Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility 

Volume 1A: Environmental Statement 

Regulation 5(2)a 

November 2011

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 

2212959 

Firecrest Court 

Centre Park 

Warrington WA1 1RG 

United Kingdom 

Tel: +44 (0)1925 800 700 

Fax: +44 (0)1925 572 462 

www.hyderconsulting.com 

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility 

Volume 1A: Environmental Statement 

Author 

David Hoare 

Checker 

Nicola Macmillan 

Approver 

Andrew Saunders 

Report No 

0015-WX40004-NHR-01 

Date November 2011 

This report has been prepared for Halite Energy Group in 

accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for 

Environmental Services dated March 2010. Hyder 

Consulting (UK) Limited (2212959) cannot accept any 

responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of 

this report by any third party.

CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Context ..................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 The Applicant ........................................................................................... 1 

1.3 The Project ............................................................................................... 1 

1.4 Location of the Project ............................................................................. 2 

1.5 Requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment ......................... 5 

1.6 The IPC Process and DCO Application .................................................... 7 

1.7 Inspecting or Purchasing the ES .............................................................. 10 

1.8 Project Team ............................................................................................ 11 

1.9 Structure of the Environmental Statement ............................................... 12 

1.10 Other Required Consents ........................................................................ 15 

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................... 17 

3 CONSTRUCTION, SITE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING ................ 31 

4 DESIGN ITERATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................ 37 

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .......................... 43 

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 43 

5.2 Aims of the EIA ........................................................................................ 43 

5.3 The EIA Process ...................................................................................... 43 

5.4 Screening and Scoping Consultation ....................................................... 44 

5.5 Post Screening / Scoping Consultation .................................................... 45 

5.6 Environmental Topics Considered in the EIA ........................................... 47 

5.7 Study Area ............................................................................................... 48 

5.8 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................. 48 

5.9 Duration and Frequency of Effects ........................................................... 49 

5.10 Assessment of Effects .............................................................................. 49 

5.11 Significance Criteria ................................................................................. 50 

5.12 Embedded Design Measures and Mitigation / Enhancement 

Measures ................................................................................................. 53 

5.13 Residual Effects ....................................................................................... 64 

5.14 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... 64 

5.15 Decommissioning ..................................................................................... 65 

5.16 Assessment Scenarios ............................................................................. 65 

i

6 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................... 67 

6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 67 

6.2 Regulatory / Planning Policy Framework ................................................. 67 

6.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 71 

6.4 Existing Baseline Information ................................................................... 86 

6.5 Future Baseline Information ..................................................................... 91 

6.6 Receptors Potentially Affected ................................................................. 93 

6.7 Potential Effects ....................................................................................... 93 

6.8 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ................................................... 116 


6.10 Difficulties Encountered in Compiling the ES ........................................... 125 

6.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 126 

6.12 References ............................................................................................... 126 

7 ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE ........................................................... 129 

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 129 


7.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 133 








7.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 184 

7.12 References ............................................................................................... 184 

8 CLIMATIC FACTORS ........................................................................................... 187 

8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 187 


8.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 188 








8.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 204 

8.12 References ............................................................................................... 204 

9 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION ...................................................... 207 

9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 207 


9.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 208 



ii






9.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 331 

9.12 References ............................................................................................... 332 

10 GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND STABILITY ................................................ 335 

10.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 335 


10.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 339 








10.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 374 

10.12 References ............................................................................................... 375 

11 LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS................................................................ 377 

11.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 377 


11.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 382 








11.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 429 

11.12 References ............................................................................................... 430 

12 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................................... 433 

12.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 433 


12.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 436 








12.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 509 

iii

12.12 References ............................................................................................... 514 

13 SAFETY ................................................................................................................ 517 

13.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 517 


13.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 520 








13.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 553 

13.12 References ............................................................................................... 556 

14 SEASCAPE, LANDSCAPE, TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY ................... 557 

14.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 557 


14.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 558 







14.10 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... 625 


14.12 Summary .................................................................................................. 630 

14.13 References ............................................................................................... 639 

15 SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................. 641 

15.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 641 


15.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 642 








15.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 669 

15.12 References ............................................................................................... 671 

16 TRANSPORT AND ACCESS ............................................................................... 673 

16.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 673 


16.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 673 

iv








16.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 712 

16.12 References ............................................................................................... 712 

17 WATER ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 715 

17.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 715 


17.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 717 








17.11 Summary .................................................................................................. 752 

17.12 References ............................................................................................... 753 

18 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..................................................................................... 755 

18.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 755 

18.2 Legislation and Guidance ......................................................................... 755 

18.3 Methodology............................................................................................. 756 

18.4 Assessment of Cumulative Effects ........................................................... 757 


18.6 Summary .................................................................................................. 782 

18.7 References ............................................................................................... 783 

v

Tables 

Table 1-1 

The Requirements of Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations and Details of their 

Location within this Environmental Statement 6 

Table 1-2 Regulation 5(2) Requirements Relevant to the Environmental Statement 8 

Table 1-3 Structure of the Environmental Statement 12 

Table 4-1 Alternatives Considered within the Project Design 37 

Table 4-2 Other Means of Gas Storage 41 

Table 4-3 Other Salt Bed Locations 42 

Table 5-1 Environmental Value (or Sensitivity) and Typical Descriptors 50 

Table 5-2 Magnitude of Change and Typical Descriptors 51 

Table 5-3 Arriving at the Significance of Effect Category 51 

Table 5-4 Descriptors of the Significance of Effect Categories 52 

Table 5-5 Embedded Design Considered to be Part of the Project 53 

Table 5-6 A Good Practice Example of an EMP Structure 63 

Table 6-1 Air Quality Assessment - Air Quality Limit Values 68 

Table 6-2 Air Quality Assessment - Critical Level for the Protection of Vegetation 68 

Table 6-3 Air Quality Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 73 

Table 6-4 Air Quality Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 73 

Table 6-5 Air Quality Assessment - Sensitivity of Receptor 75 

Table 6-6 Air Quality Assessment - Magnitude of Impact 76 

Table 6-7 Air Quality Assessment - Significance of Effect 76 

Table 6-8 

Table 6-9 

Air Quality Assessment - Construction Site Dust – Criteria for Determining Value of 

Potential Receptors 78 

Air Quality Assessment - Construction Site Dust – Criteria for Determining Magnitude of 

Change 79 

Table 6-10 Air Quality Assessment - Traffic Exhaust Emissions - Receptor Sensitivity 81 

Table 6-11 Air Quality Assessment - Traffic Exhaust Emissions - Magnitude of Impact 82 

Table 6-12 Air Quality Assessment - Atmospheric Emissions - Receptor Sensitivity 84 

Table 6-13 Air Quality Assessment - Atmospheric Emissions - Magnitude of Impact 86 

Table 6-14 Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Air Quality Background Concentrations for 2011 88 

vi

Table 6-15 Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Background N Deposition Rates 89 

Table 6-16 Air Quality Assessment – Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emission Receptors 89 

Table 6-17 Air Quality Assessment – Evaluation of Vehicle Emission Receptors 90 

Table 6-18 Air Quality Assessment – Evaluation of Atmospheric Emission Receptors 91 

Table 6-19 Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Air Quality Background Concentrations 92 

Table 6-20 Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Background N Deposition Rates 92 

Table 6-21 Air Quality Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 93 

Table 6-22 

Table 6-23 

Air Quality Assessment – Fugitive Dust Emissions - Magnitude of Change Evaluation of 

Fugitive Dust Emissions 94 

Air Quality Assessment – Fugitive Dust Emissions – Significance of Impact of Fugitive Dust 

Emissions 95 

Table 6-24 Air Quality Assessment – Predicted Changes in NO 2 Concentrations 97 

Table 6-25 

Air Quality Assessment – Predicted Changes in NO x Concentration and N Deposition Rate 

at Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI 98 

Table 6-26 Air Quality Assessment – Predicted Changes in PM 10 Concentrations 98 

Table 6-27 Air Quality Assessment – Magnitude of Changes in NO 2 and PM 10 Concentrations 99 

Table 6-28 Air Quality Assessment – Significance of Changes in NO 2 and PM 10 Concentrations 100 


Table 6-30 






Table 6-34 Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Residential Receptors 104 

Table 6-35 

Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Statutory Designated Site for 

Nature Conservation Receptor 106 

Table 6-36 Air Quality Assessment – Magnitude of Changes in NO 2 and CO, PM 10 and SO 2 

Concentrations/Number of Days 106 

Table 6-37 Air Quality Assessment – Significance of Impact of Changes in NO 2 and CO, PM 10 and SO 2 

Concentrations/Number of Days 107 

Table 6-38 

Air Quality Assessment – Combined Predicted Changes in PM 10 and NO 2 Concentrations 

108 

vii


Table 6-40 






Table 6-44 Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Residential Receptors – 

Operation Phase 112 

Table 6-45 

Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Statutory Designated Site for 

Nature Conservation Receptor – Operation Phase 113 

Table 6-46 Air Quality Assessment – Magnitude of Changes in NO 2 , CO, PM 10 and SO 2 

Concentrations for the Operation Phase 113 

Table 6-47 Air Quality Assessment – Significance of Impact of Changes in NO 2 , CO, PM 10 and SO 2 

Concentrations 114 

Table 6-48 

Table 6-49 

Table 6-50 

Table 6-51 

Air Quality Assessment – Combined Predicted Changes in PM 10 and NO 2 Concentrations 

115 

Air Quality Assessment - Suggested Mitigation Measures for the Construction Phase, 

Derived from The Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities guidance 

(BRE, 2003) 117 

Air Quality Assessment - Suggested Mitigation Measures for Demolition Activities The 

Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities guidance (BRE, 2003) 122 

Air Quality Assessment – Fugitive Dust Emissions – Significance of Residual Impact of 

Fugitive Dust Emissions 123 

Table 7-1 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 135 

Table 7-2 

Table 7-3 

Table 7-4 

Table 7-5 

Table 7-6 

Table 7-7 

Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Criteria for Determining Value of 

Archaeological Remains 137 

Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Criteria for Determining Value of Historic 

Buildings 138 

Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Criteria for Determining Value of the Historic 

Landscape 139 

Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of 

Change on Archaeological Remains 139 


Change on Historic Buildings 140 


Change on the Historic Landscape 140 

viii

Table 7-8 

Archaeology, Built Heritage and Historic Landscape Assessment - Criteria for Determining 

Significance of Effects 141 

Table 7-9 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 156 

Table 7-10 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 159 

Table 8-1 Climatic Factors Assessment - Scope 1, 2 and 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 190 

Table 8-2 

Climatic Factors Assessment - UK Climate Projections for the Project Area – Baseline and 

2050 194 

Table 8-3 Climatic Factors Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 195 

Table 8-4 

Table 8-5 

Climatic Factors Assessment - Potential Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions during the 

Construction Phase 196 

Climatic Factors Assessment - Potential Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions during the 

Operational Phase 197 

Table 8-6 Climatic Factors Assessment - Likely Significant Effects 197 

Table 8-7 

Table 8-8 

Table 8-9 

Table 9-1 

Table 9-2 

Climatic Factors Assessment - IEMA Hierarchy for Managing Project Related Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions 200 

Climatic Factors Assessment - Possible Climate Change Mitigation / Adaptation Measures 

for the Construction Phase 200 

Climatic Factors Assessment - Possible Climate Change Mitigation / Adaptation Measures 

for the Operational Phase 202 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Variability in the Flow Rates and Salinity 

of Washing Water from up to Seven Caverns 217 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Approximate Area of Hypersaline Plume 

under Different Flow Conditions 218 

Table 9-3 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Summary of Detailed Surveys 225 

Table 9-4 

Table 9-5 

Table 9-6 

Table 9-7 

Table 9-8 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Biological Heritage Sites within 1km of 

the Application Boundary 242 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Important Wintering Bird Species 

(excluding Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar species) Recorded within and adjacent to the 

Application Boundary 252 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Summary of ‘Key’ Ecological Receptors 

259 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Summary of ‘Other’ Ecological Receptors 

Scoped out of the Detailed Assessment, but Requiring Mitigation 265 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Summary of ‘Other’ Ecological Receptors 

Scoped out of the Detailed Assessment not Requiring Mitigation 272 

ix

Table 9-9 

Table 9-10 

Table 9-11 

Table 9-12 

Table 10-1 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Proposed Injury Criteria for Individual 

Marine Mammals 304 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Number of High-Frequency Cetaceans 

(Individuals and/or Groups) Reported as having Behavioural Responses to Nonpulse 

Sounds 305 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Number of Pinnipeds in Water (Individuals 

and/or Groups) Reported as having Behavioural Responses to Nonpulse Sounds 305 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Summary of Residual Effects on Key 

Ecological Receptors 328 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Summary of Relevant 

Regulatory/Planning Policy 336 

Table 10-2 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 340 

Table 10-3 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 340 

Table 10-4 

Table 10-5 

Table 10-6 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Criteria for Determining Value of 

Potential Receptors 350 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of 

Change 351 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Criteria for Determining Significance of 

Effects 352 

Table 10-7 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment – Environmentally Protected Areas 353 

Table 10-8 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Detail of Existing Surface Subsidence 

Features 358 

Table 10-9 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Groundwater Abstractions 360 

Table 10-10 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 361 

Table 10-11 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 365 

Table 11-1 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment – Sources of Baseline Information 383 

Table 11-2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 386 

Table 11-3 Criteria for Determining Value of Agricultural Land 390 

Table 11-4 Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Change on Agricultural Land 390 

Table 11-5 Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects on Agricultural Land 391 

Table 11-6 

Table 11-7 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mid-Year Population Estimates for Wyre 

Borough (2001 – 2009) 393 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Resident Population by Age Group (mid 

2009) 393 

x

Table 11-8 

Table 11-9 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Employment and Unemployment in Wyre 

Borough for the Period April 2009 to March 2010 394 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Employment by Occupation in Wyre Borough 

for the Period April 2009 – March 2010 394 

Table 11-10 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Employee Jobs for Wyre Borough for 2008 

(Source: ONS Annual Population Survey) 395 

Table 11-11 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Earnings by Residence for Wyre Borough for 

2009 396 

Table 11-12 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Proportion of the Population Aged 16-64 

Qualified to Educational Levels 2, 3 and 4 for Wyre Borough 396 

Table 11-13 

Table 11-14 

Table 11-15 

Table 11-16 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Landfill Sites within 500 m of the application 

boundary 400 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Waste Transfer Sites within the Study Area 

403 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Average fish landings of key species (for the 

period 2007-2010) from ICES rectangle 36E6 to all ports per year 405 

Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Average fish landings of key species (for the 

period 2007-2010) from ICES rectangle 36E6 to Fleetwood Per year 406 

Table 11-17 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Evaluation of Receptors 409 

Table 11-18 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 410 

Table 12-1 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Design Range for Acceptable Indoor Noise Levels (BS 

8233) 438 

Table 12-2 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations 440 

Table 12-3 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Post-Scoping Consultation 442 

Table 12-4 

Table 12-5 

Noise and Vibration Assessment – Threshold of Significant Effect at Dwellings from 

Construction Noise 443 

Noise and Vibration Assessment – Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Change 

445 

Table 12-6 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Guidance on Effects of Vibration Levels 445 

Table 12-7 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Classification of Magnitude of Change in Traffic-Induced 

Noise Levels during Operation 446 

Table 12-8 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Long-term Baseline Noise Survey Data 447 

Table 12-9 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Short-term Baseline Noise Survey Data 449 

Table 12-10 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Noise Survey Data for the Heads and Arm Hill 449 

Table 12-11 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 450 

xi

Table 12-12 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 451 

Table 12-13 

Table 12-14 

Table 12-15 

Table 12-16 

Table 12-17 

Table 12-18 

Table 12-19 

Table 12-20 

Table 12-21 

Table 12-22 

Table 12-23 

Table 12-24 

Table 12-25 

Table 12-26 

Table 12-27 

Table 12-28 

Table 12-29 

Table 12-30 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - List of Plant to be used during Construction and 

Associated Noise Levels at 10 m 455 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Unmitigated Noise Levels during the 

Construction of the Brine Pipeline and Diffuser off Rossall Promenade 459 


Construction of the Seawall 460 


construction of the Brine Discharge Pipeline from the Seawall to the Seawater Pumping 

Station 462 


Construction of Jameson Road Bridge 464 


Construction of the North Wyre Crossing 466 


Construction of the Electrical Infrastructure 468 


Construction of the South Wyre Crossing 468 


Construction of the Seawater Pumping Station 470 


Construction of the Booster Pump Station 472 


Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound 475 


Construction of the Security and Support Facility at Higher Lickow Farm 476 


Construction of the Access Road and Haul Road 477 


Construction of the Wellhead Compounds 479 


Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 481 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Unmitigated Noise Levels at Selected 

Receptors during the Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 482 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Cumulative Unmitigated Noise Levels during the 

Construction Phase at Selected Receptors 483 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Cote Walls Farm during the 

Construction and Operation Combined Phase 487 

xii

Table 12-31 

Table 12-32 

Table 12-33 

Table 12-34 

Table 12-35 

Table 12-36 

Table 12-37 

Table 12-38 

Table 12-39 

Table 12-40 

Table 12-41 

Table 12-42 

Table 12-43 

Table 12-44 

Table 12-45 

Table 12-46 

Table 12-47 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Ivy Cottages during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Park Farm / Park Cottage 

during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 489 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Corcas Farm during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Riverside Cottage and 

Sportsman’s Cottage and Caravan Park during the Construction and Operation Combined 

Phase 491 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Height o’ th’ Hill and Little 

Height o’ th’ Hill during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 492 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at The Grange during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Cote Walls Farm during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Ivy Cottages during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Park Farm / Park Cottage 

during the Operational Phase 496 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Corcas Farm during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at The Grange during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Height o’ th’ Hill and Little 

Height o’ th’ Hill during the Operational Phase 499 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Riverside Cottage and 

Sportsman Cottage and Caravan Park during the Operational Phase 500 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at the Harbour Village 

Residential Development at the Fish Dock during the Operational Phase 501 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Rossall Hospital during the 


Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Other Sensitive Residential 

Receptors during the Operational Phase 503 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Summary of Significant Noise Impacts With and Without 

Mitigation 504 

Table 12-48 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Summary of Residual Effects 510 

Table 13-1 Safety Assessment - Identified Sources of a Gas Release 521 

xiii

Table 13-2 Safety Assessment - Identified Pathways for Released Gas 522 

Table 13-3 Safety Assessment - Identified Receptors 522 

Table 13-4 Safety Assessment - Weather Conditions used for Consequence Modelling 524 

Table 13-5 Safety Assessment - Thermal Radiation Criteria 524 

Table 13-6 Safety Assessment - Overpressure Criteria for VCEs 525 

Table 13-7 Safety Assessment - Modelling Assumptions used for the Consequence Analysis 525 

Table 13-8 Safety Assessment - Pipeline Failure Rate Data 526 

Table 13-9 Safety Assessment - Ignition Probabilities 526 

Table 13-10 Safety Assessment - Onsite Pipeline Standards 528 

Table 13-11 Safety Assessment - Pipeline Standards 528 

Table 13-12 Safety Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 529 

Table 13-13 Safety Assessment - Decision Matrix used for Land Use Planning Developments 535 

Table 13-14 Safety Assessment - Major Hazard Scenarios at the Project as Identified in the HAZOP 538 

Table 13-15 

Safety Assessment - External Events with the Potential to Initiate Hazards at the Project 

539 

Table 13-16 Safety Assessment - Frequency of Jet Fires 541 

Table 13-17 Safety Assessment - Frequency of Flash Fires 544 

Table 13-18 Safety Assessment - Total Risk of Fatality for a Person in a Specified Location 551 

Table 13-19 Safety Assessment - Risk of Fatality Associated with Various Causes 552 

Table 14-1 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment - Post-Scoping 

Consultation 560 

Table 14-2 Seascape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining Sensitivity 564 

Table 14-3 Seascape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Change 565 

Table 14-4 Seascape Character Assessment – Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects 566 

Table 14-5 Seascape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Sensitivity 566 

Table 14-6 Seascape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Change 567 

Table 14-7 Seascape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects 569 

Table 14-8 

Table 14-9 

Landscape / Townscape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining Sensitivity and 

Capacity 569 

Landscape / Townscape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of 

Change 570 

xiv

Table 14-10 

Landscape / Townscape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining Significance of 

Effects 571 

Table 14-11 Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Sensitivity 572 

Table 14-12 

Table 14-13 

Table 14-14 

Table 14-15 

Table 14-16 

Table 14-17 

Table 14-18 

Table 14-19 

Table 14-20 

Table 14-21 

Table 14-22 

Table 14-23 

Table 14-24 

Table 14-25 

Table 14-26 

Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of 

Change 572 

Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment – Criteria for Determining Significance of 

Effects 574 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment - Existing Baseline 

Information 575 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment – Evaluation of 

Receptors 577 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity – Character Areas and Visual 

Receptors Potentially Affected 581 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment - Summary of 

Potential Effects during the Construction Phase 595 


Potential Effects during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 612 


Potential Effects during the Operational Phase 616 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment - Schedule of 

Mitigation Measures during the Operational Phase 621 

Schedule of Enhancement Measures during the Operational Phase (For information only) 

622 


Residual Effects during the Operational Phase 625 


Potential Construction Cumulative Effects. 626 


Potential Operation Cumulative Effects. 629 


Significant Residual Effects 630 


Significant Cumulative Effects 636 

Table 15-1 Sustainability Assessment - ‘Hyder Heartbeat’ Weighting System 643 

Table 15-2 Sustainability Assessment - Sustainability Themes and the Project 646 

Table 15-3 Sustainability Assessment - Potential Effects 652 

xv

Table 15-4 Sustainability Assessment - Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 663 

Table 15-5 

Table 16-1 

Sustainability Assessment - Residual Effects on the Hyder Heartbeat Sustainability 

Themes 667 

Transport and Access Assessment - Description of Works at Preesall, Fleetwood and 

Preesall to Nateby 674 

Table 16-2 Transport and Access Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 677 

Table 16-3 Transport and Access Assessment - Traffic Counter Locations 680 

Table 16-4 Transport and Access Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 682 

Table 16-5 Transport and Access Assessment - Receptor Sensitivity 683 

Table 16-6 Transport and Access Assessment – Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects 684 

Table 16-7 Base Year (2011) Total Two-Way Traffic Flows 686 

Table 16-8 Transport and Access Assessment – Sensitivity of Receptors 687 

Table 16-9 

Transport and Access Assessment - Construction Year (2014) Total Two-Way Traffic 

Flows (without Project) – Preesall 690 

Table 16-10 Transport and Access Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 691 

Table 16-11 

Table 16-12 

Transport and Access Assessment - Summary of Annual HGV Generations – Preesall and 

Fleetwood 693 

Transport and Access Assessment - Summary of Construction Staff at Preesall and 

Fleetwood During the Construction Period 696 

Table 16-13 Transport and Access Assessment - Forecast Construction Staff Travel Mode Splits 698 

Table 16-14 

Table 16-15 

Transport and Access Assessment - Summary of Daily Traffic Movements (Preesall and 

Fleetwood) 699 

Transport and Access Assessment - Percentage Increase in Construction Traffic on the 

Local Highway Network 702 

Table 16-16 Transport and Access Assessment - Impacts at Assessed Locations 703 

Table 16-17 Transport and Access Assessment - HGV Trips Associated with Pipe Deliveries 706 

Table 16-18 HGV Trips Associated with the Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 707 

Table 17-1 Water Environment Assessment – Regulatory / Planning Policy 715 

Table 17-2 Water Environment Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 718 

Table 17-3 Water Environment Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 718 

Table 17-4 Water Environment Assessment - Criteria for Determining Value of Potential Receptors 724 

Table 17-5 Water Environment Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Change 724 

xvi

Table 17-6 Water Environment Assessment - Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects 725 

Table 17-7 Water Environment Assessment - Qualifying Conditions for Overall Assessment Scores 725 

Table 17-8 Water Environment Assessment - Irish Sea Archived Survey Data 727 

Table 17-9 Water Environment Assessment - Abstractions from the Wyre Estuary 729 

Table 17-10 Water Environment Assessment - Predicted Coastal Flood Water Levels 731 

Table 17-11 Water Environment Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 733 

Table 17-12 Water Environment Assessment - Predicted Rise in Sea Level 733 

Table 17-13 Water Environment Assessment - Predicted Sea Level 734 

Table 17-14 Water Environment Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 735 

Table 18-1 Developments Scoped Out of the Cumulative Effects Assessment 760 

Table 18-2 Developments Considered within the Cumulative Effects Assessment 778 

xvii

xviii

APPENDICES 

Volume 1B: Environmental Statement Technical Appendices 

Technical appendices comprising background data, tables, figures and surveys 

which relate to the assessment chapters 

Binder 1 

Appendix 1.1 

Appendix 2.1 

Appendix 2.2 

Appendix 3.1 

Appendix 3.2 

Appendix 5.1 

Appendix 5.2 

Appendix 5.3 

Appendix 5.4 

Appendix 5.5 

Appendix 6.1 

Appendix 7.1 

Appendix 7.2 

Appendix 7.3 

Binder 2 

Appendix 7.4 

Appendix 7.5 

Appendix 9.1 

Appendix 9.2 

Appendix 9.3 

Appendix 9.4 

Appendix 9.5 

Appendix 9.6 

Appendix 9.7 

Appendix 9.8 

EIA Scoping Report 

Environment Agency Consent to Discharge 

Marine Dispersion Modelling Report 

Site Waste Management Plan 

Schedule of Consents 

Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental 

Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2009 

Regulation 6(1)(b) Notification 

IPC Scoping Opinion 

Late Scoping Consultation Responses 

Scoping Consultation Response Summary Table 

Air Quality Modelling Inputs 

Archaeological and Built Heritage Desk-based Assessment 

Geophysical Survey of Proposed Brine Outfall Pipe, 

Fleetwood, Report 

Proposed Brine Outfall Pipe, Fleetwood, Marine 

Archaeological Assessment Final Technical Report 

Geophysical Survey Interim Report 

Archaeological and Built Heritage Post-Scoping Consultation 

Responses 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Regulatory / Planning 

Policy Framework 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Post-Scoping 

Consultation Responses 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Baseline Information 

Requests 

Marine Ecology Baseline Report 

Phase 1 Habitat Surveys 

Arable Weed Surveys 

Rock Sea-Lavender Surveys 

Water Vole and Ditch Surveys 

xix

Appendix 9.9 

Appendix 9.10 

Binder 3 

Appendix 9.11 

Appendix 9.12 

Appendix 9.13 

Appendix 9.14 

Appendix 9.15 

Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Surveys 

Terrestrial Invertebrate Surveys 

Great Crested Newt Surveys 

Breeding and Wintering Bird Surveys 

Barn Owl Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) (Binder 

4 –see below) 

Bat Surveys 

Brown Hare Surveys 

Appendix 9.16 Badger Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) (Binder 4 

–see below) 

Appendix 9.17 

Appendix 9.18 

Appendix 9.19 

Appendix 10.1 

Appendix 11.1 

Appendix 12.1 

Appendix 12.2 

Appendix 12.3 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Statutory Designated Site 

Citations 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Non-Statutory Designated 

Site Citations 

Natural England Consultation – Mitigation Licences 

RIGS Citation 

Note of Meetings with Commercial Fishing Interests 

Operational Noise Calculations and Results 

Operational Vibration Impacts 

Traffic Noise (CRTN) Calculations and Predictions 

Appendix 14.1 Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity – 

Regulatory and Planning Policy Framework 


Evaluation of Receptors 


Existing Baseline Information 


Potential Effects 


Residual Effects 


Summary 

Appendix 14.7 

Appendix 14.8 

Appendix 14.9 

Lancashire and Amounderness Plain National Character Area 

32 

North West Strategy 2009 Regional Character Areas and 

Types 

Landscape Heritage Adopted SPG, Map 2 Landscape 

Character Types 

xx

Appendix 

14.10 

Appendix 

14.11 

Appendix 16.1 

Appendix 16.2 

Appendix 17.1 

Binder 4 

Appendix 9.13 

Appendix 9.16 

Lancashire Tranquillity Map 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

Transport Assessment 

Construction Worker Travel Plan 

Flood Risk Assessment 

Barn Owl Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) 

Badger Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) 

xxi

xxii

FIGURES 

Volume 2A: Environmental Statement Supporting Figures – Project 

Information 

Figure 

Number 

Figure 1.1 

Figure 1.2 

Figure 1.3 

Title 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Regional Location Map 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Aerial View of Proposed Preesall Development 

Area 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Application Boundary Master Plan (Sheet 1 of 

10) 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Application Boundary (Sheets 2 to 10) 

Figure 1.4 Masterplan (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 1.5 

Figure 1.6 

Figure 1.7 

Figure 1.8 

Figure 1.9 

Figure 1.10 

Figure 1.11 

Figure 1.12 

Figure 1.13 

Figure 1.14 

Figure 1.15 

Figure 1.16 

Figure 1.17 

Figure 1.18 

Figure 1.19 

Figure 1.20 

Figure 1.21 

Figure 1.22 

Figure 1.23 

Figure 1.24 

Figure 1.25 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Master Plan Overall 

Location of Outfall OS Map 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Fleetwood Master Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Preesall Master Plan 

Process Diagram 

Concrete Diffuser 

Outfall Profile 

Outfall Trench Indicative Detail 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Seawall Crossing Site Location Plan 

Proposed Seawall Crossing To Brine Outfall Pipe – Proposed R.C 

Shelter and Flood Gate Arrangement 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Photomontage of Proposed Sea Wall Crossing 

