Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline EIA Scoping Report · 2016-05-17 · Thorpe Marsh Power Limited EIA Scoping Report Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 ENVIRON Contents

Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline

EIA Scoping Report

Prepared for: Thorpe Marsh Power Limited

Prepared by: ENVIRON

Birmingham, UK

Date: October 2012

Project or Issue Number:

UK15-17912_Scoping

Contract No: UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 Authors: Alistair Walker/Sarah Cressy Project Manager/Director James Magor / Matt Royall (signatures):

Date: 24 October 2012

This report has been prepared by ENVIRON with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the Services and the Terms agreed between ENVIRON and the Client. This report is confidential to the client, and ENVIRON accepts no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known, unless formally agreed by ENVIRON beforehand. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

ENVIRON disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the Services.

Version Control Record

Issue Description of Status Date Reviewer Initials

Author Initials

1 First Client Issue (Draft) 26/09/2012 MR AW/SC

2 Final 12/10/2012 MR AW/SC

3 Final (incorporating Planning Inspectorate amendments)

12/10/2012 MR AW/SC

4 Final (incorporating further Planning Inspectorate amendments)

24/10/2012 MR AW/SC

5 Final (incorporating further Planning Inspectorate amendments)

24/10/2012 MR AW/SC

Thorpe Marsh Power Limited EIA Scoping Report


UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 ENVIRON

Contents Abbreviations i

1 Introduction 3

2 Purpose of this Report 5

3 Project Description 7 3.1 Minimum Offtake Connection 7 3.2 Gas Pipeline 8 3.3 Gas Reception Facility 10 3.4 Control and Instrumentation 10 3.5 Other Works 10 3.6 Alternative Route 10

4 Planning Considerations 12 4.1 Localism Act (2011) 12 4.2 The Planning Act (2008) 12 4.3 The Pipelines Act (1962) 12 4.4 The Pipelines Safety Regulations (1996) 12 4.5 The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations (2012) 13 4.6 Local Authorities 13 4.7 Other Legislative Requirements (Construction) 13

5 Environmental Sensitivity 15

6 Potential Impacts 17

7 Construction Works Description 18 7.1 Construction Programme 18 7.2 Pipeline Construction 18 7.3 Re-instatement 21 7.4 Post-construction Surveys 21

8 Proposed Environmental Impact Assessment Scope 22 8.1 Agriculture and Soils 22 8.2 Geology and Ground Conditions 23 8.3 Water Resources and Flood Risk 24 8.4 Air Quality and Noise 26 8.5 Ecology 28 8.6 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 32 8.7 Landscape and Visual 34 8.8 Transport and Infrastructure 39 8.9 Socio-economics 40 8.10 Cumulative Effects 41

9 Proposed Environmental Issues to be Scoped Out 42

10 Summary and Conclusion 43




Figures

Annex A: Structure of the Environmental Statement

Annex B: Breeding Bird Species

List of Tables Table 3.1: Proposed Gas Pipeline Route Crossings 9

Table 8.2: Local Character Areas 35

Table 10.1: Summary of approach to EIA 43

List of Figures Figure 1: Site Location

Figure 2: Route Corridor

Figure 3: Typical Offtake Installation Layout Plan

Figure 4: Typical Gas Reception Facility Layout

Figure 5: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results

Figure 6: Breeding Bird Survey Results



UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 i ENVIRON

Abbreviations AC Alternating Current AGI Above Ground Installation ALC Agricultural Land Classification BGS British Geological Survey BTO British Trust for Ornithology CBC Common Bird Census CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine CIP Close Interval Potential DCVG Direct Current Voltage Gradient DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DMBC Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council EA Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ERYC East Riding of Yorkshire Council ES Environmental Statement ESD Emergency Shut Down GRF Gas Reception Facility HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling HER Historical Environment Record HSE Health and Safety Executive HSI Habitat Suitability Index IFA Institute of Field Archaeologists IGE Institution of Gas Engineers IPC Infrastructure Planning Commissions LHV Lower Heating Value



UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 ii ENVIRON

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries MOC Minimum Offtake Connection MoD Ministry of Defence MW Megawatt NGG National Grid Gas NIA Natural Improvement Area NID National Infrastructure Division NMR National Monuments Record NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPS National Policy Statement NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project NSRI National Soil Resources Institute NID National Infrastructure Division NTS National Transmission System PIG Pipeline Internal Gauging PSR Pipeline Safety Regulations ROV Remotely Operated Valve RTU Remote Terminal Unit SDC Selby District Council TMPL Thorpe Marsh Power Limited UDP Unitary Development Plan



UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 3 ENVIRON

1 Introduction Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. (TMPL), hereafter referred to as ‘The Applicant’, is proposing to build and operate a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station on the former coal-fired Thorpe Marsh Power Station, which is located 1 km north of Barnby Dun, South Yorkshire, within the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC) area. The new facility is initially expected to have a generating capacity of 960 Megawatts (MW), with the potential for expansion to up to 1500 MW.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out for the proposed CCGT Power Station and the results of this process were documented in an Environmental Statement (ES) 1. The ES accompanied an application for Section 36 consent to construct and operate the CGGT Power Station and this consent was approved by DECC in October 2011.

The power station is expected to help displace power presently generated by less efficient and more polluting power stations elsewhere in the UK and contribute to meeting the shortfall that will be created by closures as a result of the implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive and the decommissioning of nuclear plants.

In order to supply the proposed CCGT Power Station with a fuel gas supply, a new high pressure gas transmission pipeline (‘Proposed Gas Pipeline’) would be required, linking the proposed CCGT Power Station with the National Transmission System (NTS) near Camblesforth. A Pipeline Feasibility Study was completed by Penspen2 in order to determine the most appropriate routes for the Proposed Gas Pipeline. This identified two route options which were outlined in the 2010 ES, but not assessed as this element is subject to a separate approval process. The Pipeline Feasibility study also considered the potential to connect to a local, low pressure pipeline; however this option was discounted due to insufficient gas pressure. The two remaining options were:

• Route Option 1: 18.18 km route commencing on a potential offtake 1.5 km west of Camblesforth on the 48” diameter National Grid pipeline; and

• Route Option 2: 19.58 km route commencing on a potential offtake approximately 1 km southeast of Rawcliffe Bridge on the National Grid Diameter 36” diameter Feeder 7 pipeline.

Subsequently an ecological desk study was carried out by SKM Enviros in May 20123 and ENVIRON4 carried out an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Breeding Bird Survey to further inform the route selection process in July 2012.

‘Route Option 1’ was selected by TMPL as the preferred route option based on a review of technical, engineering and environmental factors. Route Option 1 therefore forms the basis of this scoping report.

1 SKM Enviros, 2010. Thorpe Marsh CCGT Power Station Environmental Statement. January 2010. 2 Penspen, 2009. Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. 3 SKM Enviros, 2012. Thorpe Marsh CCGT Pipeline Ecological Desk Study V1. May 2012. 4 ENVIRON, 2012. Thorpe Marsh Pipeline Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. July 2012.




The site location is shown on Figure 1. Route Option 1, together with the location of the proposed power station is shown on Figure 2.

An application for a development consent order (DCO) will be submitted for the following elements of the scheme:

• A Minimum Off-take Connection (MOC) to the National Grid Gas (NGG) NTS – to be constructed and operated by the National Grid;

• TMPL Off-take Above Ground Installation (AGI), adjacent to the National Grid offtake, which would contain pipeline control valves and Pipeline Internal Gauging (PIG) ‘pigging’ facilities; and

• A cross-country pipeline between the offtake AGI and the power station.

It is proposed to undertake an EIA for the above elements to support the application for the DCO. During the EIA it is likely that the application area will be refined, however for the EIA Scoping stage the DCO application area comprises the pipeline corridor as illustrated by the red-line area within Figures 2, 5 and 6 included within this report.

In addition, a Gas Reception Facility (GRF) will be constructed at the power station, within the power station site boundary, which will contain pipeline control valves and pipeline pigging facilities. However, a DCO has already been obtained for the GRF as this element was included in the main power plant scheme.

The Proposed Gas Pipeline would be a continuously welded buried steel pipeline of approximately 18 km in length from a potential offtake approximately 1.5 km west of Camblesforth to the CCGT Thorpe Marsh Power Station site. It will be of a wall thickness and a grade of steel to satisfy the relevant design factors and locations in relation to ground features, roads, railways, rivers, watercourses and proximity to occupied buildings and future developments.

A more detailed description of the Proposed Gas Pipeline is provided in Section 3.




2 Purpose of this Report This gas pipeline proposal will require an application for a development consent order. This process is managed by The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Proposed Gas Pipeline constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under Section 21 of The Planning Act 2008; and a Schedule 2 development under The Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended 2012) which means an EIA is not mandatory, but may be required if there is potential for significant environmental effects.

Government guidance advises that EIA is likely to be required for any pipeline over 5 km in length.5 The Proposed Gas Pipeline route is in the order of 18 km long and therefore the Applicant has decided to proceed with an EIA.

EIA is a process that identifies the likely significant environmental impacts, (both beneficial and adverse) of a proposed development and aims to prevent, reduce and offset any potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The findings of the assessment will be presented in a single document Environmental Statement (ES). The ES will be a clear and concise assessment of the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Gas Pipeline – including direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative short, medium and long term, permanent, temporary, beneficial and adverse effects.

The purpose of the ES is to inform The Planning Inspectorate, statutory consultees, non-statutory consultees and the public about the proposals, allowing consultees and the public to provide feedback, and enabling The Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State to take into account all environmental information when making a determination of the application.

The EIA Regulations define the information to be included in the ES and the involvement of environmental regulatory bodies in the process. In addition to the consultation with regulatory bodies, the participation of non-statutory organisations is also important.

In line with the EIA Regulations, this EIA Scoping Report is intended to accompany a formal request for an EIA Scoping Opinion. In compliance with the relevant guidance6, this EIA Scoping Report provides the following information to consultation bodies:

• an outline of the alternative route considered and the reasons for selecting a preferred option;

• results of desktop and baseline studies where available; • methods used or proposed to be used to predict impacts and the significance criteria

framework used; • any mitigation proposed and predicted residual impacts; • details of cumulative development; • an indication of any European designated nature conservation sites that are likely to be

significantly affected by the proposed development and the nature of the likely significant impacts on these sites;

• details of matters to be ‘scoped out’ of the EIA process;

5 Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions Circular 02/99, Environmental Impact Assessment 6 The Planning Inspectorate, Advice note seven: Environmental Impact Assessment: screening and scoping.

Version 3 (April 2012).




• key topics covered as part of the developer's scoping exercise; and • an outline of the structure of the proposed ES (see Annex A).

The specific objectives of this report are to:

• invite comment on the environmental issues, to determine whether the key environmental issues have been correctly included (‘scoped in’) or excluded (‘scoped out’) as appropriate;

• invite comment on the proposed approach to baseline data collection, prediction of environmental impacts and assessment of significance; and

• request information or advice on how to obtain access to environmental information held by third parties.

Unless consultees specifically request otherwise, all responses will be collated and presented in an annex to the ES, as a record of the results of the scoping exercise.

TMPL has appointed environmental consulting firm ENVIRON UK Ltd. (ENVIRON) to undertake this scoping exercise. This Scoping Report will be issued to the Planning Inspectorate and the Planning Inspectorate will undertake liaison with the consultees.




3 Project Description As described previously, the Proposed Gas Pipeline would be a continuously welded buried steel pipeline of approximately 18 km in length from a potential offtake approximately 1.5 km west of Camblesforth to the CCGT Thorpe Marsh Power Station site.

The final working width of the pipeline spread will be approximately 30m wide in general, except for hedgerow sections where the working width will be narrowed to approximately 14m. However, for the purpose of the EIA and the application for a development consent order (DCO), a maximum gas pipeline corridor width of 400 m will be considered (‘the Proposed Route Corridor’). It is likely that as the design progresses and information relating to further technical, engineering and environmental constraints become available it may be possible to reduce the corridor width in certain areas. The Proposed Route Corridor is illustrated in Figure 2.

An application for a DCO will be submitted for the following elements of the scheme:

• A Minimum Off-take Connection (MOC) to the National Transmission System (NTS) – to be constructed and operated by the National Grid;

• TMPL Off-take Above Ground Installation (AGI), adjacent to the National Grid offtake, which would contain pipeline control valves and Pipeline Internal Gauging (PIG) ‘pigging’ facilities; and

• A cross-country pipeline between the offtake AGI and the proposed CCGT Power Station.

In addition, a Gas Reception Facility (GRF) will be constructed at the power station, within the power station site boundary, which will contain pipeline control valves and pipeline pigging facilities. However, a DCO has already been obtained for the GRF as this element was included in the main power plant scheme.

These components are discussed in turn in the paragraphs below.

