south of the river) and at more

distant moorland edge and moorland locations to the south and west. Ground level activity, including

potential lighting effects and mound construction, is typically screened by existing dense woodland

cover within Lady Cross Plantation and in neighbouring areas of woodland plantation.

Temporary construction phase impacts on the Special Qualities of the North York Moors National Park 3.8.6

would include minor adverse impact on landscape structure, due to loss of woodland, significant

adverse impact within views from adjoining areas of moorland, archaeological features and the local

public rights of way network and minor moderate adverse impact on night-time tranquillity due to

construction phase lighting and increased road traffic.


Operational phase effects on landscape and visual receptors around the site would be very limited due 3.8.7

to the screening of both site areas, including the shaft top area and building, by surrounding dense

woodland plantation. Initial minor adverse impact would occur in views from the public right of way that

crosses the site, where it passes the shaft top building and crosses the mound in the northern site area.

As restoration woodland edge planting and species-rich grasslands become established this impact

would change to minor beneficial.

Decommissioning phase works would be screened by existing woodland, with short term and minor 3.8.8

adverse impact arising through visibility of mobile crane tops.

SEI changes potentially affecting landscape and visual receptors include amendment of the permanent 3.8.9

spoil mound landform and restoration proposals, provision of a new access track and removal of red

aviation warning lights from the temporary winding tower. These changes do not alter the previously

identified impacts for the site.

Lockwood Beck


the existing landform within the extent of works boundary and construction of the operational phase

shaft top area and building. Medium to long term reversible physical impacts would include the removal

of 0.5hectares of existing woodland and 450m of hedgerows within the site. These changes would

result in minor adverse physical impact on the Redcar and Cleveland Character Area Moorland Fringe

Farmland.

Permanent landscape character impacts would include loss of farmland and landform changes, with 3.8.11

fringe farmland being replaced with broadleaved woodland planting and the creation of the operational

shaft top area and building. Temporary and reversible construction phase landscape character effects

would include a significant adverse impact across parts of the landscape. Significant adverse

temporary impacts would also occur within small parts of the National Park, and small parts of the coast

and coastal hinterland which are intervisible with the site.

Temporary and reversible construction phase visual impacts would include a significant adverse visual 3.8.12

impacts associated with views of the winding tower, generator stack, cranes, ground level construction

activity and construction phase lighting from PRoW, rural lanes and highways travelled by recreational

users, as well as more passive users of Lockwood Beck Reservoir, such as fishermen. Significant

adverse visual impacts on residential receptors would be limited to a small number of properties within

close proximity to the site.

Operational phase impacts on landscape and visual receptors would include initial minor adverse 3.8.13

impacts at year 1, when new mounds would be recently completed, changing to minor beneficial

impacts as landscape restoration works mature and integrate the site physically and visually into its

landscape setting. Creation and long term management of new broadleaved woodlands within the site

would link with existing woodlands and provide additional landscape benefits.

Decommissioning phase works would be screened by existing and proposed woodland, with short term 3.8.14

and minor adverse impact arising through visibility of mobile cranes.


SEI changes at the site, including very minor amendment of the permanent landform, do not alter 3.8.15

previously reported impacts.

Tocketts Lythe

Within the extent of works boundary, permanent physical landscape impact would arise through 3.8.16

alteration of the existing landform. Medium to long term reversible physical impact would include the

removal of small areas of existing woodland and hedgerows within the site. These changes would

result in a minor adverse physical impact on the Redcar and Cleveland Character Area (G5) Undulating

Farmland (East of Guisborough).

Permanent landscape character effects would include a loss of farmland and landform changes, 3.8.17

replacement with new broadleaved woodland planting and creation of the operational shaft top area.

Temporary and reversible construction phase landscape character effects would include a significant

adverse impact (due to intervisibility with the winding tower, generator stack, cranes and ground level

construction activity). A significant adverse impact would occur within the National Park to the

Cleveland Foothills which is intervisible with the site.

Temporary and reversible construction phase visual effects would include a significant adverse visual 3.8.18

impact associated with views of the winding tower, generator stack, cranes, ground level construction

activity and construction lighting from PRoW, other well-used local routes, and highways travelled by

recreational users. Significant adverse impacts on residential receptors would be limited to a small

number of properties within 1km of the site. Guisborough itself is generally well-screened from the

proposed site with no significant impacts predicted.

Operational phase effects on landscape and visual receptors would include an initial minor adverse 3.8.19

impact at year 1, when the new mound would be recently completed; changing to minor beneficial

impact as landscape restoration works mature and integrate the site physically and visually into its

landscape setting. The shaft working area would be enclosed by existing mature woodland on three

sides, with surface operational buildings being low, of relatively small scale and of agricultural

appearance. Lighting at the operational site would be discreet and would not have a significant impact

on night time character. In character terms, the site would be consistent with the existing agricultural

and wooded character to the east of Guisborough.

Decommissioning phase works would be screened by existing mature woodland, with short term and 3.8.20

minor adverse impacts arising through visibility of mobile cranes.

SEI changes at the site, including very minor amendment of the permanent landform, do not alter 3.8.21

previously identified impacts.

In summary, the proposed scheme would result in a range of short term significant adverse landscape 3.8.22

character and visual impacts within and adjacent to the National Park (Lady Cross Plantation and

Lockwood Beck respectively) and within 1km of the site (Tocketts Lythe). Following the establishment

of site restoration proposals, the MTS would operate without significant adverse impact on local visual

and landscape receptors or on the National Park. As restoration matures, post-decommissioning, the

site would continue to make a minor but positive contribution to landscape character.



The predicted cultural heritage effects of constructing and operating the MTS intermediate shaft sites, 3.9.1

together with key mitigation measures, are summarised in Table 3.6.

The assessment concluded that at Lady Cross Plantation two Scheduled prehistoric barrows would 3.9.2

sustain a slight temporary adverse impact through alteration to their settings, at construction only. At

Lockwood Beck the greatest impacts would be of a physical nature to recorded medieval field systems

(assessed as no greater than a slight level of impact) and non-physical impacts on scheduled

prehistoric barrows. However these are predicted to be slight temporary adverse only, and would end at

the end of the construction period.

Slight temporary adverse impacts are also predicted to occur at Tocketts Lythe, including physical 3.9.3

impacts on any remains associated with Waterfall Ironstone Mine. Slight non-physical impacts would

also occur as a result of the alteration to the setting of a number of heritage assets. Operational phase

impacts on two Grade II Listed buildings at Plantation Farm are also predicted to occur and remain due

to the Tocketts Lythe shaft. However these would be no worse than slight adverse. No impacts are

predicted during operations or decommissioning at Lady Cross Plantation and Lockwood Beck.