– Rossall 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Seawater Pump Station Site Location Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Seawater Pump Station Site Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Seawater Pump Station Ground Floor Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Seawater Pump Station Elevations, Cross 

Section & Location Plan 

Profile of Wyre Estuary Crossing 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Booster Pump Station and Control Centre 

Location Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Booster Pump Station Site & Location Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Booster Pump Station Ground Floor Plan & 

Section 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Booster Pump Station Elevations 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Wellhead Location Plan 

xxiii


Information 

Figure 

Number 

Figure 1.26 

Figure 1.27 

Figure 1.28 

Figure 1.29 

Figure 1.30 

Figure 1.31 

Figure 1.32 

Figure 1.33 

Title 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Wellhead Compound No.1 Plan & Section 







Regulation 5(2)(o) Indicative Cavern Reach from Wellhead 

Locations 

Figure 1.34 Development Phases of Salt Caverns (Sheets 1 and 2) 

Figure 1.35 

Figure 1.36 

Figure 1.37 

Figure 1.38 

Figure 1.39 

Figure 1.40 

Figure 1.41 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Temporary Closure or Diversion of Public 

Footpaths 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Entrance Facilities Site & Location Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Entrance Facilities Proposed Barn Rebuild 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Entrance Facilities Gatehouse & Farmhouse 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Compressor Station & Electrical Sub-Station 

Locations 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Gas Compressor Compound Site Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Compressor Compound Floor Plans 

Figure 1.42 Gas Compressor Compound Indicative Cross-Sections (Sheets 1 

and 2) 

Figure 1.43 

Figure 1.44 

Figure 1.45 

Figure 1.46 

Figure 1.47 

Figure 1.48 

Figure 1.49 

Figure 1.50 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Gas Compressor Compound Equipment 

Elevations 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Gas Compressor Compound Indicative 

Planting 

Indicative Line of proposed Access Road within limits of deviation 


Junction with A588 Hall Gate Lane 


Junction with A588 Hall Gate Lane 

Electric Cable Crossing 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Metering Station Location Plan 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Plan & Elevation Gas Metering Station 

xxiv

Volume 2B: Environmental Statement Supporting Figures – Environmental 

Information 

Figure 

Number 

Figure 2.1 

Title 

Discharge Modelling 

Figure 6.1 Air Quality Receptor Locations (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 7.1 Regulation 5(2)(m) Archaeological Assets (Sheets 1 to 8) 

Figure 7.2 Regulation 5(2)(m) Built Heritage Assets (Sheets 1 to 8) 

Figure 9.1 

Figure 9.2 

Figure 10.1 

Figure 10.2 

Figure 10.3 

Figure 11.1 

Regulation 5(2)(l) Statutory Designated Sites for Nature 

Conservation (Sheets 1 to 4) 

Regulation 5(2)(l) Non-Statutory Designated Sites for Nature 

Conservation (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Geological Plans Drift Geology 

Geological Plans Solid Geology 

Regulation 5(2)(l) Designated Sites for Geology and Exploratory 

Hole Locations 

Land Use and Socio-Economics - Agricultural Land Classification 

(Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 11.2 Land Use and Socio-Economics Receptors (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 11.3 Land Use and Socio-Economics - Public Rights of Way (Sheets 1 

to 3) 

Figure 12.1 Noise Monitoring Locations (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 12.2 Noise Assessment Receptor Locations (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 12.3 

Figure 12.4 

Figure 14.1 

Figure 14.2 

Construction and Operational Noise Levels 

Operational Noise Levels 

Landscape, Townscape and Seascape Character Types and 

Areas (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Viewpoint Locations for Baseline Photographs and 

Photomontages 

Figure 14.3 Baseline Photographs (Sheets 1 to 10) 

Figure 14.4 

Landscape Character Type LCT-4 – Lowland Estuary Edge 2D 

Contour Plan 

Figure 14.5 Gas Compressor Compound Indicative Cross-Sections (Sheets 1 

and 2) 

Figure 14.6 Visual Receptors Construction Phase (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 14.7 Visual Receptors Operational Phase – Year 9, 19 & 40 (Sheets 1 

to 3) 

xxv


Information 

Figure 

Number 

Figure 14.8 

Title 

Predicted Construction/Operation Combined and Operation Noise 

Impacts on Receptors Within LCT-4 

Figure 14.9a Photomontage 1 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 

Photomontage 1 Year 4: Construction and Operation Combined 

Phase (Sheet 2) 

Photomontage 1 Year 19 - Operation (Sheet 3) 

Figure 14.9b Photomontage 2 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




Figure 14.9c Photomontage 3 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




Figure 14.9d Photomontage 4a Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 

Photomontage 4a Year 4: Construction and Operation Combined 


Photomontage 4a Year 19 - Operation (Sheet 3) 

Figure 14.9e Photomontage 4b Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 

Photomontage 4b Year 4: Construction and Operation Combined 


Photomontage 4b Year 19 - Operation (Sheet 3) 

Figure 14.9f Photomontage 5a Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 

Photomontage 5a Year 4: Construction and Operation Combined 


Photomontage 5a Year 19 - Operation (Sheet 3) 

Figure 14.9g Photomontage 5b Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 

Photomontage 5b Year 4: Construction and Operation Combined 


Photomontage 5b Year 19 - Operation (Sheet 3) 

Figure 14.9h Photomontage 6 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




Figure 14.9i Photomontage 7 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




xxvi


Information 

Figure 

Number 

Title 

Figure 14.9j Photomontage 8 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




Figure 14.9k Photomontage 9 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




Figure 14.9l Photomontage 10 Baseline Photograph (Sheet 1) 




Figure 14.10 

Regulation 5(2)(o) Landscape and Ecological Management 

Strategy Plan 

Figure 17.1 Water Environment Features (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 17.2 

Regulation 5(2)(l) North West River Basin Management Plan 

Waterbodies (Sheets 1 to 3) 

Figure 18.1 Cumulative Effects Assessment (Sheets 1 of 3) 

xxvii

xxviii

ABBREVIATIONS 

µg Micrograms 

AA 

AADT 

AAP 

ABP 

AD 

ALARP 

ALC 

AOD 

AONB 

AoS 

APIS 

AQLV 

AQMA 

AQS 

AURN 

BAT 

BC 

BGS 

BH 

BHS 

BMV 

BPD 

BPM 

BRE 

BS 

BW 

CA 

CC 

CEMP 

CEQ 

CGS 

CIRIA 

Advise Against 

Annual Average Daily Traffic 

Area Action Plan 

Associated British Ports 

Anno Domini 

As Low As Reasonably Practicable 

Agricultural Land Classification 

Above Ordnance Datum 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

Appraisal of Sustainability 

Air Pollution Information System 

Air Quality Limit Values 

Air Quality Management Area 

Air Quality Strategy 

Automatic Urban and Rural Network 

Best Available Techniques 

Borough Council 

British Geological Survey 

Built Heritage 

Biological Heritage Site 

Best and Most Versatile 

Building Proximity Distance 

Best Practicable Means 

Building Research Establishment 

British Standard 

Brine-Well 

Competent Authority 

County Council 

Construction Environmental Management Plan 

Current Ecological Quality 

Canatxx Gas Storage 

Construction Industry Research and Information 

Association 

xxix

CL:AIRE 

CMACS 

CO 2 

CO 

COMAH 

CPA 

CPRE 

CROW 

cSAC 

CTRN 

DAA 

dB 

DCLG 

DCMS 

DCO 

DECC 

Defra 

DfT 

DMRB 

DTI 

EA 

EHO 

EIA 

ELC 

EMMP 

EMP 

EPUK 

ES 

ESDV 

EU 

FC 

FEPA 

FRA 

FS 

Contaminated Land: Applications in Real 

Environments 

Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies 

Carbon Dioxide 

Carbon Monoxide 

Control of Major Accident Hazards 

Coast Protection Act 

Campaign to Protect Rural England 

Countryside and Rights of Way 

Candidate Special Area of Conservation 

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 

Don’t Advise Against 

Decibel 

Department of Communities and Local Government 

Department for Culture Media and Sport 

Development Consent Order 

Department of Energy and Climate Change 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

Department for Transport 

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 

Department of Trade and Industry 

Environment Agency 

Environmental Health Officer 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

European Landscape Convention 

Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan 

Environmental Management Plan 

Environmental Protection UK 

Environmental Statement 

Emergency Shut Down Valve 

European Union 

Faecal Coliforms 

Food and Environment Protection Act 


Faecal Streptococci 

xxx

GCC 

GHG 

GIS 

GPS 

GSR 

Ha 

HA 

HAZOP 

HDPE 

HDV 

HER 

HGV 

HIA 

HLC 

HPA 

HSA 

HSE 

Hz 

ICES 

ICT 

IEMA 

IHT 

IPC 

IPPC 

km 

kV 

LA 

LAQM 

LCA 

LCC 

LCT 

LDF 

LEMSP 

Gas Compressor Compound 

Greenhouse Gas 

Geographic Information System 

Global Positioning System 

Geology Summary Report 

Hectares 

Highways Agency 

Hazard and Operability 

High Density Polyethylene 

Heavy Duty Vehicle 

Historic Environment Record 

Heavy Goods Vehicle 

Health Impact Assessment 

Historic Landscape Character 

Health Protection Agency 

Hazardous Substances Authority 

Health and Safety Executive 

Hertz 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

Information and Communication Technology 

Institute of Environmental Management and 

Assessment 

Institution of Highways and Transportation 

Infrastructure Planning Commission 

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 

Kilometres 

Kilo Volts 

Local Authorities 

Local Air Quality Management 

Landscape Character Area 

Lancashire County Council 

Landscape Character Type 

Local Development Framework 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy 

Plan 

xxxi

LFL 

LiDAR 

LNG 

LOAEL 

Lp 

LPA 

LSOA 

LVIA 

m 

mm 

Ma 

MAGIC 

mAOD 

MARIO 

MB 

mbgl 

MDM 

MHI 

MIT 

MLW 

MMO 

MOPICO 

mph 

MPS 

N 

NE 

NGR 

NO 2 

NO 

NO x 

NPS 

NPSE 

NSIP 

NTEM 

Lower Flammable Limit 

Light Detection and Ranging 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level 

Sound Pressure Level 

Local Planning Authority 

Lower Super Output Area 

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment 

Metre 

Millimetre 

Million Years (ago) 

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the 

Countryside 

Metres Above Ordnance Datum 

Maps and Related Information Online 

Megabyte 

Metres Below Ground Level 

McMahon Design and Management Ltd 

Mean High Water 

Mechanical Integrity Test 

Mean Low Water 

Marine Management Organisation 

Motor Pipeline Compressor 

Miles Per Hour 

Minerals Policy Statement 

Nitrogen 

Natural England 

National Grid Reference 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Nitrogen Oxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

National Policy Statement 

Noise Policy Statement for England 

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project 

National Trip End Model 

xxxii

NTS 

NVQ 

NWIFCA 

ODPM 

OFGEM 

ONS 

OS 

PC 

PEI 

PFA 

PM 10 

PPS 

ppt 

PRoW 

PSU 

QRA 

R 

RA 

RIGS 

ROV 

ROWIP 

RSPB 

RSS 

SEPA 

SO 2 

SoCC 

SPA 

SPZ 

SSSI 

STW 

SUDS 

SWMP 

SWP 

TC 

National Transmission System 

National Vocational Qualification 

North West Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority 

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets 

Office for National Statistics 

Ordnance Survey 

Parish Council 

Preliminary Environmental Information 

Pulverised Fuel Ash 

Particulate Matter 

Planning Policy Statement 

Part Per Thousand 

Public Rights of Way 

Practical Salinity Units 

Mott MacDonald Report Risk Assessment 

Rural 

Risk Assessment 

Local Geo Diversity Site formally Regionally 

Important Geological and Geomorphological Site 

Remotely Operated Vehicles 

Rights of Way improvement Plan 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

Regional Spatial Strategy 

Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

Sulphur Dioxide 

Statement of Community Consultation 

Special Protection Area 

Source Protection Zone 

Site of Special Scientific Interest 

Sewage Treatment Works 

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 


Seawater Pumping Station 

Total Coliforms 

xxxiii

TCT 

TEG 

UGS 

UK 

UKHO 

UNECE 

USA 

US EPA 

UU 

VCE 

VMS 

VR 

WAVE 

WBC 

WFD 

WHO 

w/w 

WWTW 

ZVI 

Townscape Character Type 

Triethylene Glycol 

Underground Gas Storage 

United Kingdom 

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

Updating and Screening Assessment 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

United Utilities 

Vapour Cloud Explosions 

Vessel Monitoring System 

Visual Receptor 

William Allen Vocational Enterprise 

Wyre Borough Council 

Water Framework Directive 

World Health Organisation 

weight/weight 

Waste Water Treatment Works 

Zone of Visual Influence 

xxxiv

GLOSSARY 

Term 

A-weighting, 

dB(A) 

Conservation 

Area 

Decibel (dB) 

Desk-based 

Assessment 

Groyne 

Index of Multiple 

Deprivation 

L Amax 

L Aeq, T 

L A90, T 

L Aeq,2hr 

Landscape 

Character Area 

Mitigation 

Probit 

Description / Explanation 

The unit of sound level, weighted according to the A-scale, which 

takes into account the increased sensitivity of the human ear at 

some frequencies. 

Areas of special architectural or historic interest, designated under 

the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, 

whose character and appearance should be preserved or enhanced. 

A scale for comparing the ratios of two quantities, including sound 

pressure and sound power. The difference in level between two 

sounds s1 and s2 is given by 20 log10 (s1/s2). The decibel can also be 

used to measure absolute quantities by specifying a reference value 

that fixes one point on the scale. For sound pressure, the reference 

value is 20µPa. 

A data collection and using existing sources of cultural heritage 

data. The purpose is to identify relevant known cultural heritage 

resources. 

Wooden or concrete barrier built at right angles to a beach in order 

to block the movement of material along the beach by longshore 

drift. 

The Index of Multiple Deprivation is a measure of multiple 

deprivation at the small area level. The model of multiple 

deprivation used for the 2007 index is based on the idea of distinct 

dimensions of deprivation which can be recognised and measured 

separately. People may be counted in one or more of the 

domains/dimensions, depending on the number of types of 

deprivation that they experience. The overall Index of Multiple 

Deprivation is presented as a weighted area level aggregation of 

these specific dimensions of deprivation. 

Highest value of the A-weighted sound pressure level with a 

specified time weighting that occurs during a given event. 

The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level 

determined over a time interval T. 

The A-weighted sound pressure level at an assessment position that 

is exceeded for 90 % of a given time interval T. 

The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level 

determined over a time interval of 2 hours. 

A geographic area with a distinctive landscape character. 

Term used to indicate avoidance, remediation or alleviation of 

adverse impacts. 

A probit is an equation that characterises the relationship between 

the level of consequence (e.g. thermal radiation, overpressure, 

toxicity etc.) and the probability of fatality. It is based on the fact 

xxxv

Term 

Rating Level 

Receptors 

Setting 

Description / Explanation 

that, for a population exposed to a hazard, a range of responses can 

be expected. 

The specific noise level plus any adjustment for the characteristic 

features of the noise. 

A component of the natural or man-made environment that is 

affected by an impact, including people. 

The surrounding within which an asset is experienced and any 

element which contributes to the understanding of its significance. 

Sound Pressure Sound, or sound pressure, is a fluctuation in air pressure over the 

static ambient pressure. 

Sound Pressure 

Level (Sound 

Level) 

Specific Noise 

Level 

The sound level is the sound pressure relative to a standard 

reference pressure of 20µPa (20x10 -6 Pascals) on a decibel scale. 

The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level at the 

assessment position produced by the specific noise source over a 

given reference time interval. 

xxxvi

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Context 

1.1.1 Halite Energy Group Limited (Halite) is applying for a Development Consent 

Order (DCO) to construct and operate an Underground Gas Storage (UGS) 

facility at Preesall, Lancashire, which includes an Interconnector Pipeline to the 

National Grid Transmission System at Nateby, 12km to the east, and a brine 

discharge pipeline extending 2.3km offshore from Rossall, Fleetwood (the 

Project). 

1.1.2 This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared on behalf of Halite 

Energy Group Limited to accompany an application for a DCO to the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), in accordance with the Infrastructure 

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (‘the EIA 

Regulations’) (Statutory Instrument 2009/2263). The DCO would authorise the 

construction and operation of the the Project (refer to Figure 1.1: Regional 

Location Map). 

1.1.3 The Project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under 

Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008. It would have a total capacity of 900 

million cubic metres to provide an operational working capacity of up to 600 

million standard cubic metres of natural gas. The gas would be stored in up to 

19 underground caverns in the salt body at Preesall, and would be supplied 

from the Gas National Transmission System (NTS) at Nateby by an 

interconnector pipeline. The location of the Project is illustrated on Figure 1.1: 

Regional Location Map, the elements of the Project are presented on Figure 

1.4: Masterplan, and the process is illustrated on Figure 1.9: Process Diagram, 

of Volume 2A. 

1.2 The Applicant 

1.2.1 Halite Energy Group Limited (the Applicant) is a UK company (Company no. 

04145789) headquartered at Kirkham, Lancashire. The Applicant took over 

plans to develop a UGS facility at Preesall from Canatxx Gas Storage Limited 

(CGS). 

1.3 The Project 

1.3.1 The DCO application seeks consent for the Project, which comprises a number 

of discrete but closely related elements within the application site. Full details of 

the Project are provided within Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this ES, and the main 

elements of the Project are summarised below (refer to Figure 1.4: Masterplan, 

of Volume 2A): 

 

 

Creation of up to 19 caverns by a solution mining process. 

7 multiple wellhead locations to create the underground salt caverns and, 

once operational, to allow for the injection and withdrawal of gas. 

1

Gas Compressor Compound comprising pig launchers and receivers; slug 

catchers; above ground high pressure pipelines; glycol contactors to dry 

the gas; glycol regeneration system; MOPICO Compressors; compressor 

knock out separators; compressor aftercoolers; gas filters; gas Heaters; 

utility systems, plant drainage and power supply; emergency/maintenance 

vent stack; electrical/instrument and utilities buildings; 132 kV substation; 

access roads and car parking areas. 

Seawater Pump Station compound, located on the west bank of the Wyre 

Estuary, comprising a Pumping Station, standby generator and switchgear 

building, transformers and ancillary infrastructure, access roads and car 

parking areas. This single storey facility would enable seawater to be 

taken from the Fleetwood Fish Dock to the Preesall site for use in the 

cavern creation process. 

Booster Pump Station compound comprising the Booster Pump Station 

building; control room, a switchgear and standby generator building, 

transformers, a De-brining Facility (which would treat the saturated brine 

produced by the solution mining process), ancillary infrastructure, access 

roads and car parking areas. 

Security and Support Facility, which would be located within the existing 

refurbished buildings at Higher Lickow Farm. Refurbishment of Higher 

Lickow Farm and demolition of the associated barn. 

Gas manifold and distribution infrastructure. 

Seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood Fish Dock to the Preesall site. 

Brine discharge pipeline from the Preesall site to a point within the Irish 

Sea approximately 2.3km offshore from Fleetwood to a two port diffuser. 

Four power, communication, control pipelines from the Fleetwood Dock to 

the Preesall site. 

Electricity cables, underground from the United Utilities Switchgear at the 

Stanah Switchyard to the new electrical sub-station. 

Temporary drilling compounds at the Fleetwood Fish Dock and at the 

Stanah Switchyard. 

Extension to sea wall at West Way to accommodate brine outfall and new 

observation platform. 

Interconnector pipeline link to the NTS at Nateby (12 km to the east). 

Comprehensive landscape scheme. 

New access road from the A588 and new and upgraded internal access 

roads within the site. 

1.4 Location of the Project 

1.4.1 The Project is located within the administrative area of Wyre Borough Council 

(WBC) and Lancashire County Council (LCC). The application site is located at 

approximate National Grid Reference (NGR) SD335724, 446406, centred 

around the location of the main infrastructure of the Project, and comprises a 

total of 248.5 hectares. The application site is located to the south / south east 

2

of Fleetwood, on either side of the Wyre Estuary. It extends from the Irish Sea 

and coastline at Rossall, eastwards to the Fleetwood Docks, and also 

comprises land to the east of the Wyre Estuary within Preesall. The NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline extends from the Gas Compressor Compound within 

the Preesall area, to the east to Nateby. Refer to Figure 1.1: Regional Location 

Map, of Volume 2A. 

Preesall Area Looking North 

1.4.2 To the west of the Wyre Estuary is the Fleetwood peninsula, the eastern side of 

which is fronted from north to south by Fleetwood Docks, the former power 

station site (currently being reclaimed for ecological and recreational purposes), 

Jameson Road landfill/wastewater treatment works and land associated with 

the former ICI works. 

1.4.3 The application site at Fleetwood is located to the south east of the settlement 

of Fleetwood, a seaside town situated on the Fylde Coast, and includes land on 

either side of the Wyre Estuary. 

1.4.4 The area surrounding the application site at Preesall is mainly agricultural 

farmland. There are a number of small villages along the A588 in the vicinity of 

the development including Cold Row, Moor End, Stalmine and Preesall Park, 

along with isolated residential properties fronting a number of the minor roads in 

the area. The village of Staynall is located at the southern end of the 

application site. To the north is Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, Cote 

Walls Farm and Knott End Golf Course, beyond which is the settlement of Knott 

End-on-Sea, to the north east is Preesall, to the east Stalmine and to the south 

Staynall (with Hambleton beyond). There are a number of scattered farmsteads 

in the area, which are typical of the rural area comprising old houses and a 

mixture of traditional and modern agricultural buildings and hard standings. 

3

1.4.5 The Preesall area of the application site is characterised by a mixture of 

scattered settlements, meandering lanes and open agricultural fields of varying 

quality, interspersed with blocks of woodland, dense hedgerows and 

farmsteads. The Wyre Estuary comprises a series of low lying salt marshes. 

The eastern bank has no industrial development. Topographically the Project 

area is predominantly low-lying with ground elevation typically

Photograph: View from Wyre Way looking east 

towards Preesall and Higher Lickow Farm 

1.4.8 Statutory designated sites for nature conservation within the area include Shell 

Flat and Lune Deep candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC), Liverpool 

Bay Special Protection Area (SPA), Morecambe Bay SAC, SPA and Ramsar, 

Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Lune Estuary SSSI and 

Winmarleigh Moss SSSI. In addition, several locally designated Biological 

Heritage Sites (BHSs) and a Local Geodiversity Site exist within the area. Wyre 

Estuary SSSI, Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, several BHSs and the Local 

Geodiversity Site are located within the application boundary area. 

1.4.9 There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the immediate surroundings 

although several other features of cultural heritage interest are located within 

the vicinity including Fleetwood Conservation area, Parrox Hall, Preesall (Grade 

II* Listed Building), Hackensall Hall, Preesall (Grade II Listed Building) together 

with several non-designated archaeological remains and marine archaeological 

sites. 

1.4.10 Historical land use varies throughout the area and includes historic landfills, 

former industrial facilities and historic underground workings. The underground 

workings are particularly relevant as they relate to the working of the Preesall 

Halite Deposit. Above-ground evidence of these activities are apparent, 

including crown holes as a result of cavern roof collapses migrating to the 

surface and wellheads. 

1.5 Requirements for an Environmental Impact 

Assessment 

1.5.1 Halite Energy Group considers that the Project requires an Environmental 

Impact Assessment (EIA), as it falls under the description of projects outlined in 

Schedule 2 (paragraph 3(d)) of the EIA Regulations (underground storage of 

combustible gases) and has the potential to give rise to significant 

environmental effects. As such, the Project is a development for which EIA is 

considered appropriate. In accordance with Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA 

Regulations, the Applicant notified the IPC that the Project is an EIA 

development, and that an ES would accompany the DCO application. This 

5

notification email (and confirmation response from the IPC) is presented within 

Appendix 5.2 of Volume 1B. 

1.5.2 In addition to the ES, two reports have been prepared which deal with the 

potential for significant effects upon European sites of nature conservation 

interest. These reports are entitled ‘Information to Support a Habitats 

Regulations Assessment - Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat 

and Lune Deep’ (DCO Application Document 3.2) and ‘Information to Support a 

Habitats Regulations Assessment - Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar’ (DCO 

Application Document 3.3). 

1.5.3 Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations provides details of the information 

required for inclusion in the ES and is reproduced in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 also 

includes details of where the information requirements are addressed within this 

ES. 

Table 1-1 The Requirements of Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations and 

Details of their Location within this Environmental Statement 

Paragraph Requirements 

1 Description of the development, including in 

particular: 

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the 

whole development and the land-use requirements 

during the construction and operational phases. 

(b) a description of the main characteristics of the 

production processes, for instance, nature and 

quantity of the materials used. 

(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected 

residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, 

noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting 

from the operation of the proposed development. 

2 An outline of the main alternatives studied by the 

applicant and an indication of the main reasons for 

the applicant’s choice, taking into account the 

environmental effects. 

3 A description of the aspects of the environment likely 

to be significantly affected by the development, 

including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, 

water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including 

the architectural and archaeological heritage, 

landscape and the inter-relationship between the 

above factors. 

4 A description of the likely significant effects of the 

development on the environment, which should cover 

the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, 

Where located 

within this 

Environmental 

Statement 

Chapter 2: Project 

Description and 

Chapter 3: 

Construction, Site 

Management and 

Decommissioning 

Chapter 4: Design 

Iterations and 

Alternatives 

Considered 

Chapters 6 - 18 


6

Paragraph Requirements 

cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent 

and temporary, positive and negative effects of the 

development, resulting from: 

(a) the existence of the development 

(b) the use of natural resources 

(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of 

nuisances and the elimination of waste 

and the description by the applicant of the forecasting 

methods used to assess the effects on the 

environment. 

5 A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, 

reduce and where possible offset any significant 

adverse effects on the environment. 

6 A non-technical summary of the information provided 

under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part. 

7 An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies 

or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in 

compiling the required information. 

Where located 

within this 

Environmental 

Statement 


A Non-Technical 

Summary is provided 

as a separate 

document. 


1.6 The IPC Process and DCO Application 

The IPC Process 

1.6.1 The IPC was established on 1 October 2009 under the Planning Act 2008, as 

an independent body for the purposes of examining and deciding applications 

for NSIPs. It replaced the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change as 

the determining body for energy, transport, waste, waste water and waste 

related projects in England, and energy and harbour development in Wales. 

1.6.2 The legal structure within which the DCO application will be determined is 

governed by the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Act 2008 required the 

preparation of new policy to inform decisions made by the IPC on NSIP in 

England and set out the principles that should be applied in the assessment of 

DCO applications, which is set out in the NPSs. Those that are relevant to the 

Project are: 

 

 

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), which sets out 

general principles that are relevant to the full range of energy 

technologies. 

National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil 

Pipelines (EN-4), which concerns impacts and other matters which are 

specific to gas supply infrastructure and UGS. 

7

1.6.3 Refer to DCO Application Document Reference 9.1.1 Planning and 

Sustainability Statement (Barton Willmore, 2011) for further details of these 

NPSs. 

1.6.4 Following the establishment of the Coalition Government it has been 

announced that the IPC is to be abolished. Its responsibilities for examination 

of DCO applications will be transferred to a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit 

within the Planning Inspectorate, and decisions pursuant to applications for 

DCO will be determined by the Secretary of State. This is likely to take effect in 

2012; in the meantime, applications will continue to be examined by the IPC. 

The DCO Application 

1.6.5 The DCO application comprises a suite of documents (including this ES) 

prescribed by Regulation 5 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: 

Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, as set out in the DCO 

Application Document 1.3 ‘Register of Application Documents’. 

1.6.6 Table 1-2 below identifies these documents, together with their DCO application 

document reference number, and where applicable the relevant document 

requirement number contained within regulation 5(2) of the above Regulations. 

Table 1-2 Regulation 5(2) Requirements Relevant to the Environmental Statement 

Regulation 

5(2) 

Reference 

a 

Relevant DCO Requirements in the 

Context of the ES 

The environmental Statement 

required pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Planning 

(Environmental Impact Assessment) 

Regulation 2009. 

The scoping opinion 

Any screening opinions or directions 

Where located 

This document (Volume 1A, together 

with the Non-Technical Summary, 

and Volumes 1B (Technical 

Appendices), 2A (Supporting 

Figures: Project Information) and 2B 

(Supporting Figures: Environmental 

Information). 

The scoping opinion is provided in 

Appendix 5.3 and 5.4 (late scoping 

consultation responses) of Volume 

1B. 

Note: No screening opinion was 

requested by the Applicant although 

Appendix 5.2 of Volume 2B contains 

the screening notification e-mail to 

the IPC. 

e A copy of any flood risk assessment. Appendix 17.1 of Volume 1B 

l 

Where applicable, a plan with 

accompanying information 

identifying— 

(i)any statutory or non-statutory sites 

or features of nature conservation 

Figures 9.1 and 9.2 of Volume 2B (in 

Volume 1A of this Environmental 

8

Regulation 

5(2) 

Reference 

m 

Relevant DCO Requirements in the 

Context of the ES 

such as sites of geological or 

landscape importance; 

(ii)habitats of protected species, 

important habitats or other diversity 

features; and 

(iii)water bodies in a river basin 

management plan, 

Together with an assessment of any 

effects on such sites, features, 

habitats or bodies likely to be caused 

Where applicable, a plan with 

accompanying information identifying 

any statutory or non statutory sites or 

features of the historic environment, 

including scheduled monuments, 

World Heritage sites, listed buildings 

and other historic structures, 

archaeological sites and registered 

battlefields, together with an 

assessment of any effects on such 

sites, features or structures likely to 

be caused by the proposed 

development; 

Where located 

Statement) for nature conservation 

interest. 