3.1 Minimum Offtake Connection The Minimum Offtake Connection (MOC) would be the source of connection to the NTS. The MOC would be taken from an existing National Grid Feeder pipeline within a fenced site west of Camblesforth and would comprise a pipeline Tee (which ensures the safe passage of a PIG or sphere past the entry to a branch pipe), a telemetered Remotely Operated Valve (ROV) and suitable bypass arrangements.

There is no requirement for a compressor station as National Grid has confirmed they can provide a minimum inlet pressure of 40 barg.

3.1.1 Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. Offtake Above Ground Installation A separate sector of the Offtake Connection Site would compromise a facility for a temporary pipeline PIG launcher, one Emergency Shut Down (ESD) valve and associated instrumentation, one block valve, one isolating joint, civil works and fencing. A PIG launcher is the launching station for a PIG device which can be propelled through a pipeline for the purpose of cleaning, batching, inspection or other activities.




A typical offtake installation layout plan is shown in Figure 37.

3.2 Gas Pipeline

3.2.1 Pipeline Route The Proposed Gas Pipeline route commences at an offtake approximately 1.5 km west of Camblesforth on the 48” diameter NTS. The potential offtake is located on the north-east side of Lynwith Lane, which is the first road which the pipeline would cross.

The route follows a southerly direction to cross two minor tracks before crossing the twin-track railway between Camblesforth and Knottingley approximately 1.5 km west of Carlton village.

The pipeline route continues in a southerly direction to cross Hirst Road to the west of Carlton village. The crossing method of this minor public road would be agreed with the local authorities. South of Hirst Road the pipeline continues in a southerly direction to run parallel to a high voltage overhead power line. The distance between the high voltage line and the proposed route is approximately 200 meters. Approximately one kilometre south of Hirst Road crossing, the pipeline route crosses the River Aire.

Subsequently, the pipeline route continues in a southerly direction to cross Gowdall Lane and the railway between Hensall and Snaith approximately one kilometre west of Snaith. The pipeline route then crosses under the high voltage overhead power line before crossing the A645 – Pontefract Road between a cemetery and a small woodland to the west of Snaith. Approximately one kilometre south of the A645 crossing the pipeline route crosses the M62 Motorway south-west of Snaith.

After crossing the M62 the pipeline route continues in a southerly direction parallel to the high voltage power line and across open fields approximately 2 kilometres east of Pollington, crossing a minor farm track and a footpath, before turning to a south-westerly direction to cross Balne Croft Lane and Knottingley and Goole navigation canal approximately 200 m east of a dismantled railway. As the Proposed Gas Pipeline crosses the canal it continues in a south-westerly direction to cross a public foot path and minor track before crossing the River Went.

The pipeline route continues in a south-westerly direction to pass to the east of Riddings Farm and Fenwick Hall. The route then turns to follow a southerly direction to cross Moss Road to the east of the village Moss. The pipeline route continues in a southerly direction to cross Wrancarr Lane between Trumfleet Grange and an old windmill to the east of Haywood. The route then moves in a south-westerly direction passing through open fields and crosses a minor track before passing under a high voltage overhead power line to the west of Thorpe In Balne village. The pipeline route then turns to follow an easterly direction. The route crosses Bell Croft lane: a minor public road to the south west of Thorpe In Balne village. As it continues in an easterly direction the route crosses two minor tracks and two overhead power lines before crossing a major drain to the west of Thorpe Marsh power station. As the pipeline route approaches the Thorpe Marsh Power Station it turns to follow a southerly direction and crosses a minor twin-track railway that passes inside the power station boundary. A trenchless technique, potentially a Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), would

7 Adapted from: Penspen (2009). Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd.




be required to cross railway lines. The HDD exit point inside the power station, where the Gas Reception Facility (GRF) is located, would be approximately 100 m south of the power station northern boundary fence.

Table 3.1 describes the crossings that would be encountered along the route:

Table 3.1: Proposed Gas Pipeline Route Crossings 8

Crossing Type Quantity

Trenchless/Auger bores (rail/motorway/public road) 12

Open Cut (other roads/tracks) 10

Major river/drain crossings – Trenchless 4

Minor river/drain crossings – Open cut 12

3.2.2 Pipeline Parameters The Proposed Gas Pipeline would be buried along its length between the Camblesforth offtake and the new Gas Reception Facility (GRF) facility within the Proposed Power Plant site. Gas would be delivered at a pressure of 35 barg. The Proposed Gas Pipeline would have a diameter in the region of 18” (457 mm); this is subject to the CCGT power station gas requirements. It would be constructed from high-grade welded steel with a wall thickness of approximately 8 mm and where necessary protected against corrosion with a high quality external coaling acting in conjunction with an impressed current cathodic protection system and Alternate Current (AC) corrosion mitigation scheme.

The minimum depth of cover for onshore pipelines is 1.1 metres9. Accordingly the minimum depth of the Proposed Gas Pipeline trench is 1.7 metres10. The depth of cover would be in accordance with recognised industry standards and would vary according to the crossing method and obstacle. For auger bores the depth of cover below the obstacle is normally 1.5 metres; in this case the launching and reception pits are normally a minimum of 2.5 metres deep11. The depth of cover for HDD operations is normally in the region of 10 m, and these usually represent the deepest locations along the pipeline route. Recognised best practice would be applied during all phases of construction. Additional detail on construction methods can be found in Section 7.

3.2.3 Gas Properties The natural gas used in the station will be of the same quality as that supplied to domestic properties. However, it will not be odourised and therefore the sulphur content will be negligible. The gas will have a lower heating value (LHV, also known as net Calorific Value) of approximately 36.5 MJ/Sm3.

8 Penspen (2009). Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. 9 Institution of Gas Engineers (IGE) standard TD1 “Steel Pipelines for High Pressure Gas Transmission”. 10 Penspen (2009). Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. 11 Penspen (2009). Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd.




3.3 Gas Reception Facility The proposed GRF will be contained within the north-west corner of the Power Plant site and will comprise a temporary PIG receiver, one ESD valve and associated instrumentation, one block valve and one isolating joint in addition to a flanged connection to the CCGT filtration and pressure reduction facilities. This equipment will ensure that the gas is supplied to the Power Plant’s gas turbines at the correct temperature and pressure.

As the proposed GRF is within the operational area of the proposed power plant site, the construction and operation of the proposed GRF is incorporated within the Section 36 Consent for the proposed power plant. The environmental effects of the GRF were assessed within the ES accompanying the Section 36 application, and therefore do not require to be considered within the ES for the Proposed Gas Pipeline.

A typical gas reception facility layout is shown in Figure 412.

3.4 Control and Instrumentation Operators at the Power Station control room will undertake the operation and monitoring of the pipeline. The operators will exercise control via a Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) at the TMPL Offtake AGI and discrete instrumentation at the GRF.

Selected signals will be transmitted between the TMPL Offtake RTU and the GRF RTU and the power station control room. Selected signals will also be transmitted between the TMPL Offtake AGI RTU and the National Grid AGI RTU in the Control Kiosk.

Venting and emergency relief valves will be provided to enable safe start-up, shut-down and operation and maintenance of the gas supply system.

3.5 Other Works In addition to the mechanical and instrumentation works, the AGIs work will include civil, electrical and security elements. These will be addressed in later design stages.

3.6 Alternative Route As stated in Section 1, a Pipeline Feasibility Study was completed by Penspen13 in order to determine the most appropriate routes for the Proposed Gas Pipeline. This identified two route options which were outlined in the 2010 ES, but not assessed as this element is subject to a separate approval process. The Pipeline Feasibility study also considered the potential to connect to a local, low pressure pipeline; however this option was discounted due to insufficient gas pressure. The two remaining options were:

• Route Option 1: 18.18 km route commencing on a potential offtake 1.5 km west of Camblesforth on the 48” diameter National Grid pipeline; and

• Route Option 2: 19.58 km route commencing on a potential offtake approximately 1 km southeast of Rawcliffe Bridge on the National Grid Diameter 36” diameter Feeder 7 pipeline.

12 Adapted from: Penspen (2009). Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. 13 Penspen, 2009. Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline.




Penspen concluded that although Route Option 2 is slightly longer than Route Option 1, the constructability of Route Option 2 and the nature of the encountered crossings in addition to the smaller number of lockouts along it made it the more attractive route. However, during informal liaison with ENVIRON and the Applicant, Penspen confirmed that the difference between the two route options, from a technological perspective, is minimal.

Subsequently an ecological desk study was carried out by SKM Enviros in May 201214 and ENVIRON15 carried out an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Breeding Bird Survey to further inform the route selection process in July 2012.

On the basis of the ecological surveys completed to date, ENVIRON concluded that Route Option 1 passed through fewer potential protected species habitats than Route Option 2. In addition, the desk study completed by SKM Enviros identified that Route Option 2 passes within 1 km of a European Designated Site.

Overall, given the minimal difference between the two route options from a technological perspective, and the preference for Route Option 1 from an ecological perspective, Route Option 1 was selected as the preferred route by TMPL. Further details regarding the consideration of alternatives will be provided in the ES.

14 SKM Enviros, 2012. Thorpe Marsh CCGT Pipeline Ecological Desk Study V1. May 2012. 15 ENVIRON, 2012. Thorpe Marsh Pipeline Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. July 2012.




4 Planning Considerations 4.1 Localism Act (2011) The Localism Act abolishes the Infrastructure Planning Commission and Regional Spatial Strategies and transfers the decision making powers of the Commission, including NSIPs, to the Secretary of State. The Localism Act also makes a number of amendments to the Planning Act (2008) which have the effect of altering some aspects of the procedure for seeking development consent for NSIPs, which includes pipelines above the existing Pipelines Act 196216 threshold of 16.1 km, or 10 miles in length.

4.2 The Planning Act (2008) The proposal will require a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act 2008, Section 21.

The application will be assessed against the following National Policy Statements:

• EN-1 Overarching Energy National Policy Statement (NPS) (July 2011); and • EN-4 Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines NPS (July 2011).

The changes to the Planning Act (2008), made in the Localism Act, mean NPSs will also be the primary documents for the new National Infrastructure Division (NID) within The Planning Inspectorate. NID will use NPSs in its examination of applications for development consent, and Ministers will use them when making decisions.

4.3 The Pipelines Act (1962) The remaining sections of this Act that are still in force give the minister powers to control the construction and operation of pipelines in the following areas:

• Control of the construction of pipelines; • Avoidance of construction of superfluous pipelines; • Measures for compulsory purchase for pipelines; • Rights for pipelines in streets; and • Information to be provided (such as the provision of plans for the fire service).

Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. will ensure compliance with any requirements of this Act, although this is assumed to be a formality.

4.4 The Pipelines Safety Regulations (1996) Pipelines are regulated under The Pipelines Safety Regulations (PSR) by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). In addition to the general requirements of the PSR, high pressure gas pipelines are classified as Major Accident Hazard pipelines, to which Part II of the PSR applies. For this category of pipeline, the HSE requires that the following additional safety measures to be in place:

• Notification before construction; • Notification before use;

16 Pipelines Act 1962, Chapter 58. Sections 3 (1a) and 7 (1).




• The approval of a Major Accident Prevention document (before operation); and • The arrangement for Emergency Plans (before operation).

Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. will engage the HSE during the pre-application process to ensure that the design of the pipeline does not compromise the requirements for approval of the details that will be submitted in advance of construction and operation.

4.5 The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations (2012)

Applications under the Planning Act 2008 are required to comply with The Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended 2012).

This scoping document forms part of an application to The Planning Inspectorate for a direction regarding a scoping opinion under Section 9 of these regulations. The objective of the scoping exercise is to ensure that all potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in order that they can be properly assessed.

The Proposed Gas pipeline constitutes a Schedule 2 development under The Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended 2012).

4.6 Local Authorities The selected route passes through the following planning authorities:

• Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC); • Selby District Council (SDC); and • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC).

These would all be statutory consultees during the application for a Development Consent Order.

4.7 Other Legislative Requirements (Construction) In addition to the consent requirements described above, the following consents will be required during the construction phase of the project.

4.7.1 Flood Defence Consent – The Water Resources Act (1991) The construction of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will involve the crossing of a number of watercourses. In the majority of cases, works affecting ‘main’ rivers, as defined by the Environment Agency (EA) are likely to require a Flood Defence Consent under the Water Resources Act 1991. These are issued by the EA and therefore the EA will be engaged at an early stage of the EIA process to establish the acceptability of the proposed methodology for crossing ‘main’ rivers such as the River Went.

4.7.2 Temporary Discharge Consent – The Water Resources Act (1991) Pipeline construction works occasionally require major de-watering activities and if it is necessary to discharge water into a watercourse, a temporary consent would be required. New pipelines are routinely tested using water and the discharge of this water will also require consent. Consent will be obtained from the Environment Agency.