A summary of recommended mitigation for all three intermediate sites is provided in Table 16 below. 3.9.4

Table 3.6 Summary of key mitigation measures

Description of

Impact Key Mitigation Measures Residual Impact


Palaeo-

environmental

deposits

Archaeological monitoring of ground works in the form of a watching brief

(including areas of controlled archaeological strip) in those areas identified

as conducive to waterlogging and/or palaeo-environmental preservation.

Slight adverse

Lockwood Beck

Possible

medieval road

Archaeological monitoring of groundworks in the form of a watching brief

(including areas of controlled archaeological strip). Negligible

Medieval field

systems

Archaeological monitoring in the form of a watching brief (including areas of

controlled archaeological strip). Slight adverse

Tocketts Lythe

Remains

associated with

Waterfall Mine

Archaeological monitoring in the form of a watching brief (including areas of

controlled archaeological strip). Slight adverse

Two Grade II

Listed Buildings

(Plantation

Farm)

Minimisation of the visibility of the extent of works as embedded within the

development design. Slight adverse


An ‘Assessment of Gisborough Priory’ is included within the SEIR. It found that no part of the YPP, 3.9.5

including Tocketts Lythe, would form part of the setting of Gisborough Priory and that, therefore, it

would not alter the setting of Gisborough Priory or have any effect on its heritage significance.

Overall, the EIA would be consistent with both national and local heritage policy. 3.9.6

3.10 Geology and Hydrogeology

The proposed development comprises earthworks and substructures that would penetrate into the 3.10.1

bedrock and interact with groundwater. This section summarises the assessment of predicted geology

and hydrogeology effects as a result of above and below ground activities during the construction,

operation and decommissioning phases of the MTS. It is based on detailed hydrogeological risk

assessments undertaken for each of the intermediate shaft sites and for the MTS tunnel.

A large number of sensitive groundwater receptors were identified for each of the intermediate sites, as 3.10.2

well as along the tunnel route, which can be divided into three general categories: bedrock and

superficial aquifers (principally the Ravenscar Formation); water supplies (springs and boreholes); and

springs and groundwater-fed watercourses.

Specific mitigation for potential environmental impacts is embedded within the design of the 3.10.3

development, and further measures to control environmental risks during construction are presented in

an outline CEMP. Residual impacts and additional mitigation measures are summarised in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Summary of MTS geology and hydrogeology impacts

Impact Key Mitigation Measures Maximum Residual Impact

Lady Cross Plantation (21 receptors identified)

Alteration of groundwater flow paths and levels due to:

grouting; lined impermeable substructures (all phases);

and, dewatering (construction only).

Alteration of infiltration rates due to the shaft platform and

laydown areas (construction only)

No additional mitigation required. Minor

adverse for

two receptors

Groundwater / surface water pollution from: Permanent /

Temporary Waste Management Facility (all phases); and,

grouting and Shaft Platform / Laydown Area (construction

only)

Installation of a geosynthetic clay liner

(GCL) beneath laydown area to separate

potentially contaminated surface water

from the underlying aquifer during

construction and operations.

Minor

adverse for

two receptors

Lockwood Beck (18 receptors identified)

Alteration of infiltration rates due to the Permanent Waste

Management Facility Zone 1 (all phases).

No additional mitigation required. Minor for 10

receptors


Impact Key Mitigation Measures Maximum Residual Impact


grouting; lined impermeable substructures; and,

dewatering (construction only).

No additional mitigation required. Negligible for

all receptors

Groundwater / surface water pollution from: Permanent /

Temporary Waste Management Facilities (all phases);

Grouting; runoff from shaft platform and laydown area;

and, Ironstone Workings (construction only).


all receptors

Tocketts Lythe (8 receptors identified)

Alteration of infiltration rates due to the shaft platform and

laydown areas (construction only)


grouting and lined impermeable substructures (all

phases); and, dewatering (construction only).


all receptors

Groundwater / surface water pollution from: Temporary /

Permanent Waste Management Facility (all phases);

Grouting (construction and decommissioning); runoff from

shaft platform and laydown area and, Ironstone Workings

(construction only).


all receptors

MTS Tunnel (numerous receptors)

Alteration of Groundwater levels and flow paths

(construction and decommissioned)


all receptors

Groundwater pollution effects of Grouting (construction

only)


all receptors



This section summarises the potential impact of the surface developments at the MTS intermediate 3.11.1

shaft sites on hydrological environment and existing flood risk. Table 3.8 provides a summary of the

potential impacts predicted to arise from the development. Residual impacts during the construction,

operation and decommissioning phases have been predicted to be of minor adverse significance at

worst. Impacts during decommissioning are predicted to be similar to those in the construction phase.

Table 3.8 Summary of predicted impacts on Hydrology and Flood Risk



Construction


Minimise sediment runoff by intercepting surface drainage and routing

it through the site drainage system. This should include the use of temporary pumping or equivalent appropriate to ensure discharge of surface runoff is conveyed through attenuation ponds, as well as the use of hydrocarbon interceptors on all surface water drainage systems.

Ensure that the final designs for the site drainage system (including

filter drains, swales, and attenuation ponds) minimise any increase in surface water flows. In particular, the system should ensure that there is no rapid release of large volumes of water from the site in order to minimise the potential for increased erosion. Flows discharged from the attenuation ponds should be controlled using flow control devices.

Install suitable bed and bank protection adjacent to the outfalls to

reduce erosion risk and minimise the chance of geomorphological adjustment. This should use bioengineering techniques and be scaled appropriately to the size of the channel. The introduction of artificial structures to the watercourse should be minimised


Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance notes. Adhere to construction industry good practice guidance recommended

in CIRIA (2001).

Negligible


Minimise the introduction of artificial structures to the watercourse,

particularly in unmodified natural channels. Reinstate the natural bed and banks once outfalls have been installed.

Use sediment traps and sensitive construction techniques during

installation of temporary culverts to minimise disturbance to bank and bed materials, and prevent the release of contaminants into the water body.

Ensure that through formal Flood Risk Assessment the design of any in

channel structure does not exacerbate existing flood risk. Ensure that the working methodology adheres to the Environment

Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance notes. Adhere to construction industry good practice guidance recommended

in CIRIA (2001).

Negligible




Accidental release of fuels, oils, lubricants and construction materials


Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance notes. Adhere to construction industry good practice guidance.

Store potentially polluting materials in impervious storage bunds with

110% capacity to contain any leakages or spillages. Check equipment regularly to ensure that leakages do not occur.

Limit refuelling activities to a designated impermeable area and use

drip trays where possible. Have spill kits available on site at all times.

Negligible


Install suitable bed and bank protection adjacent to the outfalls to

reduce erosion risk and minimise the chance of geomorphological adjustment. This should use bioengineering techniques and be scaled appropriately to the size of the channel. The introduction of artificial structures to the watercourse should be minimised.


filter drains, swales, and attenuation ponds) minimise any increase in surface water flows. In particular, the system should ensure that there is no rapid release of large volumes of water from the site in order to minimise the potential for increased erosion.