Figure 10.3 of Volume 2B which 

delineates the geological site. 

There are no sites of landscape 

importance. 

Figure A9.5 (2011 Phase 1 Habitat 

Plan) within Appendix 9.5 of Volume 

1B of this Environmental Statement, 

and Figure A9.11 (2009/2011 Great 

Crested Newt Surveys) within 

Appendix 9.11 of Volume 1B of this 

ES. 

Figure 17.2 of Volume 2B which 

identifies water bodies in the North 

West River Basin Management Plan. 

Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature 

Conservation, Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability and 

Chapter 17: Water Environment are 

contained in Volume 1A. Relevant 

appendices and figures are 

contained in Volumes 1B and 2B. 

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of Volume 2B. 

Chapter 7: Archaeology and Built 

Heritage 

1.6.7 Other documents which are particularly relevant to the EIA include: 

Site Waste Management Plan (Appendix 3.1 in Volume 1B of this ES) 

Transport Assessment (Appendix 16.1 in Volume 1B of this ES) 

Consultation Report (Application Document 3.1). 

9

Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment - Morecambe 

Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep (Application 

Document 3.2) and Information to Support a Habitats Regulations 

Assessment - Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar (Application Document 

3.3). These reports are in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(g) which 

requires a report(s) identifying any European site to which regulation 48 of 

the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 applies, or any 

Ramsar site, which may be affected by the proposed development, 

together with sufficient information that will enable the Commission to 

make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site if required 

by regulation 48(1). 

Statement of Engagement of Section 79(1) of the Environmental 

Protection Act 1990 Matters (Statutory Nuisances)) (Document 3.4). This 

statement is in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(f) which requires a 

statement whether the proposal engages one or more of the matters set 

out in section 79(1) (statutory nuisances and inspections therefore) of the 

Environmental Protection Act 1990, and if so how the applicant proposes 

to mitigate or limit them. 

Planning and Sustainability Statement (Document 9.1.1) 

Design and Access Statement (Document 9.1.2). 

Health Impact Assessment (Document 9.1.7). 

1.7 Inspecting or Purchasing the ES 

1.7.1 The information provided in this ES is in addition to that provided in the 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report and the Preliminary 

Environmental Information (PEI) Report, which were published in October 2010 

and April 2011 respectively. 

1.7.2 The EIA Scoping Report is contained in Appendix 1.1 of Volume 1B and can 

also be viewed at:http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/Preesall-Scoping-Report.pdf 

1.7.3 The EIA Scoping Report is a large file (over 80 MB) due to the nature of the 

maps and site plans included. A version of the EIA Scoping Report without the 

maps and site plans can be viewed at: http://www.haliteenergy.co.uk/images/Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment%20Scoping%2 

0Report.pdf (note there is also an appendix) 

1.7.4 The PEI Report can be viewed at: http://www.haliteenergy.co.uk/page/100/Preliminary-Environmental-Information.htm 

1.7.5 Hard copies of documents can be provided. Where appropriate, a reasonable 

charge will be made for hard copies of the ES (£500 for a full set of reports and 

drawings) and £15 each for a DVD containing the files. The non-technical 

summary of the ES will be provided free of charge. 

1.7.6 The DCO application, including the ES documents, is available directly from 

Halite: 

10

Visit the website, www.halite-energy.co.uk 

Email: community@halite.net 

Call Halite on 01772 672244 

Write to: Halite Energy Group, Freepost RSRC-UETY-CHSU, Unit 5 St Georges 

Court, St Georges Park, Kirkham PR4 2EF 

1.7.7 In addition, the documents are available from the following inspection locations: 

Lancashire County Council (9am to 5pm 

weekdays)* 

Environment and Public Protection 

Services Environment Directorate 

PO BOX 100 

County Hall 

Preston 

PR1 0LD 

Tel: 01772 534181 

DevCon@lancashire.gov.uk 

Wyre Borough Council (Mon – Thurs, 

8.30am to 5pm, Fri, 8.30am to 4.30pm) 

Civic Centre 

Breck Road 

Tel: 01253 891000 

Poulton le Fylde 

Lancashire 

FY6 7PU 

Tel: 01253 891000 

Fleetwood Library** 

North Albert Street 

Fleetwood 

FY7 6AJ 

Tel: 01253 775800 

Thornton Library** 

Victoria Road East 

Thornton 

FY5 3SZ 

Tel: 01253 869138 

Poulton-le-Fylde Library** 

Blackpool Old Road 

Poulton-le-Fylde 

FY6 7DH 

Tel: 01253 888900 

Knott End Library** 

Lancaster Road 

Knott End 

FY6 0AU 

Tel: 01253 810632 

*Please contact Lancashire County Council on 01772 534181 or e-mail 

DevCon@lancashire.gov.uk to arrange an appointment to view the documents 

**Please contact the libraries and deposit locations for details of their opening hours 

1.8 Project Team 

1.8.1 The main contributors to the production of this ES are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Halite Energy Group (Applicant, responsible for input to Chapter 2: Project 

Description, Chapter 3: Construction, Site Management and 

Decommissioning, Chapter 4: Design Iterations and Alternatives 

Considered and Volume 2A: Supporting Figures – Project Information) 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (authors of the ES) 

Mott Macdonald Group Ltd (authors of Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability) 

AcousticAir Limited (technical review of air quality and noise and vibration 

assessments) 

11

Barton Willmore (planning advisors and responsible for Chapter 2: Project 

Description and Chapter 3: Construction, Site Management and 

Decommissioning) 

Costain (provision of Gas Compressor Compound emissions information) 

Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies (CMACS) (marine ecological 

assessment) 

McMahon Design and Management Ltd (MDM) (provision of traffic 

prediction information) 

1.9 Structure of the Environmental Statement 

1.9.1 The ES reports the findings of the EIA, and has been prepared in four main 

volumes as shown in Table 1-3. A Non-Technical Summary has also been 

produced, summarising the ES in non-technical language. This is presented as 

a separate document. 

Table 1-3 Structure of the Environmental Statement 

Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement 

A Non-Technical Summary of the ES. This is presented as a separate document. 

Volume 1A: Environmental Statement (this Volume) 

Chapter 1 

Chapter 2 

Chapter 3 

Chapter 4 

Chapter 5 

Introduction: Introduces the context to the Project, provides 

details of the applicant, the Project and its location, explains 

why EIA is required, and describes the IPC Process and the 

DCO application. It also provides details of the structure of the 

ES, the Project team and the other consents required. Details 

of where this ES and the DCO application documents can be 

inspected or purchased are also provided. 

Description of the Project: Outlines the process and features 

associated with the Project 

Construction, Site Management and Decommissioning: 

Presents the anticipated programme of works and details the 

likely emissions and waste associated with the Project. It also 

provides information in relation to the maintenance and 

operation of the Project, together with decommissioning 

details. 

Design Iterations and Alternatives Considered: Outlines the 

design iterations and the alternatives considered. 

Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology: Describes 

the approach to the EIA. 

Chapters 6 - 17 Assessment Chapters 

These chapters comprise Air Quality (Chapter 6), Archaeology 

and Built Heritage (Chapter 7), Climatic Factors (Chapter 8), 

Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 9), Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability (Chapter 10), Land Use and Socio- 

Economics (Chapter 11), Noise and Vibration (Chapter 12), 

12

Chapter 18 

Safety (Chapter 13), Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and 

Visual Amenity (Chapter 14), Sustainability (Chapter 15), 

Transport and Access (Chapter 16) and Water Environment 

(Chapter 17). 

Cumulative Effects Assessment: Presents the findings of the 

cumulative effects assessment. 

Volume 1B: Environmental Statement Technical Appendices 

Technical appendices comprising background data, tables, figures and surveys 

which relate to the assessment chapters 

Binder 1 

Appendix 1.1 

Appendix 2.1 

Appendix 2.2 

Appendix 3.1 

Appendix 3.2 

Appendix 5.1 

Appendix 5.2 

Appendix 5.3 

Appendix 5.4 

Appendix 5.5 

Appendix 6.1 

Appendix 7.1 

Appendix 7.2 

Appendix 7.3 

Binder 2 

Appendix 7.4 

Appendix 7.5 

Appendix 9.1 

Appendix 9.2 

Appendix 9.3 

Appendix 9.4 

Appendix 9.5 

EIA Scoping Report 

Environment Agency Consent to Discharge 

Marine Dispersion Modelling Report 


Schedule of Consents 

Schedule 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental 

Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2009 

Regulation 6(1)(b) Notification 

IPC Scoping Opinion 

Late Scoping Consultation Responses 

Scoping Consultation Response Summary Table 

Air Quality Modelling Inputs 

Archaeological and Built Heritage Desk-based Assessment 

Geophysical Survey of Proposed Brine Outfall Pipe, 

Fleetwood, Report 

Proposed Brine Outfall Pipe, Fleetwood, Marine Archaeological 

Assessment Final Technical Report 

Geophysical Survey Interim Report 

Archaeological and Built Heritage Post-Scoping Consultation 

Responses 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Regulatory / Planning 

Policy Framework 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Post-Scoping Consultation 

Responses 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Baseline Information 

Requests 

Marine Ecology Baseline Report 

Phase 1 Habitat Surveys 

13

Appendix 9.6 

Appendix 9.7 

Appendix 9.8 

Appendix 9.9 

Appendix 9.10 

Binder 3 

Appendix 9.11 

Appendix 9.12 

Arable Weed Surveys 

Rock Sea-Lavender Surveys 

Water Vole and Ditch Surveys 

Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Surveys 

Terrestrial Invertebrate Surveys 

Great Crested Newt Surveys 

Breeding and Wintering Bird Surveys 

Appendix 9.13 Barn Owl Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) (Binder 4 

–see below) 

Appendix 9.14 

Appendix 9.15 

Bat Surveys 

Brown Hare Surveys 

Appendix 9.16 Badger Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) (Binder 4 – 

see below) 

Appendix 9.17 

Appendix 9.18 

Appendix 9.19 

Appendix 10.1 

Appendix 11.1 

Appendix 12.1 

Appendix 12.2 

Appendix 12.3 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Statutory Designated Site 

Citations 

Ecology and Nature Conservation – Non-Statutory Designated 

Site Citations 

Natural England Consultation – Mitigation Licences 

RIGS Citation 

Note of Meetings with Commercial Fishing Interests 

Operational Noise Calculations and Results 

Operational Vibration Impacts 

Traffic Noise (CRTN) Calculations and Predictions 


Regulatory and Planning Policy Framework 






Potential Effects 


Residual Effects 


Summary 

Appendix 14.7 

Lancashire and Amounderness Plain National Character Area 

32 

14

Appendix 14.8 

Appendix 14.9 

North West Strategy 2009 Regional Character Areas and 

Types 

Landscape Heritage Adopted SPG, Map 2 Landscape 

Character Types 

Appendix 14.10 Lancashire Tranquillity Map 

Appendix 14.11 Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

Appendix 16.1 

Appendix 16.2 

Appendix 17.1 

Binder 4 

Appendix 9.13 

Appendix 9.16 

Transport Assessment 

Construction Worker Travel Plan 


Barn Owl Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) 

Badger Surveys (Potentially Excepted Information) 


Information 


Information 

It should be noted that generally the ES and drawings refer to above Ordnance 

Datum (AOD) although some of the drawings contained in Volume 2A use the 

term OD. In this case where a negative measurement is provided it is below 

OD and otherwise it is above OD. 

1.10 Other Required Consents 

1.10.1 Halite is applying for as part of the DCO application: 

 

 

Deemed Hazardous Substances Consent pursuant to the Planning 

(Hazardous Substances Act) 1990 (as amended by Schedule 2, 

paragraphs 42 to 47 of the Planning Act 2008). Further details of this 

application are contained in DCO Application Document Reference 4.1 the 

‘Application for Deemed Hazardous Substances Consent’. 

Deemed Marine Consent under 149A Planning Act 2008.Further details of 

this application are contained in DCO Application Document Reference 4.2 

the ‘Application for Deemed Marine Consent’. 

1.10.2 Halite has undertaken consultation on both these deemed consent applications 

prior to submission of the DCO application. 

1.10.3 The Deemed Hazardous Substances Consent is needed because the following 

hazardous substances will be held on the Project site: 

 

Natural Gas: Natural Gas is classified as extremely flammable under Part 

3 of Schedule 1 of the COMAH Regulations. The lower tier limit is 10 

tonnes and the upper tier limit is 50 tonnes. The amount of gas stored in 

the caverns will mean that the facility will be an upper tier COMAH site. 

15

Methanol: Methanol will be stored on site to inject into the caverns to 

prevent the formation of Methane Clathrate (Methane Hydrate). Less than 

30 tonnes of Methanol is expected to be stored on site. 

Glycol: Tri-Ethylene Glycol (Glycol) is used to remove excess water from 

the Natural Gas and as a heating medium. Glycol is not considered to be 

a dangerous substance under the COMAH Regulations. 

1.10.4 Marine consents, issued under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 

2009, are required for the deposit or removal of a substance or object below the 

mean high water springs mark or in any tidal river to the extent of the tidal 

influence, unless an exemption applies. In the case of Nationally Significant 

Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), an order granting development consent may 

include provisions deeming a marine licence to have been issued under Part 4 

of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. 

1.10.5 Appendix 3.2 of Volume 1B presents a schedule of consents which will be 

required from the regulatory authorities after project approval but before the 

project becomes operational. The relevant regulatory authorities have been 

contacted and made aware of the Project and subsequent consent 

requirements. Their comments have been included into the schedule. The 

consents identified in this schedule are not being applied for as part of the DCO. 

The consents listed in this schedule are: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Construction Safety Report (PCSR) and Pre-Operational Safety 

Report (POSR) 

Environmental Permit for Releases into Air, Releases into Water, Waste 

Management 

Brine Discharge Licence 

Water Abstraction Licence 

OFGEM Exemption 

PGT Exemption and Pipeline Operators Licence 

National Grid Connection Agreement (Formerly) / National Grid Storage 

Connection Agreement 

Nature Conservation Licences 

Building Regulations 

1.10.6 It should be noted the usual construction related consents e.g. Flood Defence 

Consents in order to cross watercourses are not included as they would be 

obtained by the contractor during the construction phase. 

16

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1.1 The proposed Project is to create underground caverns in the salt body at 

Preesall. When created, the caverns would be used for the storage of natural 

gas which can be supplied to the Gas National Transmission System (NTS) to 

meet demand. In broad concept, the proposals are similar to schemes that 

were promoted by Canatxx Gas Storage Limited (CGS) between 2005 and 

2009. The main difference between the current Project and previous schemes 

is that the Halite proposals have been reduced in size and scale such that the 

amount of gas that would be stored is significantly less than that proposed in 

previous schemes. The Halite proposal seeks permission for up to 19 caverns 

with a working capacity of up to 600 1 million cubic metres – about half that of 

the previous scheme. The reduction in the gas storage capacity and the 

location of the proposed caverns (see below) has also condensed the surface 

infrastructure and, therefore, the overall site area that is required to construct 

and operate the proposed Facility. 

2.1.2 Details of the design and construction considerations are set out in DCO 

Application Document Reference 9.1.2 ‘Design and Access Statement’ and 

DCO Application Document Reference 9.1.6 ‘Construction Report’. 

2.1.3 Geological investigations and assessments undertaken by Halite suggest that 

the optimum location for the construction of caverns is at the northern part of 

the Preesall site. The geological work summarised in DCO Application 

Document 9.2.2 Geology Summary Report (GSR) (Mott MacDonald, 2011) 

includes a review of the geological data and identifies potential geological 

hazards at Preesall. This assessment led to the development of ‘hazard 

exclusion zones’ where, based on available data, the composition and character 

of the salt was not sufficiently defined. Two polygonal areas called ‘Areas for 

Cavern Development’ were identified outside of the buffer area in the northern 

part of the site where the development of the caverns would take place. 

2.1.4 Having regard to the GSR, a plan showing the area where the caverns would be 

located and an indicative cavern layout has been produced showing the 

approximate location and size of each cavern (Drawing No D-9000-030). The 

layout is ‘indicative’ as the precise location and extent of each cavern will be 

subject to acceptance by the HSE under the Control of Major Accident Hazards 

(COMAH) Regulations 1999. As the cavern locations cannot be fixed in the 

DCO application until a full COMAH assessment has been completed and 

accepted by the HSE, it has been necessary to include requirements within Part 

3 of Schedule 1 of the DCO to allow some flexibility in their final locations within 

the defined ‘Areas of Cavern Development’. 

2.1.5 The indicative cavern layout shows a smaller scheme to those previously 

proposed by CGS. A total of 19 caverns are proposed rather than the 36 

caverns that formed the basis of the last CGS application submitted in 2009. 

1 Total cavern capacity would be approximately 900 million cubic metres to give a working capacity of up to 

approximately 600 million cubic metres. These volumes are stated at standard temperature and pressure. 

17

2.1.6 The reduction in the size of the scheme and the location of the caverns means 

that it has been possible to reduce the extent of surface infrastructure when 

compared with earlier CGS schemes. The overall Masterplan (Drawing No A- 

9000-005) and the more detailed Masterplans for the Preesall site (Drawing No 

A-9000-003) and Fleetwood (Drawing No A-9000-002) show the extent of the 

proposed development. In summary, the Halite proposals include the following 

key elements: 

 

 

 

 

Gas Storage Caverns; 

Water Washing Infrastructure; 

Gas and Electrical Infrastructure; and 

Road Infrastructure. 

2.1.7 These elements are described below. 

Gas Storage Caverns 

2.1.8 The proposed UGS Facility would consist of a number of underground caverns 

which would be created by a solution mining (leaching) process described later. 

The caverns used in the proposed Project would be created specifically in the 

salt areas that have been left untouched by previous brine mining operations. 

2.1.9 The caverns would be individually designed and constructed according to the 

best practices of the gas storage industry, according to designs and 

specifications which are based on detailed studies of the salt quality, its 

disposition underground, and tests of its mechanical strength. A typical gas 

storage cavern would be cylindrical in shape and the top approximately 220 

metres (700 feet) below ground. All work must be in accordance with a Pre 

Construction Safety Report approved and administered by the Health & Safety 

Executive (HSE), under the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) 

Regulations 1999. 

2.1.10 The caverns would be developed and constructed in accordance with BSI BS 

EN 1918-3 ‘Gas Supply Systems – Underground Gas Storage Part 3: 

Functional Recommendation for Storage in Solution – Mined Salt Cavities’ 

(1998). As well as ensuring that gas storage caverns are properly constructed it 

is necessary to establish a number of design parameters including:- 

 

 

 

 

 

minimum thickness of the salt that forms the roof of the cavern; 

depth of the cavern; 

geometrical shape; 

minimum and maximum operating pressures; 

minimum pillar dimensions with respect to adjacent caverns or to the 

boundary of the salt rock formation, major faults or any other hazards. 

2.1.11 Halite has appointed Professor Rokahr to assist in the cavern design. The 

design must meet the approval of the HSE following the drilling and testing of 

the borehole for each cavern. 

18

2.1.12 To access the salt, boreholes would be drilled from 7 wellhead compounds. 

Each compound would contain a number of wellheads and, therefore, as each 

borehole was completed, the drilling rig would move to the next. Vertical wells 

would be drilled to access the land based salt body and directional drilling 

techniques would be used to access the salt under the Wyre Estuary. 

2.1.13 Halite has engaged Baker Hughes to evaluate the required programme to drill 

and create caverns located in the cavern development area. Because some of 

the salt formation lies under the Wyre Estuary, most well trajectories would 

require directional drilling. In some instances, up to a 600 metre ‘step out’ 

would be required from the well head to the location of the cavern that is 

proposed to be created. Four distinct well types have been identified; vertical, 

S-shaped, slant and extended reach slant wells. Details of the drilling 

programme are set out in the DCO Application Document 9.2.5 ‘Review of the 

Proposed Drilling and Completion Programmes for the Preesall Underground 

Gas Storage Project Report’ (Baker Hughes, 2011). The objective of this 

Review is to provide a technical assessment of the conceptual drilling and 

completion programmes having particular regard to a 600m step out well, using 

industry standards and guidelines. As all of the wells in this first phase of the 

Preesall development are similar in design but have less horizontal 

displacement than the 600m step out well, the resultant findings can be 

considered for all well types required to complete this first phase of cavern 

construction. A full examination of the engineering design for the conceptual 

‘600m step out’ well was completed and the outcome of the technical risk 

assessment concluded that no significant risks remained after mitigation 

measures were put in place. The risk assessment considered all well types 

required to complete the 19 proposed caverns. 

2.1.14 The caverns would be created and accessed by two boreholes drilled from 

separate wellheads. Following the creation of the boreholes, the surface casing 

would be cemented back to the surface and the cement allowed to cure. This 

means that the casing would be sheathed in cement so as to create an 

impermeable barrier between the casing and the surrounding rock in 

accordance with industry best practice. The cement casing of the boreholes 

would be impermeable to gas penetration and erosion. 

2.1.15 The drilling process would continue with casing set in the first 15 – 25 metres of 

the salt bed. Where the cavern to be created in the salt is directly under the drill 

pad the borehole into the salt would be vertical. Where the cavern is to be 

created in a position laterally displaced from the drill pad, the borehole above 

the casing shoe would be drilled using a directional drilling technique. 

2.1.16 To ensure well integrity, the accepted modern method is the use of two casing 

strings in each borehole. This means that instead of a single steel pipe 

(‘casing’) there are two casings; one inside the other. The space between the 

two casings, called the annulus, would be used for the monitoring of the 

integrity of the well casings. If one casing fails, the gas would be retained by 

the other. In the event of a failure the cavern can be emptied or taken out of 

operation. Investigative and remedial work can safely be carried out thereafter. 

This method, together with the blanket method of cavern creation enables a 

high degree of well integrity to be achieved. 

19

2.1.17 The production casing would be run into the well with a stab-in float collar 

between the 1 st and 2 nd casing joints. A float guide shoe would also be placed 

on the end of the lowermost joint to guarantee that cement would not migrate 

back up into the casing when pumping of cement is completed. After the casing 

is cemented back to the surface, the cement would be allowed to cure. After 

curing the cement, the float collar and float shoe, which are made of cement, 

would be drilled out and a smaller borehole drilled vertically to the proposed 

total depth of the cavern. 

2.1.18 The well would be logged to verify the predicted geology of the roof rock and 

salt. This would be undertaken using an electric wire logging device which 

would be lowered into the well to measure the electrical resistivity of the roof 

rock and the salt bed. The results of this measurement would be analysed and 

would provide additional information about the characteristics of the salt body. 

2.1.19 The brine production tubing would be hung in the wellhead to the level of the 

proposed bottom of the cavern. The injection tubing would be hung at the 

required depth and the wellhead would be completed in preparation for the 

solution mining process (washing) of the cavern. This would complete the well 

installation. As set out above, each cavern would be accessed from two 

wellheads. 

2.1.20 A solution mining process, using seawater, would dissolve the salt in order to 

create the cavern in the salt body. Seawater would be pumped down the 

borehole, which would dissolve the salt, and the resultant brine would be 

returned to the surface. In order to protect the material over the salt bed from 

the effects of the washing process and to protect the cement casings, it would 

be necessary to ensure that a layer of salt is left unwashed. A depth of salt 

equal to the radius of the cavern is always retained between the final 

cemented/production casing during solution mining in order to protect the 

casings and to aid in controlling the inert gas blanket depth. The thickness of 

salt is known as the salt head and is determined in each case for the specific 

requirements of each cavern. 

2.1.21 The inert gas blanket, in this case nitrogen, would prevent the dissolution of salt 

around the cemented production casing. This blanket would be injected and the 

depth would be verified by interface logging which measures the brine/nitrogen 

interface that is determined by the difference in the density of brine and of 

nitrogen at a certain depth. The blanket interface would be calculated 

individually for each borehole. Seawater injection would be through the injection 

tubing using the direct method of washing. The brine produced as a result of the 

washing process would be brought to the surface through the annulus between 

the different sized tubing within the borehole. The two boreholes would also 

allow seawater to be pumped down one and returned to the surface in the 

other. 

2.1.22 A sump would be created at the bottom of the cavern to contain the insoluble 

substances liberated by the washing process. Sonar surveys of the cavern 

would be carried out during the washing process to reveal its size and shape. 

2.1.23 The important blanket interface would be periodically verified with an interface 

survey and would be continuously monitored by recording the nitrogen wellhead 

20

pressure. The amount of cavern storage space that would be washed each day 

would be calculated from the volume of brine withdrawn and the temperature 

corrected specific gravity of that brine. 

2.1.24 Washing would continue with intermittent sonar surveys verifying the cavern 

shape and volume until the required storage space is achieved. The washing 

system would be designed to eliminate excessive water injection pressures. 

The use of centrifugal pumps provides an extra safety measure for not over 

pressuring the salt body during cavern creation. The casing shoe is the bottom 

of the casing in the well. If the injection tubing or brine production tubing used 

in the washing process becomes blocked or plugged by insoluble material or if 

there is a reduction in flow caused by, for example, salt crystallisation a surface 

alarm would sound and an automatic shut down valve would operate stopping 

the injection pumps. 

2.1.25 After solution mining is completed, the leaching strings would be removed, a 

final sonar survey would be performed, the de-brining string would be inserted 

into the well, and the high pressure wellhead would be installed. Following 

completion of these steps, a mechanical integrity test (MIT) would be performed 

using nitrogen gas. Nitrogen would be injected into the well between the 

production casing and the de-brining string until the gas/brine interface is 

several metres below the cemented casing seat. The nitrogen gas/brine 

interface would be verified by the running of a density interface log. The log 

detects the difference in density between the nitrogen gas and the saturated 

brine. After the interface has stabilized due to temperature/brine equalization 

and pressure, the well would be monitored for a minimum of 24 hours and a 

new interface log would be performed. If the interface has not moved upward, 

the well and cavern would be certified as devoid of fluid leakage: that is, the well 

and cavern have mechanical integrity. If the interface has moved upward, a new 

test would be required to certify the integrity of the cavern. All tests would be 

carried out in accordance with the requirements of the HSE. 

2.1.26 If for some reason a well or cavern does not pass the tests, attempts to 

determine the reasons for failure would be made. If the reasons for the failure 

cannot be resolved, the cavern/well would not be used and would be 

decommissioned. Typically, however, the industry experiences very low failure 

rates of new caverns. 

2.1.27 Following successful completion of this testing, gas from the NTS would be 

introduced under pressure and used to purge the cavern of brine. The 

completed well and cavern would be operated as a pressure vessel while in 

natural gas storage service. 

2.1.28 Initial cavern gas fill and de-brining safety systems would make use of both 

manual and automatic shutdown valves on the wellheads at the surface. 

Sensors on the gas injection side would close wellhead valves automatically 

(fail closed) if pressure on the injection side is higher than necessary to displace 

brine from the cavern. The shut-down would be recorded in the control room 

and injection to the well would cease. 

21

Water Washing Infrastructure 

2.1.29 In order to dissolve the salt and create the caverns, a supply of water is 

required, together with pumps and pipelines to take it to the caverns and from 

there to the brine disposal point. The amount of water required is very large (up 

to 80 mega-litres a day) such that the use of freshwater made this an 

economically and environmentally unviable option. However, since seawater is 

only 3% sodium chloride, as compared with saturated brine at 26%, seawater is 

almost as effective as fresh water for this purpose and is available in much 

larger quantities. Fleetwood Fish Dock has, therefore, been selected as a 

suitable source of seawater. The Fish Dock, constructed in 1880, was used to 

supply cooling water to an electricity generating station in the 1950’s and some 

of this infrastructure is still in place. The proposed construction would make 

maximum use of this existing infrastructure, which minimises the impact of this 

part of the Project. 

2.1.30 The proposal is to draw water from the Fish Dock at Fleetwood, through the 

existing inlet and associated culvert, which is 1.22m in diameter. A Seawater 

Pump Station is proposed, adjacent to ABP’s Fish Dock, to pump seawater in a 

buried and directional drilled pipeline from the West Bank of the Wyre Estuary 

to the Preesall site. Filters would be incorporated into the inlet to minimise the 

opportunity for marine organisms to be drawn into the water washing 

infrastructure. 

2.1.31 The river crossing would consist of four directionally drilled boreholes: one for 

the seawater passing from the seawater pump station; one for the returning 

brine; one for power, communications, controls and ancillary uses leaving one 

in reserve. These would be formed by directionally drilling boreholes from the 

west bank of the Wyre Estuary, at sufficient depth to minimise the 

environmental impact. The pipelines would be a minimum of 8 metres below 

the bed of the River to ensure that the existing silt and sediments are not 

disturbed. 

2.1.32 The seawater would then be transmitted in a buried pipeline to the Booster 

Pump Station where the pressure would be increased and the seawater 

pumped to the various wellhead locations. It would be fed down the well casings 

for the cavern washing operation at controlled rates, according to industry best 

practices and the PCSR. 

2.1.33 After the brine has been used in the washing process, it would be returned to 

the de-brining facility adjacent to the Booster Pump Station to ensure that the 

brine contains no dissolved gas or sediment from the washing stage. Dissolved 

gases vent to air whilst the sediment would be collected and disposed of to an 

existing cavern on the site by tanker or slurry pipeline. Further details are 

provided in the Section dealing with waste arisings towards the end of this 

Report. The quality of the brine would be monitored prior to disposal. The brine 

would be of varying saturation, according to the stage of cavern washing, but as 

a ‘worst case’ it is assumed for the environmental assessment to be saturated; 

i.e. approximately 26% weight/weight (w/w) sodium chloride. 