4.7.3 The Highways Act (1980) / The New Roads and Streetworks Act (1991) The Proposed Gas Pipeline is a cross-country pipeline that will avoid running in the highway but does cross a number of roads, ranging from unclassified rural roads to major trunk roads, such as the M62 and the A645. Works within the highway are regulated under the New Roads and Streetworks Act (1991) which stimulates a regime of management administered by the highway authority, in this case the DMBC, SDC and the ERYC. In addition to these authorities, it will be necessary to engage with the Highways Agency regarding work affecting trunk roads.

4.7.4 Countryside Rights of Way Act (2000) The Proposed Gas Pipeline will cross a number of footpaths and bridleways and will have a temporary impact on these during construction works, including potential path diversions. The Rights of Way officers for the respective councils will be consulted at a preliminary stage of the EIA in order to agree the necessary procedures for managing these works.

4.7.5 The Conservation Regulations (1994) Surveys will be carried out to establish whether pipeline construction will affect any European Protected Species, such as great crested newt, bat, otter etc. Licenses are required from Natural England for disturbance to any of these species and suitable mitigation plans are required as part of applications. Surveys will also be undertaken to establish the presence of species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), such as badger, breeding birds and water vole. Where applicable Natural England will be consulted on the requirements for mitigation and licensing during construction following these surveys.

4.7.6 The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 Under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 it is against the law to remove or destroy certain ‘Important’ hedgerows (as defined by the regulations) without permission from the local planning authority. Various criteria specified in the Regulations are used to identify “important” hedgerows for wildlife, landscape or historical reasons. The local planning authority is also the enforcement body for offences created by the Regulations.

The local planning authority, in this case the DMBC, SDC and EYRC will be consulted on the removal or disturbance of hedgerows.




5 Environmental Sensitivity The Proposed Route Corridor runs from an offtake, which is located approximately 1.5 km west of Camblesforth, to the Thorpe Marsh Power Station, which is located approximately 18 km to the south of the offtake. The Proposed Route Corridor will not pass through any towns or villages but will run within 2 km of the town of Snaith and the following villages:

• Carlton; • West Cowick; • Topham; • Moss; • Thorpe-in-Balne; • Trumfleet; • Fenwick; • Sykehouse; • Gowdall; • Outskirts of Pollington; and • Camblesforth.

The Proposed Route Corridor will cross under the M62 and also passes under the A645 (Pontefract Road). In addition it will cross twin-track railway lines at the following locations:

• between Camblesforth and Knottingley, approximately 1.5 km west of Carlton village; • between Hensall and Snaith, approximately 1 km west of Snaith; and • near its southern terminus at the Thorpe Marsh power station.

There are few residential properties along the Proposed Route Corridor and population density is also relatively low for the majority of the Proposed Route Corridor.

Traversing a floodplain, the Proposed Route Corridor will cross predominantly agricultural land of flat topography. The majority of land is in arable use, with winter wheat and oil seed rape the two dominant crop types present. Isolated fields of semi-improved grassland also feature along the length of the Proposed Route Corridor.

Solid geology beneath the Proposed Route Corridor consists predominantly of Lower Triassic sandstone beds of the Bunter Sandstone formation, which is within the Sherwood Sandstone Group. This strata is overlain by unconsolidated Pleistocene and Quaternary Glaciolacustrine and alluvium deposits.

The area is interspersed with a number of watercourses and drains. It is therefore essential that landowners are consulted at an early stage as to the location of drains, re-instatement requirements and methods etc.

The Proposed Route Corridor crosses three major watercourses (the River Aire, the River Went and the Knottingley), the Goole navigation canal, as well as one major drain. Accordingly, the Environment Agency’s indicative floodplain map indicates that part of the Proposed Route Corridor will cross land designated as Flood Zone 3 (high risk of fluvial flooding).




The Proposed Route Corridor does not pass through any nationally or locally designated ecological sites. However there are two statutory designated sites within 5 km of the proposed route:

• Went Ings Meadows Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI); and • Thorpe Marsh Nature Reserve, managed by Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Went Ings Meadows SSSI is located within 2 km of the southern terminus of the Proposed Route Corridor which is located at Thorpe Marsh Power Station. The Proposed Route Corridor also passes through the Humberhead Natural Improvement Area (NIA).

The Proposed Route Corridor crosses a number of hedgerows along its route, with these generally acting as field borders.

There is evidence of medieval settlement in the wider area surrounding the Proposed Route Corridor; with a former monastic grange at Barnby Dun; a medieval chapel, shrunken medieval village and manor house at Thorpe in Balne; and moated sites at Fenwick hall and The Aucklands. There are also a number of listed buildings within the vicinity of the Proposed Route Corridor including Riddings Farm, Fenwick and Pondarosa Farm both of which are Grade II listed buildings. All listed buildings are located outside of the Proposed Route Corridor with the exception of Fenwick Hall, which is located at National Grid Reference: 460784, 416321 and approximately 1.35 km east of Fenwick village (refer to Figure 2G).




6 Potential Impacts Cross-country pipelines present the safest, most efficient and environmentally friendly acceptable means of transporting gas. The majority of environmental impacts arising from pipelines are confined to the construction phase. During this time, the potential exists for construction related impacts to arise within, and in the vicinity of, the Proposed Route Corridor. Construction impacts are generally temporary, short term, sporadic and localised. The impact of construction activities will vary depending on the activities undertaken. A brief outline of potential impacts is provided below with further details on specific impacts provided in Section 8.

As the Proposed Route Corridor crosses several watercourses, potential impacts may also include impacts on surface water drainage and potential for pollution of surface watercourses and groundwater from accidental spillage of silt, fuel and other potential contaminants. It is anticipated the main source of these potential impacts would occur during the construction phase e.g. trenching and watercourse crossing. Baseline conditions and an assessment methodology for water resources are set out in Section 8.3.

There will inevitably be some disruption to farming activities during the construction phase. This will include a temporary loss of use of land, possible disruption to services and the removal of sections of field boundaries. There may also be some disruption to minor roads during construction, with subsequent nuisance for local residents. Increased vehicular traffic and construction plant has the potential to increase exhaust and noise emissions in the local area. It is anticipated there will be no significant effect on air quality or the noise environment due to the distance of key receptors from the Proposed Route Corridor. Impacts to air quality and the noise environment are discussed in more detail in Section 8.4. Construction works, including excavation of the pipeline trench, also has the potential to result in direct loss or disturbance to habitats and/or protected species (if present) along the length of the Proposed Route Corridor. The habitats present along the Proposed Route Corridor, along with results of ENVIRON’s Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, are outlined in Section 8.5.

Construction works associated with the installation of gas pipelines have the potential for direct adverse impacts on buried archaeological resources (both known and unknown) and can have temporary impacts on the setting of heritage resource during the construction phase. Known archaeological resources in the area and proposed additional assessment methodology are discussed in Section 8.6.

It is anticipated that the landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will arise only within relatively close proximity to the Proposed Route Corridor, and largely as a result of construction processes, which will be temporary. Once construction is completed, the pipeline will be buried along its entire length and the land reinstated to it former condition. No construction works will continue above the pipeline and as such normal agricultural production and on-going land use along the route can usually resume in the season following construction. Thus, long-term impacts are generally negligible.

In accordance with the Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996, no works shall take place within 3m (10ft) on either side of a pipeline without prior approval of the pipeline operator. This will pose a long-term constraint on any future development works (if any) in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Gas Pipeline.

Further details on all aforementioned potential impacts are discussed in Section 8.




7 Construction Works Description The methods and procedures used to construct gas pipelines are well established and the Proposed Gas Pipeline will be designed, constructed and tested in accordance with the latest edition of the Institution of Gas Engineers (IGE) standard TD1 “Steel Pipelines for High Pressure Gas Transmission” (as amended 2010). Mitigation measures, environmental management and post-construction re-instatement procedures are also well established. The following sections define the typical construction methods and activities involved in the construction of a pipeline.

7.1 Construction Programme The following indicative programme has been developed to inform interested parties of key project milestones:

• Receipt of necessary consents and permissions (subject to regulatory approval), January 2014;

• Preliminary enabling works, e.g. installation of pre-construction drainage, location of services, hedgerow removal and fencing etc. during February 2014;

• Construction commencement in June 2014; and • Pipeline operational in 2016.

The main construction activities will likely be undertaken during the spring and summer months to take advantage of better weather and light conditions and reduce the risk of damage to soils along the pipeline route.

7.2 Pipeline Construction Pipeline construction is usually carried out by the ‘spread method’ which involves several groups of workers and equipment who collectively conduct the various stages of the construction operation17. Each group of workers and equipment complete an activity which picks up where the previous one left off, advancing the construction process a step at a time and leaving it ready for the next step to begin, from initial setting out of the route through to reinstatement.

The rate at which the spread advances is determined by the nature of the terrain, the prevalence of necessary special sanctions, weather conditions and other environmental factors.

Aside from crossing locations, it is anticipated that the pipeline will be installed using standard open-cut cross-country pipeline construction techniques. The main activities will include fencing, vegetation and topsoil stripping, installation of drainage, pipe stringing (the process of laying out the pipe end to end) and welding, trench excavation, pipe laying (positioning of the pipe into the trench), back filling, pressure testing, drying and pipeline pigging operations, and finally re-instatement of the land. Best practice construction techniques will be applied throughout the construction phase. A brief overview of each stage is provided below, and more detailed information regarding construction works will be provided in the ES.

17 Penspen (2009) Thorpe Marsh CCGT Project Development: Feasibility Study for Fuel Gas Pipeline. Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd.




7.2.1 Preconstruction Drainage Pre-construction drainage will be installed prior to topsoil stripping. This will aid the pipeline construction and ensure the large majority of existing drainage schemes are intercepted in advance of trench excavation to minimise the volume of water entering the trench, thus reducing the amount of potentially silty water to be dealt with during construction.

7.2.2 Topsoil stripping The next stage comprises topsoil stripping and the establishment of a running track within the working width to allow the movement of machinery and plant along the length of the route. Topsoil will be stored appropriately to avoid mixing with subsoil or damage from over-compaction. The precise method of stripping and the depth to which the soil will be stripped will be determined by on-site conditions.

7.2.3 Stringing and Welding The pipeline will be constructed from lengths of steel pipe. The individual lengths of pipe will be welded together above ground to form pipe strings; all welds will be subject to inspection prior to burial to ensure their integrity. Once inspected, an anti-corrosion coating will be applied on site and the pipeline coating will then be tested, further details will be provided in the ES.

7.2.4 Trenching and Laying The pipe trench will be dug with mechanical excavators to a depth sufficient to allow the pipeline a minimum cover in agricultural land. Excavated material will be placed at a safe distance from the trench in bunds, where there are distinct variations in the sub-soil excavated materials, the different lays may be stored separately to allow the soil to be backfilled in the same sequence to match adjacent soil horizons during reinstatement.

The pipeline will be lowered into the excavated trench using side booms or equivalent construction plant. The trench will then be backfilled with the excavated sub-soil and post-construction drainage will be installed to ensure surface and groundwater is suitable managed and the existing drainage system is reinstated. The post-construction drainage scheme will be agreed prior to construction with landowners and occupiers.

Once laid, the pipeline will be cleaned internally using a PIG driven through the pipe by compressed air and/or water. A gauging PIG will then be driven through to check the internal diameter of the pipeline, and the entire pipeline will be hydrostatically pressure tested. An AC corrosion mitigation system will then be installed.

7.2.5 Construction of Crossings The Proposed Route Corridor will cross a number of watercourses, public roads and railways and will require approximately 38 special crossings as described in Table 3.1. Typically, elevated crossings will be avoided and pipes passed under the ‘obstruction’ either by open cut or trenchless techniques. Trenchless methods typically include boring, tunnelling or directional drilling techniques. The crossing will normally remain open during the works.

The factors that often affect the selection of a crossing point vary depending on the size of the crossing, its location, the authority responsible and environmental issues. The actual crossing point can have an effect upon the routing of the Proposed Gas Pipeline both approaching and leaving the proposed crossing point.




Road and railway crossings are normally carried out at right angles on the flat of where the road is on an embankment as it assists construction and minimises the extent of any excavation required (i.e. the depth and extent of any launching and reception pits, etc.)

Existing services are often buried on the verges or roads. During the detailed design stage the various service authorities will be contacted to confirm their exact size, location and if there are any special requirements to be considered when crossing these services.

A combination of open cut and non-open cut construction methods will be used depending on site-specific conditions at crossings. These two techniques are discussed in greater detail in the paragraphs below.

Open Cut The open cut approach is the most appropriate for crossings where there is no significant environmental sensitivity or the disturbance to traffic or water flow will be small and easily controlled. Such crossings involve digging a trench directly across the road or watercourse (with appropriate water management methods in place). This is quickly followed by installation of the pipe and re-instatement of the trench.

Non-Open Cut Non-open cut techniques have the advantage of significantly reducing surface disturbance. However, they may require deep excavations on either side of the crossing, which can require de-watering and physical support (e.g. concrete caisson), and may increase the duration of works within a given area. Non-open cut techniques require additional land take on both sides of the crossing to accommodate the additional excavated material from the pits and necessary plant and equipment.