Flows discharged from the attenuation ponds should be controlled

using flow control devices such as orifice plates or vortex devices to reduce the energy of flows.

Negligible

Operation


The scheme includes embedded measures to mitigate this potential impact. Negligible


Table 3.9. provides a summary of the potential impacts on land use and soils predicted to arise from 3.12.1

the development. Residual impacts in relation to land use and soils during the construction and

operational phases have been predicted to have moderate adverse significance at worst. Scheme

updates presented in the SEI did not alter the previous assessment.

Table 3.9 Summary of predicted land use and soils impacts



Construction

Land Taken out of Existing Use

Minimisation of land take to the area absolutely required to site the MTS infrastructure and associated landscaping.

Moderate adverse

Degradation of Soils

Soils handling, storage and reinstatement by a competent contractor with

reference to Defra (2009) Construction code of practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites.

Minor adverse




Storage of the excavated subsoil separately from the topsoil, with sufficient

separation to ensure segregation. Handling of soils according to their characteristics

During wet periods, limiting mechanised soil handling in areas where soils

are highly vulnerable to compaction. Restricting movements of heavy plant and vehicles to specific routes and

avoidance of trafficking of construction vehicles in areas of the site which are not subject to construction phase earthworks.

Minimising the excavation footprint where possible.

In circumstances where construction has resulted in soil compaction,

further remediation may be provided, through an agreed strategy.


Only working in appropriate weather conditions where soil type dictates.

Appropriate soil storage.

Maintaining effective drainage systems during construction.

Ensuring reinstatement of individual fields occurs as soon as practical.

Use of construction phase settlement ponds.

Planting vegetation shortly afterwards.

Minor adverse

Loss of soil resource - removal

Reinstatement of site soils where possible.

If this is not feasible then, re-use of soils on site where a need has been

identified in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Treatment of soil where feasible to enable reuse on site of soils deemed

unsuitable for use prior to treatment.

Negligible

Alteration of existing drainage systems

Consultation with landowners and occupiers to establish existing drainage arrangements, location of drains (ideally access to drainage plans where available) and any other relevant information.

Removal of field drainage only where necessary within each site. Working method statements produced for different drainage systems Excavation of soil during suitable weather conditions (dependent on type) Installation of new drainage systems during and post-construction.

Minor adverse

Biological contamination

Agreeing access arrangements with landowners/occupiers in advance of any construction works taking place.

Minimising where possible the movements of people, vehicles or equipment into areas where farm animals are kept for the Tocketts Lythe and Lockwood Beck sites.

Cleaning equipment upon arrival and departure.

Negligible

Re-routing of underground services

Mitigation for this impact would be in the form of agreements with the relevant statutory utility undertakers to minimise any disruption and provide continuity of service to neighbouring services users.

Negligible

Soil sealing Areas of impermeable hardstanding within the development site would be

kept to a minimum and topsoil would be stripped for reuse within landscaped areas prior to hardstanding being laid.

Negligible

Disturbance and disruption of activities


Minor adverse




Special Qualities of the North York Moors National Park

Landscape design proposals to replace all removed woodland with woodland of equal or superior conservation value.

Negligible

Operation


Minimisation of land take to the area absolutely required to site the operational phase infrastructure.

All other areas will be reinstated following construction.

Minor adverse

Soil Sealing

Areas of impermeable hardstanding within the development site would be kept to a minimum and topsoil would be stripped for reuse within landscaped areas prior to hardstanding being laid.

Negligible

Decommissioning

Land taken out of existing use (Lady Cross Plantation only)

See construction phase mitigation. Minor adverse

Other decommissioning stage impacts are expected to be similar to those of the construction stage.1

3.13 Special Qualities of The North York Moors National Park

All Mine and MTS topic assessments reported in the ES (and SEI) addressed impacts to receptors 3.13.1

within the NYMNP. The assessment focuses solely on the Special Qualities of the NYMNP. Special

Qualities are the mechanism through which the UK’s National Parks are awarded legal protection. The

features identified are specific to each individual National Park. It is notable that Special Qualities are

hard to assess as different people will interpret impacts in different ways. Special Qualities also tend to

be expressed as a combination of general characteristics, rather than individually – the assessment is

therefore to a degree cumulative. This assessment of the potential impacts of the Mine and MTS

intermediate shaft sites on the Special Qualities of the NYMNP differs from the other assessments by

focusing on the Mine site, Lady Cross Plantation Intermediate Shaft Site and, where appropriate,

Lockwood Beck and Tocketts Lythe intermediate shaft sites.

1 Note that potential decommissioning impacts from biological contamination were incorrectly reported in the ES as of minor adverse

significance. This should have been Negligible in line with the construction phase impacts.


Table 3.10 provides a summary of the potential impacts predicted, which range from minor beneficial to 3.13.2

major adverse. The greatest adverse impacts (moderate or major) occur as a result of a change to the

open heather moorland; tranquillity; and the artistic nature of the National Park during construction of

the project. No impacts of moderate or major adverse significance are predicted during operation.

Table 3.10 Summary of predicted impacts of the YPP on the Special Qualities of the NYMNP


Residual Impact

Construction Operation

SQ1: Great diversity of landscape; sudden dramatic contrasts

associated with this. Minor adverse Minor beneficial

SQ2: Wide sweeps of open heather moorland; distinctive dales, valley

and inland headlands.

Minor to Major

adverse Minor beneficial

SQ3: An abundance of forest and woodland; ancient trees and

woodland rich in wildlife. Minor adverse Minor beneficial

SQ4: Special landforms from the Ice Age; exceptional coastal geology. No impact No impact

SQ5: Majestic coastal cliffs and sheltered harbours; distinctive coastal

headlands. Minor adverse No impact

SQ6: A special mix of upland, lowland and coastal habitats; a wide

variety of wildlife dependent on these. Minor adverse Moderate beneficial

SQ7: Settlements which reflect their agricultural, fishing or mining

past; locally distinctive buildings and building materials. Negligible Negligible

SQ8: Long imprint of human activity; a wealth of archaeology from

prehistory to the 20th

Century. Minor adverse No impact

SQ9: A rich and diverse countryside for recreation; an extensive

network of public paths and tracks. Minor adverse Minor beneficial

SQ10: Strong religious past and present; ruined abbeys and ancient

churches. No impact No impact

SQ11: Strong feeling of remoteness; a place for spiritual refreshment. Minor adverse Negligible

SQ12: Tranquillity; dark skies at night and clear unpolluted air. Moderate adverse Minor adverse

SQ13: Distinctive skills, dialects, songs and customs; strong sense of

community and friendly people. No impact No impact

SQ14: A place of artistic, scientific and literary inspiration; a heritage

of authors, artists, scientists and explorers. Moderate adverse Minor beneficial


The identification of the creation of a new bridleway at the Mine site meant that the assessment 3.13.3

reported in the SEI identified a minor beneficial impact upon SQ9 (previously assessed as negligible).