2.1.34 The saturated brine would leave the de-brining facility at a pressure of up to 

7bar. It would then be passed through piping, trenched in a similar manner to 

22

the inlet seawater piping and back through the second river crossing. On the 

West Bank of the river, it would then pass through similar piping, to the seawall 

at West Way via a discharge monitoring facility sited adjacent to the Seawater 

Pumping Station at Fleetwood Dock. All pipework would be underground with 

the exception of the crossing of the old railway line adjacent to the Jameson 

Road Bridge crossing where a pipe bridge is proposed. 

2.1.35 From there the saturated brine would be conveyed through an undersea HDPE 

pipe to the outfall approximately 2.3 km offshore to a two port single diffuser, 

the design of which is shown on the application plans, where it would be 

discharged into the sea in accordance with an existing Discharge Consent. 

Refer to Appendix 2.1 of Volume 1B for the Environment Agency Discharge 

Consent, and Appendix 2.2 of Volume 1B for the Marine Dispersion Modelling 

Report (Hyder, 2003). The design of the diffuser has been carefully optimised 

for the marine environment, and its performance would achieve those standards 

specified by the Environment Agency in its approval. 

2.1.36 The principal use of the seawater and the water infrastructure is for the creation 

of caverns. Once the caverns are completed, the water washing infrastructure 

would only be used for the filling of caverns during periods of cavern 

maintenance. Generally, the caverns may be filled with brine every 10 to 15 

years for the testing and inspection of the gas storage caverns if required. 

Gas and Electrical Infrastructure 

2.1.37 The gas infrastructure for the project consists of a Gas Compressor Compound 

(GCC), the gas distribution pipelines and manifolds connecting the wellheads to 

the GCC and an interconnector pipeline which links the GCC to the NTS near 

Nateby, approximately 12 km away. The interconnector pipeline is designed as 

a 42 inch diameter pipe but there may be an opportunity to reduce this to a 36 

inch diameter pipe. For the purposes of the Environmental Impact Statement 

the 42 inch diameter pipeline has been assessed. A connection is proposed to 

National Grid Gas pipelines (No.21 and No 15 Feeder) to ensure maximum flow 

rate and availability. At the connection point there would be a shut-down valve 

under National Grid Gas control. A gas metering station is proposed, adjacent 

to National Grid Gas’s existing valve installation on Feeder 21. 

2.1.38 Following a review of alternative sites on both banks of the River Wyre, the 

GCC is proposed to be located on the northern part of the UGS site. The GCC 

is the largest part of the surface infrastructure that is required to construct and 

operate the UGS Facility. As such, it will be carefully designed and landscaped 

in order to minimise its environmental impact. 

2.1.39 The GCC would include processing equipment to condition the gas for entry to 

the NTS and to the caverns. The equipment would include compressors, 

dehydration units, air cooled heat exchangers, filters, separators, storage tanks 

and utility systems. There would also be additional buildings containing 

electrical and instrument equipment. 

2.1.40 The proposed compressors would be electrically driven compressors that are 

hermetically sealed and require no lubricant and create no emissions during 

normal operations. The compressors would be contained within a building. 

23

2.1.41 There would be a vent stack, which would be used at times of emergency and 

for routine maintenance. There would also be an access road, vehicle parking 

and a security fence. 

2.1.42 For a strategic project such as this, it is a requirement that there is a robust high 

integrity electricity supply. The installation would be supplied from the 

connection point at the Stanah Switchyard via 100% dual circuits, so that, if one 

supply is not available, the load can be supplied by the other circuit. Additional 

switchgear would be required at Stanah and this would be included within the 

existing building. No changes are required to the layout and external 

appearance of the existing building. There would be no effect on other 

consumers in respect of reliability of supply or voltage control. 

2.1.43 Cables would be laid underground from UU switchgear in the Stanah 

Switchyard, beneath the Wyre Estuary and north through to the Sub Station at 

the GCC. Crossing of the Wyre Estuary would be achieved by directionally 

drilling two pipes for two circuits. The pipes would be a minimum of 8 metres 

below the bed of the River to ensure that the existing silt, sediments and flood 

defences are not disturbed. 

2.1.44 Cables ducts and ultimately the electricity cabling would be drawn from the 

Preesall side across to the Stanah Switchyard. This will entail cable ducting 

being laid out across the field on the Preesall side so that a continuous pull can 

be achieved. The cables would be delivered on cable spools which would feed 

the cable out as the pull progresses. 

2.1.45 From the GCC would run 3 underground gas pipeline manifolds inland of the 

river embankment. From these manifolds, gas distribution pipes would be 

connected to the individual wellheads. 

Road Infrastructure 

2.1.46 In order to gain access for the construction and operation phases of the Project, 

improvements would be required to the road infrastructure in the area. It is 

proposed to form a new road from the A588 to the site, constructed to a 

standard to allow for the movement of large items of equipment such as 

transformers, interconnector pipes and compressors. Access roads and tracks 

would be provided within the site linking the main permanent structures and 

wellheads as shown on the application drawings. 

2.1.47 Access roads and tracks would be provided within the site linking the main 

permanent structures and wellheads as follows : 

 

New access road extending from the Security and Support Buildings at 

Higher Lickow Farm (Work No 5) to the GCC area (Works No 3). The 

access road would comprise the construction of a metalled private road 

between the Security Gatehouse and the GCC (Work No 3). The road 

would be constructed at grade and would be drained by pipes or ditches to 

existing watercourses via interceptors where required. The road would be 

lit at low level (height) to cater for emergency operation and would be 

fenced to prevent livestock entry. Field access would be provided at 

appropriate locations. Replacement or improvements to existing hedges 

24

would be included as appropriate. Crossing of or modifications to minor 

watercourses would be by the use of piped culverts or realigned ditches as 

appropriate. 

Permanent access tracks linking Wellhead compounds and the GCC. 

New stoned tracks or refurbished existing stoned tracks linking the GCC to 

each of the Wellhead Compounds (Work No’s 2A-2G), of a width 

appropriate to proposed vehicular usage. No positive drainage would be 

provided, save where necessary. The tracks would be designed to 

accommodate construction, maintenance and emergency access vehicles. 

Work areas would be reinstated, landscaping being provided at 

appropriate locations where hedgerows and fences where removed. 

Temporary access/haul roads would be required on the route of the brine 

pipeline and the gas interconnector pipeline as shown on the Works 

drawings. The access roads would be used for the construction of the 

pipelines and once completed the roads would be removed and the land 

re-instated. 

Built Development 

2.1.48 The permanent above ground built development necessary for the operation of 

the proposed UGS Facility comprises: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Security and Support Facility 

Seawater Pump Station 

Booster Pump Station 


Wellhead Compounds 

Seawall Crossing and Observation Platform 

Interconnector Metering Station 

2.1.49 The Security and Support Facility would be located at Higher Lickow Farm. The 

existing farmhouse and outbuildings, which are currently vacant, provide an 

ideal location for this use as they are close to the proposed route of the main 

access road into the site. The farmhouse would be refurbished to provide 

administration, training, and health and safety accommodation. The gross 

floorspace of the two storey building is 112 sq metres. 

2.1.50 Adjacent to the farmhouse are two existing barns both of which are in a poor 

condition. The larger barn, which has a footprint of 250 sq metres, would be 

rebuilt on its existing footprint to provide staff facilities and a maintenance 

workshop in two storeys. The ground floor would comprise 250 sq metres and 

contain two offices, a locker room, toilets, a workshop and stores. The first floor 

comprising 100 sq metres would contain 2 meeting rooms and a canteen. The 

smaller barn which has a footprint of 60 sq metres would be demolished. 

2.1.51 Finally, a single storey security gatehouse with a floorspace of 24 sq metres 

would be provided to the east of the farmhouse on the main access road. 

Within the complex, 17 car parking spaces would be provided for employees 

and visitors. 

25

2.1.52 It is proposed that the Seawater Pumping Station Compound would be situated 

adjacent to an existing seawater culvert within the Fleetwood Fish Dock, off 

Herring Arm Road. The Compound would contain the Pump Station itself, a 

transformer compound, access road and car parking area. 

2.1.53 The Pump Station building would be single storey (6.5 metres to the top of the 

ridge) with a floorspace of approximately 430 sq metres gross. The Pump 

Station would contain the pump hall, electrical drive units, switchgear and 

control desk. It is designed to abstract seawater from the Fish Dock making 

use of an existing culvert originally built to supply cooling water to the former 

Fleetwood Power Station. The seawater would enter a sump underneath the 

Pump Station building prior to being filtered and pumped in an underground 

pipeline under the Wyre Estuary to the Booster Pump Station at the Preesall 

site. The filter would have a mesh with a square aperture measuring 4mm 

square. Abstraction of water from the Fish Dock would be controlled to ensure 

a viable water level is always maintained in the dock. 

2.1.54 A bunded transformer compound containing 2 transformers would be provided 

adjacent to the Pump Station building. 

2.1.55 Access to the Compound is proposed from Herring Arm Road with 4 car parking 

spaces provided for staff and visitors. A 2.4 metre perimeter security fence of 

polyester coated mesh would be provided around the site. 

2.1.56 It is proposed that the Booster Pump Station Compound would be located 

adjacent to the Hackensall Sewage Treatment Works. Access to the 

Compound would be provided from the track that extends from Monks Lane. 

The Compound would contain the Booster Pump Station, De-brine Facility and 

nitrogen tank compound. 

2.1.57 The Booster Pump Station would have a floorspace of 492 sq metres and would 

contain the Control Room, 12 high capacity pumps, electrical control equipment, 

switchgear and standby generator. A transformer compound would be situated 

adjacent to the building containing 2 transformers. The external materials are 

brick and tile. 

2.1.58 The De-brine Facility would comprise a pond, hydro-cyclones and brine 

discharge pumps. 

2.1.59 The Booster Pump Station would receive seawater pumped from the Seawater 

Pump Station at the Fleetwood Fish Dock. The booster pumps situated within 

the building would increase water pressure and via a number of underground 

pipelines deliver it to individual wellheads. Under controlled conditions, the 

seawater would be injected down the cased and lined boreholes to solution 

mine the salt. The resulting saturated brine would then be returned via 

underground pipes to the De-brine Facility within the Compound. Any 

suspended solids within the retained saturated brine would be removed by 

passing the brine through hydrocyclones. The ‘filtered’ saturated brine would 

then be pumped back across the Wyre Estuary and the Fleetwood Peninsula to 

the outfall off Rossall in the Irish Sea. 

26

2.1.60 The De-brine Facility includes a reservoir tank which is required during the 

process of de-watering of the caverns. When gas is first introduced into the 

completed caverns, the residual brine would be driven out and piped to the 

reservoir to ensure any possibility of dissolved gas is allowed to vent. Following 

‘venting’ of the gas in the reservoir, the brine would be disposed of in the normal 

manner as summarised above. 

2.1.61 The Compound would be surrounded by a 2.4 metre security fence of polyester 

coated mesh (dark green). Spoil from the construction of the buildings and the 

De-brine Facility would be used to raise the land to the west and north of the 

Compound to mitigate views of the Compound when viewed from the Wyre 

Way. 

2.1.62 It is proposed that the Gas Compressor Compound would be located 500 

metres to the northwest of Higher Lickow Farm. Access to the Compound 

would be provided from the new access road to the A588. The Compound 

would contain the following buildings, structures and equipment : 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pig Launchers and Receivers; 

Slug Catchers; 

Large diameter above ground high pressure pipelines; 

Glycol Contactors to dry the gas; 

Glycol Regeneration system; 

Gas Compressors; 

Compressor Knock Out Separators; 

Compressor Aftercoolers; 

Gas filters; 

Gas Heaters; 

Various utility systems, plant drainage and power supply; 

Emergency/maintenance vent stack; 

Electrical/instrument and Utilities buildings; and 

Vent Stack provided within the centre of a new pond. 

2.1.63 The principal buildings are the Compressor Station Building and the Electrical 

Equipment and Utilities Building, which are similar in design and comprise 

single storey buildings approximately 8.5 metres high, each with a gross floor 

area of approximately 360 sq metres. 

2.1.64 The external plant would include:- 

 

 

the glycol heaters and regeneration plant rising to a maximum height of 

approximately 13 metres; 

the fin fan coolers rising to a maximum of 8 metres in height; 

slug catcher and NTS Filters rising to a height of approximately 9.5 

metres; and 

27

storage tanks of approximately 3.5 metres in height. 

2.1.65 The eastern part of the Compound would provide a vent stack situated in a 50 

metre radius pond. As well as ensuring that there is a sterile area around the 

vent stack, the pond would also act as an emergency source of fire water. 

2.1.66 Most of the large diameter pipework within the Compound would be buried, with 

small diameter pipework and equipment outside or, where appropriate, 

incorporated within buildings. 

2.1.67 The compound would be high security and surrounded by palisade fencing with 

CCTV cameras. 

2.1.68 Adjacent to the Compound would be an Electrical Substation and switchyard. 

2.1.69 Wellhead Compounds. During the drilling of the boreholes, 7 wellhead 

compounds are proposed to accommodate the drilling rigs. The wellhead 

compounds would be provided on a phased basis as the drilling of boreholes 

across the site progresses. The wellhead compounds would be large enough to 

accommodate the drilling rig, pipework and ancillary infrastructure. Following 

the drilling of the boreholes, the water washing infrastructure would be 

connected to wash the caverns and once these are created the gas manifolds 

would be connected to allow for the import and export of gas. Once operational 

the wellhead compounds would be low structures whose visual impact can be 

mitigated by earth screening and planting. 

2.1.70 Each wellhead compound would be a high security compound surrounded by 

palisade fencing with CCTV cameras. 

2.1.71 Seawall Crossing. In order to cross the seawall, it is proposed that piping would 

be laid beneath the concrete access ramp from West Way. The pipe would then 

pass through the existing gap in the existing splash wall, trenched across the 

top of the seawall, and down the face of the seawall on to the foreshore. The 

passage of the pipeline from the top of the seawall would be accomplished 

within a new observation platform to be built abutting the face of the seawall. 

This feature would be constructed with design input from WBC’s specification 

and is intended to replace the existing access ramp. In detail, the schedule of 

works is as follows : 

 

 

 

 

 

Temporary construction compound installed landside of existing seawall, 

south of planned pipe crossing. 

The access ramp from West Way would be closed to pedestrians for 

installation of pipe, removal of existing ramp and foundations for 

observation platforms for up to 12 weeks. Access would be restricted for 

up to an additional 12 weeks subject to control during site deliveries. 

The existing ramp from the foreshore to the seawall would be used to 

allow heavy equipment access. 

The marine contractor would install a cofferdam on the seaward side. 

The marine contractor would install HDPE pipe from inside the cofferdam 

to the low water mark. 

28

Relevant sections of the existing seawall would be removed without 

affecting the efficiency of the continuing sea defence. 

Installation of a steel S-bend pipe through the top section of (over the main 

body of) the seawall would occur with a foreshore connection made inside 

the cofferdam. 

Marine contractor would withdraw and continue with laying the 2.3 kms 

outfall pipe. 

Installed pipe sections would be hydro-tested. 

Re-modelling of sea defence with observation deck in keeping with 

Cleveleys esplanade. 

Once complete, demobilisation, clean up and re-instatement to the 

previous condition. 

The finished new seawall would remain visually in keeping with the length 

of the new sea defences along this part of the Lancashire coast. 

2.1.72 The work would take place during the summer in the first year of construction of 

the UGS project and would be completed within 9 months. 

2.1.73 The interconnector metering station would consist of a single brick building of 

150 sq metres floorspace in a 0.96 ha Compound. The interconnector pipeline 

would rise out of the ground within the Compound and re-enter the ground to 

connect to the NTS feeder. The above ground pipeline would have flow 

measurement devices, isolation and emergency shutdown valves. The building 

would house automatic metering and gas analysis instrumentation and is not 

normally manned. The Compound would be surrounded by a security fence. 

2.1.74 Access to the Compound would be from the existing farmers track from Station 

Lane. 

Other Works 

2.1.75 In addition to the above, the following works are required:- 

 

 

 

Temporary drilling compounds; 

New landscaping and mounding; and 

A number of temporary construction, drilling and storage compounds. 

29

30

3 CONSTRUCTION, SITE MANAGEMENT AND 

DECOMMISSIONING 

Construction Programme 

3.1.1 Following the detailed engineering work, the receipt of all of the necessary 

consents and licences and the appointment of a contractor, construction of the 

Project would take place in phases over an 8 year period as follows. The main 

elements of the programme would be as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mobilisation of contractors including the establishment of work 

compounds, the construction of the main access road and the provision of 

temporary footpaths as may be required. 

Construction of the Water Washing Infrastructure 

Drilling - This phase involves drilling of the wells into the salt formation, 

installation of leaching strings and leaching wellheads. 

Solution Mining - This phase involves solution mining of the caverns to 

form the underground caverns, utilising the leaching wellheads and Water 

Washing Infrastructure to form the caverns. This process would take 

several years. 

Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound for de-brining and trading 

of the caverns. This phase also involves installation of the gas pipelines 

between the GCC and the NTS, and the GCC and the caverns. 

De-brining – This phase involves installation of gas strings and gas 

wellheads to allow removal of the brine from the caverns. Gas would be 

used to displace the brine from the caverns and convert the caverns ready 

for gas trading. 

Gas Trading – The final phase involves fully commissioning the caverns 

and handover to gas trading operations. 

3.1.2 The construction effects of the Project would be controlled through a variety of 

mechanisms, including adherence to a Construction Environmental 

Management Plan (CEMP) (refer to Section 5.12 of this ES) and a Site Waste 

Management Plan (SWMP) (Hyder, 2011) (refer to Appendix 3.1 of Volume 1B). 

3.1.3 The phases outlined above are not sequential and it is likely that a number of 

the construction and operational phases will be progressed in parallel. All of the 

built development would be achieved in the first three years of the construction 

programme but the washing and creation of the caverns would take place 

sequentially over a the 8 year period as each cavern is created and tested 

individually. As caverns become available and subject to HSE agreement, 

caverns may be operational whist others are still being washed or tested. An 

indicative programme for the construction of the project is set out below: 

31

Construction Tasks and Indicative Construction Programme 

Construction Task 

Haul and Access Roads 

Higher Lickow Farm 

Brine Pipeline 

Seawall Crossing 

Brine Outfall 

Seawater Pump Station 



Interconnector Pipeline 

Metering Station 

Wellheads 

Creation of Caverns 

Years 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Emissions and Waste 

3.1.4 The main wastes that will be generated from the construction and operation of 

the Project include:- 

3.1.5 Saturated brine produced through the washing of caverns would be disposed 

of by pipeline to the Irish Sea in accordance with the terms of the existing 

Discharge Licence granted by the Environment Agency. The Preesall salt body 

contains on average an 8% insoluble content and during the leaching operation 

some 80% of the insolubles would be carried to the surface. Hydrocyclones 

would separate the insoluble substances from the brine and these, along with 

other drilling wastes would be disposed of (see below). 

3.1.6 During the de-brining process (first fill of gas into the cavern) no insoluble 

substances would be carried to the surface 

3.1.7 Drilling wastes would comprise solids (shale, sandstone, chert, etc.) and 

associated drilling muds. All the drilling wastes would be used on site for 

landscape buffers and earth mounding or, alternatively, removed from the site. 

Insoluble’s from the leaching process would be disposed of to an existing 

cavern on the site; BW 123. This cavern was chosen due to its proximity to the 

de-brining facility. 

3.1.8 Topsoil/Rock/Earth from the construction of the foundations for the buildings, 

pipelines, roads and the levelling of compounds would be disposed of on site. 

The intention is to ensure that no soils need to be exported from the Preesall 

site and the application plans show where the earth mounding is proposed i.e. 

adjacent to the GCC, the Booster Pump Station Compound and the wellhead 

compounds. 

32

3.1.9 The main emissions and wastes arising from the operation of the project 

include:- 

 

 

 

Emissions to air; 

Liquids; and 

Solids 

3.1.10 Emissions to air include:- 

 

 

 

Emergency and maintenance gas from vent system; 

Combustion products from dehydration incinerator; and 

Combustion products from heating boilers 

3.1.11 The Dehydration Unit combustion products would be vented to atmosphere via 

a local vent stack on the Dehydration Units. The emissions would be 

continuous during withdrawal operation. 

3.1.12 The Heating Medium Boiler combustion products would be vented to 

atmosphere via a local vent stack on the Heating Medium Units. The emissions 

would be infrequent during withdrawal operations as heating is generally not 

required, 

3.1.13 Any maintenance that requires the process equipment to be depressurised 

would lead to venting of gas via the main vent stack. This is expected to be 

infrequent with major venting limited to once per year or similar. 

3.1.14 Liquid emissions include:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Process waste water / Methanol from process gas 

Triethylene Glycol (TEG) from dehydration 

Water/glycol heating medium fluid 

Condensed water from boilers 

Site drainage 

Rainwater 

Firewater 

Lubrication Oils 

Chemicals e.g. corrosion inhibitor, treatment chemicals, anti-foam etc 

3.1.15 The process water separated from the gas in the Slugcatchers, Glycol 

Separators, Compression Suction Drums and NTS Gas Filter Coalescers would 

be collected in the Condensate Tank. The process water may also contain 

methanol, TEG, corrosion inhibitor, and other fluids. The Condensate Tank 

would be emptied by road tanker for offsite disposal by a specialist waste 

contractor. 

3.1.16 The dehydration and heating medium systems can be emptied to road tanker, 

where there is a requirement to remove a significant volume of the liquids, e.g. 

33

to replace spent TEG. The liquids would be disposed offsite by a specialist 

waste contractor. 

3.1.17 Any plant areas where liquid spills are expected e.g. processing units or 

equipment etc, would be bunded or similar to provide containment of the liquid 

spills. The bunds would be sealed and any valves closed off to avoid liquids 

entering the site drainage system. The liquids can be disposed of using a gully 

sucker or similar to a road tanker for offsite disposal by a specialist waste 

contractor, or sent to the site drainage system depending on the nature of the 

liquids collected in the bund. 

3.1.18 Any plant areas where liquids spills are not expected e.g. roads, building roofs 

etc, would send liquids directly to the site drainage system or soakaways as 

shown on the application plans. The liquids may include site drainage, 

rainwater, firewater etc. Typically, the site drainage system would consist of a 

number of tanks or chambers to allow ‘sentencing’ of the liquid waste. This 

involves testing the liquids for hydrocarbons and/or TEG, oil separation by 

gravity, buffer capacity to allow a steady outlet flow, and a surge capacity to 

allow for major storms. Once the liquids have been ‘sentenced’ they would be 

discharged to a surface drain. 

3.1.19 The site drainage system would also be configured to retain the firewater 

volume for the Project, where this is required. 

3.1.20 Solid emissions include:- 

 

 

Filter internals 

Solids from pigging 

3.1.21 Any solid waste would be generated from maintenance or specialist operations 

on an infrequent basis. Solid waste would need to be collected and disposed of 

by a specialist waste contractor. 

Operating Philosophy 

3.1.22 The overall philosophy of operation is that the Project would store gas at times 

of excess gas availability on the NTS and release gas at times of high demand. 

The Project would be designed with maximum operating flexibility to enable any 

or more of the following trading cycles to be accommodated:- 

 

 

 

Seasonal Trading Cycle: Injection through summer months (April to 

October), withdrawal through winder months (November to March); 

Weekly Trading Cycle: Injection through the weekend, withdrawal through 

the weekdays; 

Daily Trading Cycle: Injection through the night, withdrawal on request. 

3.1.23 The Project would be a fast cycle facility that is expected to be ‘churned’ (filled 

and emptied) several times per annum. Individual caverns would, however, 

seldom be completely emptied (except for maintenance) and only occasionally 

completely full. 

34

3.1.24 The Project would be capable of rapid start up and ramping up to maximum 

injection and withdrawal rates. 

3.1.25 There is a Control Room at the Booster Pump Station Compound from which 

the Project would be monitored and controlled. The Project would be manned 

at all times although it would also be possible to monitor operations from remote 

locations. 

Operational Life and Decommissioning 

3.1.26 The Project has an operational design life of over 40 years but its longer term 

operation would be dependent on the continued demand for gas, gas prices, 

potential new sources of gas and their reliability. Dependent on the continued 

demand for gas storage, Halite may consider proposals to extend the life of the 

Project or to increase/decrease its size. 

3.1.27 At the end of the life of the Project, the caverns may have the potential for 

alternative uses such as ‘carbon capture’ but any alternative uses would have to 

be considered at that time and do not form part of the current DCO application. 

3.1.28 If there were no alternative uses for the caverns, these would be emptied of 

gas, filled with brine and sealed. The wellheads would be maintained and 

monitored in accordance with an approved scheme and in a manner consistent 

with the ongoing maintenance and monitoring activities being conducted for the 

existing ICI caverns. A restoration and management plan would be produced to 

ensure the long-term maintenance and safety of the caverns and the site. 

3.1.29 The remaining infrastructure could remain in place if required for alternative 

uses. The seawater pipelines may have particular long term benefits in respect 

of flood control. The buildings, particularly those at Higher Lickow Farm, could 

have an alternative use associated with the farming of the land. The Seawater 

Pump Station and Booster Pump Station may have potential for alternative uses 

in association with the Fish Dock and Hackensall STW respectively. 

3.1.30 The interconnector pipeline would be purged of natural gas and sealed. The 

natural gas would be replaced with an inert gas, probably nitrogen, pending any 

further decommissioning works which may be required by *best practice at the 

time. At the Metering Station, all above ground pipework, together with valves 

and fittings would be removed. Subject to best practice at the time, the related 

underground pipework at the Metering Station would also be removed and the 

ground reinstated and returned to its original use. 

3.1.31 As with the caverns, the preferred option would be to consider alternative uses 

for all the built development at the end of the useful life of the Project. Should 

alternative uses not be available or be unacceptable to the LPA, the buildings 

would be removed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the LPA. 

The pipelines would, however, remain in situ and be sealed. 

35

36

4 DESIGN ITERATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 

CONSIDERED 

4.1.1 The EIA Regulations require that an Environmental Statement includes “An 

outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the 

main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental 

effects”. Given the history of the Project, numerous alternatives have been 

considered over time and have been reported in the previous Environmental 

Statements. 

4.1.2 Table 4-1 sets out the key design alternatives that have been considered. 

Table 4-1 Alternatives Considered within the Project Design 

Alternative 

Considered 

Cavern Wellhead 

Locations 

Entrance 

Facilities 

Reason 

Conventional techniques to access the Preesall Saltfield would necessitate 

the creation of drilling sites and access tracks across the saltmarsh, which is 

protected by European legislation. This approach was rejected due to its 

potential impact on areas of saltmarsh and the hydrology of the Wyre 

Estuary. The solution chosen was to access the saltfield by directional 

drilling which, although it is substantially more expensive, avoids impinging 

upon the saltmarsh. 

The LPA’s were concerned about the impact of the wellhead compounds in 

the location. Compared with the previous proposals, the reduction in the 

number of proposed caverns has allowed Halite to reduce the number of 

wellheads to seven. 

Nineteen caverns (seven wellheads) have been proposed to be located in the 

two areas identified to be suitable for development. The majority of these will 

be directionally drilled for the reasons explained above. Each cavern will have 

two boreholes drilled and where it is possible to locate the wellhead vertically 

above the proposed cavern this is the preferred option. Otherwise 

directionally drilled cavern wellheads have been grouped together in 

compounds. The compounds have been located such that in the unlikely 

event of an incident at a wellhead this is directionally pointed away from the 

Wyre Way. There is some flexibility for the location of these compounds, but 

the size and shape of these is unlikely to change significantly unless the 

caverns are grouped differently. 

A wellhead compound (No2) has been relocated at the request of a resident. 

It had been intended to provide a security facility at the Gas Compressor 

Compound. However, there are existing properties at Higher Lickow 

comprising a farm house, several outbuildings and barn. It is intended to 

refurbish the farmhouse to provide office facilities and to rebuild the barn to 

provide workshops, offices and canteen facilities. The facilities would also 

include a security building in the entrance road. 

In order to mitigate the impact of the build development, the structures within 

the Gas Compression Compound have been designed to be as low as 

possible and significant earth mounding and landscaping is proposed to 

mitigate the impact on the surroundings. 

37

Alternative 

Considered 

Source of Cavern 

Washing Water 

for Creation of 

Caverns 

Seawater 

Pumping Station 

Design 

Siting of Booster 

Pump Station 

Siting of Gas 

Compressor 

Compound 

Reason 

Abstraction of water for pumping out the caverns from the Wyre Estuary, 

Morecambe Bay, or artesian wells was rejected due to impacts on the 

European protected areas of the Wyre Estuary and Morecambe Bay and on 

fresh water supply, respectively. Abstraction from Fleetwood Fish Docks was 

selected as this avoids potential impacts on coastal waters, the Wyre Estuary 

and Morecambe Bay, and utilises the inlet and culvert infrastructure already 

in place for the Fleetwood Power Station, which in turn allows the Seawater 

Pump Station to be set back from the Fish Dock. This also makes use of a 

brownfield site; facilitates the redevelopment of a derelict area and avoids the 

need for excavation across the dock access road and near the dock itself. 

External materials were going to comprise polished metal cladding to the 

walls and roof. Wyre Borough Council commented during the 2011 

consultation that the external appearance was too ‘industrial’ for the mixed 

use site and therefore not appropriate. Therefore the building was 

redesigned, and now comprises a building of a ‘domestic’ character to reflect 

that which was acceptable in previous schemes. 