Auger Boring

Auger boring involves thrusting a length of permanent or sacrificial pipe though the ground beneath the obstacle, whilst an auger tool in the pipe transports the spoil from the cutting face of the pipe to the thrust pit. If sacrificial pipe has been used, the permanent pipe can then be welded on and thrust through into its permanent position.

Increased working width is required at such crossing to facilitate the storage of the extra spoil generated, and to accommodate additional plant.

The feasibility of this method depends on the ground conditions at the crossing location.

Horizontal Directional Drilling

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) involves using a steerable cutting head to bore under and obstacle, and is used for wide crossings such as main roads, or major rivers.

The first stage of the HDD is to drill a pilot hole. This involves drilling and steering a relatively small diameter bore from entry to exit points. After the pilot hole has been drilled, reaming distance devices are attached and pulled back through the drill hole to enlarge it to the required diameter. Throughout this process the drilled hole is supported by means of a bentonite clay drilling fluid. When the drilled hole has reached the required diameter, the pipe string is attached to the reaming device and pulled through the drill hole.

In some instances, especially underlying railway crossings, micro-tunnel methods maybe required instead of HDD.




7.3 Re-instatement Re-instatement activities will be carried out as soon as possible on completion of the construction activities, subject to suitable weather conditions. The separately stored topsoil from uncultivated areas including bank sides, banks of watercourses and verges will be spread back over the areas from where they were taken. Agricultural topsoil will similarly be spread back over the areas it was stripped. Under no circumstances will arable topsoil be spread on uncultivated land or vice versa. This is particularly important on the banks of watercourses, where nutrients in arable soil could be transferred into watercourses and negatively impact the water quality. Drainage systems will also be re-instated and additional post-construction drainage will be installed if required.

Land will be re-instated as near as reasonably practical to its original condition. Fencing installed along the working width will be retained until the re-seeded sward has been sufficiently recovered to withstand grazing pressures. All re-instatement procedures will be agreed with landowners/occupiers before work begins.

Field fences, walls, hedges and river corridor vegetation will be restored on re-instated to their original condition. Permanent M4 type pipeline markers, cathodic protection test posts and aerial markers will be installed at this stage at previously agreed locations, generally on field boundaries.

7.4 Post-construction Surveys Once the pipeline has been constructed and the land has been re-instated, a post-construction Close Interval Potential (CIP) survey will be conducted to confirm the satisfactory operation of the pipeline CIP system. This survey will be supplemented by a Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) survey to locate any coating defects on the buried pipeline.

Re-instatement monitoring will occur for a number of years following construction to ensure plantings have established and drainage is operating correctly, etc.

Following a reasonable period of operation, an intelligent PIG survey will be conducted to provide baseline data of the pipeline integrity and condition and verify it is fit for continued operation.




8 Proposed Environmental Impact Assessment Scope This section provides initial baseline information and outlines the approach to site characterisation; baseline data collection; impact prediction tools and assessment criteria that will be adopted within the EIA.

8.1 Agriculture and Soils The main agriculture and soil resource receptors along the Proposed Route Corridor likely to be affected are:

• agricultural land quality; • soil resources; • farm businesses; and • rural land designations/agri-environmental schemes.

8.1.1 Baseline Conditions Climate

The climate of South Yorkshire is influenced by the Pennines to the west, its low relief and its location on the eastern flank of the United Kingdom. The rainfall in South Yorkshire is between 400 – 700 mm annually. Although historic records of flooding in the Yorkshire and Humber region are limited, there are records of severe floods in the region, most notably in 2000 and 2007, as a result of extreme rainfall.

Soil Resources

A good depth of topsoil is indicated to be present along the Proposed Route Corridor. The main soil type covering the Proposed Route Corridor is slow permeable, seasonally wet base-rich loamy and clayey soils. This has been identified using ‘Soilscapes’, a 1:250,000 scale, soil dataset covering England and Wales, which is based upon the National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI) dataset. Parent soil material along the majority of the route has been identified as glaciolacustrine deposits river clay (ESB code 630).

Agricultural Land Quality

Arable land dominates the Proposed Route Corridor. The former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF), which has been superseded by DEFRA, produced Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) maps for England and Wales during the 1960s and 1970s. These ALC maps were produced for strategic land-use planning purposes at a scale of 1:250,000. The MAFF Provisional ALC map indicates that agricultural land quality along the Proposed Route Corridor of the pipeline is predominantly of Grade 2 quality (very good), with a short extent of Grade 3 (good to moderate) quality land south-west of Snaith.

Rural Land Designations

There are no rural land designations along the Proposed Route Corridor.

8.1.2 Assessment Methodology The following studies will be carried out as part of the EIA:




• The quality of the agricultural land affected by the Proposed Gas Pipeline will be determined in accordance with planning policy guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)18. Subject to consultation feedback, this will be achieved by utilising information provided by DEFRA and, if deemed necessary, supplemented by an ALC survey;

• The above work will also inform the preparation of a soil restoration plan to ensure that soil/agricultural land is restored to its original quality; and

• The impacts of the Proposed Gas Pipeline on local farm businesses and rural diversification will be assessed. This will be achieved by visiting the site and recording the types of agricultural enterprises employed along the Proposed Route Corridor, and by interviewing landowners and farmers affected by the Proposed Gas Pipeline.

8.2 Geology and Ground Conditions The main receptors along the Proposed Route Corridor with the potential to be affected are:

• controlled waters; • surface water features; and • humans (through direct contact, residential uptake and recreational use); and • ecological features where potential for contamination exists.

8.2.1 Baseline Conditions History of Site and Surrounding Area

Development of settlement during the 17th and 18th Centuries is evident all along the proposed pipeline route19; several small farmsteads and buildings from this period are located on either side of the Proposed Route Corridor, many of which are listed buildings.

Geology

The geology of the Proposed Route Corridor has been interpreted from British Geological Survey (BGS) maps20. As mentioned previously, the underlying geology predominantly comprises Lower Triassic sandstone beds of the Bunter Sandstone formation, which is within the Sherwood Sandstone Group. This is described by the BGS as being of variable thickness, with a gentle dip and increasing thickness towards the east, where it reaches a thickness of up to 1500 m in places.

There is evidence in the South Yorkshire area of two main glacial phases (the Anglian and Devensian) with an intervening temperate (Ipswichian) phase during the Quaternary. During the last glaciation, ice did not reach as far south as Sheffield, but a large lobe of ice pushed down the Vale of York, along the line of the Trent, as far as Doncaster and deposited large amounts of till, or boulder clay and sands and gravels over the Bunter Sandstone formation.21

18 Department for Communities and Local Government ,2012. National Planning Policy Framework. March, 2012. HMSO.

19 Information derived from: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk 20 Source: BGS website and associated links: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience 21 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/geodiversity/englands/counties/area_ID42.aspx

http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/




The majority of the superficial deposits along the Proposed Route Corridor consist of Glaciolacustrine clay deposits associated primarily with recent deposition by the River Don. These overlie the Triassic sandstones, with thin east-west wedges of the sandstone outcropping in the northern third of the route.

There are no current or historic landfalls within the Proposed Route Corridor, however further assessment and consideration into the presence of made ground will be included within the ES.

Given the underlying geology, the Proposed Route Corridor is unlikely to be affected by mineral extraction; however, this will be further assessed within the ES through consultation with the local Mineral Planning Authority.

Hydrogeology

The sandstone bedrock along the length of the Proposed Route Corridor is classified as a Principal Aquifer. The hydrogeology is discussed further in Section 8.3.1.

8.2.2 Assessment Methodology A desk-based assessment of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will be undertaken and will include the following:

• Examination of historical, recent and current Ordnance Survey plans to identify activities which might have led to potential contamination of soil or groundwater along the length of the Proposed Route Corridor;

• Examination of published records and plans on the shallow and deep geology, and hydrogeology of the pipeline to assess vulnerability and sensitivity of both groundwater and surface water to contamination, if present, and the possible direction of movement, if mobile; and

• Search of a proprietary database of environmental permits, records and pollution incidents along the length of the pipeline and in the surrounding area.

The assessment will:

• identify areas of potential made ground, mineral extraction, seismicity, contamination and geological hazards along the Proposed Route Corridor;

• consider how the Proposed Gas Pipeline may be constrained by contaminated soils, if any;

• assess whether the pipeline may create new pathways of potential concern (i.e. pathways for contamination, if present);

• determine what remediation measures would be required to remove the contamination risk, if any; and

• establish the nature and extent of any remedial works and mitigation to be employed during construction activities along the length of the pipeline, if required.

8.3 Water Resources and Flood Risk The main water resource receptors along the Proposed Route Corridor likely to be affected are:

• controlled waters; • surface water features; and




• properties liable to flooding.

8.3.1 Baseline Conditions Surface Water

The Proposed Route Corridor would cross three major water courses (Thorpe Marsh Drain, River Aire, River Went) and the Calder Navigation Canal.

A total of 31 ponds are present along the Proposed Gas Pipeline route, of which three occur within the tidal range on the washes of the River Aire. Three are located within a fish farm off Balne Croft Lane whilst the remainder are small farm ponds or located within gardens. Three large (possibly seasonal/transient) ponds adjacent to the River Went and a large pond adjacent to the M62 are exceptions to this. There are a further 107 ponds within the 500 m study area, which includes the Proposed Route Corridor.

Ditches and unnamed drainage channels are common throughout the Proposed Route Corridor along field boundaries, often associated with a boundary hedgerow.

Groundwater Resources

The Groundwater Vulnerability map for the region shows the Proposed Gas Pipeline and the whole of the surrounding region to be located overlying a Principal Aquifer22.

The southern tip and northern extents of the Proposed Route Corridor are situated within groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 3. The Proposed Route Corridor also passes in close proximity to SPZ 1 and SPZ 2 near Hirst Courtney at the northern tip of the Proposed Route Corridor. These SPZ zones show the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area. Zones are defined by a travel time from any point below the water table; SPZ 1 has a 50 day travel time and SPZ 2 a 400 day travel time. SPZ3 is the area around a source within which all groundwater recharge is presumed to be discharged at the source23.

Flood Risk and Land Drainage

According to the Environment Agency (EA) indicative flood map, the Proposed Route Corridor traverses Flood Zone 3 (high risk), Flood Zone 2 (moderate to low risk) and areas not at flood risk. Flood Zone 3 comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater probability of river flooding (>1%) or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%), whilst Flood Zone 2 comprises lands assessed as having up to a 1 in 1000 (0.1%) probability of flooding occurring.

The Proposed Route Corridor passes through Flood Zone 3 at a section north of the M62 and at the northern termination point of the Proposed Gas Pipeline. The southern extent of the proposed route pipeline, between Thorpe Marsh Power Station and Moss, and a stretch of approximately 2 km between Sykenhouse and Pollington lie in Flood Zone 2.

The primary sources of flooding are anticipated to be from the River Went and River Aire.

22 Source: Environment Agency: http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=groundwater#x=464810&y=412799&lg=1,&scale=5

23 Environment Agency: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37805.aspx

http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683.0&y=355134.0&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=groundwater#x=464810&y=412799&lg=1,&scale=5






8.3.2 Assessment Methodology The assessment will be largely desk-based and will involve a review of the following sources of baseline data:

• Review of data on surface and groundwater discharges and abstractions, river quality and pollution incidents within 500 m of the Proposed Pipeline;

• Review of EA data records on chemical and biological river quality; and • Consultation with the EA, DMBC, SDC and ERYC.

The potential impacts of the Proposed Gas Pipeline include impacts on surface water drainage and potential for pollution of surface watercourse and groundwater from accidental spillage of silt, fuel and other potential contaminants during construction.

It is anticipated that the main sources of potential impacts on groundwater would occur during construction phase activities, e.g. excavation of the pipeline trench and crossing beneath watercourses / drainage ditches. Impacts on groundwater during operations, if any, would primarily relate to impacts on groundwater flow. Effects will be assessed having regard to factors such as the depth and direction of groundwater flow, the significance of the aquifer, the effects of existing abstractions and future groundwater yield.

As the Proposed Gas Pipeline crosses a number of ‘main rivers’, “Consent for Works Affecting Watercourses and / or Flood Defences” will be required. However, the consent applications will not form part of the scope of the ES; instead consultation will be undertaken with the EA, DMBC, SDC and ERYC to obtain in principle agreement that they are satisfied with the proposed works.

It is not anticipated that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required for the Proposed Gas Pipeline because the pipeline will be located underground. This will be confirmed during the scoping and consultation process. However, a flood risk section will need to be included within the ES to assess the potential impacts on the MOC and associated TMPL Offtake AGI. The management of surface runoff during construction will also be considered to ensure that the proposed works do not lead to increased flood risk elsewhere.