3.14 Summary

A wide range of information was gathered to inform the assessment of impacts that would arise due to 3.14.1

the MTS and, in particular, the intermediate shaft sites. The majority of the assessments found that

impacts associated with these elements of the proposed project would be of negligible or minor

significance. However impacts of moderate and major adverse significance were identified as:

Vibration impacts associated with construction vibration from the blasting of shafts at Lockwood

Beck and Tocketts Lythe.

Land use and soil impacts due to land loss to build the intermediate shaft sites.

Impacts to the Special Qualities of the NYMNP.

All but one of the adverse impacts of moderate or major significance (a moderate adverse impact to the 3.14.2

landscape character predicted to occur in year 1 of operation at the Lockwood Beck site) are predicted

to occur during the construction phase and would be temporary. They would become less significant

once the project becomes operational.

Significant beneficial impacts during the operational phase of the MTS were also identified, relating to: 3.14.3

Ecological impacts upon nesting birds.

Impacts on the Special Qualities of the NYMNP, including upon a special mix of habitats.

Socio-economic impacts arising from an increase in GVA resulting from construction expenditure

and indirect employment effects during operation.


4 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED MHF AND MTS PORTAL

4.1 Introduction

This section summarises the findings of the technical assessment chapters for the MHF and MTS 4.1.1

Portal (Wilton), together with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate the predicted impacts. This

includes embedded mitigation designed into the proposed scheme.

This section can be read in conjunction with the ES and SEI report, as well as the CEMP. 4.1.2


The Traffic and Transport assessment was carried out at the ‘whole project’ level and included (and 4.2.1

summarised) in Part 2 describes the predicted combined impacts of the Mine, MTS, MHF and Harbour

(i.e. all YPP elements) on the highway environment within the identified study area. Therefore there is

no specific Traffic and Transport chapter for Part 4.


Amenity and Recreation impacts were ‘scoped out’ of the EIA process in discussion with RCBC. They 4.3.1

were not considered because the proposed works are located on privately-owned land (the Wilton

International Complex) and the site does not contain any recreation facilities (including any access

routes or footpaths).


This section summarises the assessment of noise and vibration impacts associated with the 4.4.1

construction, operation and decommissioning of the MHF and MTS Portal which was carried out

following consultation with the Environmental Health Department of RCBC. It drew on a detailed

baseline noise survey and modelling. Where appropriate, consideration was given to mitigation

measures (see Table 4.1).




Construction Noise

MHF and MTS Portal

construction and

earthworks

Implementation of a CEMP (see Part 2, Appendix 17.1), which can

include measures such as:

informing local residents about the construction works, including

the timing and duration of any particularly noisy elements, and

providing a contact telephone number to them;

avoiding operating particularly noisy equipment at the beginning

and end of the day;

keeping potentially noisy deliveries, such as skips and concrete,

to the middle or less sensitive times of the day where possible;

locating noisy static plant, such as diesel generators, away from

residential properties;

using the most modern equipment available and ensuring

equipment is properly maintained; and,

where possible, using silencers/mufflers on equipment.

Negligible

Construction Vibration

Ground borne construction

vibration;

Offsite construction road

traffic

None. Negligible

Operation

Operational noise on site Proposed earth bunds around site perimeter. Negligible

Offsite operational road

traffic None. Negligible

The decommissioning of the MHF and MTS Portal would be covered by a Decommissioning Plan, but 4.4.2

impacts would be similar to those identified for construction, and are likely to be of lower significance.

4.5 Air Quality

The assessment of air quality effects considered: 4.5.1

The impact of fugitive emissions of particulate matter from construction phase activities at the MHF.

The impact of emissions to air from the MTS Portal in the construction phase.


The impact of emissions to air from the dryers at the MHF during the operational phase.

The impact of road traffic exhaust emissions.

A range of mitigation measures would be employed in the construction phase. Measures to mitigate 4.5.2

construction phase dust emissions are included within the project design (see Table 4.2). As for noise,

air quality impacts associated with decommissioning activities would be similar, but would occur over a

shorter period of time.

Table 4.2 Summary of air quality impacts and mitigation

Description of

Impact Key Mitigation Measures

Maximum

Residual Impact

Construction

Fugitive dust and

particulate matter

from the MHF

construction phase

works

Carrying out earthworks during dry and/or windy conditions should be

avoided if reasonably practicable

Spoil materials extracted from the site should be recycled elsewhere on site,

when and where appropriate.

Where the recycling of excavated materials is not possible, it should be

removed away from site as soon as is practicable, minimising the need to

stockpile potentially dusty material.

Plant should be fitted with appropriate dust control measures, such as

enclosed conveyors, rubble chutes and water suppression, where reasonably

practicable, to reduce potential dust emissions.

Water suppression should be available and used throughout the demolition

of existing structures.

Screening and shielding to be provided around works activities (e.g. for

debris and spoil) and bunding for stored materials (e.g. sand and cement)

Potentially dusty materials such as sand and other aggregates should be

stored in bunded areas and not allowed to dry out.

Regular site inspections to monitor compliance with dust control procedures

set out within the CEMP should be undertaken.

Negligible

Road traffic

emissions: nitrogen

dioxide, PM10 and

PM2.5, at human

receptor locations



Operation

Operational road

traffic and

operational dryer

stack emissions:

NO2, PM10 and

PM2.5




Description of

Impact Key Mitigation Measures

Maximum

Residual Impact

concentrations at

human receptor

locations

Operational road traffic and operational dryer stack emissions: NOx, nutrient nitrogen and acid deposition on ecological

receptors are described in the ecology section.

Further information regarding the MTS Portal was received following submission of the ES. During 4.5.3

construction, blasting will not take place as the MTS Portal will be excavated by a TBM, with water

suppression to minimise the release of dust and fine particulate matter. The assessment of emissions

presented in the ES was therefore overly conservative. With water suppression, and no gases or

particulate generated by blasting, there are not anticipated to be any construction phase air quality

impacts.

The scheme changes in the SEI are anticipated to result in a reduction in impact at human and 4.5.4

ecological receptor locations, when compared to those reported in the ES.

4.6 Socio-Economics

The socio-economic assessment considered impacts of the MHF development on issues including 4.6.1

employment and demand for accommodation. A number of socio-economic impacts cannot be

considered at the level of each scheme element, and these are summarised under Section 5.