The previous planning applications by Canatxx Gas Storage comprised two 

Booster Pump Stations. The site chosen for the first station in the 2009 

planning application was set back from the Estuary, was a greater distance 

from the Wyre Way public footpath, lay outside the floodplain and the 

surrounding topography generally minimised visual impact. The second 

station was located 300 m away from the Sportsman’s Caravan Park. 

As the current proposed design for the Project has been reduced in size and 

scale from the previous planning applications, only one Booster Pump Station 

is now required. This is situated to the south of Preesall Waste Water 

Treatment Works, and is considered to be the optimum location for the 

predicted cavern layout. 

The appearance of the Booster Pump Station has been amended to make it 

less industrial in appearance, barn like in appearance, and to meet the 

requirements of WBC. 

Alternative locations considered for the Gas Compressor Compound included 

land to the west of Burrow’s Hill, which was rejected due to the potential 

visual impact on the Wyre Estuary. The site selected for the 2009 planning 

application, on the east of Burrow’s Hill, avoided visual impact on the Wyre 

Estuary and ecological impacts on great crested newt ponds; avoided siting 

the building within the floodplain; and allowed the building to be set into the 

hill so that it lay within the existing skyline of vegetation and topography. 

Consideration was recently afforded to locating the Gas Compressor 

Compound on the west bank of the Wyre Estuary. However, this was 

considered to be unacceptable on the grounds of hazardous zoning 

regulations. The Gas Compressor Compound is now proposed to be situated 

to the south of Cote Walls Farm. This location is preferred because it is close 

to the proposed cavern development area, there are no brine wells or other 

old workings in the area and therefore there should be minimal subsidence in 

this area. Also, the natural hillside will provide screening and can be 

extended to further improve screening and therefore impact on the landscape 

will be reduced. It is essentially away from population and therefore does not 

38

Alternative 

Considered 

Brine Disposal 

Sea Wall 

Crossing 

Pipelines 

Crossing the 

Wyre Estuary - 

Construction 

methods 

Creation of 

saltmarsh 

Method of Gas 

Dehydration 

Dilution of Brine 

with Sea Water 

Reason 

introduce any un-acceptable risk. It has also been demonstrated that a safe 

and secure pipeline route can be established from this location to the NTS 

through old brine and mine workings and to the cavern development areas 

with a gas manifold system also without traversing old workings. 

The creation of the caverns through water washing will require brine to be 

disposed of during the cavern construction period of 8 years. Use of the brine 

as a material for a new chlorine plant on the Hillhouse site was considered; 

however a new housing development has been constructed within the 

exclusion zone for such a plant. Use of the brine for salt production was also 

considered but this would not have been financially viable given the capital 

investment required to establish such a plant and the relatively short period 

available to recoup it. 

Disposal of the brine as a waste material was therefore considered. Disposal 

to Morecambe Bay or the Wyre Estuary were discounted due to their 

environmental designations. Therefore, the proposal is to discharge the brine 

to the Irish Sea, although again substantially more expensive, was deemed 

the most environmentally acceptable solution. 

The reconstruction of the seawall at Rossall and integration of the pipeline 

within this structure below the surface of the beach is preferred as it 

maintains the integrity of the seawall defences while minimising visual impact 

to users of the beach and the Wyre Way. 

The aspect of the previous scheme for the siting and design of the seawall 

crossing and the observation platform have been retained. 

The Project will require the brine discharge and the electricity supply 

pipelines to cross the Wyre Estuary. Jetting, open cut and sheet piled 

methods of construction were considered; however these all had significant 

potential impacts to the flow regime and ecology of the Wyre Estuary. 

Although it required an increased Project cost, directional drilling is the 

preferred method chosen to ensure an environmentally acceptable method of 

crossing the Wyre Estuary. 

It was suggested that an area of land to the east of Burrow’s Lane, generally 

below 5 m AOD, could be flooded to produce a new area of saltmarsh. 

However, this proposal was is considered unacceptable due to the 

importance of this area for great crested newts, brown hares and birds, as 

well as the importance of this land to the local agricultural community. 

Four options were considered for gas de-hydration. Glycol and desiccant 

systems are both widely used in the UGS industry. Glycol has been chosen 

on the basis that it is well proven and will meet the current basis of design for 

the process. 

The near-field dispersion modelling undertaken for the 2009 planning 

application found that discharge concentration could be controlled by dilution 

with seawater. However, this provided little improvement in outfall 

performance for significantly increased pipeline and operating costs. The 

additional pipework would have further environmental impacts, as would the 

higher running costs of pumps and plant. This option was therefore not 

39

Alternative 

Considered 

Diffuser 

arrangements 

Location of haul 

roads / access 

tracks 

Electricity 

Connection 

Route of the NTS 

Interconnector 

Pipeline 

Reason 

pursued. 

The near-field dispersion modelling undertaken for the 2009 planning 

application also found that the use of multiple diffusers would reduce local 

impact and would reduce the extent of the 40 ppt mixing zone to less than 50 

m. However the total area of seabed impacted (by a salinity of more than 40 

ppt) is increased. The use of multiple diffusers was therefore not considered 

to be the best practicable environmental option. The near-field dispersion 

modelling indicated that a single diffuser with a double port configuration 

resulted in the smallest total area of impact and this configuration has been 

adopted. 

Cemetery Lane was considered as the main route into the site, however this 

was not favoured by Lancashire County Council. A temporary haul road was 

proposed as part of the 2009 planning application which would take all 

construction traffic from the A588 to cross Back Lane and then enter the 

construction site. This was not favoured by Wyre BC and some local 

inhabitants because it was indicated that it would be straight and run close to 

existing properties. It is now the view that this should be a permanent road of 

adequate size to allow heavy plant to access the site and to provide fast safe 

emergency access. The road has been re-routed away from existing 

properties after discussion with local residents. 

There is insufficient capacity for the seawater pumping or compressors on the 

existing circuits at Fleetwood or Preesall and the 2009 planning application 

considered the option to provide a new dual 132kV circuit from the Stanah 

Substation. The route north from Stanah was considered to be problematic 

because of ground contamination, unstable land and land ownership. The 

route under the Wyre at the south crossing was not considered unacceptable 

in the 2009 planning application. This provided a route to the south location of 

the Gas Compressor Compound and electrical substation. The preferred 

route from Burrows to the new location of the Gas Compressor Compound 

requires a 2 m wide trench in land owned by the Applicant alongside existing 

roads to enter the Gas Compressor Compound site. 

A study was undertaken by McMahon Design & Management Ltd. to locate 

potential routings for the NTS. In selecting such routes, consideration was 

given to the proximity of occupied buildings and the number of crossings of 

roads, tracks, watercourses, other pipelines, utilities and property lines. 

Particular consideration was afforded to bypassing Stalmine either to the 

north or south and selecting a crossing point for the A588. Ultimately, the 

objective was to optimise the routing of the pipelines, which generally 

involved minimising all of the above considerations. 

Further options have since been investigated. These have included the Wyre 

Power pipeline route, which has been rejected on regulatory grounds. At 

present, the route shown on Figure 1.4 Masterplan of Volume 2A is the 

preferred option, as this avoids the settlements of Preesall and Knott End and 

locally designated sites. 

Further details of route option for the NTS Interconnector Pipeline are 

contained in the Gas Interconnector Pipeline to the NTS (McMahon Design & 

40

Alternative 

Considered 

Interconnector 


Reason 

Management Ltd, February 2011), which is also a consultation document. 

Two metering stations were originally considered. This has been reduced this 

to one metering station capable of metering gas flows to/from either feeder 15 

or 21 to the Halite UGS Facility. This is considered to be more cost effective 

and also lessened the visual impact. 

The Metering Station building was redesigned in order to reflect the character 

of its location. 

4.1.3 The Project will continue to develop as new information is received including 

through the results of consultations, baseline surveys and assessment work. 

4.1.4 Further information on other means of gas storage and other salt bed locations 

is presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 respectively. 

Table 4-2 Other Means of Gas Storage 

Alternative 

Depleted oil or gas 

fields 

Aquifers, though not in 

the UK 

Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) storage in 

above ground tanks 

Conventional 

Gasometers 

Salt caverns 

Reason 

Depleted gas fields of suitable nature are difficult to find and expensive 

and slow to develop. They also tend to run at very high pressure, and 

the rate at which gas can be pumped into them is very low (for 

example, it takes approximately nine months to fill the depleted 

offshore field at Rough). 

Aquifers can be used for gas storage if the appropriate geological 

structure is present. UK conditions are not appropriate and most UK 

aquifers are still in use for water supply. 

LNG has a high cost per unit and a very slow injection rate in to the 

system. It is best located close to the transmission system in order to 

provide rapid support when needed. 

Conventional gasometers are not capable of storing the volumes of gas 

under consideration in this ES. They are only suitable for very low 

pressure storage and are unsightly. 

Salt caverns tend to be cheaper and quicker to build, and can, with 

suitable design, offer a higher amount of input and withdrawal in 

relation to storage capacity, as compared with depleted gas fields. Salt 

cavern storage requires the presence of even salt beds usually at least 

150 - 300 m thick, in the order of 300 to 600 m under the surface. 

41

Table 4-3 Other Salt Bed Locations 

Alternative 

There are only four 

general land based 

localities in the UK that 

have salt beds of the right 

quality and depth to make 

useful large gas storage 

caverns: 

The east coast of 

Yorkshire 

Cheshire 

Dorset, in the Wessex 

Basin 

The Preesall deposits 

at the Wyre Estuary in 

Lancashire 

To date (March 2011), 

there are only seven 

operational facilities in the 

UK* at: 

Rough (offshore 

Southern North Sea) 

Aldbrough and 

Hornsea (East 

Yorkshire) 

Hatfield Moors 

(Yorkshire) 

Humbly Grove (Weald) 

Holford and Hole 

House Farm 

(Cheshire) 

Another twenty or so 

facilities are at various 

stages in the planning 

process. 

Reason 

The deposits in East Yorkshire are at great depths, which means 

they will have to operate across a range of pressures much higher 

than the gas NTS for technical reasons. As a result they require 

very large compression facilities, and suffer from relatively low flow 

rates for both injection and withdrawal. 

In contrast, the Preesall deposits are at lesser depths which means 

the operating pressure range is closely matched to that of the NTS. 

The close match of the pressure range also means that less energy 

will be utilised in compressing and decompressing the gas. 

Preesall is a unique and appropriate location for this Project due to: 

The depth and quality of the salt deposits 

The environmentally sound and abundant supply of cavern 

washing water 

Offering an effective and environmentally acceptable means of 

disposal of the waste brine to the Irish Sea 

Offering the ability to store gas close to the operating pressure of 

the NTS 

Offering the ability of the gas storage facility to respond flexibly 

and rapidly to changes in flow required 

Providing greater flow rates than can be achieved elsewhere in 

the UK 

In addition, Preesall: 

Is a lightly populated area 

Is in an area where there is previous knowledge and experience 

of brine extraction 

Is in close proximity to the NTS 

Has low operating pressure which offers (i) quicker injection of 

gas from the NTS, (ii) greatest compatibility with NTS operating 

pressure, (iii) most responsive means of meeting demands, 

especially peak demands, and (iv) a high safety level. 

* Source: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/undergroundGasStorage.html 

42

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

METHODOLOGY 

5.1 Introduction 

5.1.1 This chapter describes the key stages of the EIA process, together with details 

of the consultation undertaken as part of this process. It also presents the 

approach adopted to identify the current and future baseline situation, and also 

that used to assess the potential impacts upon the natural and built environment 

as a result of the Project, together with how the level of significance of that 

effect has been determined. In addition, the assessment scenarios are defined, 

and an explanation of cumulative effects is provided. 

5.1.2 The statutory requirements of the EIA process for this Project are prescribed in 

the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 

2009 (‘the EIA Regulations’), which, together with the Planning Act 2008, give 

effect to European Council Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Council 

Directive 97/11/EC and Council Directive 2003/35/EC of the European 

Parliament and Council). Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, of the EIA Regulations 

identifies the information required for inclusion within an ES (refer to Appendix 

5.1 of Volume 1B). 

5.2 Aims of the EIA 

5.2.1 The aims of the EIA are: 

 

 

 

To gather information on the existing environment and identify 

environmental constraints and opportunities associated with development 

of the area which may be affected by the Project 

To identify and assess potential effects that may arise from the 

construction, construction and operation combined, operation and 

decommissioning of the Project 

To outline measures and/or design criteria which may be pursued to 

mitigate potential concerns or effects 

5.2.2 This ES will be published as part of a wide ranging consultation programme 

which will inform the local community, the regulators and other stakeholders of 

the Project. The ES will form part of the application to the IPC for an order 

granting Development Consent for the Project. 

5.3 The EIA Process 

5.3.1 The EIA has been undertaken in accordance with the following guidance 

documents: 

 

 

NPS’s EN-1 and EN-4, which set out general policy advice 

IPC Guidance Note 1 on Pre-Application Stages (Chapter 2 of the 

Planning Act 2008), Revision 2, August 2011. It should be noted that the 

43

previous version was also taken into account at the time of writing and 

preparation of this ES. 

IPC Advice Notes, which include ‘Preparation and Submission of 

Application Documents’ (Advice Note 6, 2011), ‘Environmental Impact 

Assessment, Screening and Scoping’ (Advice Note 7, 2010), and ‘Habitat 

Regulations Assessment’ (Advice Note 10, 2011). 

Other EIA guidance including that provided by the Department for 

Transport (Volume 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges), the 

Department for Communities and Local Government, the Institute of 

Environmental Management and Assessment, the Institute of Ecology and 

Environmental Management and the Landscape Institute. 

5.3.2 EIA is an on-going process, the aim of which is to identify and minimise where 

possible the likely significant environmental impacts of the Project. In general 

terms, the main stages of the EIA process are identified below: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screening, to determine the need for EIA 

Scoping, to determine the scope of the EIA and identify potentially 

significant issues 

Consultation, to seek feedback from consultees and the public in relation 

to key environmental issues, the methodology adopted, and design 

approaches 

Data Review, to anticipate the existing and future baseline conditions 

Baseline Surveys to determine the existing baseline conditions 

Assessment and design iteration. This stage comprises assessment of 

the likely significant effects of the Project (during the construction, 

construction and operation combined, operation and decommissioning 

phases), provision of feedback to the design team to allow modification of 

the Project where possible, and identification of mitigation / enhancement 

measures to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant 

adverse effects on the environment 

Assessment of the final design of the Project, and identification of likely 

residual effects and any further mitigation / enhancement requirements 

where appropriate/possible 

Preparation of this ES, which reports the EIA 

5.4 Screening and Scoping Consultation 

Screening 

5.4.1 As previously stated it is considered that the Project requires EIA, as it falls 

under the description of projects outlined in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 

and has the potential to give rise to significant environmental effects. In 

accordance with Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations, the Applicant 

notified the IPC that the Project is an EIA development, and that an ES would 

accompany the DCO application. This notification email (and confirmation 

response from the IPC) is presented within Appendix 5.2 of Volume 1B. 

44

Scoping 

5.4.2 In October 2010, a written request for a Scoping Opinion, accompanied by an 

EIA Scoping Report outlining the proposed scope of the EIA and the anticipated 

structure of the ES, was submitted to the IPC. 

5.4.3 In accordance with Regulations 2(1)(a) and 8(6), the IPC consulted widely in 

advance of issuing their Scoping Opinion (including with statutory consultees), 

taking the responses received into account. The IPC’s Scoping Opinion was 

issued on 30 November 2010, and is presented in full (together with scoping 

consultation responses) within Appendix 5.3 of Volume 1B. The late responses 

from certain consultees are presented within Appendix 5.4. The Scoping 

Process was undertaken in accordance with IPC’s Advice Note 3 (Consultation 

and Notification Undertaken by the IPC) and Advice Note 7 (Environmental 

Impact Assessment Screening and Scoping) relating to Scoping Opinion 

Consultation. 

5.4.4 This ES has been prepared in accordance with the advice set out in the 

Scoping Opinion, the associated consultation responses, and the EIA 

Regulations. Appendix 5.5 of Volume 1B presents a table summarising the 

responses received and indicates how they are considered within the ES, in 

order to demonstrate that the ES has considered the requests and comments 

raised through the Scoping consultation, where applicable. 

5.5 Post Screening / Scoping Consultation 

Informal Consultation 

5.5.1 In addition to the formal consultation undertake in accordance with the Planning 

Act 2008, the Applicant has consulted with appropriate bodies throughout the 

progression of the EIA, in order to obtain views on the Project, discuss 

mitigation / enhancement and to obtain information relating to constraints as 

appropriate. Details of the consultations are also tabulated in the relevant 

environmental topic specific chapter. 

Section 42, 47 and 48 Consultation 

5.5.2 The IPC application process requires pre-application consultation to be 

undertaken prior to the submission of an application for a DCO. Under the 

Planning Act 2008, there are three elements to pre-application consultation: 

 

 

Section 42 consultation with prescribed consultees, local authorities, 

landowners and others with interests in land and significantly affected 

persons 

Section 47 consultation with the local community in accordance with the 

‘Proposed Underground Gas Storage Facility, Lancashire – Consultation 

Strategy and Statement of Community Consultation’ (Halite Energy Group, 

April 2011). The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) is 

presented within DCO Application Document Reference 3.1 ‘Consultation 

Report’ (Write Angle, 2011). 

45

Section 48 notice, which is a requirement to publish statutory notice of the 

proposed application for a DCO in prescribed publications 

5.5.3 The approach to consultation has been informed by relevant Government 

guidance (particularly the ‘Planning Act, 2008 – Guidance on Pre-Application 

Consultation’, Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 

2009), and also IPC Guidance and Advice Notes (particularly Guidance Notes 1 

and 2). 

5.5.4 Comments made at all stages of the consultation process have been recorded 

and carefully considered by the Project team. How comments received have 

shaped and influenced the Project are reported within the DCO Application 

Document Reference 3.1 ‘Consultation Report’ (Write Angle, 2011), which 

accompanies the DCO application as required by Section 37(3)(c) of the 

Planning Act 2008. 

Section 42 Consultation 

5.5.5 Under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, landowners, relevant Local 

Planning Authorities (LPAs), statutory consultees, other interested parties and 

the local community have been consulted. As part of this pre-application 

Section 42 consultation process, a Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) 

Report was prepared, the aim of which was to provide a preliminary review of 

the likely environmental effects of the Project. The PEI Report included a 

description of the Project, identification of the existing environment, a review of 

the potential likely effects on all of the topic areas covered by the EIA 

Regulations (i.e. those considered within this EIA as identified in paragraph 

5.6.1 below), and environmental mitigation measures. The report was 

supported by figures and drawings presenting the Project details and 

information relating to the baseline environmental conditions known at the time. 

This report was issued for consultation in April 2011, providing opportunity for 

consultees, local authorities, landowners and members of the public and the 

wider community to respond to the information in the report. 

5.5.6 Responses made to the PEI Report have been taken into consideration 

throughout the development of the Project design and also in preparing the ES. 

Where relevant environmental topic specific chapters contain a table 

summarising the responses received. 

Section 47 Consultation 

5.5.7 In accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act 2008, consultation was 

undertaken with the local community in accordance with the SOCC. Launched 

in April 2011, and running to May 2011, this formal consultation comprised a 

wide range of activities as follows: 

 

 

 

Production of various consultation documents and information, available at 

a number of local locations and on the Project website 

Production of a Project Overview Report and information sheets in nontechnical 

language 

Creation of a Project documentary (film) 

46

Creation of a questionnaire to provide opportunity for community feedback 

/ comment 

Appointment of a Community Liaison Coordinator, who held drop-in events 

during the consultation period 

Six public exhibitions, promoted through a range of channels 

Attendance and presentations at Local Area Forum meetings 

Creation of a Community Liaison Panel 

Liaison with tenants’ groups 

Public Exhibition 

5.6 Environmental Topics Considered in the EIA 

5.6.1 The environmental topics assessed within the EIA, and therefore reported upon 

in this ES, comprise the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air Quality 

Archaeology and Built Heritage 

Climatic Factors 

Ecology and Nature Conservation 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability 

Land Use and Socio-Economics (including marine activities) 

Noise and Vibration 

Safety 

Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity 

Sustainability 

Transport and Access 

Water Environment 

47

5.6.2 For each environmental topic, the following is reported: 

 

 

 

 

 

Methodology used to assess effects 

Existing and future baseline information 

Receptors potentially affected 

Potential effects 

Mitigation and enhancement measures proposed to minimise potential 

effects on any given receptor 

Potential residual effects following implementation of mitigation / 

enhancement measures 

 

 

 

Any difficulties encountered in compiling the ES 

A summary of the assessment 

References 

5.6.3 It should be noted that in relation to certain topics slightly different approaches 

may have been required in order to meet relevant guidance requirements. 

5.7 Study Area 

5.7.1 Specific study areas have been defined for each environmental topic 

considered within this ES, to ensure that potentially significant effects are 

identified and assessed in accordance with relevant standards and guidance for 

that specific topic. As a result, study areas are different for each topic, as the 

geographic extent of predicted direct and indirect impacts differs in each case. 

5.7.2 Each topic specific study area is defined and described in the methodology 

sections of each environmental topic chapter. In some instances more than one 

study area is defined for a single environmental topic, in accordance with 

relevant standards and guidance for that topic. 

5.8 Baseline Conditions 

5.8.1 A significant amount of baseline information has been obtained in order to 

inform the EIA, as identified within each environmental topic chapter. ‘Current’ 

existing baseline data has been obtained from desk-top reviews, consultations, 

and from surveys commissioned specifically for the Project. 

5.8.2 Future baseline information has been obtained through reference to 

Government policy, planning applications, consultation responses, and also 

from the professional judgement of individual topic specialists. 

5.8.3 When determining the baseline conditions of an environment and assessing the 

potential significance of impacts that may arise from development within that 

environment, it is necessary to predict what environmental conditions will prevail 

over the lifetime of the Project, should it not be undertaken. This is required so 

that the potential impacts from development can be balanced against what 

possible changes may occur naturally. To enable predictions of future 

48

aselines, theories of environmental trends can be used to infer how conditions 

will alter. 

5.8.4 The more distant a future baseline is, the greater the uncertainty is on the 

conditions that would pertain at that time. Information is constantly being 

updated and baseline data is therefore time dependent. How critical this is 

varies for each specific environmental topic. 

5.8.5 The relevant data and information required to define the 2011 baseline for each 

specific environmental topic, is located within the relevant appendix / 

appendices to that chapter. Data consultees and information sources are 

identified within each specific chapter. 

5.9 Duration and Frequency of Effects 

5.9.1 Within this ES, potential impacts upon the environment are classified as either 

permanent or temporary. Permanent effects are those that are irreversible (e.g. 

permanent land take) or will last for the foreseeable future (e.g. noise from 

generated road traffic). Temporary effects can be short-term, medium-term or 

long-term. 

5.9.2 Where environmental effects are episodic, the frequency of the events is 

predicted. 

5.10 Assessment of Effects 

5.10.1 In accordance with Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations, the EIA has included ‘A 

description of the likely significant effects of the development on the 

environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, 

cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive 

and negative effects of the development, resulting from: 

(a) the existence of the development; 

(b) the use of natural resources; 

(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of 

waste, 

and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess 

the effects on the environment”. 

5.10.2 IPC Advice Note 9: Use of the 'Rochdale Envelope’ provides advice on the 

degree of flexibility that would be considered appropriate with regards to an 

application for a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) under the 

2008 Act regime. The note states: 

'The challenge for the EIA will be to ensure that all the realistic and likely worst 

case variations of the project have been properly considered and clearly set out 

in the ES and such that the likely significant impacts have been adequately 

assessed. It may be possible to draft a DCO in such a way as to allow some 

flexibility in the project. The project should be described in such a way that a 

robust EIA can be undertaken.' 

49

5.10.3 The construction and operation of the Project is described in detail in Chapters 

2 and 3. The EIA is based on the parameters set out in these chapters together 

with the dimensions of Project features provided on the Application Drawings 

e.g. heights of buildings, mounding and the GCC vent stack. 

5.10.4 The Works Plans accompanying the DCO application include limits of deviation 

for certain work numbers. These have been taken into account in carrying out 

the assessment. This is particularly relevant for the pipeline routes where the 

limits of deviation associated with the corridors allow a degree of routing 

flexibility. Although it is unlikely that all of the land within the application 

boundary would be affected during pipeline construction for the purposes of the 

EIA, for example in considering land take or impact on ecological receptors, the 

entire land take within the pipeline application boundary is assessed as being 

affected. 

5.10.5 Similarly, construction dust and noise effects are considered from the outer limit 

of the application boundary. 

5.11 Significance Criteria 

5.11.1 One of the most important aspects of the EIA process is identifying the 

significance of effects. Generally, significance of effects is determined through 

combining the value (or sensitivity) of a resource or receptor with the magnitude 

of the predicted impact to derive a significance of effect score. As there is no 

standard methodology for determining the significance of effects of gas storage 

facilities, significance criteria has been based on best available guidance or on 

professional judgement. 

5.11.2 Volume 11 of the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ (DMRB), for example, 

provides advice on typical descriptors of environmental value, magnitude of 

change and significance of effects. Tables 5-1 to 5-4 reproduce these 

descriptors and demonstrate how the significance of effect category is derived. 

Table 5-1 Environmental Value (or Sensitivity) and Typical Descriptors 

Value 

(Sensitivity) 

Very High 

High 

Medium 

Low (or Lower) 

Negligible 

Typical Descriptors 

Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very 

limited potential for substitution. 

High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited 

potential for substitution. 

High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited 

potential for substitution. 

Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale. 

Very low importance and rarity, local scale. 

50

Table 5-2 Magnitude of Change and Typical Descriptors 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No Change 

Typical Criteria Descriptors 

Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe 

damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse). 

Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive 

restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality 

(Beneficial). 

Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity; partial loss 

of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse). 

Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements; 

improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial). 

Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor 

loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features 

or elements (Adverse). 

Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, 

features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced 

risk of negative impact occurring (Beneficial). 

Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, 

features or elements (Adverse). 

Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, 

features or elements (Beneficial). 

No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no 

observable impact in either direction. 

5.11.3 Table 5-3 demonstrates how combining the environmental value of the resource 

or receptor with the magnitude of change produces a significance of effect 

category. 

Table 5-3 Arriving at the Significance of Effect Category 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Major 

Moderate 

Value / Sensitivity of Receptor 

Very High High Medium Low Negligible 

Very Large 

Large / Very 

Large 

Minor Moderate / 

Large 

Large / Very 

Large 

Moderate / 

Large 

Moderate / 

Large 

Moderate 

Slight 

Moderate Slight Neutral 

Moderate Slight Neutral Neutral 

Negligible Slight Slight Neutral Neutral Neutral 

No Change Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 

5.11.4 The DMRB recognises “the approach to assigning significance of effect relies 

on reasoned argument, professional judgement and taking on board the advice 

51

and views of appropriate organisations. For some disciplines, predicted effects 

may be compared with quantitative thresholds and scales in determining 

significance. Assigning each effect to one of the five significance categories 

enables different topic issues to be placed upon the same scale, in order to 

assist the decision-making process at whatever stage the project is at within 

that process”. 

5.11.5 Table 5-4 illustrates how the DMRB describes the significance of effect 

categories. In arriving at the significance of effect, the assessor would also 

consider whether they are direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium 

or long-term, permanent or temporary, positive or negative. 

Table 5-4 Descriptors of the Significance of Effect Categories 

Significance 

Category 

Very Large 

Large 

Moderate 

Slight 

Neutral 

Typical Descriptors of Effect 

Only adverse effects are normally assigned this level of 

significance. They represent key factors in the decision-making 

process. These effects are generally, but not exclusively, 

associated with sites or features of international, national or 

regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact 

and loss of resource integrity. However, a major change in a site or 

feature of local importance may also enter this category. 

These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very 

important considerations and are likely to be material in the 

decision-making process. 

These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not 

likely to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative effects of 

such factors may influence decision-making if they lead to an 

increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or 

receptor. 

These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors. 

They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but 

are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project. 

No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within 

normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. 

5.11.6 The example above provides general principles as to the method of deriving 

significance in EIAs. Topic specific significance criteria are presented in 

Chapters 6 to 17. 

5.11.7 In addition to the above assessment process, the EIA Regulations require an 

assessment of what effects would be considered ‘significant’ in terms of the EIA 

Regulations. This assessment has been based on professional judgement, and 

the reasoning behind such assessment has been clearly outlined in the 

Chapters 6 to 17. 

52

5.12 Embedded Design Measures and Mitigation / 

Enhancement Measures 

5.12.1 Mitigation is an iterative process of avoidance, reduction, amelioration and 

compensation. It is considered that mitigation measures fall into two broad 

categories: 

 

 

Mitigation measures embedded in the design of the Project (hereinafter 

referred to as embedded design). These have been identified throughout 

the Project development and used to inform the Project design, such that it 

avoids key areas (by changes to route or layout) or includes features that 

will minimise the identified potential impacts on specific receptors 

Additional mitigation / enhancement measures. These have been 

developed later in the process once specific impacts on key environmental 

receptors have been identified. 

5.12.2 It is important to distinguish between these two forms of mitigation, as the 

embedded design has helped to define the Project details that have been 

assessed within the EIA. In each environment topic specific chapter, the 

‘Potential Effects’ section (i.e. without mitigation / enhancement) represents an 

assessment of the Project comprising the embedded design, whilst the 

‘Residual Effects’ section (i.e. with mitigation / enhancement) assesses the 

Project with the additional mitigation / enhancement measures in place. 