8.4 Air Quality and Noise Potential emissions arising from the construction and operation of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will be considered in regard to:

• noise and vibration; and • dust and gaseous emissions to air.

The main receptors along the Proposed Route Corridor likely to be affected by these emissions are:

• local residents; • recreational users; and • construction workers.

The potential for emissions is considered to be greatest during the construction phase. The MOC may give rise to intermittent noise emissions arising from maintenance procedures during the operations phase and these will also be considered.




8.4.1 Baseline Conditions There are no towns or villages located within the Proposed Route Corridor. However the following towns and villages are location within 2 km of the Proposed Route Corridor:

• Snaith, • Carlton; • West Cowick; • Topham; • Moss; • Thorpe-in-Balne; • Trumfleet; • Fenwick; • Sykehouse; • Gowdall; • Outskirts of Pollington; and • Camblesforth.

Approximately 30 individual houses/farmsteads are located within the Proposed Route Corridor.

DMBC have five designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), for nitrogen dioxide emissions, within central Doncaster. However there are no designated AQMAs in proximity to the proposed route corridor.

8.4.2 Assessment Methodology Noise and Vibration

The noise and vibration assessment will consist of the following steps:

• Consultation with the relevant authorities to determine their requirements in relation to noise criteria and operational hours for construction activities;

• Consideration of the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction in accordance with BS 522824; and

• Consideration of the potential noise impact from the proposed MOC in accordance with BS 414225.

No baseline noise monitoring is proposed at key sensitive receptors due to the low impacts associated with the Proposed Gas Pipeline and the distance of the nearest sensitive receptors from the MOC, which lie outside the 400 m corridor.

Based on experience of previous assessments, monitoring suggests that vibration falls below the level of perception for distances greater than 20m for excavation works and heavy plant movements. The exact distances will depend on the nature of activities and the ground

24 British Standards Institute, 2009. BS 5228-1:2009. Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise.

25 British Standards Institute, 1997. BS 4142:1997. Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas.




conditions. Given that it is anticipated that pipeline construction will not be undertaken within 50m of a given residential dwelling, it is considered unlikely that vibration will comprise a significant environmental effect as a result of the proposed pipeline development.

Air Quality

It is not anticipated that the operational pipeline will generate significant air emissions (i.e. emissions from the pipeline or traffic derived emissions) and therefore no baseline air quality monitoring or detailed emissions modelling will be undertaken.

During the construction phase, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) will deliver and remove materials; and earthmoving plant, generators and cranes are likely be in operation. All of these machines produce exhaust emissions; of particular concern are emissions of fine particulates. The majority of HGVs will be diesel powered, which emit significantly more PM10 than petrol vehicles, and these sources can result in localised elevation of PM10 concentrations. However, the elevated concentrations are likely to be localised and temporary in nature and therefore detailed emissions modelling is not considered to be necessary.

During the construction phase, the potential exists for the generation of coarse and fine dust from construction activities including excavation, earthmoving, materials storage and movement of construction vehicles over unpaved surfaces. Construction activities can occur over large areas at any one time and therefore the use of complete enclosures or sophisticated dust extraction and collection systems are not suitable for avoidance of dust effects. Instead, the control of dust emissions from construction site activities relies upon management provisions and mitigation techniques to reduce emissions of dust and limit dispersion. Appropriate management techniques will be assessed and described in the ES.

8.5 Ecology An ecological desk study was carried out by SKM Enviros in May 201226 and ENVIRON was commissioned in June 2012 to carry out an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a Breeding Bird Survey27 of the Proposed Gas Pipeline route to inform the route selection process (see Section 1: Introduction).

The main ecology receptors along the Proposed Route Corridor with the potential to be affected are:

• identified habitats; and • protected species.

8.5.1 Baseline Conditions Statutory Designated Sites

There are no statutory designated nature conservation sites within or bordering the Proposed Route Corridor. The desk study identified a total of 25 non-statutory designated sites within 1 km of the centre line of the proposed route corridor.

26 SKM ENVIROS, May 2012. Thorpe Marsh CCGT Pipeline: Ecological Desk Study. 27 ENVIRON, July 2012. Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.




Habitats

As mentioned previously, arable land dominates along the Proposed Route Corridor. Winter wheat and oil seed rape are the two dominant crop types. Italian ryegrass is also common as a component of arable rotation, albeit grown as a forage crop for silage. In addition, more permanent improved grassland, dominated by perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne is also present, particularly in the southern portion of the proposed route corridor. Isolated fields of semi-improved grassland also feature along the length of the Proposed Route Corridor. The majority of the semi-improved grassland comprises a diverse sward of grass species, but few forb species, most likely indicating some level of agricultural improvement such as fertiliser or herbicide applications. A small number of the fields of semi-improved grassland appear to have escaped agricultural intensification and still support a diverse range of forb species typical of circa-neutral grassland. One field on the northern bank of the River Went is particularly diverse and supports birdsfoot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea, common catsear Hypochaeris radicata and greater burnet Sanguisorba officinalis. Results of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey along the Proposed Route Corridor are shown on Figure 5 (a-l).

Woodland is relatively uncommon within the corridor, limited only to isolated copses. However there are numerous hedgerows intersecting along its length, with common hawthorn Crataegus monogyna the dominant species and blackthorn Prunus spinosa, ash Fraxinus excelsoir and field maple Acer Campestre being frequent components. Elder Sambuses nigra and dog rose Rosa canina agg. are occasional within the hedgerows.

The hedgerows within the proposed route corridor support significant numbers of mature trees, the majority of which are oak Quercus sp., with ash frequent and willow Slix sp. occasional.

A wide range of waterbody types are present within the Proposed Route Corridor, including ponds, rivers, canals and major drainage channels. Ditches are common field boundary features throughout the Proposed Route Corridor, often found in association with hedgerows.

Protected Species:

The desk study identified records of the following protected species within 1 km of the centre line of the Proposed Route Corridor:

• bats; • badger Meles meles; • otter Lutra lutra; • water vole Arvicola amphibius; • reptiles; • breeding birds; • great crested newts Triturus cristatus; and • freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera.

Therefore, the habitats within the Proposed Route Corridor were assessed for the potential to support each of these species (along with other protected and notable species) during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. All of the mature hedgerow trees within the proposed route corridor were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. A total of 177 were assessed as providing low bat roost potential and 16 provide moderate bat roost potential.




No trees were assessed as providing high bat roost potential. The network of hedgerows, small woodland and fields of semi-improved grassland provide suitable foraging habitat for bats and the larger watercourses, railways lines and hedgerows are likely to be used by commuting bats.

Few signs of badgers were observed during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A single active badger sett was identified outside the proposed route corridor, to the north of Thorpe Marsh Power Station.

The Proposed Route Corridor crosses four major watercourses (Thorpe Marsh Drain, River Aire, River Went and the Aire and Calder Navigation Canal). These watercourses all provide suitable otter habitat, whilst the larger ditches and ponds within the proposed route corridor could provide suitable water vole habitat although no signs of water vole activity were observed during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

The breeding bird survey identified a number of notable bird species including kestrel (Falco tinnunculus),reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), yellow wagtail (Motacilla flava), yellowhammer (Emberiza schoeniclus) and tree sparrow (Passer montanus). The only species to be observed that is listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) was corn bunting,(Miliari calendar) with a maximum of three pairs observed at the very northern end of the Proposed Route Corridor between Race Lane and Sandwich Lane. Results of the Breeding Bird survey along the Proposed Route Corridor are shown on Figure 6 (a-l), with species listed in Annex B.

The majority of the agricultural, arable and improved grassland habitats provides negligible habitat for reptiles, whilst woodland also provides limited reptile habitat due to heavy shade. Suitable reptile habitat does occur within the semi-improved grassland on the banks of the larger watercourses. Suitable habitat can also be found between Race Lane and Kerrick Spring Wood, to the south of Buck Pit Bank, and either side of the M62. Elsewhere, reptiles could occur in low numbers along the hedgerows, field margins and ditch banks.

Great crested newts are known to occur at the southern end of the Proposed Route Corridor close to Thorpe Marsh Power Station. In addition, records of great crested newts also occur at Hawkehouse Green and Braithwaite railway ponds.

There are records of freshwater pearl mussel within 1 km of the Proposed Route Corridor; however most of the ditches and watercourses present within the Proposed Route Corridor do not appear to provide suitable habitat for this species.

8.5.2 Assessment Methodology Prior to the completion of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, habitats within the Proposed Route Corridor area were preliminarily mapped using ArcView 10. Habitats were identified from a combination of 1:10,000 Ordinance Survey (OS) maps and aerial photography available from Google EarthTM. This included the plotting the location of individual trees. In addition, ponds within 500 m of the Proposed Route Corridor were identified. The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey comprised a walkover and preliminary assessment of key habitats, land use and ecological features, particularly focussing on areas of natural interest which could be affected by the proposed development. The features previously mapped were ‘ground-truthed’ and errors corrected. The main habitats present were recorded using a




standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology described in the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit28.

A breeding bird survey was carried out in accordance with a methodology based on the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Common Bird Census (CBC)29.

The Proposed Route Corridor was assessed for its potential to support protected species such as bats, badgers and reptiles in order to identify potential ecological constraints and to guide recommendations for further survey requirements for these species. In particular, each mature hedgerow or in-field tree was assessed for its potential to support roosting bats.

Based on the findings of the desk study and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, a range of further survey work is recommended. On-going discussions are taking place with Natural England to define the scope of the species surveys required, along with their appropriate survey methodologies. At present, it is envisaged that the species surveys will comprise:

• Botanical surveys of semi-improved grassland most likely to be affected by the Proposed Gas Pipeline along the centre line of the Proposed Route Corridor, to identify the vegetation typology and species present, as well as to guide restoration requirements;

• Detailed hedgerow surveys for the hedgerows most likely to be impacted along the centre line of the Proposed Route Corridor to assess whether they meet the definition of ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997;

• A Bat survey of trees within 30 m of the centre line of the proposed route corridor for trees with low and moderate potential;

• A survey for the presence of badger setts, within the whole Proposed Route Corridor but focussing on woodlands and areas of undisturbed ground;

• An otter survey at the crossing point of all three major watercourses and canal as listed previously;

• Water vole presence / absence surveys of all larger drains and ponds crossed by the centre line of the Proposed Route Corridor;

• Reptile presence / absence surveys in representative areas of suitability areas identified along the Proposed Route Corridor;

• Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) surveys of accessible and relevant ponds within 500 m of the Proposed Route Corridor with the aim of scoping out the requirement of presence / absence surveys in consultation with Natural England; and

• Freshwater pearl mussel presence / absence surveys of the larger ditches of flowing water along the centre line of the Proposed Route Corridor. Major watercourses would not be affected by the proposed development due to the use of trenchless construction techniques and therefore will not be surveyed for this species.

Impacts arising from the Proposed Gas Pipeline’s construction and operational phases would be assessed using best practice guidance, namely the IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2006) and a range of mitigation measures will be proposed.

28 Join Nature Conservation Committee, 2007 Ed. Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit.

29 Bibby C.J., Burgess N. D. and Mustoe S.H., 2000. Bird Census Techniques, 2nd Edition.




Where possible all mature trees will be left undisturbed. Based on the findings of the ecological assessment further sections of the route can be constructed using HDD methods to minimise impact (i.e. drilling underneath certain potentially sensitive locations).

8.6 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage The main archaeology and cultural heritage interactions of the Project will be:

• Potential permanent direct effects on known and unknown buried archaeological resources along the Proposed Pipeline Route Corridor; and

• Potential temporary effects on the settings of heritage assets such as listed buildings; scheduled monuments etc. along the Proposed Route Corridor.

8.6.1 Baseline Conditions The Proposed Route Corridor crosses flat, low lying, largely arable farmland that has been extensively exploited and modified in the past by human activity.

Preliminary assessment30 suggests that there is no recorded Palaeolithic or Mesolithic activity within 1 km of the Proposed Pipeline Route.

Evidence of Neolithic activity is limited but includes find-spots of flint artefacts: from near Kirk Sandall, at the southern end of the Proposed Pipeline, and from Sykehouse, towards the north end. The discovery of such finds is indicative of Neolithic activity (and perhaps settlement) in the vicinity. Other finds include: a Bronze Age barbed-and-tanged arrowhead discovered in the vicinity of Barnby Dun at the southern end of the Route; Roman pottery at Fenwick; a bronze strip of possible Saxon date at Thorpe in Balne; a human skull and an antler dredged from the River Went near Topham; and a medieval quern from Pollington upon Balne.

Crop marks of prehistoric field systems have been identified extensively along the Proposed Pipeline Route; these most likely being representative of Iron Age or Romano-British farmsteads.