A qualitative and (where possible) quantitative assessment of the potential socio-economic effects of 4.6.2

the proposed MHF and MTS Portal identified mitigation measures and residual impacts as summarised

in Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Summary of socio-economic impacts


Construction


Impact on temporary accommodation supply: district

level;

Indirect employment effects resulting from construction

expenditure: LEP level


Impact on temporary accommodation supply: all other

levels;

Impact of construction employees on demand for social




and community infrastructure; Indirect employment

effects resulting from construction expenditure: UK level

Induced employment effects resulting from construction

expenditure;


expenditure: UK level

No mitigation required Negligible to minor beneficial


expenditure: Redcar and Cleveland Borough level No mitigation required Major beneficial


expenditure: LEP level No mitigation required

Moderate beneficial

Crime and fear of crime Limiting and monitoring access to site Negligible

Operation

Employment effects during operation: Redcar and

Cleveland and Stockton-On-Tees level No mitigation required

Moderate beneficial

Employment effects during operation: TTWA level No mitigation required Minor beneficial

Demand for accommodation by operational employees;

Impact of operational employees on demand for social

and community infrastructure


Indirect and induced employment effects resulting from

operational expenditure: UK level

YPLs commitment to use local businesses in their supply chain wherever possible.

Negligible

Indirect and induced employment effects resulting from

operational expenditure: LEP level

YPLs commitment to use local businesses in their supply chain wherever possible.

Major beneficial

Crime and fear of crime Security measures listed as per construction Negligible



Decommissioning


Providing opportunities for staff to

work on decommissioning. Provide training and assistance to

enhance employment opportunities outside the Company, including transferable skills.

Take measures to maximise

opportunities for locally based businesses to secure involvement as contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers in decommissioning work.

Not specified

4.7 Ecology

The assessment of ecological impacts arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of 4.7.1

the MHF and MTS Portal site draws on information obtained through a desk study; ecological walkover

surveys; and otter, water vole, great crested newt, reptile, bat and bird surveys. These were carried out

between 2011 and 2014.

None of the habitats within the site are considered to be of significance. Design proposals for the MHF 4.7.2

and MTS Portal have sought to avoid or reduce the significance of adverse impacts whilst seeking

opportunities for beneficial effects and enhancements. Nevertheless, the proposed development could

give rise to a number of adverse impacts that would require careful mitigation. These include:

Indirect impacts on the adjacent Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site.

Indirect impacts on foraging bats and birds due to tree and building removal.

Direct impacts on common reptile species (if present) due to vegetation removal.

However, provided that the mitigation measures identified (see Table 4.4) are successfully 4.7.3

implemented, significant adverse impacts can be avoided. For the decommissioning phase, the site

would be well established as a part of the local landscape and contributing to the biodiversity value of

the area.


Table 4.4 Summary of ecology impacts

Receptors Mitigation Residual impact

Construction phase

Habitats Landscape Strategy would be implemented. Negligible

Birds Any vegetation removal would be undertaken outside the breeding season.

Landscape Strategy would be implemented Negligible

Bats No known bat roosts are affected by the proposed development.

Lighting proposals to consider Bat Conservation Trust guidance. No impact

Reptiles Despite no reptiles being recorded during the 2013 surveys, a Precautionary Method of Working proposed to include habitat manipulation (e.g. vegetation stripping) and tool box talks with contractors.

Negligible

Operational phase

Habitats Creation of 14.3ha of habitat, comprising of 9.7ha of broadleaved native species woodland, 2.8ha of wildflower grassland and 1.8ha of wetland.

Minor beneficial

Birds Landscape Strategy would be implemented Negligible

Reptiles Landscape Strategy would be implemented Minor beneficial

4.8 Landscape and Visual

The Wilton site itself forms part of the wider Tees estuary industrial zone and the proposed site 4.8.1

comprises areas of previously developed and undeveloped relatively flat land, currently occupied by

hardstandings, buildings, rough grassland and colonising scrub.

Within the footprint of the site, a permanent physical landscape character impact would arise through 4.8.2

removal of existing landscape features, alteration of the existing landform and construction of new

development within the extent of works boundary. These changes would result in minor adverse

physical impact on an area of landscape that is of low value and is currently part of the Wilton

development site.

Temporary construction phase activity would include cranes, general construction works, construction 4.8.3

lighting and partially completed buildings and structures. These features would be intervisible with

areas of landscape to the south east of the site, resulting in minor adverse impact on landscape

character. These activities would also be visible within relatively close range views from residential

properties, public open space and PRoW at Dormanstown to the east, resulting in significant adverse

levels of visual impact. A lesser range of visual impacts would occur within distant views of the site


from a limited number of properties and PRoW to the south and south east of the site, including from a

short section of National Cycle Route 1 at the A1042/ A174 roundabout.

Operational phase impacts on landscape and visual receptors would initially reflect construction phase 4.8.4

impacts, with significant adverse visual impact on residential receptors, users of public open space and

users of PRoW at Dormanstown to the east of the site, and a lesser range of impacts on landscape and

visual receptors further east and south east. Within available views the upper sections of buildings and

structures would be visible against the horizon. The use of light grey roofing and cladding colours

would reduce the overall visual presence of the scheme and contrast against the sky. Proposed

woodland mitigation planting would be established along the eastern boundary of the site and within

spoil placement mounds across the site generally. As this planting develops, and existing tree planting

within public open space at Dormanstown develops, currently available views towards the site would be

screened and filtered, reducing impact levels over time.

Decommissioning phase works would take place within a mature woodland framework established by 4.8.5

proposed mitigation measures.

In summary, the proposed scheme would result in significant adverse visual impact on residential 4.8.6

receptors to the north-east of the site and a range of lesser impacts on a limited number of visual

receptors and on landscape character to the east and south east of the site. These impacts would

occur within the existing setting of the Wilton industrial complex and would be experienced against the

wider backdrop of the Tees estuary industrial zone. Building design and landscape mitigation

measures would help to assimilate the development into its wider setting and reduce impacts.


No designated heritage assets are located within the Wilton development site. A small number of 4.9.1

designated assets are located to the north-east, east and south-east, the closest being over 500m

away. Remains associated with The Mill Race, a 19th century drainage channel, survive within the

footprint of the site. However, the Mill Race is of no greater than local importance and the impact upon

it resulting from the proposed development, and potentially on unknown buried remains, would be of no

greater than slight adverse significance. Archaeological monitoring of groundworks is proposed in the

form of a watching brief (including areas of controlled archaeological strip, where appropriate).

No further impacts are anticipated during construction, and no other physical impacts are predicted 4.9.2

during operation or decommissioning.

The buildings and structures forming the proposed MHF and MTS Portal would not alter the character 4.9.3

of the present-day modern industrial landscape, including within the views from those few designated

heritage assets located to the north-east, east and south-east of the proposed development. Overall,

the assessment identified nothing that would preclude the development of the proposed MHF and MTS

Portal on heritage grounds.


4.10 Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality

The proposed development comprises earthworks and substructures that would penetrate the 4.10.1

superficial deposits into the bedrock strata and interact with the groundwater system. The impact

assessment is based on a detailed hydrogeological risk assessment. The geology, hydrogeology and

land quality assessment considered the potential for impacts as a result of above and below ground

activities during construction, operation and decommissioning.