Embedded Design Measures 

5.12.3 The embedded design features that are considered to be part of the Project are 

identified within Table 5-5 below. Additional mitigation / enhancement 

measures are discussed within each relevant environmental topic specific 

chapter. 

Table 5-5 Embedded Design Considered to be Part of the Project 

Relevant ES Topic to which 

the Design Iteration / 

Consideration relates 

Irish Sea Outfall and Offshore Pipeline 


Conservation 

Chapter 17: Water Environment 


Conservation 

Design Iterations / Considerations 

Disposal of the brine as a waste material was considered. 

Disposal of the brine waste to Morecambe Bay or the Wyre 

Estuary was discounted due to their important environmental 

designations. Therefore, the proposal to discharge brine to the 

Irish Sea, although substantially more expensive, was deemed 

the most environmentally acceptable solution. 

The near-field dispersion modelling found that discharge 

concentration could be controlled by dilution with seawater. 

However, the additional pipework that would be required for this 

option would also have environmental impacts, as would the 

higher running costs of pumps and plant. This option was 

therefore not pursued. 

53





Conservation 



Conservation 

Chapter 15: Sustainability 

Chapter 11: Land Use and 

Socio-Economics 

Seawall Crossing (inc. Observation Platform) 



Chapter 14: Seascape, 

Landscape, Townscape and 

Visual Amenity 









Fylde Peninsula Brine Pipeline 


Conservation 



The near-field dispersion modelling found that the use of 

multiple diffusers would reduce local impact and would reduce 

the extent of the 40 ppt mixing zone to less than 50 m. However 

the total area of seabed impacted (by a salinity of more than 40 

ppt) would be increased. The use of multiple diffusers was 

therefore not considered to be the best practicable 

environmental option. 

The near-field dispersion modelling indicated that a single 

diffuser with a double port configuration resulted in the smallest 

total area of seabed impact (and so minimise impacts on 

seawater quality). This configuration has been adopted. 

The design of the diffuser has been carefully optimised for the 

marine environment and its performance would achieve those 

standards laid down by the Environment Agency in its approval. 

The installation of the brine discharge pipeline will be 

undertaken between April and July (inclusive), working from 

foreshore to offshore, to avoid impacts on wintering and 

passage birds, particularly the seabirds associated with 

Liverpool Bay Special Area of Protection (SPA). 

Reuse of brine has been investigated and found not to be viable 

due to the large quantities. 

A marker buoy will be placed in the Irish Sea to indicate the 

outfall location and aid navigation. 

The reconstruction of the seawall at Rossall and integration of 

the pipeline within this structure below the surface of the beach 

is preferred as it maintains the integrity of the seawall defences 

while minimising visual impact to users of the beach and the 

Wyre Way. 

Seawall observation platform will be constructed with design 

input from Wyre Borough Council’s specification, and would 

enhance the coastal environment. 

Re-modelling of sea defence with observation deck would be in 

keeping with Cleveleys Esplanade, and will remain visually in 

keeping with the length of the new sea defences along this part 

of the Lancashire Coast. 

The pipeline would be generally laid in trench with certain 

highways / other crossings (e.g. Fleetwood Road, 

Amounderness Way, the Blackpool Tramway etc) inserted by 

54








Chapter 16: Transport and 

Access 



Conservation 








Conservation 








trenchless methods. 

Filters would be incorporated into the inlet at the Fish Dock, to 

minimise the opportunity for macro-marine organisms to be 

drawn into the water washing infrastructure. 

External materials were going to comprise polished metal 

cladding to the walls and roof. Wyre Borough Council 

commented during the 2011 consultation that the external 

appearance was too ‘industrial’ for the mixed use site and 

therefore not appropriate. Therefore the building was 

redesigned, and now comprises a building of a ‘domestic’ 

character to reflect that which was acceptable in previous 

schemes. 

Abstraction of water from the Fish Dock would be controlled to 

ensure a viable water level is always maintained in the dock. 

Landscaping is proposed around the buildings. 

Northern River Wyre Pipeline Crossing 


Conservation 



Conservation 


The Project will require the brine discharge and the electricity 

supply pipelines to cross the Wyre Estuary. Jetting, open cut 

and sheet piled methods of construction were considered, which 

all had significant potential impacts to the flow regime and 

ecology of the Wyre Estuary, and designated sites of 

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary Site of 

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 

Although it required an increased Project cost, directional drilling 

is the preferred method chosen to ensure an environmentally 

acceptable method of crossing. 

Four directionally drilled boreholes would be constructed for the 

pipelines, which will be at sufficient depth to minimise the 

environmental impact. 

55





Conservation 


Conservation 


Conservation 

Booster Pump Station and De-Brine Facility 







Conservation 


Conservation 







Conservation 











The pipelines will be a minimum of 8 metres below the river bed, 

to ensure the existing silt, sediments and flood defences are not 

disturbed. 

Directional drilling of the north river crossing will take place 

between May and August (inclusive) to avoid impacts on the 

wintering and passage bird species associated with Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. 

The compound for the north river crossing will be demarcated 

using fencing to ensure site personnel, plant, and materials do 

not encroach on Morecambe SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI. 

Two directional and shielded 4 m luminiares will be used to light 

construction and drilling activities at the north river crossing, and 

will not light Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI. 

Spoil from the construction of the buildings would be used to 

raise the land to the west and north of the compound to mitigate 

views of the compound when viewed from the Wyre Way (i.e. 

landscape the surroundings of the compound). 

Bunding of the Booster Pump Station will ensure a noise and 

visual screen is provided to reduce disturbance of bird species 

using the functionally-linked land associated with Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar. 

Only one Booster Pump Station proposed now (removal of 

southern Booster Pump Station), therefore compound is much 

smaller. Building is relatively small and is designed to reflect the 

agricultural character of the area (external materials are brick 

and tile). Designed as a barn like structure to assist its 

assimilation into the landscape. 

Control room now included in Booster Pump Station compound 

(previously with a separate control room / warehouse building). 

A warehouse building is no longer required. 

Relocation of Booster Pump Station to east of Hackensall 

Sewage Treatment Works (STW), means it is partially screened 

from views from the west by the structures comprising the 

Hackensall STW (visual impact reduced when viewed from the 

west). Looks like part of the same building rather than an 

56




Conservation 



Conservation 

Chapter 7: Archaeology and 


Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability 








Conservation 





Conservation 



isolated element in the landscape. 

Relocation adjacent to the Sewage Treatment Works provides a 

visual and noise screen to reduce disturbance to bird species 

using the saltmarsh and mudflats of Morecambe Bay SPA and 

Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. 

Conventional techniques to access the Preesall Saltfield would 

require the creation of drilling sites and access tracks across the 

saltmarsh, which is designated as Wyre Estuary SSSI, 

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and is therefore protected by 

European legislation. This approach was therefore rejected due 

to its potential impact on areas of saltmarsh, disturbance to birds 

associated with these designated sites, and the hydrology of the 

Wyre Estuary. The solution chosen was to access the saltfield 

by directional drilling which, although it is substantially more 

expensive, avoids impinging upon the saltmarsh of the 

designated sites. 

Each cavern will have two boreholes drilled and where possible 

the wellhead will be located vertically above the proposed 

cavern. Otherwise, directionally drilled cavern wellheads have 

been grouped together in compounds. There is flexibility for the 

location of wellhead compounds. 

The wellhead compounds have been located in such a way that, 

in the unlikely event of an incident at a directionally drilled 

wellhead, they are directionally pointed away from the Wyre 

Way. 

Wellhead compounds will be bunded during their construction 

and whilst operational to provide a visual and noise screen, and 

thus reduce impacts on birds using the habitats of the Wyre 

Estuary (within Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI) and those birds using the functionally-linked land 

adjacent to the designated sites. 

Wellheads would be landscaped. Spoil would be used to 

provide landscaped bunds around the wellhead. 

Once operational, the drilling platform would be removed and 

the landscaped bunds re-contoured to screen the operational 

wellhead. 

Two directional and shielded 4 m luminiares will be used to light 

construction and drilling activities at the wellhead compounds, 

and will not light Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI. 

During operation, lighting at wellhead compounds will be 

57




Conservation 







screened by the landscape bunding and not spill onto 

designated habitats or the functionally-linked land associated 

with these habitats 

Wellhead compound 3 has been moved to 50 metres away from 

the Cote Walls Farm property (request from resident during the 

2011 consultation exercise). 

Cavern Creation 


Conservation 








Access 



Conservation 



Abstraction of water (for washing the caverns) from the Wyre 

Estuary, Morecambe Bay, or artesian wells was rejected due to 

impacts on the European protected sites of the Wyre Estuary 

and Morecambe Bay and on fresh water supply, respectively. 

Abstraction from Fleetwood Fish Docks was selected as this 

avoids potential impacts on coastal waters, the Wyre Estuary 

and Morecambe Bay, and utilises the inlet and culvert 

infrastructure already in place for the Fleetwood Power Station, 

which in turn allows the Seawater Pump Station to be set back 

from the Fish Dock. This also makes use of a brownfield site; 

facilitates the redevelopment of a derelict area and avoids the 

need for excavation across the dock access road and near the 

dock itself. 

The amount of water needed for cavern washing is very large, 

and so the use of freshwater made it an environmentally 

unviable option. 


Conservation 

Gas Compressor Compound (inc. Vent Stack) 

Use of hydrocyclones within the De-Brine facility and the strict 

monitoring of the brine effluent prior to discharge will ensure no 

undesirable insolubles are released into the Irish Sea. 

Chapter 13: Safety 




Alternative locations considered included land to the west of 

Burrow’s Hill, which was rejected due to the potential visual 

impact on the Wyre Estuary. 

Consideration was recently afforded to locating the Compound 

on the west bank of the Wyre Estuary. However, this was 

considered to be unacceptable on the grounds of hazardous 

zoning regulations. 

The Gas Compressor Compound is now proposed to be situated 

to the south of Cote Walls Farm (i.e. been relocated to the 

northern part of the site), which is preferred as there are no brine 

wells or other old workings in the area and therefore there 

should be minimal subsidence in this area. In addition, the 

natural hillside will provide screening and can be extended to 

58








Conservation 

Chapter 6: Air Quality 

Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration 

Security and Support Facility 





Road Infrastructure 





Access 



Conservation 


further improve screening and therefore impact on the 

landscape will be reduced. It is essentially away from population 

and therefore does not introduce any un-acceptable risk. 

Additional ground modelling / earth mounding and landscaping 

has been introduced to reduce its visual and environmental 

impact. 

The Gas Compressor Compound is the largest of the surface 

infrastructure. As such it has been carefully designed and 

landscaped in order to minimise its environmental impact. 

Excess spoil generated from the creation of foundation and pipe 

trenches would be used adjacent to the compound for 

landscape purposes. 

Bunding of the Gas Compressor Compound will reduce noise 

and visual impacts on species, in particular birds associated with 

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar and the functionally-linked 

land. 

The proposed compressors would be electrically driven 

MOPICO compressors that are hermetically sealed and require 

no lubricant and create no emissions during normal operations. 

The compressors would be contained in a building. 

Relocated the workshop to Higher Lickow Farm to make use of 

redundant buildings. Less visual impact as using old buildings. 

Existing farmhouse and barns currently vacant and in poor state 

of repair. Farmhouse would be refurbished, and the larger barn 

redeveloped. Smaller barn demolished. 

A temporary haul road was proposed which would take all 

construction traffic from the A588 to cross Back Lane and then 

enter the construction site. This was not favoured by Wyre 

Borough Council and some local inhabitants because it was 

indicated that it would be straight and run close to existing 

properties. 

It is now the view that this should be a permanent road of 

adequate size to allow heavy plant to access the site and to 

provide fast safe emergency access. The road has been rerouted 

away from existing properties after discussion with local 

residents. 

An emergency access would be provided along an existing track 

(secondary access / escape route). This issue is the subject of 

ongoing consultation with Lancashire Resilience Forum. 

The proposed access road would include drainage and 

interceptors, and lighting. 

59











Access 



Lighting of access roads will be low-level, directional and 

shielded, and not extend onto the habitats within Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar, or Wyre Estuary SSSI, or functionallylinked 

land 

Electricity Infrastructure / Stanah Substation and Southern Wyre Crossing (see Northern 

Pipeline Crossing of River Wyre) 






Chapter 8: Climatic Factors 


Conservation 


The preferred electrical route from Burrows Lane to the Gas 

Compressor Compound requires a 2m wide trench in land 

owned by the Applicant alongside existing roads to enter the 

Gas Compressor Compound site. It has been selected as an 

alternative route considered to the north from Stanah, was 

deemed to be problematic because of ground contamination, 

unstable land and land ownership. 

Directionally drilled boreholes for pipelines will be at sufficient 

depth to minimise the environmental impact. The pipelines will 

be a minimum of 8 metres below the river bed, to ensure the 

existing silt, sediments and flood defences are not disturbed. 

National Transmission System (inc. Gas Manifolds / pipelines connecting the GCC to the 

National Transmission System) 

Chapter 7: Archaeology and 



Conservation 







Access 



Conservation 

In selecting such routes (by McMahon Design & Management 

Ltd), consideration was given to the proximity of occupied 

buildings and the number of crossings of roads, tracks, 

watercourses, other pipelines, utilities and property lines. 

Particular consideration was afforded to bypassing Stalmine 

either to the north or south and selecting a crossing point for the 

A588. 

Recently examined three alternative routes for the 

interconnector pipeline. Alternative options rejected on 

environmental grounds, including length of pipeline (and 

therefore overall community and environmental impact) 

constraints at road crossings and proximity to residential 

development. 

Also examined the feasibility of combining the NTS with Wyre 

Power’s proposed gas pipeline route. One of the reasons for its 

rejection was that it would directly affect more residential 

properties. 

Working width of 37m along the NTS pipeline would decrease in 

confined or sensitive areas. The working width would be 

60














Conservation 



Conservation 



Conservation 

Interconnector Metering Station (NTS) 







Temporary Compounds 







reduced to 10 m when crossing hedgerows. 

In agricultural areas, the topsoil would be stripped from the 

working width in consultation with landholders. 

Suitable measures taken to prevent health and safety risks to 

members of public / workers due to welding / radiography 

activities. 

During testing no water would be returned directly to 

watercourses. 

A pre-construction ecological survey of watercourses and 

ditches will be undertaken to identify the appropriate crossing 

methodology. For example, it is proposed to auger bore (i.e. a 

trenchless method) beneath the three Main Rivers (Grange 

Pool, Rigby Pool and Pilling Water). For other watercourses / 

ditches, a pre-construction survey (for water voles in particular) 

would be carried out, and if it does not identify suitable water 

vole habitat, the work would be carried out by cutting through, 

reducing the working width as much as possible. If suitable 

water vole habitat exists, the crossing technique would be 

reviewed. 

Where the NTS Interconnector Pipeline crosses Pilling Moss – 

Head Dyke BHS and Pilling Moss – Eagland Hill BHS, 

installation works in this area will only take place in the summer 

months (May to August). 

Two metering stations were originally considered. 

This has been reduced to one metering station to reduce the 

visual impact. 

Redesigned building of Gas Metering Station, to reflect the 

character of location. 

Temporary compounds would be provided on east and west 

sides of river to accommodate the drilling rig, conduit and 

electrical cable for the south river crossing. Following 

completion of the works, these would be removed and the land 

re-instated. 

61




General 










Conservation 


















Conservation 


Conservation 


Conservation 


Drilling wastes would be used on site for landscape buffers and 

earth mounding or, alternatively, removed from site. 

Topsoil / rock / earth from the construction of the foundations for 

the buildings, pipelines, roads and the levelling of compounds 

would be disposed of on site, e.g. as earth mounding etc. 

Further geological assessment led to the development of 

‘hazard exclusion zones’ where, based upon available data, the 

risks of cavern construction were too high. As a result, two 

polygonal areas were identified in the northern part of the 

Preesall site, where the development of caverns could take 

place. These areas are significantly smaller than those 

identified for previous planning applications, comprising 75 

hectares instead of almost 500 hectares. The area of the 

proposals has therefore been reduced by around 80%, 

proposing 19 caverns instead of 36. 

The Seawater Pump Station and the Booster Pump Station will 

be surrounded by a 2.4 metre high perimeter fence of polyester 

coated mesh, which would be dark green in colour. 

The red line boundary has been moved slightly, upon a request 

from a resident, to avoid the landscaped area adjacent to the 

pond on the Farmer Parrs Animal World landholding. 

Pre-construction marine surveys will be undertaken prior to the 

commencement of construction to update the benthic 

environment survey information. 

Pre-construction terrestrial ecology surveys will be undertaken 

for arable weeds, water voles, otters, bat roosts, and badgers. 

The requirements of the Environment Agency (EA)’s Discharge 

Consent Licence and monitoring compliance will be met, 

together with the conditions of the Marine Management 

Organisation (MMO) Marine Licence, to ensure compliance with 

licensing conditions. 

62

Mitigation / Enhancement Measures 

5.12.4 A Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan has been produced for 

the Project (refer to Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B). This Landscape and 

Ecological Management Strategy Plan will be submitted with the Development 

Consent Order (DCO) Application as a working document, which will be further 

refined through discussions with key stakeholders, managers and tenants. The 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan identifies areas for 

habitat enhancement, habitat creation, and ecological benefits which would 

contribute towards the net gain of biodiversity associated with the Project. The 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan would ensure the 

delivery of enhancements measures through appropriate management. 

5.12.5 The IPC’s Scoping Opinion advised that the ES should outline the structure of 

the environmental management and monitoring plan (EMMP) and safety 

procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation. One of the 

key documents in terms of successfully managing the environmental effects of 

the construction activities would be through the production and implementation 

of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP would 

follow IEMA’s best practice guidance Environmental Management Plans (best 

practice series Volume 12, IEMA 2008) which contains a good practice example 

of an EMP structure as presented in Table 5-6 below. 

Table 5-6 A Good Practice Example of an EMP Structure 

Title 

Cover Sheet 

Contents 

Introduction 

Project Team Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Summary of Procedures 

Consents and Permissions 

Environmentally Significant 

Changes 

Generic Environmental Actions 

Register of Site Specific 

Details 

Record of issue number and date, revisions and reasons for 

changes, issuing authority / contacts 

Would include a summary of the project and aims of the EMP 

Details of where queries should be directed with the team 

(including contact details), and escalated up to technical 

specialists as required 

Measures to be followed in the event of an emergency or 

breaching of EMP measures 

A record of consents with which the Project is taking place 

Procedures to be followed if any significant changes are 

encountered once the Project commences which would result in 

a change to the EMP, e.g. the use of alternative construction 

methods or design. This would also detail who has 

responsibility for overseeing changes and ensuring these do not 

conflict with any consenting or planning conditions 

Cross reference all construction environmental legal 

requirements (e.g. Site Waste Management Plan) and standard 

documents contained within the proponent’s / contractors’ EMS 

relating to construction activities 

This would also include a programme of when measures would 

be implemented and details of monitoring equipment/methods 

63

Title 

Environmental Actions 

Liaison and Consultation 

Requirements 

Register of Variations 

Technical Schedules 

Appendices 

Details 

and schedules 

Any requirements for prior authorisation or provision of 

monitoring data, also key internal and external contact details 

Record of changes to construction methods, design and 

mitigation and the implications of these changes and authorising 

personnel 

Further detail on measures e.g. monitoring methodologies to be 

followed, maps delineating boundaries /areas as applicable to 

certain measures etc 

Any other relevant information 

5.13 Residual Effects 

5.13.1 The ‘Residual effects’ sections within each environmental topic specific chapter 

describe any significant potential impacts which remain after mitigation / 

enhancement measures have been considered and incorporated. 

5.13.2 The residual effects will be considered during the decision making process. 

The assessment of the significance of the residual effects after mitigation / 

enhancement is therefore the key outcome of the EIA. 

5.14 Cumulative Effects 

5.14.1 The EIA Regulations require the assessment of cumulative effects as a result of 

the Project. Cumulative effects result from multiple actions on receptors and 

resources and over time and are generally additive or interactive (synergistic) in 

nature. Cumulative effects can also be considered as impacts resulting from 

incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable 

actions together with the project. 

5.14.2 Three types of cumulative effects have been considered within this EIA: 

 

 

 

The cumulation of effects from impact interactions, upon individual 

receptors (e.g. changes in noise levels together with visual impacts at a 

single receptor) 

The cumulation of effects during overlapping phases of the Project i.e. 

during the construction and operation combined phase 

The cumulative effects / interactions of the Project with other 

developments 

5.14.3 The cumulation of effects on individual receptors is reported as a separate 

chapter (Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects) as it relates to a combination of 

various environmental topics. 

5.14.4 The cumulation of effects during overlapping Project phases, together with the 

effects / interactions with other developments, are considered within each 

specific environmental topic chapter. 

64

5.15 Decommissioning 

5.15.1 The IPC in paragraph 2.89 of their Scoping Opinion (refer to Appendix 5.3) 

states that the purpose of the decommissioning assessment is to enable the 

future decommissioning of the Project to be taken into account in the design 

and use of materials, such that structures can be taken down with the minimum 

of disruption, materials can be re-used and the site can be restored or put to a 

suitable new use. 

5.15.2 Given the uncertainty associated with the decommissioning phase, it is difficult 

to determine the precise nature and quantum of decommissioning effects at this 

stage. It is however important that the outline and detailed design of the Project 

takes into account possible future uses (e.g. ensuring that buildings can be 

easily deconstructed and materials can be recycled). 

5.15.3 Generally, the effects associated with the decommissioning phase are not 

envisaged to be any greater than those reported for other phases (i.e. the 

construction phase, the construction and operation combined phase, and the 

operational phase). Where particularly notable effects that differ from the other 

phases have been identified, these are highlighted in the respective chapter. 

5.16 Assessment Scenarios 

5.16.1 For the purposes of this ES, the nature and likely significance of potential 

effects have generally been considered for the construction phase (Years 1-3), 

the construction and operation combined phase (Years 4-8), the operation 

phase (Years 9-40) and the decommissioning phases. The construction and 

operation combined phase relates to the period when the Project becomes 

operational, but construction of the remaining caverns / wellhead compounds is 

on-going. 

65

66

6 AIR QUALITY 


6.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Air Quality assessment, undertaken by 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited and technically reviewed by AcousticAir Limited. 

It identifies the methodology used to assess effects, existing and future baseline 

information, receptors potentially affected and the nature of those effects in the 

absence of mitigation and enhancement measures (potential effects) and with 

mitigation and enhancement measures (residual effects). 

6.1.1 Prior to the production of the Environmental Statement (ES), a Preliminary 

Environmental Information (PEI) report was prepared and formally issued to 

consultees. The PEI contained a preliminary review of likely environmental 

effects as a result of the Project. Responses from consultees were taken into 

consideration to assist with the final design of the Project and for this chapter of 

the ES. 

6.1.2 The assessment considers the effects of air quality impacts on sensitive 

receptors. Due to the proximity of statutory designated sites for nature 

conservation to the Project, these have also been considered as part of the 

assessment. 

6.1.3 The operation of the Project would not cause any odorous releases. Therefore, 

odour emissions have not been considered within this assessment. 

6.1.4 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendix 6.1 of Volume 1B and 

Figure 6.1 of Volume 2B of this ES. 

6.2 Regulatory / Planning Policy Framework 

6.2.1 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with current legislation, 

national, regional and local plans and policies. Outlined below are those 

elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Air Quality in the 

context of this assessment. 

UK Air Quality Legislation 

6.2.2 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires the Government to produce a 

national Air Quality Strategy (AQS), which contains standards, objectives and 

measures for improving ambient air quality. The most recent AQS, The Air 

Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 

(Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Defra 2007), was 

published in July 2007. The AQS sets out Air Quality Objectives that are 

maximum ambient pollutant concentrations that are not to be exceeded either 

without exception or with a permitted number of exceedences over a specified 

timescale. 

6.2.3 The regulations referred to in the AQS have been replaced by the Air Quality 

Regulations 2010, which came into force on 11 th June 2010 and transpose the 

European Union (EU) Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) into UK law. Air Quality 

67

Limit Values (AQLVs) were published in these regulations for seven pollutants, 

in addition to Target Values for an additional five pollutants. 

6.2.4 Tables 6-1 and 6-2 present the AQLVs and the critical level for the protection of 

vegetation, respectively, for pollutants considered within this assessment. 

Table 6-1 Air Quality Assessment - Air Quality Limit Values 

Pollutant 

Air Quality Limit Value 

Concentration 

Averaging Period 

Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 266 µg/m³ 15 minute mean; not to be 

exceeded more than 35 

times a year 

350 µg/m³ 1-hour mean; not to be 


times a year 

125 µg/m³ 24-hour mean; not to be 


times a year 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 10 mg/m 3 Maximum daily running 8- 

hour mean 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) 200 µg/m 3 1-hour mean; not to be 


times a year 

Particulate Matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of 

10 microns (PM 10 ) 

40 µg/m 3 Annual mean 

50 µg/m 3 24-hour mean; not to be 


times a year 

40 µg/m 3 Annual mean 

Table 6-2 Air Quality Assessment - Critical Level for the Protection of Vegetation 

Pollutant 

Critical Level 

Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Averaging Period 

Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ) 30 Annual mean 

SO 2 20 Annual mean 

6.2.5 It is a requirement of the Environment Act 1995 that Local Authorities (LAs) 

review current and future air quality within their area of jurisdiction under the 

system of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM). Any areas of relevant 

exposure where the AQLVs are not, or unlikely to be, achieved should be 

identified. 

68

6.2.6 Where it is anticipated that an AQLV will not be met, it is a requirement that an 

Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) be declared. Where an AQMA is 

declared, the LA is obliged to produce an action plan in pursuit of the 

achievement of the AQLVs. 

Dust 

6.2.7 The main requirements with respect to dust control from industrial or trade 

premises not regulated under the Environmental Permitting system, such as 

construction sites, is that provided in Section 79 of Part III of the Environmental 

Protection Act 1990. The Act defines nuisance as: 

“(d) any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or 

business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance; 

(e) any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;” 

6.2.8 Enforcement of the Act is currently under the jurisdiction of the LA, whose 

Environmental Health Officers are deemed to provide an independent 

evaluation of nuisance. If the LA is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or 

is likely to occur or happen again, it must serve an Abatement Notice. 

Enforcement can insist that there be no dust beyond the boundary of the works. 

The only defence is to show that the process to which the nuisance has been 

attributed and its operation are being controlled according to best practice 

measures. 

National Planning Policy 

6.2.9 Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS 23): Planning and Pollution Control (Office 

of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2004) sets out the Government’s core 

policies and principles with respect to land use planning, including air quality. 

PPS 23 states that air quality is capable of being a material planning 

consideration. Appendix 1G of this document outlines the situations in which air 

quality is likely to be particularly important. These are summarised as: 

 

 

 

Where the development is proposed inside, or adjacent to, an AQMA 

Where the development could in itself result in the designation of an 

AQMA 

Where to grant planning permission would conflict with, or render 

unworkable elements of a LA’s air quality action plan. 

6.2.10 The implications of PPS 23 have been considered throughout this air quality 

assessment, and the Project has been compared against the policies contained 

within the statement. 

6.2.11 National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-1 Overarching National Policy Statement 

for Energy (Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC, 2011) sets out 

national policy for the energy infrastructure. It has effect on the decisions by the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on applications for energy 

developments that fall within the scope of the NPSs. NPS EN-1 contains policy 

69

and guidance on generic impacts in Part 5, including air quality, where Section 

5.2 sets out the factors that the air quality assessment should consider. 

6.2.12 Part 2 (Assessment and Technology Specific Information) of the NPS, Revised 

Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil 

Pipelines (EN-4) (DECC, 2010) sets out the criteria for assessing air quality for 

gas reception facilities. 

6.2.13 NPS EN-4, taken together with NPS EN-1, provide the primary basis for 

decisions by the IPC on applications it receives for gas supply infrastructure and 

gas and oil pipelines. 

Regional Planning Policy 

North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 

6.2.14 The Government Office for the North West’s document North West of England 

Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 contains policies relating to air quality 

relevant to the Project including: 

Policy DP7 

“Environmental quality (including air, coastal and inland waters), should be 

protected and enhanced, especially by... 

..assessing the potential impacts of managing traffic growth and mitigating the 

impacts of road traffic on air quality, noise and health.. 

..ensuring that plans, strategies and proposals which alone or in combination 

could have a significant effect on the integrity and conservation objectives of 

sites of international importance for nature conservation are subject to 

assessment, this includes assessment and amelioration of the potential impacts 

of development (and associated traffic) on air quality, water quality and water 

levels.” 

Policy RT4 

“..Plans and strategies for managing traffic should focus on improving road 

safety, reducing traffic growth and maintaining a high quality environment 

through mitigating the impacts of road traffic on air quality, noise and health..” 

Local Planning Policy 

Wyre Borough Council Local Development Framework 

6.2.15 Wyre Borough Council’s (BC) Local Development Framework (LDF) will include 

the Core Strategy, which will set out the long term vision for the whole of the 

Wyre area and will contain policies for development. However this is not yet 

completed and policies have not been developed. Therefore saved policies 

from the Adopted Local Plan (1991 to 2006) (Wyre BC, 1999) are to remain 

relevant. None of the policies relate directly to air quality, however, there are 

policies relating to the protection of designated ecological sites (areas covered 

by designations, intended to conserve rare or declining features of importance 

for biodiversity). As air pollution can have an impact on designated species or 

70

habitats within such sites, these policies are considered relevant to this 

assessment. 

Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2006 

6.2.16 Policy 2 from the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2006 (Lancashire 

County Council, 2001) is a saved policy relating to air quality, which states the 

following: 

Policy 2: Quality of Life 

“Proposals for minerals or waste developments will be permitted only if it is 

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mineral and waste planning authority 

that all material impacts, by reason of traffic, visual impact, noise, dust, blasting, 

landfill gas, pollution, odour or other factors leading to loss of or damage to 

amenity which would adversely affect people, can be eliminated or reduced to 

acceptable levels and in assessing proposals account will be taken of the extent 

to which those factors can be controlled in accordance with current best site 

practice and recognised standards.” 

Wyre Borough Council Draft Air Quality Strategy 

6.2.17 In line with the National Air Quality Strategy, Wyre BC has developed a local air 

quality strategy to set out what Wyre will do locally as part of the national 

framework for maintaining and improving the air quality of the area (refer to 

Wyre BC’s website (http://www.wyrebc.gov.uk)). The action areas in terms of 

planning are outlined in the Wyre Borough Council Draft Air Quality Strategy 

(Wyre BC, 2009) and are as follows: 

“1. Ensure all alternative modes of transport are considered for any new 

development likely to impact adversely on air quality and to encourage 

measurements of impacts 

2. Ensure air quality considerations are incorporated in the Local Development 

Framework 

3. Encourage new and existing major employers (over 250) to introduce green 

commuter plans 

4. Ensure new planning applications are checked against sustainability criteria 

5. Ensure all new developments which may have a negative impact on air 

quality employ suitable measures to prevent a deterioration in the air quality” 

6.3 Methodology 

6.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Air Quality 

chapter of the ES. 

Obtaining Baseline Information 

6.3.2 For the purposes of the ES, the approach outlined below has been followed to 

obtain baseline information: 

71

Identification of study areas in consideration of the Project details, extent 

of the application site, issues raised through consultation with interested 

parties as a result of responses to the Environmental Impact Assessment 

Scoping Report and through post-scoping consultation (if appropriate), 

professional judgement and best practice / guidance outlined in the 

following documents: 

Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS 2) Controlling and Mitigating the 

Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, Annex 1: Dust 

(ODPM, 2005) for fugitive dust emissions during construction and 

decommissioning phases 

Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 update) 

(Environmental Protection UK (EPUK), 2010) for guidance on undertaking 

the air quality assessment and assigning suitable significance criteria 

 

 

 

 

 

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 

1, HA207/07 (Highways Agency, 2007) for vehicle exhaust emissions 

assessment and statutory designated sites for nature conservation 

assessment 

DMRB Volume 11 Section 2 Environmental Assessment (Highways 

Agency, 2008) for guidance on assigning significance criteria 

Building Research Establishment’s Guidance: Control of Dust from 

Construction and Demolition Activities (BRE, 2003) for mitigation 

measures 

Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09) (Defra, 

2009) for guidance on undertaking the air quality assessment 

Undertaking desk studies (including requesting information from third 

parties) within agreed study areas). 

Study Areas 

6.3.3 The study area was defined for each identified potential air quality impact based 

on best practice guidance and professional judgement. The relevant extent for 

each identified impact is discussed in the following sections. 

Fugitive Dust Emissions 

6.3.4 The study area comprises an area within 1,000 m of the construction activities. 

This is based on the guidance provided in MPS 2 Annex 1: Dust (ODPM, 2005), 

which also identifies 1,000 m as being an adequate extent for the assessment 

of potential dust impacts. 

Traffic Exhaust Emissions 

6.3.5 The study area for traffic exhaust emissions comprises an area within 200 m of 

the affected highway network, following the guidance provided in DMRB 

Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA207/07 (Highways Agency, 2007). The criteria 

used to determine whether a road would be affected by traffic changes in terms 

of air quality are outlined in Paragraph 6.3.28. 

72

Other Emissions 

6.3.6 The study area for the assessment of atmospheric emissions associated with 

the Project is an area up to 3 km from the source. The main source of 

atmospheric emissions is considered to be from the dehydration unit within the 

Gas Compressor Compound, therefore the study area for atmospheric 

emissions is an area 3 km surrounding the dehydration unit. 

Desk Studies 

6.3.7 The desk study has comprised gathering of monitoring data, undertaken by 

Wyre BC, including obtaining their latest LAQM report. Desk study information 

has been sourced from the following documents: 

 

 

 

 

 

UK AIR: Air information resource website (http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk) 

Magic Map website (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/website/magic) 

Bing maps website (http://www.bing.com/maps) 

Wyre BC Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessments 

Direct correspondence with Wyre BC and Natural England 

6.3.8 Additional information has also been requested. Table 6-3 summarises the 

sources and the nature of the baseline information requested / obtained. 

Table 6-3 Air Quality Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 

Source 

Wyre Borough 

Council 

Baseline Information Requested / Obtained 

Requested the most up to date air quality reports and 

diffusion tube data. 

Received confirmation that the most up to date reports are on 

the website and received the most up to date diffusion tube 

data. 

Consultation 

6.3.9 Relevant consultation responses received to the EIA Scoping Report are 

summarised in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 1B. Further consultation has been 

undertaken since the receipt of the Scoping Report consultation responses, to 

agree a range of issues particular to the Air Quality assessment. Table 6-4 

summarises the post-scoping consultation undertaken, including responses 

received to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report. 

Table 6-4 Air Quality Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 

Consultee Date of Consultation Summary of Consultation 

Wyre 

Borough 

Council 

Natural 

England 

3 August 2011 Received confirmation over the phone that the 

methodology was acceptable in principle as it is 

adopting the worst case approach. 

12 August 2011 

(response received 10 

November 2011) 

Natural England concurs with the methodology 

proposed for the assessment. 

73


Stalminewith-Staynall 

Parish 

Council 

Blackpool, 

Fylde and 

Wyre 

Hospitals 

NHS 

Foundation 

Trust 

25 May 2011 Commented that residents have a right to a 

quiet enjoyment of their environment. Traffic 

from the development will be disruptive in noise, 

volume, vibration unnecessary delays and local 

air pollution from vehicles. 

2 May 2011 Commented that Rossall Hospital is part of the 

Foundation Trust (situated by the sea), and 

accommodates rehabilitation patients. It is 

essential that access is maintained at all times 

and that noise, vibration, dust and odour are 

kept to a minimum. 

Assessing Potential Effects and Identifying Mitigation and 



assess likely significant effects and identify outline mitigation measures: 

Consideration of best practice / guidance outlined in Paragraph 6.3.2 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional judgement 

Consideration of the baseline information obtained, Project details and 

issues raised through consultation with interested parties as a result of 

responses to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and 

through post-scoping consultation 

Prediction of potential effects based on baseline information and Project 

details 

Identification of effects on receptors which, in particular, could be 

considered to be potentially significant in terms of the Infrastructure 


Regulations’) (Statutory Instrument 2009/2263) 

Identification of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures 

Significance Criteria 

6.3.11 The following section outlines the criteria that have been used to determine the 

assessment of effects. 

General - Receptor Sensitivity 

6.3.12 Receptors can demonstrate different sensitivities to changes in their 

environment. For the purpose of this assessment, sensitivity has been 

determined as very high, high, medium or low as detailed in Table 6-5. This is 

based on the DMRB Guidance Volume 11 Section 2 Environmental 

Assessment methodology (Highways Agency, 2008). 

74

Table 6-5 Air Quality Assessment - Sensitivity of Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Very High 

High 

Medium 

Low 


Receptor is of very high sensitivity to changes in air quality 

conditions. This may be due to the type of receptor or very 

high existing pollutant concentrations. 

Receptor is of high sensitivity to changes in air quality 

conditions. This may be due to the type of receptor or high 

existing pollutant concentrations. 

Receptor is of medium sensitivity to changes in air quality 

conditions. This may be due to the type of receptor or medium 


Receptor is of low sensitivity to changes in air quality 

conditions. This may be due to the type of receptor or low 


6.3.13 The DMRB Guidance Volume 11 Section 2 Environmental Assessment 

methodology (Highways Agency, 2008) allows the assessor to identify either the 

sensitivity or the value of a receptor. In regards to air quality, the sensitivity is of 

greater interest as the majority of potential impacts are considered in terms of 

the ability of the environment to receive the predicted impact without adverse 

effects. This is generally considered in relation to exceedences of the relevant 

environmental assessment criteria, such as an AQLV or critical load, or the 

potential for nuisance complaints in terms of dust or odour. For example, an 

area with low baseline air pollutant concentrations will have the ability to receive 

a larger increase in pollutant levels before the relevant environmental 

assessment criteria (such as those outlined in Tables 6-1 and 6-2) are 

exceeded and may therefore be considered to be of low sensitivity. Similarly, an 

area with high baseline air pollutant concentrations will only be able to receive a 

small increase in pollutant levels before the relevant environmental assessment 

criteria is exceeded and may therefore be considered to be of high or very high 

sensitivity. Both of these areas may be of very high value, for example a 

residential property, but the consideration of the sensitivity of the environment 

allows a differentiation to be made by the assessor based on the actual 

potential for significant impacts at that location. 

6.3.14 It should be noted that the DMRB Guidance Volume 11 Section 2 

Environmental Assessment (Highways Agency, 2008) provides typical 

descriptors of value or sensitivity and states these will not apply to all 

environmental topics. It is considered that it should therefore be viewed as a 

starting point for methodology development and variation from the descriptors 

using professional judgement, with justification, is acceptable. 

General - Magnitude of Impact 

6.3.15 The magnitude of a potential impact is determined by considering the predicted 

change in baseline conditions as a result of the proposed development. Typical 

descriptors are summarised in Table 6-6. The descriptors have been derived 

from the DMRB Guidance Volume 11 Section 2 Environmental Assessment 

(Highways Agency, 2008). 

75

Table 6-6 Air Quality Assessment - Magnitude of Impact 

Magnitude 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

No Change 


Impact resulting in a considerable change in baseline 

conditions with severe undesirable/desirable 

consequences on the receiving environment. 

Impact resulting in a discernable change in baseline 

environmental conditions with moderate 

undesirable/desirable consequences on the receiving 

environment. 


environmental conditions with minor 


environment. 


environmental conditions with very minor 


environment. 

No discernable change in baseline environmental 

conditions. 

General - Significance of Effect 

6.3.16 The significance of an effect is predicted based on the interaction between the 

sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of impact, as outlined in Table 6-7. 

This has been derived from the DMRB Guidance Volume 11 Section 2 

Environmental Assessment (Highways Agency, 2008). 

Table 6-7 Air Quality Assessment - Significance of Effect 

Sensitivity of 

Receptor 

Magnitude of Change 

Negligible Small Medium Large 

Very High Negligible Slight Moderate Substantial 

High Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate 

Medium Negligible Negligible Slight Slight 

Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Slight 

6.3.17 An effect may be beneficial or adverse and of the following nature: 

 

 

Direct or indirect 

Temporary or permanent 

76

Short, medium or long-term 

Reversible or irreversible 

6.3.18 These have been described with reasoning where relevant. 

6.3.19 The Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update) (EPUK, 2010) 

document provides guidance on determining the significance of the overall 

impact on existing air quality during the operation of a project. The following 

factors are identified for consideration by the assessor: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of properties affected by slight, moderate or major air quality 

impacts and a judgement on the overall balance 

Where new exposure is introduced into an existing area of poor air quality, 

then the number of people exposed to levels above the objective or limit 

value will be relevant 

The magnitude of changes and the descriptions of the impacts at the 

receptors 

Whether or not an exceedence of an objective or limit value is predicted to 

arise in the study area where none existed before or an exceedence area 

is substantially increased 

Whether or not the study area exceeds an objective or limit value and this 

exceedence is removed or the exceedence area is reduced 

The extent to which an objective or limit value is exceeded e.g. an annual 

mean NO 2 concentration of 41 µg/m 3 should attract less significance than 

an annual mean of 51 µg/m 3 

6.3.20 It should be noted that the determination of significance relies on professional 

judgement and reasoning should be provided as far as practicable. 

Construction Phase 

6.3.21 During the construction phase, there is the potential for the following air quality 

impacts: 

 

 

Fugitive dust emissions 

Road vehicle exhaust emissions 


6.3.22 There is the potential for fugitive dust emissions to occur as a result of 

construction phase activities. These have been assessed in accordance with 

the following methodology. 

Receptor Sensitivity 

6.3.23 The value (sensitivity) of each receptor has been initially defined for dust 

sensitive locations within 1,000 m of the application site based on the criteria 

contained within Table 6-8. These examples are based on the guidance 

provided in MPS 2 Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of 

Minerals Extraction in England, Annex 1: Dust (ODPM, 2005), which also 

77

identifies 1,000 m as being an adequate extent for the assessment of potential 

dust impacts. 

Table 6-8 Air Quality Assessment - Construction Site Dust – Criteria for Determining 

Value of Potential Receptors 

Sensitivity 

Very High 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Example of Potential Receptors 

Hospitals and clinics 

Retirement homes 

High-tech industries 

Painting and furnishing 

Food processing 

Schools 

Residential areas 

Food retailers 

Glasshouses and nurseries 

Horticultural land 

Offices 

Statutory designated sites for nature 

conservation* 

Farms 

Industry 

Outdoor storage 

* DMRB states that ‘most sensitive species appear to be affected by dust 

deposition levels above 1000 mg/m³/day, which is five times greater than the 

level at which most dust deposition may start to cause a perceptible nuisance to 

humans. Most species appear to be unaffected until dust deposition rates are 

at levels considerably higher than this.’ It is therefore considered that the 

sensitivity of statutory designated sites for nature conservation in relation to 

construction dust is lower than that for human receptors, therefore a sensitivity 

of medium has been selected. 


6.3.24 The potential for dust impacts depends significantly on the distance between 

the dust generating activity and receptor location. MPS 2 Controlling and 

Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, Annex 1: 

Dust (ODPM, 2005) provides guidance on the potential dispersion area of dust 

emissions. This was reviewed to produce the criteria for the determination of the 

magnitude of change, as outlined in Table 6-9. 

78

Table 6-9 Air Quality Assessment - Construction Site Dust – Criteria for Determining 


Magnitude 

of Change 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

Negligible 

No change 

Description 

Dust sensitive location is situated less than 10 m from the 

construction site boundary 

Dust sensitive location is situated between 10 m and 100 m from 

the construction site boundary 

Dust sensitive location is situated between 100 m and 500 m 

from the construction site boundary 

Dust sensitive location is situated between 500 m and 1,000 m 

from the construction site boundary 

Dust sensitive location is situated greater than 1,000 m from the 

construction site boundary 

Significance of Effect 

6.3.25 The significance of effect has been defined based on the interaction between 

the value (sensitivity) of the affected receptor and the magnitude of change, as 

previously summarised in Table 6-7. Based on professional judgement, a 

‘significant’ effect with regard to the EIA Regulations is considered to be one of 

moderate significance or above. 

Construction Traffic Exhaust Emissions 

6.3.26 During the construction phase there is the potential for air quality impacts from 

road vehicle exhaust emissions to occur as a result of traffic movements 

associated with the Project. The pollutants of most concern near roads are NO 2 

and PM 10 in relation to human health and NO x in relation to vegetation and 

ecosystems Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 

3, Part 1, HA 207/07 (Highways Agency, 2007). 

6.3.27 Road vehicle exhaust emissions have been assessed in accordance with the 

DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA 207/07 (Highways Agency, 2007) 

methodology, which provides a staged assessment approach for the 

determination of potential air quality effects as a result of vehicle exhaust 

emissions. 

6.3.28 The DMRB provides the following criteria for determination of road links 

potentially affected by changes in traffic flow: 

 

 

 

 

Daily Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows will change by 1,000 or 

more 

Daily Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) AADT flows will change by 200 or more 

Daily average speed will change by 10 km/hr or more or 

Peak hour speed will change by 20 km/hr or more 

79

6.3.29 Should these criteria not be achieved, then the DMRB considers a Project to be 

negligible in terms of air quality effects and no further assessment is required. 

6.3.30 Should screening of the traffic data indicate that any of the above criteria are 

achieved, then potential effects at sensitive receptor locations would be 

assessed by calculating the predicted change in NO 2 and PM 10 concentrations 

as a result of the Project using the DMRB screening model for the following 

scenarios: 

 

 

Worst case construction year do-minimum (predicted construction traffic 

flows in the anticipated worst case year should the Project not proceed) 

Worst case construction year do-something (predicted traffic flows in the 

anticipated year of opening should the Project proceed). 

6.3.31 Receptors potentially sensitive to construction traffic exhaust emissions were 

identified within 200 metres of the affected highway network in consideration of 

the guidance provided in Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance 

LAQM.TG(09) (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 

2009). 

6.3.32 Examples of where annual mean AQLVs should apply are: 

 

 

 

 

Residential properties 

Schools 

Hospitals 

Care homes 

6.3.33 In addition, statutory designated sites for nature conservation can be sensitive 

to changes in Nitrogen (N) deposition and NO x concentrations. Concentrations 

can be predicted using the DMRB screening model, which calculates N 

deposition rates and NO x concentrations at every 10 m along a 200 m transect 

from the road. 

6.3.34 Should significant changes in concentrations be predicted, detailed modelling of 

construction traffic emissions would be undertaken using ADMS-Roads. 

6.3.35 Upon review of the traffic data and comparison of the predicted do-minimum 

and do-something traffic flows for the construction phase, it was found that none 

of the criteria presented in Paragraph 6.3.28 were achieved. This would 

therefore indicate that traffic emissions as a result of the Project would have a 

negligible impact on receptors. However, as a precaution, a sensitivity test was 

undertaken to ensure that the impacts were negligible by using the DMRB 

screening model, using worst case sensitive receptor locations (i.e. where the 

largest changes in traffic were predicted). 

6.3.36 Reference should be made to Appendix 6.1 of Volume 1B for traffic data. 

6.3.37 The methodology for determining the significance of predicted effects is detailed 

in the following sections. 

80


6.3.38 The sensitivity of each receptor has been defined for each receptor based on 

the criteria contained within Table 6-10. These criteria are based on the 

guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK’s (EPUK) guidance: 

Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update) (EPUK, 2010) and 

the sensitivity descriptors previously identified in Table 6-5. 

Table 6-10 Air Quality Assessment - Traffic Exhaust Emissions - Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Sensitivity 

Very High 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Pollutant Concentration (with Development or without 

Development – whichever concentration is greater) 

Above AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 or PM 10 annual mean greater than 40 µg/m 3 

2. More than 35-days greater than 50 µg/m 3 (PM 10 ) 

3. *NO x annual mean greater than 30 µg/m 3 

Just below AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 or PM 10 annual mean 36 – 40 µg/m 3 

2. 32 to 35-days greater than 50 µg/m 3 (PM 10 ) 

3. *NO x annual mean 27 – 30 µg/m 3 

Below AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 or PM 10 annual mean 30 – 36 µg/m 3 

2. 26 to 32-days greater than 50 µg/m 3 (PM 10 ) 

3. *NO x annual mean 22.5 – 27 µg/m 3 

Well below AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 or PM 10 annual mean below 30 µg/m 3 

2. Less than 26-days greater than 50 µg/m 3 (PM 10 ) 

3. *NO x annual mean below 22.5 µg/m 3 

*For statutory designated sites for nature conservation only 


6.3.39 The methodology outlined in Development Control: Planning for Air Quality 

(2010 Update) (EPUK, 2010) provides guidance on suitable descriptors for 

impact magnitude, as outlined in Table 6-11. It should be noted that the relevant 

descriptors have been adapted to those outlined previously in Table 6-6 to 

ensure consistency and to account for changes in concentrations at statutory 

sites. 

81

Table 6-11 Air Quality Assessment - Traffic Exhaust Emissions - Magnitude of 

Impact 

Magnitude of 

Impact 

Change in Annual 

Mean NO 2 or PM 10 

Concentration (µg/m 3 ) 

Change in Number of 

Days with PM 10 

Concentrations 

Greater than 50µg/m 3 

Change in Annual 

Mean NO x 

Concentration 

(µg/m 3 ) 

Large Greater than 4.0 More than 4.0 Greater than 3.0 

Medium 2.0 – 4.0 2.0 – 4.0 1.5 – 3.0 

Small 0.4 – 2.0 1.0 – 2.0 0.3 – 1.5 

Negligible Less than 0.4 Less than 1.0 Less than 0.3 




previously summarised in Table 6-7. 

6.3.41 Based on professional judgement, a ‘significant’ effect with regard to the EIA 

Regulations is considered to be one of moderate significance or above. 

Construction and Operation Combined 

6.3.42 Part of the Project would be operational whilst some areas would still be under 

construction. There is therefore the potential for combined construction and 

operational impacts. Whilst it is unlikely that all the construction vehicles and 

operational vehicles would be on the surrounding road network at the same 

time, the vehicle numbers from the two phases have been combined to assess 

a worst case situation (reference should be made to Appendix 6-1 of Volume 1B 

for traffic data). The methodology for assessing the combined vehicle emissions 

is the same as for the construction phase vehicle emissions assessment, as 

presented in Paragraphs 6.3.26 to 6.3.41. 

6.3.43 Similar to the construction phase assessment, review of the traffic data and 

comparison of the predicted do-minimum and do-something traffic flows for the 

combined construction and operation phase indicated that none of the criteria 

presented in Paragraph 6.3.28 were achieved. This therefore indicates that 

traffic emissions as a result of the Project would have a negligible impact on 

receptors. However, as a precaution, a sensitivity test was undertaken to 

ensure that the impacts were negligible by using the DMRB screening model, 

using worst case sensitive receptor locations (i.e. where the largest changes in 

traffic were predicted). 

6.3.44 During the operational phase, there is also the potential for atmospheric 

emissions released from the gas storage facility itself. The methodology for 

assessing atmospheric emissions associated with the operational phase is 

detailed in the following section (Paragraphs 6.3.49 to 6.3.62). 

82

6.3.45 No additional dust would be produced during the operational phase, therefore 

fugitive dust emissions would be the same as those predicted for the 

construction phase. 

Operation 

6.3.46 During the operational phase, there is the potential for the following air quality 

impacts: 

 

 

Road vehicle exhaust emissions 

Atmospheric emissions 

Road Vehicle Exhaust Emissions 

6.3.47 The methodology for assessing road traffic exhaust emissions during the 

operational phase is the same as that outlined previously for the construction 

phase (Paragraphs 6.3.26 to 6.3.41). 

6.3.48 Similar to the construction phase and combined construction and operational 

phase assessments, review of the traffic data and comparison of the predicted 

do-minimum and do-something traffic flows for the operation phase indicated 

that none of the criteria presented in Paragraph 6.3.28 were achieved. This 

would therefore indicate that traffic emissions as a result of the Project would 

have a negligible impact on receptors. However, as a precaution, a sensitivity 

test was undertaken to ensure that the impacts were negligible by using the 

DMRB screening model, using worst case sensitive receptor locations (i.e. 

where the largest changes in traffic were predicted). 

Atmospheric Emissions 

6.3.49 Nitrogen would be used in the mechanical integrity testing associated with the 

Project. However, nitrogen is an inert and non-toxic gas, which constitutes 

approximately 78% of the atmosphere. Therefore this has not been considered 

further in this assessment. 

6.3.50 Natural gas may be released during maintenance periods. However, this would 

occur infrequently and for a short duration. In addition, the principle constituent 

of natural gas is methane, which is non-toxic. This has not therefore been 

considered further in this assessment. 

6.3.51 The main source of emissions would be the dehydration unit of the GCC. The 

dehydration unit comprises a gas dryer and a gas heater, which are both fired 

by natural gas and have the potential to cause air quality impacts as a result of 

the atmospheric emissions from combustion. 

6.3.52 The main pollutants arising from the combustion of natural gas are NO x , CO, 

SO 2 and PM 10 . Dispersion modelling of these pollutants was undertaken using 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) dispersion 

model, AERMOD. AERMOD is a development from the ISC3 dispersion model 

and incorporates improved dispersion algorithms and pre-processors to 

integrate the impact of meteorology and topography within the modelling output. 

AERMOD is routinely used throughout the world for the prediction of pollutant 

83

dispersion and results are accepted within the UK by the Environment Agency 

and Defra. 

6.3.53 The model utilises hourly meteorological data to define conditions for plume 

rise, transport and diffusion. It estimates the concentration for each source and 

receptor combination for each hour of input meteorology, and calculates userselected 

long-term and short-term averages, for comparison with the relevant 

AQLVs. 

6.3.54 Five years’ of meteorological data have been used to predict worst-case 

pollutant concentrations at selected sensitive receptors. 

6.3.55 Emissions of NO x from combustion processes are predominantly in the form of 

nitrogen oxide (NO). Excess oxygen in the combustion gases and further 

atmospheric reactions cause the oxidation of NO to NO 2 . NO 2 concentrations 

reported in the results section assume 100% conversion from NO x to NO 2 for 

annual means and a 50% conversion for short term (hourly) concentrations, 

based upon EA methodology Conversion Ratios for NO x and NO 2 (Environment 

Agency, 2006). 

6.3.56 Comparisons of ambient NO and NO 2 concentrations in the vicinity of point 

sources in recent years has indicated that it is unlikely that more than 30% of 

the NO x is present at ground level as NO 2 , therefore the predicted results are 

likely to be a conservative overestimate of the impacts of the combustion 

emissions. 

6.3.57 Reference should be made to Appendix 6.1 of Volume 1B for detailed input 

data. 

6.3.58 The methodology for determining the significance of predicted effects is detailed 

in the following sections. 


6.3.59 The sensitivity of each receptor has been defined for each receptor based on 

the criteria contained within Table 6-12. These criteria are derived from the 

guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK’s (EPUK) guidance: 

Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update) (EPUK, 2010) and 

the sensitivity descriptors previously identified in Table 6-5. 

Table 6-12 Air Quality Assessment - Atmospheric Emissions - Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Sensitivity 

Very High 

Pollutant Concentration (with Development or without Development 

– whichever concentration is greater) 

Above AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 / PM 10 annual mean greater than 40 µg/m 3 

2. *NO x annual mean greater than 30 µg/m 3 

3. CO maximum daily running 8 hour mean greater than 10 mg/m 3 

4. *SO 2 annual mean greater than 20 µg/m³ 

5. SO 2 24 hour mean concentration greater than 125 µg/m³ more 

84

Sensitivity 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Pollutant Concentration (with Development or without Development 

– whichever concentration is greater) 

than 3 days a year 

Just below AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 / PM 10 annual mean 36 – 40 µg/m 3 

2. *NO x annual mean 27 – 30 µg/m 3 

3. CO maximum daily running 8 hour mean 9 – 10 mg/m 3 

4. *SO 2 annual mean 18 - 20 µg/m³ 

5. SO 2 24 hour mean concentration greater than 125 µg/m³ 2 - 3 days 

a year 

Below AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 / PM 10 annual mean 30 – 36 µg/m 3 

2. *NO x annual mean 22.5 – 27 µg/m 3 

3. CO maximum daily running 8 hour mean 7.5 – 9 mg/m 3 

4. *SO 2 annual mean 15 - 18 µg/m³ 

5. SO 2 24 hour mean concentration greater than 125 µg/m³ 1 day a 

year 

Well below AQLV/Critical Level 

1. NO 2 / PM 10 annual mean below 30 µg/m 3 

2. *NO x annual mean below 22.5 µg/m 3 

3. CO maximum daily running 8 hour mean less than 7.5 mg/m 3 

4. *SO 2 annual mean below 15 µg/m³ 

5. SO 2 24 hour mean concentration greater than 125 µg/m³ less than 

1 day a year 

*For statutory designated sites for nature conservation only 


6.3.60 The methodology outlined in Development Control: Planning for Air Quality 

(2010 Update) (EPUK, 2010) provides guidance on suitable descriptors for 

impact magnitude, as outlined in Table 6-13. It should be noted that the relevant 

descriptors have been adapted to those outlined previously in Table 6-6 to 

ensure consistency and to account for changes in concentrations at statutory 

designated sites for nature conservation. 

85

Table 6-13 Air Quality Assessment - Atmospheric Emissions - Magnitude of 

Impact 

Magnitude 

of Impact 

Large 

Change in 

Annual 

Mean 

NO 2 /PM 10 

Conc. 

(µg/m 3 ) 

Greater than 

4.0 

Change in 

Maximum 

Daily 

Running 8 

Hour CO 

Mean 

(mg/m³) 

Greater than 

1.0 

Change in 

Annual 

Mean NO x 

Conc. 

(µg/m 3 ) 

Greater than 

3.0 

Change in 

Annual 

Mean SO 2 

Conc. 

(µg/m 3 ) 

Greater 

than 2.0 

Change in Number 

of Days where SO 2 

24 Hour Mean 

Concentration is 

Greater than 125 

µg/m³ 

Greater than 3 days 

Medium 2.0 – 4.0 0.5 – 1.0 1.5 – 3.0 1.0 – 2.0 Greater than 2 days 

Small 0.4 – 2.0 0.1 – 0.5 0.3 – 1.5 0.2 – 1.0 Greater than or 

equal to 1 day 

Negligible 

Less than 

0.4 

Less than 

0.1 

Less than 

0.3 

Less than 

0.2 

Less than 1 day 




previously summarised in Table 6-7. 



Decommissioning Phase 

6.3.63 The decommissioning phase could result in fugitive dust emissions from 

demolition activity and road vehicle exhaust emissions. The methodology for 

assessing these emissions is the same as the construction phase methodology, 

as outlined in Paragraphs 6.3.21 to 6.3.41. 