There is extensive evidence of medieval settlement in the area31. For example, there is a former monastic grange at Barnby Dun; a medieval chapel and shrunken medieval village, fishpond and manor house at Thorpe in Balne; medieval ridge and furrow and a deserted village at Moss, and moated sites at Fenwick Hall and The Aucklands; and a 13th century hospital documented at Snaith. The Thorpe in Balne moated site and the moated site at Fenwick are both scheduled monuments and would need to be avoided by the pipeline route (N.B. Fenwick Hall is located within the Proposed Route Corridor).

Post-medieval continuity and development of settlement during the 17th and 18th Centuries is evident all along the proposed pipeline route and numerous farmsteads and buildings within small towns and villages in the vicinity date from this period and many of these are listed buildings; mostly grade II, although Chapel Manor Farmhouse Thorpe in Balne is grade II* listed32. Systematic land reclamation and improvement, evident in the pattern of

30 Information gathered from: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk 31 Information gathered from: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk 32 Information gathered from: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk







drainage channels across the fenland landscape, is also most likely to be of this post-medieval period.

The preliminary indications are that archaeological sites and features from at least the Neolithic period survive throughout the Proposed Pipeline Route corridor either as upstanding earthworks or as buried features and deposits.

8.6.2 Assessment Methodology Pipelines have the potential for direct adverse impacts on buried archaeological resources (both known and unknown) and to have temporary impacts (during the construction phase) on the setting of heritage resources. A full and detailed desk-based assessment of the Proposed Pipeline Route corridor would be undertaken to determine the impacts of the Proposed Gas Pipeline on archaeology and cultural heritage. The results of the desk-based assessment would provide the basis for further refinement of the pipeline route.

The assessment will comprise a desk-based assessment, review and analysis of the historic environment records and identification of the known archaeological resource along the Proposed Route Corridor, a discussion of the potential for further archaeological features along the route corridor and assessment of residual effects.

The assessment will be undertaken in accordance with standards and guidance specified by the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) (2001) and taking account of guidance provided by English Heritage (Conservation Principles, 2008) ; Association County Archaeological Officers (ACAO) (Model Briefs and Specifications for Archaeological Assessments and Field Evaluations 1993); South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (SYAS) (Yorkshire, The Humber & The North East: A Regional Statement of Good Practice for Archaeology in the Development Process 2009) and will adopt the following format:

Archaeological Archives and Databases

Information on previous archaeological find and investigations along the Proposed Route Corridor will be obtained from relevant sources. Sources consulted will include the Historical Environment Record (HER) held at the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service, Sheffield, East Riding of Yorkshire (SMR) and North Yorkshire. The information obtained will be augmented as necessary through consultation of other on-line resources.

The South Yorkshire Archives and East Riding Archives will each be consulted for examination of historic maps and plans, antiquarian histories and other relevant documentary sources including in particular the Yorkshire Archaeological Society Archives. Where judged relevant, other, local archives will be consulted to fully inform the archaeological potential of the route corridor.

Details of the locations and extents of listed buildings, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and historic battelfields will be obtained from English Heritage and the relevant Local Authority HER as necessary.

Aerial Photographs

Aerial photographs available either through the Regional Local Authority Historic Environment Records or Archives or obtained from the National Monuments Record in Swindon and will be examined. This source may provide evidence of low relief earthwork remains (notably in this landscape ridge and furrow cultivation) and may provide information on potential buried archaeological features (through cropmark or soil mark evidence).




Oblique photographs of cropmarks held in HERs will be a particularly relevant source of data.

Published and Unpublished Sources

A range of published and unpublished material will be consulted. This will include archaeological archived reports and records from construction projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Route Corridor and any academic articles, together with general sources on the area and its wider historical background.

Geological and Soil Surveys

Information on the underlying geology and soils within the study area will be taken from data collected by the BGS (2001) and the Soil Survey of England and Wales (1980).

Field Survey

At an appropriate time during the route development design process a systematic walkover survey will be undertaken of selected parts of the proposed gas pipeline route corridor to identify and record the baseline condition of surviving surface remains, identify and record any previously unrecorded features, and to assess the scope of any future archaeological investigations that might be required along the Proposed Route Corridor. The field survey will build upon the findings of the archaeological desk study detailed in the ES and will be undertaken following planning approval. The scope of the field survey will be agreed with the relevant local authorities.

8.7 Landscape and Visual The assessment will consider the following potential effects on receptors during construction and operation:

• Direct effects on landscape features such as hedgerows and trees; • Indirect effects on the landscape character of the region; and • Visual effect on residential and other properties; on car-based used of routes such as

the A645, the M62; on recreational users of the Knottingley and Goole Canal and public rights of way.

It is anticipated that the landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Gas Pipeline will arise only within relatively close proximity to the Proposed Route Corridor, and largely as a result of construction processes, which will be temporary.

8.7.1 Baseline Conditions The surrounding landscape is flat and predominantly in agricultural use and is frequently traversed by minor roads, ditches, drains and field dykes. Borders of field are delineated by hedgerows and ditches, with field boundaries following no observable geometrical pattern.

The Humberhead Levels are characterised by low-lying, predominantly flat land close to sea level. However, as a result of the flat and uniform topography, localised undulations such as dyke and canal embankments, established shelterbelts and tree clusters intervene in long distance views. The area is in general sparsely populated and the open landscape is punctuated by isolated farmsteads and small clusters of settlements along main roads and key transport intersections.




At regional level, the Joint Character Area (JCA) assessment, undertaken by the Countryside Commission in the early 1990s identifies the Proposed Pipeline Corridor as lying within the Humberhead Levels (JCA39). The assessment describes this character area as follows:

• “A flat landscape occupying the area of the former pro-glacial Lake Humber; • Very low-lying, commonly at or below mean high-water mark. • Surface geology of drift deposits, including glacial tills, clays, peat, sand and gravel and

wind-blowns and, giving local variations in character. • Broad floodplains of major navigable rivers draining to the Humber Estuary with

extensive areas of washlands and some alluvial flood meadows. • Rich high-quality land which is intensively farmed and includes substantial areas of

warp land. • Essentially flat, very open character with occasional rising ground formed by ridges of

sand and outcrops of Mercia Mudstone. • Very large open fields divided by dykes, with relatively few hedgerows or field trees. • Peat bogs of international ecological and historical importance which are widely

exploited for commercial peat extraction. • Widespread evidence of drainage history in rivers, old river courses, ditches, dykes

and canals. • Important areas of historic landscape such as the more enclosed agricultural

landscape at Fishlake, the remnant open fields of the Isle of Axholme and the unique ‘cable’ landscape of Thorne.

• Areas of remnant heath and large, isolated conifer plantations on poor sandy soils. • Modern motorways on embankments and large installations, notably power stations,

which are often prominent in the flat landscape.

Local authority landscape character assessments provide a more detailed assessment of the landscape character of their districts and boroughs. They consider the likely pressures and opportunities for change in the landscape. Additionally, they assess the sensitivity of the landscape to change and include guidelines indicating how landscape character may be observed, enhanced or restructured as appropriate. The local landscape character areas (LCA) that the Proposed Gas Pipeline will traverse are outlined in Table 8.2

Table 8.2: Local Character Areas

Local Character Area Key Characteristics

West Don & Dun River Carrlands LCA33

• Flat floodplain of the Rivers Don and Dun Navigation which are contained by closely mown embankments.

• Dominated by the presence of the disused power station at Thorpe Marsh with large cooling towers and pylons converging on it.

• Medium to small fields of both pasture and arable farmland with some tall mature boundary hedges.

33 Landscape Character & Capacity Assessment of Dncaster Borough (2007). Prepared by ECUS Ltd.





Local Character Area Key Characteristics • Network of ditches and drains on field boundaries. • Many small water bodies scattered throughout. • Road access is limited but there is some access through

green lanes and public rights of way. • Several railways run along and cross through sections of the

LCA. • Absence of settlements and farmsteads. • A few small areas woodland but trees found in hedgerows

and as belts of Lombardy poplars. • Views generally enclosed by hedgerows and river

embankments.

Owston to Skyehouse Settled Clay Farmlands34

• Flat wide flood plains of the River Went and Don located between the Limestone Plateau to the west and the peat moorlands to the east.

• Geology of silts and clays underlain by Sherwood sandstone; • Small scale arable and pasture fields including hay meadows; • Thick field boundary hedges with frequent mature hedgerow

trees; • Some medium to large arable fields with fragmented hedges; • Network of water-filled drains; • Occasional small deciduous woodlands with larger and more

frequent woodlands in the south west; • Compact historic settlements and many scattered

farmsteads; • Historic network of lanes with sharp corners and roadside

ditches; • Rail corridor cuts through the area with manned and

unmanned gated crossings; • River Don and straight New Junction Canal with flood control

embankments; • Occasional windmills and moated properties; and • Network of green lanes and public rights of way.

Southern Farmlands (Selby)35

• Varied character, predominantly flat semi-enclosed arable farmland, with an area of estate-managed wooded farmland, and an area of larger scale more open farmland.

• Distinctive area of more traditional mixed farmland to the south of Balne Moor, with pastures and orchards.

• Small wetlands, some of which are medieval moats. • Network of minor roads and lanes linking scattered properties

and settlements.

34 Landscape Character & Capacity Assessment of Dncaster Borough (2007). Prepared by ECUS Ltd. 35 Landscape Assessment of Selby District (1999). Prepared for Selby District Council by Woolerton Dodwell Associates.





Local Character Area Key Characteristics • Traditional farmhouses typically constructed in red brick. • Distinctive landform of the ash disposal site at gale common. • Generally quiet and tranquil character largely unaffected by

urban and industrial development.

M62 Corridor Hook to Pollingdon (East Riding of Yorkshire)36

• low lying flat agricultural land. • Open views particularly from the motorway which is slightly

raised above the surrounding area. • Communication infrastructure is a prominent feature i.e.

motorway, roads and canal. • Settlement pattern is linear along communications corridor. • Linear tree and woodland cover associated with roads and

railway lines. • Hedgerows field boundaries in varying condition. • Varied field size and field pattern along the corridor. • Varying scales of commercial development is present along

the corridor. • The port of Goole is a major settlement in the East Riding

located in this corridor. • Horticultural development of the corridor east of Goole. • Railway lines and pylons are present. • Views of land mark structures e.g. Howden Minister and

Boothferry bridge and Goole Docks.

There are no statutory or non-statutory landscape, nature or urban conservation designations that cover any part of the Proposed Route Corridor. However, an Area of Special Landscape Value and the Trans Pennine Trail are located in the Owston to Skyehouse Settled Clay Farmlands LCA in proximity to the Proposed Route Corridor.

Views are generally open and long distant, particularly from elevated embankments.

8.7.2 Assessment Methodology The baseline study will comprise two parts:

1. Landscape Appraisal:

The landscape character will be described using relevant guidance and reference materials and following fieldwork. This will be supported by a survey of the existing land use and any landscape assets, to establish the landscape character of the route corridor within the local landscape resource. This will be described within the assessment and a landscape character plan will be produced.

2. Visual Appraisal:

36 Landscape Character Assessment (2005). Prepared for East Riding of Yorkshire Council by Carl Bro and Golder Associates.




This will identify important viewpoints from within the route corridor and towards the route corridor from potential sensitive receptors within the surrounding landscape, and will assess the existing visual character of the area. Field work will be carried out to identify the proposed study area for the route corridor and to identify viewpoint locations. These will be agreed with DMBC, SDC and ERYC.

The assessment of effects will be in two parts, in a similar fashion to the analysis of the baseline environment:

1. Landscape Effects:

The physical effects on the landscape are the direct effects from the Proposed Gas Pipeline on the route corridor and the way the land cover, landscape features and the landscape character of the route corridor are altered.

There may also be perceptual changes to the landscape within the route corridor, from the effects of the proposal on the landscape character. These effects will be determined through an assessment of the existing character of the landscape, and how this is likely to be altered by development proposals.

2. Visual Effects

The assessment of visual effects will be through the analysis of agreed viewpoints, selected to represent the range of views and viewer types from where the Proposed Route Corridor will be visible and the effects may be significant. The assessment will primarily focus upon the permanent Off-take structures.

It is proposed that the methodology for the assessment will follow the recommendations and guidance set out in the following reports:

• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd Edition, edited by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002)37; and

• Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, Countryside Agency in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage (2002).

The assessment will be carried out by a process of desk study and site surveys of the agreed study area. The objectives will be to establish effects on the landscape resource, to take a visual record from agreed viewpoints (primarily relating to the permanent Off-take structures), and to establish effects on the visual resource.

The assessment will determine the sensitivity of the landscape, that is, the measure of its capacity to accommodate change without loss of character, and the sensitivity of the agreed visual receptors. It will also describe the nature of the predicted effects on the landscape and visual receptors. The assessment will also describe the nature of the predicted effects on the landscape and visual resource, and determine the predicted magnitude of change. An informed judgement will then be made regarding the significance of the landscape and visual effects based on the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change.