Land quality in terms of agriculture was not considered because of the historic industrial nature of the 4.10.2

site.

Three receptors are identified: The Redcar Mudstone bedrock aquifers; the Mill Race surface 4.10.3

watercourse; and, site workers. The potential for environmental impacts has been considered

throughout the design process and appropriate mitigation has been incorporated into the development

design. Further measures to control environmental risks during construction are captured in the

construction environmental management plan (CEMP). The impact assessment presented focusses on

impacts that would remain following implementation of the current proposed design and identifies

where specific, additional measures would be required. Key measures to mitigate potentially significant

impacts include

To minimise the risk of spills, all construction phase activities would be carried out in accordance

with the best practice guidance from the Environment Agency and CIRIA.

Groundwater and surface water monitoring would continue until the start of the construction phase,

at which point a monitoring plan would be implemented, with the objective of detecting any

departure from the established baseline.

All surface runoff would be collected by the site drainage system.

In order to mitigate the potential effects associated with the excavation of potentially contaminative

soil the following measures would apply:

o Only appropriately trained personnel would be allowed to work in areas where hazardous

soils have been encountered.

o Adherence to best practice and guidance to ensure the risk of exposure is minimised.

o Adherence to the CEMP and an Incident / Emergency Response Plan.

o Adherence to CDM Regulations 2007 where applicable.

All potentially hazardous soils would be stripped and segregated prior to treatment and re-use or

recycling following the waste hierarchy.

Soils handling, storage and reinstatement would be by a competent contractor with reference to

Defra Construction code of practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites and

MAFF Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils. Natural soils would be handled according to their

characteristics (e.g. during wet periods, limiting mechanised soil handling in areas where soils are

highly vulnerable to compaction).

Foundations for small ancillary buildings are to be based on shallow (strip, pad or raft) designs.

Larger framed buildings would be built using piled foundations. The excavation of the MTS Portal

would also be completed under the protection of a contiguous piled wall.


With respect to the protection of the Redcar Mudstone aquifer, during construction of the MTS

Portal, a contiguous piled wall would be installed under bentonite to limit groundwater ingress. This

would protect groundwater from mobilisation of any polluting substances that may be present within

the excavations.

The predicted residual impacts on geology, hydrogeology and land quality are listed in Table 4.5. 4.10.4

Table 4.5 Summary of Wilton portal and MHF geology, hydrogeology and land quality impacts

Impact (Wilton Portal and MHF) Key Mitigation Measures Maximum Residual Impact

(across all 3 receptors)

Construction

Physical Impacts

Alteration of groundwater levels / flowpaths due to

dewatering associated with the MTS Portal

(construction only); diaphragm walling / pre-

grouting and reduced infiltration in areas of

stockpiles (all phases)

No additional mitigation

required.

Negligible for all receptors

Chemical Impacts

Direct contact of construction workers with

contaminated soils or groundwater on site

(Construction and decommissioning)


required.

Minor adverse (construction

workers)

Groundwater / surface water pollution from:

contaminated groundwater on site and extractive

waste facilities (all phases); and, pre-grouting of

MTS Portal (construction only)


required. Negligible for all receptors


Table 4.6 provides a summary of the potential impacts predicted to arise in relation to hydrology, flood 4.11.1

risk and surface water bodies from the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the

MTS Portal and MHF. Due to the nature of the potential impacts discussed, this chapter is concerned

only with the proposed surface development. Residual impacts have been predicted to be of minor

adverse significance at worst.


Table 4.6 Summary of predicted impacts on Hydrology and Flood Risk



Construction


Use sediment traps and silt curtains during installation of culverts to

minimise disturbance to bank and bed materials as well as prevent the release of contaminants into the water body.

Use of temporary pumping or equivalent appropriate technique during

construction to ensure discharge of surface runoff is conveyed through attenuation ponds as well as the use of hydrocarbon interceptors on all surface water drainage systems.


filter drains, swales, and attenuation ponds) minimise any increase in surface water flows. In particular, the system should ensure that there is no rapid release of large volumes of water from the site in order to minimise the potential for increased erosion. Flows discharged from the attenuation ponds should be controlled using flow control devices such as orifice plates or vortex devices to reduce the energy of flows entering the Mill Race water body.


Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance notes and construction industry good practice. In particular, stockpiles should be covered to prevent runoff, silt fences should be installed to reduce runoff from bare ground, built-up mud should be removed from roads.

The wheels of all vehicles should be washed before leaving site. Note

that it is assumed that the wheels of all vehicles delivering materials to site will be washed on departure from their point of origin.

Negligible


A box culvert should be installed instead of a pipe culvert to enable the

implementation of the remaining mitigation measures. Ensure that the culvert has sufficient capacity to avoid creating

upstream impoundment during normal and high flow conditions. Set the bed of the culvert below the natural bed level of the

watercourse to allow a natural substrate to develop within the culvert and ensure that the natural downstream transport of bed sediments is not impeded.

Include measures to allow fish passage through the culvert, including

the provision of baffles to create deeper flows in place of shallow sheet flows, resting areas and natural light wells, and a gradual transition from natural light to darker conditions at the culvert entrance.

Install suitable bed and bank protection adjacent to outfalls to reduce

erosion risk and minimise the chance of geomorphological adjustment. This should use bioengineering techniques and be scaled appropriately to the size of the channel.

Negligible




Accidental release of fuels, oils, lubricants and construction materials

Install hydrocarbon interceptors on all surface water drainage systems.

Concrete and cement mixing and washing areas should be situated at

least 10m away from the nearest watercourse. These should incorporate settlement and recirculation systems to allow water to be re-used. All washing out of equipment should be undertaken in a contained area, and all water should be collected for off-site disposal.

All fuels, oils, lubricants and other chemicals should be stored in an

impermeable bund with at least 110% of the stored capacity. Spill kits should be available at all times, and damaged containers should be removed from site. All refuelling should take place in a dedicated impermeable area, using a bunded bowser. Biodegradable oils should be used where possible.

Sand bags or stop logs should also be available for deployment on the

outlets from the site drainage system in case of emergency spillages.

Negligible


The scheme includes embedded measures to mitigate this potential

impact. Negligible

Operation


The scheme includes embedded measures to mitigate this potential

impact. Negligible

4.12 Summary

A wide range of information supported the impact assessments in relation to the MHF and MTS Portal 4.12.1

and the majority of the assessments found that the impacts would be of negligible or minor significance.

However adverse visual impacts associated with views of the construction and operation phases of the

MHF upon residential receptors, PRoW and recreational users were of greater significance.

Significant beneficial socio-economic impacts during the operational phase of the MHF and MTS Portal 4.12.2

were specifically identified related to the GVA during construction and employment effects during

operation.


5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE YORK POTASH PROJECT

5.1 Cumulative Impact Assessment

Introduction

A ‘project-wide’ cumulative impact assessment (CIA) was undertaken for the whole YPP (all elements). 5.1.1

Based on this a further ‘wider’ cumulative assessment was undertaken of the YPP with other (non-YPP)

plans and projects. The results of this assessment are summarised in this section

5.2 Socio-economics

The YPP would make substantial contributions to direct and indirect employment, GVA and National 5.2.1

Government tax. Whilst these effects are large, they may be dispersed around the country (as would be

true for any single project). The project would have significant positive economic benefits, directly,

through employment and output and, indirectly, through the supply chain and employee expenditure. It

would result in an increase in GDP; a nationally significant reduction in the trade deficit; and over 1,000

high value direct jobs, with many more in the supply chain.

It could also be expected to boost the employment rate and spending power; corporate and income tax 5.2.2

receipts; and royalty payments. The project would be effective in contributing to meeting a need to

rebalance the national economy and strengthening regional and local economies. In-combination

effects at national level with respect to exports would be major beneficial and permanent. Combined

economic macro-effects at a local and regional level would also be major beneficial and permanent.

The Economic Impact Report and Major Development Test Statement that accompanied the application 5.2.3

set out predicted economic effects. In summary these are as shown in Table 5.1 (for full operations).

Table 5.1 Predicted economic effects (‘full production’)

Economic impact Full production effect (13Mtpa)

Direct jobs 1,040

Induced and indirect jobs 1,010

Export value £1.2 billion

Tax contribution £234 million

Local payments £48 million


With regard to potential socio-economic impacts, a beneficial impact during the construction phase (of 5.2.4

up to moderate beneficial significance) is predicted due to employment opportunities across the YPP.

A minor beneficial impact is predicted on accommodation supply (i.e. increased business). Increased

expenditure during the construction phase by YPL would result in economic benefits for the supply

chain of major beneficial significance and beneficial effects in terms of ‘value added’ to the economy

and in terms of tax revenue. Further beneficial impacts in terms of construction and operational phase

employment generation are predicted when the YPP in considered with other plans and projects.

During the operational phase, beneficial employment effects are predicted of up to major beneficial 5.2.5

significance at the NYMNP and RCBC level.

The socio-economic assessment included an assessment of potential effects on tourism, which 5.2.6

assessed the potential for effect on the Special Qualities of the National Park; damage to these

qualities, perceived or otherwise, could affect visitor numbers. This assessment took account of the

findings of other areas of the impact assessment, comprising noise and vibration, traffic and transport,

the landscape and visual environment, lighting, amenity and recreation, air quality and socio-

economics. The outcome of the assessment concluded that the effect on tourism would be no worse

than minor adverse during the construction phase and negligible during operation.


The cumulative noise impact assessment for the YPP concluded that, with mitigation, there would be 5.3.1

no cumulative impact due to site-based noise and vibration during the construction phase, with a

negligible cumulative impact predicted for the construction and operational phase associated with road

traffic noise. No significant cumulative impacts are predicted when the YPP is assessed together with

the potential impacts of other non-YPP plans and projects.

5.4 Air Quality

The YPP cumulative impact assessment for air quality (including dust/fine particulates and the effect of 5.4.1

road traffic emissions) concluded there would be no significant impacts on human receptors.

Furthermore, with the adoption of best practice, the cumulative dust and fine particulate impact with

non-YPP plans and projects is assessed as being insignificant. No significant impacts are predicted on

air quality due to cumulative controlled plant and facility emissions.

5.5 Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality

Potential cumulative impacts on geology and hydrogeology were considered with respect to 5.5.1

groundwater quality, levels and flows, and dependent receptors (such as springs and abstractions).

Land Quality was scoped for all sites other than Wilton and the Harbour Facility. At the catchment

(WFD groundwater body) scale and locally, the YPP cumulative impacts were predicted to be

negligible. No significant cumulative impacts with non-YPP plans and projects were identified.



The potential cumulative impacts on land use and soils included assessment of the potential for 5.6.1

biological contamination, effects of the Special Qualities of the National Park, effects on existing

agricultural land use during the construction phase and, for the operational phase, land taken out of

existing use.

YPP cumulative impacts are predicted to be of minor adverse significance (at worst), with the exception 5.6.2

of a temporary moderate adverse impact on agricultural land use during construction. A cumulative

impact of negligible significance is predicted. There would be no significant cumulative impact with

non-YPP developments.


The potential for cumulative impacts on hydrology and flood risk incorporated potential impacts on the 5.7.1

supply of fine sediments to watercourses and the potential for changes to existing flood risk.

Cumulative impacts were assessed to be of negligible significance for the YPP and no deterioration in

the status of water bodies is predicted. This conclusion also applies when the YPP is assessed with

non-YPP plans and projects.

The WFD assessment found that the majority of activities at all of the YPP sites would not have a 5.7.2

significant impact upon the status of any surface or groundwater bodies, or that any predicted impacts

could be mitigated. This means that the majority of YPP activities would be compliant with the

requirements of the WFD with one exception. The increase in surface flows and decrease in

groundwater flows in Sneaton Thorpe Beck and Little Beck as a result of the development of the Mine

at Dove’s Nest Farm has the potential to adversely affect its geomorphology, with subsequent changes

to sensitive habitats. Although these will be mitigated by the design of the site drainage system, further

monitoring is recommended.

5.8 Terrestrial Ecology

With regard to terrestrial ecology, the potential for cumulative impacts included effects on noise levels 5.8.1

during construction and operation, air quality effects (nitrogen and acid deposition) and habitat loss.

The YPP cumulative impact associated with habitat loss is predicted to be of minor adverse

significance, with other construction and operational phase cumulative impacts predicted to be of

negligible significance at worst. Cumulative impacts are assessed as being of negligible significance.

The HRA was undertaken to assess the potential for effect on the integrity of specific designated sites. 5.8.2

It focused on the potential for the YPP to affect the ‘structure and functioning’ on the designated sites.

Through the implementation of mitigation measures set out in the ES and SEI, and summarised above

in this NTS, the HRA concludes that the YPP would not have an adverse effect on the structure or

function of the North York Moors SAC, North York Moors SPA or Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA

and Ramsar site either alone or in combination with other plan and projects.



The YPP cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment comprised assessment of potential 5.9.1

impacts on landscape character, designated landscapes and visual receptors. The assessment

included prediction of sequential effects on selected linear visual receptors, which are those effects

experienced by a person who experiences one element of the project and then another in sequence

when moving through the landscape.

The cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment concluded that the proposed winding towers 5.9.2

would not cause project-wide cumulative impacts due to the large distances between the towers and

their relative scale within expansive views. However, changes in construction phase traffic and HGV

flows would give rise to localised moderate adverse impacts on landscape character along the B1416

corridor. Construction phase traffic is predicted to result in a minor adverse impact along other road

corridors, including the A171 and A169. Operational phase traffic flows are not predicted to have a

perceptible impact on landscape character.