37 A 3rd Edition of the Guidelines for landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is currently in draft and is due for publication on 1st July 2013.




8.8 Transport and Infrastructure Transport and infrastructure are only likely to be significantly disrupted during the construction phase with no impacts expected once the pipeline becomes operational.

The main transport and infrastructure receptors along the Proposed Route Corridor likely to be affected are:

• local road users; • local railway users; and • local residents.

8.8.1 Baseline Conditions Roads

The key strategic road transport routes within the region are:

• the east-west running M62 connecting the A1 and the A63; • the north-south running M18 linking the A1 to the M62; • the A614; • the A645; • the A18; and • the A19.

Of the aforementioned routes, those crossed by the Proposed Route Corridor are the M62 and A645, whilst the A19 is situated between 3 and 6 km west of the route.

Access to the Proposed Route Corridor will be via a combination of A-roads, B-roads and minor roads including Moss Road, Balne Moor Road, Gowdall Road and Hirst Road. The northern terminus of the Proposed Route Corridor is on the north east side of Lynwith Lane, which is a minor road.

The Proposed Route Corridor crosses predominantly agricultural land (with a flat profile), as a result the character of the minor roads ranges between rural and semi-rural, with intermittent residential development having direct frontage.

Railways

The Proposed Route Corridor crosses a twin-track railway between Camblesforth and Knottingley, approximately 1.5 km west of Carlton village, and between Hensall and Snaith, approximately 1 km west of Snaith. It also crosses a minor twin-track railway near its southern terminus at the Thorpe Marsh Power Station which passes inside the power station boundary.

It is envisaged that construction methods will comprise ‘micro tunnelling’ beneath railway crossings to minimise potential disturbance and meet Network rail requirements.

Infrastructure

The Proposed Route Corridor crosses under, or runs parallel to, a number of high voltage overhead power lines. There is a risk of Alternating Current (AC) corrosion from the overhead lines during operations. The magnitude of this corrosion depends upon the electric current passing through the cable, the cable arrangement, the proximity to the Proposed Route Corridor and the length of this parallelism.




8.8.2 Assessment Methodology Consideration will be given to generic potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with pipeline construction. An appropriate level of project-specific information, such as traffic generation, road crossings, and effects on access in the project area during the construction phase will be considered in the ES. During the detailed design phase the risk of AC corrosion from overhead power lines will also need to be assessed and mitigation measures applied as necessary.

Following planning approval, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be developed by the construction contractor in consultation with the Highways Authority. It is likely that this will include a survey of the proposed road crossing and the local road network to identify roads that are not suitable for use by heavy construction traffic.

Consultation with the Highways Agency, emergency services and bridge manufacturers will also be undertaken by the contractor to identify other constraints such as low bridges, weight restrictions and sensitive routes and to agree appropriate routings.

8.9 Socio-economics The Proposed Route Corridor crosses predominantly agricultural land and the likely socio-economic impacts will primarily stem from potential for employment and community disruption during the construction phase.

8.9.1 Baseline Conditions The following section provides an overview of the baseline socio-economic climate in the vicinity of the proposed route corridor (Metropolitan District of Doncaster, the District of Selby and the western extent of the East Riding of Yorkshire).

Population and Settlements

The most recent population census was undertaken in 2001. The Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster was recorded as having a population of 286,866; the District of Selby of 82,900 and East Riding of Yorkshire of 314,113.

The nearest large settlements to the proposed route corridor are Doncaster, approximately 7.2 km south, Bentley approximately 5.2 km south west and Hatfield approximately 5.7 km east of the proposed route corridor. There are also a number of smaller settlements in the vicinity of the proposed route corridor, including Barnby Dun, Toll Bar, Stainforth, Askern, Carlton and Snaith, all located within 5 km of the Proposed Route Corridor.

Education and Qualifications

In 2001, 11.8% of Doncaster’s population was qualified to degree level or equivalent; this was significantly lower than in the District of Selby and East Riding of Yorkshire where approximately 17.5% and 13% of the respective populations were qualified to the same level. In addition, approximately 38.1% of the population of Doncaster have no formal qualifications; this is significantly higher than those of the District of Selby (28.2%), East Riding of Yorkshire (29.2%) and the national average (28.9%)

Employment

In 2008, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough had 127,592 economically active residents, with an estimated unemployment rate of 7.2%. The census in 2001 indicated that 45% of the District of Selby’s residents were considered economically active, with an unemployment




rate of 3.55%, 1.6% lower than national average. Also in 2001, East Riding of Yorkshire had 152,376 economically active residents in 2001, with an unemployment rate of approximately 3.04%.

8.9.2 Assessment Methodology The socio-economic baseline assessment will include an outline of the current economic position in the area based on national government data sources. It will cover the local, district, and regional scales.

The socio-economic impact assessment will consider the impacts on employment, tourism and recreation, disturbance from noise, vibration and dust, disruption to traffic and rights of way, settlements, agriculture and the local economy. The study area will extend to cover the settlements in vicinity of the Proposed Route Corridor, the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster, the District of Selby and the western extent of the East Riding of Yorkshire. Larger-scale regional and national effects will not be considered as the scale of the project is not considered large enough to warrant such an assessment.

The socio-economic assessment will also review the relevant impacts identified in other chapters to assess their implications for socio-economics and summarise the findings.

8.10 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

An assessment of the possible cumulative effects of the Proposed Gas Pipeline in combination with other known projects which have been consented nearby will be undertaken. A key aspect of cumulative effect assessment is that it provides the opportunity for the project to be considered in terms of consented developments within the locality that have yet to be constructed and are therefore not yet part of the existing baseline, such as Thorpe Marsh Power Station. Details of the projects to be considered will be confirmed through discussions with the project team, DMBC, SDC and ERYC.




9 Proposed Environmental Issues to be Scoped Out As described in the foregoing sections, we propose that the following elements are scoped out and will therefore not be considered further in the EIA.

Recommendations and mitigation measures, which may form part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), will be included within the ES. This will include details of design measures and methodology for the implementation of standard hazard and risk management plans. The construction contractor will ultimately be responsibility for preparation of the final CEMP, and this will be prepared following planning consent, and therefore a CEMP will not be included within the ES.

In addition to these elements, and as described in the foregoing sections we consider the following activities should be scoped out due to the absence of significant effects. These are as follows:

• baseline noise monitoring, due to the distance between the Proposed Route Corridor and key receptors;

• baseline air quality measurements, due to the distance between the Proposed Route Corridor and key receptors;

• a full Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), due to the Proposed Gas Pipeline being located underground;

• Waste – due to preparation and implementation of Construction Waste Management Plan;

• It is understood that no night time working will be necessary and therefore an assessment of lighting impacts from 24 hour drilling operations will not be necessary; and

• Occupational Health impacts, such as arc light from welding operations, ionising radiation from x-ray of welds, organic vapour from pipe coating operations and bentonite drilling fluid.




10 Summary and Conclusion Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd. (TMPL) has obtained a development consent order to build and operate a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station on the former coal-fired Thorpe Marsh Power Station, which is located 1 km north of Barnby Dun, South Yorkshire, within the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC) area. The new facility is initially expected to have a generating capacity of 960 Megawatts (MW), with the potential for expansion to up to 1500 MW.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out for the proposed CCGT Power Station and the results of this process were documented in an Environmental Statement (ES). The ES accompanied an application for Section 36 consent to construct and operate the CGGT Power Station and this consent was approved by DECC in October 2011. In order to supply the proposed CCGT Power Station with a fuel gas supply, a new high pressure gas transmission pipeline is required, linking the proposed CCGT Power Station with the National Transmission System (NTS) near Camblesforth. This gas pipeline proposal will require an application for a development consent order. This process is managed by The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Proposed Gas Pipeline constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under Section 21 of The Planning Act 2008; and a Schedule 2 development under The Infrastructure Planning (EIA) regulations 2009 (as amended 2012) which means an EIA is not mandatory, but may be required if there is potential for significant environmental effects.

Aforementioned government guidance advises that EIA is likely to be required for any pipeline over 5 km in length. The Proposed Gas Pipeline route is in the order of 18 km long and therefore the Applicant has decided to proceed with an EIA. This report has been prepared as a formal request for a Scoping Opinion, under Regulation 8 of The Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2009 (as amended 2012).

Table 10.1 below sets out a summary of the proposed approach to the EIA for each of the technical chapters:

Table 10.1: Summary of approach to EIA

ES Topic Proposed Approach to Assessment

Agriculture and Soils Additional desk study will be carried out to determine the quality of agricultural land and, if deemed necessary supplemented by an ALC survey. Site visit to record agricultural enterprises along Proposed Route Corridor.

Geology and Ground Conditions

Additional desk based assessment including: • Examination of Ordnance survey maps; • Examination of published records and plans of geology and

hydrogeology; and • Search for environmental permits, records and pollution incidents.

Water Resources and Flood Risk

Additional desk based assessment including: • Review of data on surface and groundwater discharge/abstractions,

river quality and pollution incidents; • Review of chemical and biological river quality; and • Consultation with EA, DMBC, SDC and ERYC.




Ecology Additional species surveys within the Proposed Route Corridor, to include: Botanical surveys; Hedgerows surveys; Bat surveys; Badger survey; Otter survey; Water vole survey; Reptile surveys; and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Survey.

Archaeology Additional desk based assessment of historic environmental records and archaeological resources. Sources will include; archaeological archives, aerial photos and geology and soil surveys. Systematic walkover of selected parts of the Proposed Route Corridor.

Landscape and Visual Amenity

Landscape Appraisal; utilising guidance material following fieldwork. Visual Appraisal; identification of important viewpoints and sensitive receptors. Assessment of existing visual character of the area and associated fieldwork. This will include assessment of Landscape and Visual effects, primarily considering the permanent Off-take structures.

Socio-economics Additional desk based assessment to include: • Outline of the current economic position in the area (local,

district and regional scales); • Consideration of the impacts on employment, tourism and

recreation, disturbance from noise, vibration and dust, disruption to traffic and rights of way, settlements, agriculture and the local economy (within the Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster, the District of Selby and the western extent of the East Riding of Yorkshire); and

• Review of the relevant impacts identified in other chapters to assess their implications for socio-economics.




Figures

Site:

Client:

Project No.Issue:Date:Drawn By:

Scale:

Title:

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 1:200,000

Legend

Site Location

Figure 1Site Location Plan

Thorpe Marsh CCGTGas Pipelines

Thorpe MarshPower LimitedUK15-1791216th Sept 2012CD

Thorpe Marsh Power Station

Existing 48 inch High Pressure Gas Pipeline


Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Legend

Existing Pipelines


Proposed Route Option 1

Indicative DCO Boundary

Figure 2 Route Option 1and Power Station


Thorpe MarshPower LimitedUK15-17912122nd Oct 2012CD

Scale

Date

Site

Title

Key

Drawn by

Client

Project No.

Issue

1:2,000 @ A3

September 2012

UK15-17912


Figure 3: TypicalOfftake Above GroundInstallation (AGI)Layout Plan

KG/SC

Thorpe Marsh,Power Limited

A

N

Scale

Date

Site

Title

Key

Drawn by

Client

Project No.