The overall construction phase cumulative impact of the YPP on the designated landscapes of the 5.9.3

North York Moors National Park and the North Yorkshire and Cleveland Heritage Coast is predicted to

be minor adverse.

The duration of winding tower impacts would be up to four years at the Mine site, slightly over two years 5.9.4

at the Lady Cross Plantation and Lockwood Beck MTS shaft sites and just under two years at the

Tocketts Lythe MTS shaft site. Cumulative, in-combination and in-succession visual and character

effects associated with the Mine and MTS towers would last for approximately two years, with the more

limited impacts associated with the Mine winding towers alone continuing for a further two years.

Sequential impacts within views from linear receptors would broadly comprise significant adverse 5.9.5

impacts for sections of routes that lie relatively close to the project sites and that are within open areas

(moorland, for example), and a wider range of less significant impacts for sections of routes that are

distant from the sites or pass through complex wooded landscape (the Esk valley for example).

Adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts are not predicted to arise during the operational 5.9.6

phase of the YPP, due to the limited extent of scheme effects, the distance between the operational

sites and the lack of intervisibility between the sites. Minor beneficial operational phase cumulative

impacts are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed habitat improvements at the Mine and Lady

Cross Plantation sites, and proposed native broadleaved woodland planting.

Cumulative impacts with non-YPP developments would arise (combined distant visibility of YPP 5.9.7

features and non-YPP developments) creating a wider spread of perceptible development features, but

the effect would not be sufficient to alter existing key characteristics or landscape character. The YPP /

non-YPP cumulative impact is, therefore, considered to be of negligible significance.

SEI changes do not alter previously identified cumulative impacts, although removal of the red aviation 5.9.8

warning lights from temporary winding towers would help to reduce the distant cumulative perception of

the sites during hours of darkness.


5.10 Cultural Heritage and Amenity & Recreation

No cumulative impact is predicted on the cultural heritage resource or on amenity and recreation. 5.10.1

When considered with non-YPP development, short-term cumulative impacts on the Wainwright Coast

to Coast Walk and Teesdale Way National Trail of minor adverse significance are predicted (due to

construction).

5.11 Marine Environment

With regard to the marine environment, the cumulative impact on marine water quality due to increased 5.11.1

suspended sediment concentration arising from capital dredging for other projects (should they coincide

with the dredging for the Harbour facility) was assessed as being of minor adverse significance. The

effect would be additive but the cumulative impact on fish populations is considered to be negligible.

The deposition of sediment onto the seabed during capital dredging has the potential to smother 5.11.2

benthic invertebrate communities, but the cumulative impact was predicted to be negligible.

The cumulative impact on the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime of the Tees estuary was 5.11.3

predicted based on results of modelling studies undertaken for the other projects scoped into the CIA.

It is concluded that there would be no cumulative impact on the sediment budget given that the YPP

would not change sediment supply to the Tees estuary or result in an overall increase in maintenance

dredging requirement within the Tees. Based on this conclusion, no cumulative impact on intertidal

areas is predicted (i.e. erosion or accretion) and, therefore, no cumulative impact on intertidal benthic

invertebrate communities or habitats available for feeding waterbirds.

The potential cumulative impact on commercial navigation was assessed with respect to potential 5.11.4

impact during marine construction works. Mitigation measures would be applied for any marine

construction works to manage risk to navigation and it is predicted that the cumulative impact would be

of negligible significance. Operational phase cumulative impacts (i.e. implications for vessel traffic

management) are predicted to be of negligible significance and all vessel traffic would continue to be

effectively managed and controlled by the vessel traffic service (VTS).

5.12 Conclusion

The cumulative impacts that are predicted to arise both from the ‘project-wide’ and ‘wider’ assessments 5.12.1

do not represent changes from the levels of significance predicted for those same impacts when

assessed individually within the ES.


6 CONCLUSIONS

The EIA, its finding and the outcomes of the consultation process, have been integral to the iterative 6.1.1

design of the YPP. Where possible mitigation has been designed in to the project to prevent or

minimise potential adverse impacts. The EIA has also identified the potential for enhancements. In

summary, key findings of the EIA include:

The provision of long-term economic opportunities for the area, as well as significant contributions to

export revenue (£1.2bn) and government tax contributions (£234m).

The employment of up to around 2,500 people on-site during the construction phase of the Mine,

MTS and MHF, with around 2,000 indirect jobs per year over the construction period, and over 2,000

direct and indirect jobs during the operational phase; with consequent impacts on the local labour

market, economy and the provision of public services.

Increases in traffic and associated increases in noise levels on the local road network as a result of

the construction works, with the traffic predominantly comprising workforce movements and HGVs

transporting materials to site. A transport strategy, including proposals for highway improvements,

has been developed to manage traffic impacts.

A significant (but temporary) impact on landscape character and visual receptors during

construction. Although the majority of these impacts would decrease with removal of the

construction machinery and landscape restoration post construction, some significant impacts would

remain in the local area due to the scale of the completed development.

It has been identified that the development proposals would have a variety of impacts, not all of which 6.1.2

are adverse and significant but for those that are, the EIA process has identified mitigation measures to

avoid such impacts where possible. The EIA has also highlighted where, with the right management,

the proposals would have positive benefits too, for example in long-term job creation or biodiversity

enhancements.

For a full report of the EIA process, its findings and the YPP proposals, please refer to the ES and SEI. 6.1.3

Members of the public may inspect copies of the application, the plans, and other documents submitted 6.1.4

with it, which include the ES and SEI, at:

North York Moors National Park Authority, The Old Vicarage, Bondgate, Helmsley, York, YO62 5BP

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, Redcar and Cleveland House, Kirkleatham Street, Redcar,

TS10 1RT

Whitby Town Council Offices, Pannett Park, Whitby YO21 3AD

Scarborough Borough Council Customer First Centre, Town Hall, St Nicholas Street, Scarborough,

YO112HG


A copy of the application, and of all plans and other documents submitted with it, has been published 6.1.5

on the following websites:

North York Moors National Park Authority (www.northyorkmoors.org.uk).

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (www.redcar-cleveland.gov.uk).

Printed copies of this NTS are available free of charge from York Potash Ltd, 7-10 Manor Court, Manor 6.1.6

Garth, Scarborough, YO11 3TU.

Printed copies of the ES and the SEI are available on request from York Potash Ltd at the address 6.1.7

above. Please note a charge will be applied to cover production and distribution costs.

http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/

http://www.redcar-cleveland.gov.uk/

Documents

Intermediate Shaft and Spoil Site – Extent of Works North ...planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning Application/811000... · 12/02/2015 1:25,000 ROYAL HASKONINGDHV