Issue

1:2,000 @ A3

September 2012

UK15-17912


Figure 4: Typical GasReception Facility

KG/SC

Thorpe Marsh,Power Limited

A

N




H

IJ

K L

G

A

B

C

D

EF

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Legend

Existing Pipelines


Route 1


500m Buffer

Map Sections

Figure 5 Index MapPhase 1 Habitat Survey



SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS

||||||||||||||||

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map APhase 1 Habitat Survey



Note:Refer to report for full listof Habitat Codes

LegendPhase 1 Habitat Code

J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2

IS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS IS

B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6

A A A A AA A A A AA A A A A

J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

SI SI SISI SI SI

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map BPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

SI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SI

IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

SI SI SISI SI SI

SI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SI

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

|||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

| ||||||||

|||||||||||||

|||| |||||||||

|||||| ||

||| | |

| | ||||

| | ||||

|||||||| || ||||

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map CPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map DPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

SI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SI

IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

IS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS IS

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map EPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS

SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI

IS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS ISIS IS IS

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map FPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS ISIS IS

SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI

SI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SI

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map GPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

SI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SI

IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS

SI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SISI SI SI SI

SI SISI SI

A A AA A AA A A

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map HPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS IS IS ISIS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map IPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SISI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map JPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS IS IS ISIS IS IS ISIS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS

IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS


Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map KPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

IS IS IS ISIS IS IS ISIS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS

IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS

IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS ISIS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS


Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 5 Map LPhase 1 Habitat Survey





J2.1.2

J2.2.2

|||||||||||||||| J2.3.2

A1.1.1

A1.3.2


B2.2

SI SI SISI SI SI

B6


J1.2

Proposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer




H

IJ

K L

G

A

B

C

D

EF

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Legend

Existing Pipelines


Route 1


500m Buffer

Map Sections

Figure 6 Index MapBreeding Bird Survey



!(Y

!(R

!(R!(D

!(C

!(C !(S

!(G !(B!(C

!(L

!(B

!(S

!(S!(S

!(B

!(S

!(L !(S!(S

!(S

!(Y!(L

!(Y

!(C

!(L!(S!(L

!(L

!(WP

!(ST !(SL!(WR

!(CT!(CC !(WH

!(BT

!(BC

!(LT

!(GO

!(MG

!(SL

!(WR

!(LI

!(CB!(HS

!(SG

!(GR!(MG

!(WP

!(CB!(YW

!(CB

!(SL

!(YW

!(WH!(WP

!(YW

!(LI

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map ABreeding Bird Survey



Note:Refer to cover sheet forfull list of bird species

WP Bird Species

LegendProposed Route


250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(H

!(S

!(Y

!(C!(P

!(B !(D

!(B

!(Y

!(Y

!(Y

!(S

!(S

!(S

!(B

!(R!(Y

!(P

!(P!(Y

!(C

!(S

!(Y

!(C

!(SU!(TU

!(RO!(MP !(MA

!(BT!(MP!(WP!(GO !(MP

!(WP

!(LI!(GO

!(RB

!(MG!(WP

!(WH

!(MH

!(MA

!(CH

!(WR

!(CH

!(CH!(CU

!(BH

!(CU!(CH

!(WP!(GO!(GR

!(SL!(GO

!(WP

!(CC

!(WP

!(MG

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map BBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(R !(D

!(Y

!(M !(C!(Y!(S

!(Y

!(B

!(Y

!(R

!(K!(R

!(C

!(K!(B

!(R !(C

!(D!(Y !(Y

!(L!(R!(B

!(B

!(Y

!(S

!(B !(D

!(GO

!(WH!(BT!(WR!(CH!(BC

!(MA

!(SL!(BC !(WR

!(WR!(JD

!(WR !(GR

!(HM!(WR!(CH

!(GR

!(MG

!(CC!(CH

!(WR

!(SL

!(BC

!(WR

!(WR

!(CC!(MG!(WP!(SD

!(PH

!(WP!(CH!(WR

!(BT!(WP

!(SI

!(BC

!(WR

!(WP!(WR

!(CH !(GT!(WH

!(MG

!(WP !(WR !(TS !(WR!(LI

!(CH!(TS

!(MG

!(WP

!(SL

!(LI !(RB

!(MG!(WP

!(WH

!(MH!(CH

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map CBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(K

!(R!(B

!(Y!(B

!(R

!(C

!(B

!(K

!(D!(R

!(Y !(B

!(D

!(B!(B

!(Y

!(Y

!(S!(B!(S

!(R

!(C!(B

!(RB!(GO

!(CA

!(WH

!(RB

!(LI!(CC

!(BH

!(WR

!(CH

!(WP!(WR!(CC

!(CH

!(BC!(SL

!(WP

!(WH!(WW!(WP

!(BF!(ST

!(BT

!(WR

!(CH

!(SL

!(CH

!(GO

!(SL

!(TS !(WP!(SL

!(CH

!(MG

!(CH!(WP

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map DBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(S !(C

!(C

!(S

!(K

!(D

!(B!(R

!(S

!(K

!(D

!(R!(B

!(Y!(B

!(R

!(C

!(B

!(K

!(D!(R

!(Y !(B

!(MS

!(SD

!(BT!(RO

!(CA

!(SD

!(WR!(SL

!(WH!(WH

!(CH

!(BC

!(SM!(WP

!(TU

!(GO

!(PH!(MG !(CC

!(WR

!(LI

!(LG!(CO!(SL

!(WR

!(RB

!(WH

!(PH

!(CH

!(RB!(GO

!(HM!(CA

!(WH

!(RB

!(LI!(CC

!(BH

!(WR

!(CH

!(WP!(WR!(CC

!(CH

!(BC!(SL

!(WH!(WW!(WP

!(BF!(ST

!(BT

!(WR

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map EBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(S !(C!(H

!(C

!(S

!(K

!(S

!(S

!(D

!(B!(R

!(S

!(SL!(SI

!(CH!(WR

!(MS

!(SD!(CH

!(BT!(RO

!(CA

!(SD

!(WR!(SL

!(WH!(WH!(RB!(MS

!(CH

!(BC

!(SM!(WP

!(TU

!(GO

!(GO

!(PH!(MG !(CC

!(WR

!(LI

!(LG!(CO!(SL

!(WR

!(RB

!(WH

!(PH

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map FBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(S!(S

!(D!(L !(S

!(Y!(L

!(S

!(B

!(S

!(S

!(C

!(Y

!(R !(C

!(D!(B

!(D!(B

!(B

!(MA!(MP

!(SD!(PW

!(MP!(LI

!(MP!(LI

!(GT

!(BT !(WP

!(YW

!(SD!(WH!(WR

!(PH!(CC

!(RB

!(CH!(TS

!(PH!(SG

!(LI

!(WP

!(SL

!(SL!(BT

!(BC!(WR

!(BT !(WH

!(WR

!(MH!(GO!(CC!(PW

!(CH!(HS!(SG

!(SL!(SI

!(CH!(WR

!(GS

!(GO

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map GBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(B

!(C

!(D

!(Y!(B

!(S

!(S!(S

!(D!(L !(S

!(Y!(L

!(S

!(B

!(S

!(S

!(C

!(Y

!(R !(C

!(D!(B

!(D

!(LB

!(WR

!(SG!(GR!(SD!(SL!(GO

!(WR!(WP

!(WR

!(HM!(HS

!(MG!(ST!(CU

!(PH!(MG!(WP

!(WR!(PW!(CU

!(MA!(MP

!(SD!(PW

!(MP!(LI

!(MP!(LI

!(BT !(WP

!(YW

!(SD!(WH!(WR

!(PH!(CC

!(RB

!(CH!(TS!(LI

!(WP

!(SL

!(SL!(BT

!(GS

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map HBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(B

!(C

!(C

!(R!(R

!(B

!(S

!(D!(B

!(B !(C

!(B

!(S

!(Y!(D

!(S

!(C !(S

!(Y!(S

!(S!(C

!(B!(Y!(S

!(SL!(SD

!(WR!(BT!(LT

!(MH

!(WP

!(PH!(SG

!(JD

!(RO

!(GT

!(TS!(ST!(WP!(SD!(HS

!(WH

!(BT!(WR

!(BC!(CH

!(GO

!(WP!(GT!(SD!(CC

!(WR

!(CH !(BT

!(MG!(WP

!(MG

!(WP

!(CC!(CH!(GO!(JD !(ST

!(CD!(WP

!(WH

!(LI!(SG

!(WP

!(MA

!(WR

!(SG!(LI

!(JD

!(WR!(WP

!(WR

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map IBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(B

!(C

!(C

!(D!(B

!(B !(C

!(S

!(C !(S

!(Y!(S

!(S!(C

!(B!(Y!(S

!(Y

!(B

!(P

!(B

!(R

!(B

!(R

!(D!(B

!(R

!(B!(R

!(R

!(D

!(WP

!(BT!(WR

!(BC!(CH

!(GO

!(WP!(GT!(SD!(CC

!(WR

!(CH !(BT

!(MG!(WP

!(MG

!(WP

!(WP

!(MA

!(WR

!(SG!(LI

!(JD

!(WR!(WP

!(WR

!(CH

!(LI!(RB!(CC

!(PH

!(WP!(WR!(CH

!(WR!(MG!(GT

!(BF!(CC

!(WR

!(WH

!(WH

!(CH

!(WP

!(CC

!(WR

!(WH

!(BF!(CH!(GT!(LT

Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map JBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(D!(B

!(R

!(B!(R

!(S

!(R

!(D

!(R!(B

!(B

!(S

!(C!(S

!(S

!(D

!(C!(Y

!(B!(C

!(Y!(Y !(D

!(D

!(B!(Y

!(C!(S

!(B!(B

!(B !(B

!(B

!(B!(R

!(C!(K!(H

!(C

!(B

!(Y

!(WP

!(CC

!(WR

!(WH

!(BF!(CH!(GT!(LT

!(BC

!(WP!(SL!(RB !(WR !(GT

!(CH!(CH!(

WP!(SL

!(WP

!(CC!(BC!(CH!(CH!(WR!(CH

!(LB

!(GO

!(BH!(RB!(LB!(WH!(CH

!(SL

!(HS!(SL!(PW !(GT

!(PW

!(LI!(CC

!(GR

!(WP

!(WR!(SG!(BF !(SL!(CC

!(CD!(CD

!(BH

!(HM

!(PH!(ST

!(SL!(CA

!(RB

!(ST!(GO

!(PH

!(WP!(WP

!(RB

!(OC

!(CH


Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map KBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer

!(S

!(R

!(R!(B

!(S

!(S

!(D

!(C!(Y

!(B

!(B!(Y

!(C!(S

!(B!(B

!(B !(B

!(B

!(B!(R

!(C!(K!(H

!(C

!(B

!(Y

!(GT!(LT

!(WP!(SL!(RB !(WR !(GT

!(CH!(CH!(

WP!(SL

!(WP

!(CC!(BC!(CH!(CH!(WR

!(WH

!(BH!(RB!(LB!(CH

!(SL

!(HS!(SL!(PW !(GT

!(PW

!(LI!(CC

!(GR

!(WP

!(WR!(SG!(BF !(SL!(CC

!(CD!(CD

!(BH

!(HM

!(PH!(ST

!(SL!(CA

!(RB

!(ST!(GO

!(PH

!(WP!(WP

!(RB

!(OC

!(CH


Site:

Client:


Scale:

Title:


Figure 6 Map LBreeding Bird Survey




WP Bird Species



250m Buffer

500m Buffer




Annex A: Structure of the Environmental Statement

PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

The Environmental Statement (ES) will comprise three main documents as follows:

Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary – this document will summarise the main elements of the Proposed Development and the significant environmental impacts identified in the EIA;

Volume 2: Main Text – this document will detail the main findings of the EIA and is likely to adopt the following structure:

• Preface

• Chapter 1: Introduction

• Chapter 2: EIA Process and Methodology

• Chapter 3: Project Need, Alternatives and Route Selection

• Chapter 4: Planning and Policy Context

• Chapter 5: Project Description

• Chapter 6: Construction and Operation

• Chapter 7: Safety and Environmental Management

• Chapter 8: Agriculture and Soils

• Chapter 9: Geology and Ground Conditions

• Chapter 10: Water Resources and Flood Risk

• Chapter 11: Ecology

• Chapter 12: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

• Chapter 13: Emissions

• Chapter 14: Landscape and Visual

• Chapter 15: Traffic and Transport

• Chapter 16: Socio Economics

• Chapter 17: Indirect, Secondary and Cumulative Effects

Volume 3: Figures – this will include all supporting graphics to the above ES Chapters.




Annex B: Breeding Bird Species

BREEDING BIRD SPECIES

Common Name Latin Name Species Code

Mute Swan Cygnus olor MS Shelduck Tadorna tadorna SU Teal Anas crecca T. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos MA Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula TU Red-legged Partridge Alectoris rufa RL Grey Partridge Perdix perdix P. Pheasant Phasianus colchicus PH Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis LG Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo CA Grey Heron Ardea cinerea H. Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus MR Kestrel Falco tinnunculus K. Moorhen Gallinula chloropus MH Coot Fulica atra CO Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus OC Lapwing Vanellus vanellus L. Curlew Numenius arquata CU Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus BH Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus LB Stock Dove Columba oenas SD Woodpigeon Columba palumbus WP Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto CD Swift Apus apus SI Green Woodpecker Picus viridis G. Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major GS Skylark Alauda arvensis S. Sand Martin Riparia riparia SM Swallow Hirundo rustica SL House Martin Delichon urbicum HM Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis MP Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava YW Pied/White Wagtail Motacilla alba PW Wren Troglodytes troglodytes WR Dunnock Prunella modularis D. Robin Erithacus rubecula R. Blackbird Turdus merula B. Song Thrush Turdus philomelos ST Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus M.

Common Name Latin Name Species Code

Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus SW Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla BC Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca LW Whitethroat Sylvia communis WH Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita CC Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus WW Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus LT Coal Tit Periparus ater CT Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus BT Great Tit Parus major GT Magpie Pica pica MG Jackdaw Corvus monedula JD Rook Corvus frugilegus RO Carrion Crow Corvus corone C. Starling Sturnus vulgaris SG House Sparrow Passer domesticus HS Tree Sparrow Passer montanus TS Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs CH Greenfinch Carduelis chloris GR Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis GO Linnet Carduelis cannabina LI Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula BF Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Y. Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus RB Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra CB

Documents

Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline EIA Scoping Report · 2016-05-17 · Thorpe Marsh Power Limited EIA Scoping Report Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline UK15-17912_Scoping Issue: 5 ENVIRON Contents