6.4 Existing Baseline Information 

6.4.1 The following section outlines the baseline information obtained through desk 

studies, site visits (surveys) and consultation. 

Local Air Quality Management 

6.4.2 As required by the Environment Act (1995), Wyre BC has undertaken review 

and assessment of air quality within their area of jurisdiction. This process has 

indicated that annual mean concentrations of NO 2 are exceeded on Chapel 

Street in Poulton-le-Fylde and therefore the Council has declared an AQMA for 

the area encompassing Chapel Street, along with the junctions with Higher 

Green/Queens Square, and Breck Road/Vicarage Road/Ball Street. 

86

6.4.3 The most recent assessment of NO 2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Chapel 

Street AQMA Reassessment of Chapel Street AQMA (Wyre BC 2011) indicates 

that there is no evidence to suggest that NO 2 concentrations in the AQMA are 

decreasing, confirming the need for an AQMA in the area and recommends 

extending the AQMA. 

6.4.4 The Wyre BC AQMA is greater than 3.5 km south of the Project location. As 

such, air quality impacts associated with the Project are not considered likely 

within the AQMA. 

6.4.5 The most recent Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) (Wyre BC, 2009) 

report concluded that a detailed assessment of annual mean NO 2 

concentrations at Trunnah Road in Thornton Cleveleys and Park Hill Road and 

Croston Road in Garstang should be undertaken. However, these areas are not 

located in close proximity to the application site and have therefore not been 

considered further. 

6.4.6 Wyre BC concluded within the USA (Wyre BC, 2009) that concentrations of all 

other pollutants considered within the AQS are below the relevant AQLVs and 

as such no further AQMAs have been declared to date. 

Air Quality Monitoring 

6.4.7 Wyre BC has no automatic monitoring sites within the Borough, the nearest 

sites are located in the town of Blackpool and city of Preston as part of the 

national Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN). However, this automatic 

monitoring data is not considered representative of baseline air quality 

conditions due to the distance of the monitors from the Project study area. 

6.4.8 Wyre BC currently carries out non-automatic monitoring for NO 2 using diffusion 

tubes throughout the Borough. The closest tube to the application site is the 

tube at site K, which is approximately 970 m from the nearest part of the 

application site. The data presented in the Air Quality Progress Report for 2010 

(Wyre BC, 2010) indicates that the annual mean NO 2 diffusion tube 

measurement of 19 µg/m³ at Site K in 2009 was below the AQS objective of 40 

µg/m³. The most recent data provided by Wyre BC indicates that the 2010 

annual mean at Site K was 18.6µg/m³, which again is below the AQS objective. 

However, it must be noted that the data provided for 2010 is raw data and has 

not been bias adjusted, so is therefore provisional. 

Background Pollutant Concentrations 

6.4.9 Predictions of background pollutant concentrations on a 1 kilometre x 1 

kilometre grid basis have been produced by Defra for the entire of the UK to 

assist LAs in their Review and Assessment of air quality. The planning 

application site covers numerous grid squares. Data from these grid squares 

have been downloaded from the Defra website, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk (Defra, 

2011) and averaged for each pollutant, as summarised in Table 6-14. 

87

Table 6-14 Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Air Quality Background 

Concentrations for 2011 

Year Predicted Background Concentration (µg/m 3 (mg/m 3 

for CO)) 

NO x NO 2 PM 10 CO* SO 2 

** 

2011 9.97 7.84 10.79 0.10 2.42 

*Background mapping for 2001, projected to 2011 using factor provided in the 

LAQM technical guidance (TG.03) (Defra, 2003) 

**Year adjustment factors are no longer provided for SO 2 because it is 

considered, that, away from specific locations near industrial sources or areas 

of high domestic coal burning, that SO 2 background levels would change very 

little i.e. the factor would be close to one Defra website, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk 

(Defra, 2011) 

6.4.10 As indicated in Table 6-14, the average background concentrations at the 

application site are low and well below the relevant AQLVs and critical levels for 

vegetation. 

Background Nitrogen Deposition Rates 

6.4.11 There are several statutory designated sites for nature conservation in the 

vicinity of the application site. Full details regarding the sites are presented in 

Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation and presented on Figure 9.1 of 

Volume 2B. 

6.4.12 The main statutory designated sites for nature conservation that could be 

impacted by the Project in terms of NO x concentrations and Nitrogen (N) 

deposition is the Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, 

and Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Whilst the birds for 

which the sites have been designated for are not sensitive to NO x 

concentrations or N deposition directly, the species’ habitat may be sensitive. 

6.4.13 Within the boundary of these statutory designated sites for nature conservation, 

the closest relevant terrestrial habitat that could be potentially affected by 

nitrogen deposition is saltmarsh. The critical load for saltmarsh is 20 to 30 

kgN/ha/yr, which has been obtained from the Air Pollution Information System 

(APIS) website (http://www.apis.ac.uk/) (APIS, 2011). Critical loads are set by 

the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and represent 

the exposure below which there should be no significant harmful effects on 

sensitive elements of the ecosystem and are provided in ranges to reflect 

variation in ecosystem response across Europe. 

6.4.14 The background N deposition rate at the point at which the statutory designated 

site for nature conservation is closest to the Project is presented in Table 6-15. 

Total average N deposition rate from all sources of N was obtained from the 

APIS website (http://www.apis.ac.uk/) (APIS, 2011). Following the DMRB 

guidance, the annual decrease in nitrogen deposition was assumed to be 2%. 

88

Table 6-15 

Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Background N Deposition Rates 

Year 

2011 21.3 

Predicted Background N Deposition 

Rates (kgN/ha/yr) 

6.4.15 The predicted background N deposition rate presented in Table 6-15 indicates 

that the lower level of the critical load (20 kgN/ha/yr) is exceeded in the baseline 

situation, but it is below the higher level (30 kgN/ha/yr). 


6.4.16 Tables 6-16, 6-17 and 6-18 present the sensitivities assigned to the individual 

receptors identified through the desk studies, consultation and modelling for 

fugitive dust emissions, vehicle exhaust emissions and atmospheric emissions, 

respectively. Sensitivities have been assigned using the criteria presented in 

Tables 6-8, 6-10 and 6-12 for fugitive dust emissions, traffic exhaust emissions 

and atmospheric emissions, respectively. The locations of the receptors are 

presented on Figure 6.1 of Volume 2B. 

Table 6-16 Air Quality Assessment – Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emission 

Receptors 

Receptor Grid Coordinate Sensitivity 

CR1 – Residential property, Cote 

Walls Farm 

CR2 – Residential property, Park 

Cottage Farm 

CR3 – Residential property, Ivy 

Cottages 

CR4 – Residential property, Height 

o’ th’ Hill 

CR5 – Residential property on 

Burrow’s Lane 

CR6 – Caravan Park on Fleetwood 

Road 

CR7 – Nautical College of 

Fleetwood 

x 

y 

335402 446775 High 

336323 446005 High 

336244 445782 High 

336079 445207 High 

335791 444086 High 

332817 445441 High 

332417 445486 High 

CR8 – Property on South Strand 332057 445345 High 

CR9 – Rossall Hospital 331325 445488 Very high 


West Way 

CR11- Residential property at 

Redrow Homes development 

331625 445521 High 

333609 446837 High 

89

Receptor Grid Coordinate Sensitivity 

CR12 – Residential property, 

Riverside Cottage 


Bridge Farm 

CR14 – Residential property, Head 

Dyke House 


Rushy Slack Farm 

CR16 – Residential property, Elm 

Farm 

CR17 – Statutory designated site 

for nature conservation, 

Winmarleigh Moss SSSI 

x 

y 

335104 445414 High 

337036 446054 High 

339481 446569 High 

343844 446202 High 

345844 446197 High 

344236 447268 Medium 

CR18 – Rossall School 331446 445056 High 


for nature conservation 

(Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, 

and Wyre Estuary SSSI) 

335276 446110 Medium 

Table 6-17 

Air Quality Assessment – Evaluation of Vehicle Emission Receptors 

Receptor Grid Coordinate Sensitivity (in terms 

x y 

of NO 2 and PM 10 for 

residential properties 

and NO x for statutory 

designated site for 

nature conservation) 

VR1 – Residential property on 

Shard Road near to junction with 

Mains Lane 

VR2 - Residential property on 

Shard Road 

VR3 - Residential property on Old 

Bridge Lane, off Shard Road 

VR4 - Residential property, Park 

Cottage Farm 

VR5 – Statutory designated site for 

nature conservation (Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI) 

336457 440316 Low 

336798 440907 Low 

336920 441253 Low 

336322 446004 Low 

336810 441100 Low 

90

Table 6-18 Air Quality Assessment – Evaluation of Atmospheric Emission 

Receptors 

Receptor Grid Coordinate Sensitivity (in terms 

x y 

of NO 2 , CO, SO 2 and 

PM 10 for residential 

properties and NO x 

and SO 2 for 

statutory 


nature conservation) 

OR1 - Residential property, Cote 

Walls Farm 

OR2 – Statutory designated site for 

nature conservation (Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI) 

OR3 - Residential property, Park 

Cottage Farm 

OR4 - Residential property, Ivy 

Cottages 

OR5 - Residential property, Corcas 

Farm 

OR6 - Residential property, 


OR7 - Residential property, Fern 

Breck Cottages 

335415 446779 Low 

335225 446219 Low 

336322 446004 Low 

336243 445782 Low 

336100 445657 Low 

335080 445393 Low 

336409 446792 Low 

6.5 Future Baseline Information 

6.5.1 The following section predicts what the future baseline would be without the 

Project. The years 2014 and 2024 have been the focus of the future baseline 

information collation, as these are the worst case construction year and design 

year, respectively. Whilst the construction of the Project is likely to commence in 

2013, this assessment has considered an assessment year of 2014, which is 

predicted to be the year when most construction traffic trips are generated (N.B. 

even though maximum construction traffic generations are anticipated in Year 1 

(2013), 2014 has been selected as the year within which maximum construction 

traffic generations would occur as it is considered that not all the works due to 

be undertaken in Year 1 would be undertaken in 2013). 

Background Pollutant Concentrations 

6.5.2 As described previously in Paragraph 6.4.9, predictions of background pollutant 

concentrations on a 1 kilometre x 1 kilometre grid basis have been downloaded 

from the Defra website, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk (Defra, 2011) and averaged for 

each pollutant, as summarised in Table 6-19. 

91

Table 6-19 Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Air Quality Background 


Year 

Predicted Background Concentration (µg/m 3 (mg/m 3 for CO)) 

NO x NO 2 PM 10 CO** SO 2 

*** 

2014 8.85 7.02 10.54 0.08 2.42 

2024 6.96* 5.59* 10.18* 0.08 2.42 

*The completion date is predicted to be circa 2024, however background maps 

are only projected up to 2020, therefore concentrations presented are for 2020, 

rather than 2024. 

**Background mapping for 2001, projected to 2014 and 2024 using factors 

provided in the LAQM technical guidance (TG.03) (Defra, 2003) 

***Year adjustment factors are no longer provided for SO 2 because it is 

considered, that, away from specific locations near industrial sources or areas 

of high domestic coal burning, that SO 2 background levels would change very 

little i.e. the factor would be close to one Defra website, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk 

(Defra, 2011), therefore the SO 2 concentration remains the same for future 

years. 

6.5.3 As indicated in Table 6-19, the average background concentrations at the 

application site are predicted to be low and well below the relevant AQLVs and 

critical levels for vegetation. 

Background Nitrogen Deposition Rates 

6.5.4 Background N deposition rates at the point at which the statutory designated 

site for nature conservation is closest to the Project are presented in Table 6- 

20. Total average N deposition rates from all sources of N were obtained from 

the APIS website (http://www.apis.ac.uk/) (APIS, 2011). Following the DMRB 

guidance, the annual decrease in nitrogen deposition was assumed to be 2%. 

Table 6-20 

Air Quality Assessment - Predicted Background N Deposition Rates 

Year 

2014 20.0 

2024 15.4 

Predicted Background N Deposition 

Rates (kgN/ha/yr) 

6.5.5 The data presented in Table 6-20 overleaf indicates that the predicted 

background N deposition rate is at the lower level of the critical load (20 

kgN/ha/yr) for 2014, but is below the higher level (30 kgN/ha/yr). However, by 

2024, the background N deposition rate is predicted to have reduced such that 

neither the lower nor higher levels of the critical load are exceeded. 

92

6.6 Receptors Potentially Affected 

6.6.1 A sensitive receptor is defined as any location which may be affected by 

changes in air quality as a result of a development. Those receptors considered 

to be potentially affected by the Project are defined in Table 6-21. The nature of 

effects (in the absence of mitigation and enhancement measures) has been 

considered for the worst case construction year (2014), the worst case 

construction and operation combined year (2014 – this year has been used to 

represent worst case even though construction and operation combined would 

occur at a later year as this is the peak year of construction vehicles) and the 

operation (design) year (2024). Receptors for the decommissioning phase are 

considered to be the same as for the construction phase. 

Table 6-21 

Air Quality Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 

Receptor 

Type 

Any 

receptor 

within the 

relevant 

study area 

Specific Receptor 


Schools 

Hospitals/Care Homes 

Statutory designated 

sites for nature 

conservation 

Nature of Effect 

Fugitive dust nuisance during the 

construction and decommissioning phases 

Traffic exhaust emissions during the 

construction, construction and operation 

combined, operation and decommissioning 

phases 

Atmospheric emissions during the 

operational phase 

6.7 Potential Effects 

6.7.1 The following section assesses the potential effects on the individual receptors 

identified in Section 6.4, in the absence of mitigation or enhancement 

measures. 

Construction 


6.7.2 The receptors presented in Table 6-16 of Section 16.4 of this chapter are worstcase 

locations as they are the closest sensitive receptors to the application site 

in each direction from the site. However, there may be other areas that 

experience dust impacts as a result of the Project that have not been 

individually identified. 

6.7.3 The undertaking of activities such as excavation, ground works, cutting, 

construction, concrete batching and storage of materials has the potential to 

result in fugitive dust emissions throughout the construction phase. Vehicle 

movements both on-site and on the local road network also have the potential 

to result in the re-suspension of dust from haul road and highway surfaces. 

6.7.4 The construction period for the Project would be up to 8 years in duration. The 

first 3 years would be the main period of construction activity, after which, 

93

construction activity would be confined to the cavern leaching activity for a 

period of up to 5 years. It is not considered that cavern leaching would produce 

significant dust emissions, therefore the main period of construction activity 

which has the potential to cause dust impacts is considered to be the first 3 

years of construction. 

6.7.5 The potential for impacts at sensitive locations depends significantly on local 

meteorology during the undertaking of dust generating activities, with the most 

significant effects likely to occur during dry and windy conditions. 

6.7.6 The review of existing pollutant monitoring data indicated that the relevant 

AQLVs for PM 10 have been achieved in the vicinity of the application site as a 

baseline condition. As indicated in Table 6-19, background PM 10 concentrations 

at the site are predicted to be low and a significant increase in emissions would 

be required to result in AQLV exceedences. 

6.7.7 Table 6-22 presents the magnitude of change in dust concentrations as a result 

of the Project at selected sensitive receptors, which has been based on the 

distance between the dust generating activity and receptor location, using the 

criteria outlined in Table 6-9. 

Table 6-22 Air Quality Assessment – Fugitive Dust Emissions - Magnitude of 

Change Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions 

Receptor 

CR1 – Residential property, Cote 

Walls Farm 

CR2 – Residential property, Park 

Cottage Farm 


Cottages 

CR4 – Residential property, Height 

o’ th’ Hill 



CR6 – Caravan Park on Fleetwood 

Road 


Fleetwood 

Approximate Distance 

from Dust Generating 

Activity (m) 

Magnitude 

of Change 

180 Small 

10 Medium 

15 Medium 

25 Medium 

40 Medium 

50 Medium 

210 Small 

CR8 – Property on South Strand 20 Medium 

CR9 – Rossall Hospital 60 Medium 


West Way 



70 Medium 

60 Medium 

94

Receptor 




Bridge Farm 

CR14 – Residential property, Head 

Dyke House 



CR16 – Residential property, Elm 

Farm 


for nature conservation, 


Approximate Distance 

from Dust Generating 

Activity (m) 

Magnitude 

of Change 

610 Negligible 

40 Medium 

110 Small 

130 Small 

100 Small 

740 Negligible 

CR18 – Rossall School 350 Small 


for nature conservation 

(Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, 

and Wyre Estuary SSSI) 

20 Medium 

6.7.8 The resultant significance of the changes presented in Table 6-22 are 

presented in Table 6-23. 

Table 6-23 Air Quality Assessment – Fugitive Dust Emissions – Significance of 

Impact of Fugitive Dust Emissions 

Receptor 

Significance of 

Impact 

Duration of Impact 

(Worst Case) 

CR1 – Residential property, Cote Walls 

Farm 

CR2 – Residential property, Park Cottage 

Farm 

Slight adverse 

Moderate adverse 

Up to 3 years 

Up to 3 years 

CR3 – Residential property, Ivy Cottages Moderate adverse Up to 3 years 

CR4 – Residential property, Height o’ th’ 

Hill 

CR5 – Residential property on Burrow’s 

Lane 



Less than a year 


CR6 – Caravan Park on Fleetwood Road Moderate adverse Less than a year 

CR7 – Nautical College of Fleetwood Slight adverse Less than a year 

CR8 – Property on South Strand Moderate adverse Less than a year 

95

Receptor 


Impact 

Duration of Impact 

(Worst Case) 

CR9 – Rossall Hospital Moderate adverse Less than a year 

CR10 – Residential property on West 

Way 

CR11- Residential property at Redrow 

Homes development 

CR12 – Residential property, Riverside 

Cottage 

CR13 – Residential property, Bridge 

Farm 

CR14 – Residential property, Head Dyke 

House 

CR15 – Residential property, Rushy 

Slack Farm 



Negligible 






Up to 3 years 

Up to 3 years 

Approximately a year 


CR16 – Residential property, Elm Farm Slight adverse Approximately a year 

CR17 – Statutory designated site for 

nature conservation, Winmarleigh Moss 

SSSI 

Negligible 


CR18 – Rossall School Slight adverse Less than a year 

CR19 – Statutory designated site for 

nature conservation (Morecambe Bay 

SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI) 


Up to 3 years 

6.7.9 As indicated in Table 6-23, construction dust impacts are predicted to range 

from negligible to moderate adverse in the worst case. 

6.7.10 Potential dust impacts are considered to be probable, medium term, local, 

occasional, and temporary in nature. They are probable as impacts are likely to 

occur throughout the construction phase, medium term as the main construction 

period would be 3 years (in the worst case), local as impacts are not predicted 

to occur beyond 1 kilometre from the application site, occasional as impacts 

would only occur when specific activities and meteorological conditions combine 

to cause the predicted level of impact at sensitive locations, and temporary as 

there are unlikely to be any lasting impacts after construction is complete. 

6.7.11 It must be noted that the construction works programme is preliminary and is 

therefore subject to change. However, it has been used to provide an indication 

of likely timescales, and it is considered unlikely that the programme would 

differ significantly to that stated at present. 

96

Construction Vehicle Emissions 

6.7.12 Road traffic exhaust emissions generated by wagons, vans, cars and other 

vehicles associated with the construction phase using the local road network 

have the potential to cause increased concentrations of traffic-related pollutants, 

such as NO 2 and PM 10 , in the vicinity of the application site. 

6.7.13 Additional vehicle trips are anticipated to include Light Duty Vehicles (e.g. vans) 

carrying employees and visitors to and from the application site and additional 

Heavy Duty Vehicle movements associated with the import and export of 

material. 

6.7.14 The construction of the Project is expected to take place up to 8 years in 

duration, commencing in 2013. However, as stated previously, this assessment 

has considered an assessment year of 2014, which is predicted to be the year 

when most construction traffic trips are generated (N.B. even though maximum 

construction traffic generations are anticipated in Year 1 (2013), 2014 has been 

selected as the year within which maximum construction traffic generations 

would occur as it is considered that not all the works due to be undertaken in 

Year 1 would be undertaken in 2013). Therefore traffic data for the do-minimum 

and do-something scenarios from 2014 were analysed. Whilst comparison of 

the do-minimum and do-something scenarios indicated changes in traffic flows 

would be below the DMRB screening criteria (as presented in paragraph 

6.3.28), a sensitivity test was undertaken to provide an estimation in changes in 

air quality concentrations at worst case locations. 

6.7.15 Predicted NO 2 concentrations at each sensitive receptor location identified in 

Table 6-17, inclusive of background, are shown in Table 6-24. 

Table 6-24 

Air Quality Assessment – Predicted Changes in NO 2 Concentrations 

Receptor Predicted Annual Mean NO 2 


2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 



Mains Lane 15.11 15.33 0.22 


Shard Road 12.68 12.80 0.12 


Bridge Lane, off Shard Road 10.93 10.98 0.05 


Cottage Farm 6.82 6.96 0.14 

Predicted 

Change 

*Concentrations derived from the sensitivity test are an approximation as results 

have not been verified 

6.7.16 As indicated in Table 6-24, annual mean concentrations of NO 2 are predicted to 

increase marginally at all receptor locations. However, predicted concentrations 

97

of NO 2 are well below the annual mean NO 2 AQLV at all sensitive receptor 

locations for both scenarios. 

6.7.17 LAQM.TG(09) (Defra, 2009) stipulates that “exceedences of the 1-hour mean 

objective for NO 2 are only likely to occur where annual mean concentrations are 

60µg/m 3 or above”. Therefore, as all predicted concentrations are well below 

60µg/m³, it is considered that NO 2 hourly concentrations would be below the 

hourly AQLV for NO 2. 

6.7.18 The predicted NO x and N deposition rates for the statutory designated site for 

nature conservation (receptor VR5), inclusive of background, are presented in 

Table 6-25. Whilst concentrations were modelled for every 10 m from the road, 

up to a distance of 200 m, only the results modelled at 10 m from the road have 

been presented as these represent the worst case. 

Table 6-25 Air Quality Assessment – Predicted Changes in NO x Concentration 

and N Deposition Rate at Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI 

Predicted Annual Mean NO x 


2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

Predicted 

Change 

Predicted N Deposition Rate (kg 

N/ha/year) 

2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

19.74 20.18 0.44 24.29 24.31 0.02 

Predicted 

Change 



6.7.19 As indicated in Table 6-25, annual mean concentrations of NO x are predicted to 

increase marginally at the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI at 10 m from Shard Road. However, predicted concentrations of 

NO x are well below the annual mean NO x critical level for both scenarios. 

6.7.20 The predicted N deposition rate exceeds the lower level of the critical load (20 

kgN/ha/year) in both scenarios due to the high background rate. However the 

predicted rates are below the higher level of the critical load (30 kgN/ha/year) 

and the change in N deposition rate between the two scenarios is small. 

6.7.21 Predicted PM 10 concentrations at each sensitive receptor location identified in 


Table 6-26 

Air Quality Assessment – Predicted Changes in PM 10 Concentrations 

Receptor Predicted Annual Mean PM 10 


2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 



Mains Lane 12.94 12.97 0.03 

VR2 - Residential property on 12.38 12.40 0.02 

Predicted 

Change 

98



Shard Road 

2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 




Cottage Farm 9.96 9.98 0.02 

Predicted 

Change 



6.7.22 As indicated in Table 6-26, annual mean concentrations of PM 10 are predicted 

to increase marginally at all receptor locations. However, predicted 

concentrations of PM 10 are well below the annual mean PM 10 AQLV at all 

sensitive receptor locations for both scenarios. 

6.7.23 There were no predicted numbers of days with PM 10 concentrations above 

50µg/m 3 at any sensitive receptor location identified in Table 6-17, for either 

scenario. 

6.7.24 Table 6-27 summarises the predicted magnitude of change for NO 2 and PM 10 

for the construction phase in terms of vehicle emissions. 

Table 6-27 Air Quality Assessment – Magnitude of Changes in NO 2 and PM 10 


Receptor 



Mains Lane 


Shard Road 




Cottage Farm 


NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 24-hour 

Mean 

Negligible Negligible Negligible 




6.7.25 As indicated in Table 6-27, the predicted magnitude of change in PM 10 and NO 2 

is negligible. Table 6-28 summarises the significance of these changes. 

99

Table 6-28 Air Quality Assessment – Significance of Changes in NO 2 and PM 10 


Receptor 



Mains Lane 


Shard Road 




Cottage Farm 

Significance of Impact 

NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 24-hour 

Mean 





6.7.26 As indicated in Table 6-28, the significance of the changes in NO 2 and PM 10 

concentrations at the selected sensitive receptors is predicted to be negligible. 

6.7.27 The magnitude of change in the NO x annual mean at the Morecambe Bay SPA 

and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor VR5) is predicted to be small, 

as indicated in Table 6-25. This equates to a significance of negligible. 

6.7.28 Whilst there are no criteria to determine the significance for the change in N 

deposition rate, the change equates to 0.1% in relation to the lowest critical load 

level (20 kgN/ha/year) and is therefore considered to be negligible in terms of 

significance. 



6.7.29 There are not anticipated to be any fugitive dust emissions associated with the 

operation of the Project, therefore the fugitive dust impacts are the same as 

those predicted previously for the construction phase. 

Construction and Operation Vehicle Emissions 

6.7.30 Part of the Project would be operational whilst some areas would still be under 

construction. There is therefore the potential for combined construction and 

operational impacts. Whilst it is unlikely that all the construction vehicles and 

operational vehicles would be on the surrounding road network at the same 

time, the vehicle numbers from the two phases have been combined to assess 

a worst case situation. The year 2014 has been considered for the construction 

and operation phase, as this is the peak year of construction vehicles. In 

addition, background concentrations are predicted to decrease over time due to 

improvements in technology, therefore 2014 was considered to be a worst case 

year for construction and operational air quality impacts. 

100

6.7.31 Whilst comparison of the do-minimum and do-something combined construction 

and operational scenarios indicated changes in flows below the DMRB 

screening criteria (as presented in Paragraph 6.3.28), a sensitivity test was 

undertaken to provide an estimation in changes in air quality concentrations at 

worst case locations. 


Table 6-17, inclusive of background, are presented in Table 6-29. 

Table 6-29 




2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 



Mains Lane 15.11 15.33 0.22 


Shard Road 12.68 12.80 0.12 




Cottage Farm 6.82 6.96 0.14 

Predicted 

Change 




increase marginally at all receptor locations as a result of the Project. However, 

predicted concentrations of NO 2 are well below the annual mean NO 2 AQLV at 

all sensitive receptor locations for both scenarios. In addition, due to the small 

numbers of vehicles involved in the operation of the Project, there is no 

difference from the concentrations presented for the construction phase dosomething 

scenario. 











101



Estuary SSSI 



2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

Predicted 

Change 


N/ha/year) 

2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

19.74 20.18 0.44 24.29 24.31 0.02 

Predicted 

Change 




increase marginally at the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI at 10 m from Shard Road. However, predicted concentrations of 

NO x are well below the annual mean NO x critical level for both scenarios. 

6.7.37 The predicted N deposition rate exceeds the lower level of the critical load (20 

kgN/ha/year) in both scenarios due to the high background rate. However the 

predicted rates are below the higher level of the critical load (30 kgN/ha/year) 

and the change in N deposition rate between the two scenarios is small. 



Table 6-31 




2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 



Mains Lane 12.94 12.97 0.03 


Shard Road 12.38 12.40 0.02 




Cottage Farm 9.96 9.98 0.02 

Predicted 

Change 




to increase marginally at all receptor locations. However, predicted 



102



scenario. 


for the combined construction and operation phase in terms of vehicle 

emissions. 



Receptor 

VR1 – Residential property on Shard 

Road near to junction with Mains Lane 

VR2 - Residential property on Shard 

Road 




Cottage Farm 


NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 24-hour 

Mean 









Receptor 



Mains Lane 


Shard Road 




Cottage Farm 


NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 24-hour 

Mean 





103


concentrations at the selected sensitive receptors is predicted to be negligible 

at all locations. 


and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor VR5) is predicted to be small, 





significance. 


6.7.46 In addition to vehicular emissions, emissions would be released as a result of 

combustion processes from the gas dryer and gas heater (and the associated 

stack) during the operation of the Project. Although the dryers and heaters 

would only be utilised approximately 33% of the time, emissions have been 

modelled on the assumption that the process would be operational continuously 

throughout the year, as a worst case. 

6.7.47 The modelling was undertaken using 5 years’ of meteorological data. Worst 

case results (i.e. the highest concentration predicted over the 5 years) for 2014 

are presented in Table 6-34 for residential receptors. It must be noted that it is 

unlikely that the dehydration unit would be operational in 2014, however, 2014 

has been assessed as background concentrations are predicted to reduce in 

future years, therefore 2014 would provide worst case estimates. 

Table 6-34 Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Residential 

Receptors 

Receptor 

OR1 - 

Residential 

property, 

Cote Walls 

Farm 

OR3 - 

Residential 

property, 

Park 

Cottage 

Farm 

Predicted Pollutant Concentration Contribution from Stacks (Value in Brackets is 

Concentration Inclusive of Background) 

Annual 

Mean 

NO 2 

(µg/m 3 ) 

2.09 

(8.65) 

1.04 

(7.59) 

NO 2 1-Hour 

Mean 

(99.8%ile) 

(µg/m 3 )* 

25.16 

(25.69) 

21.65 

(23.93) 

Max. 8- 

Hour 

Mean CO 

(mg/m 3 ) 

0.02 

(0.21) 

0.02 

(0.21) 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

(µg/m 3 ) 

0.10 

(11.16) 

0.05 

(10.45) 

PM 10 24- 

Hour 

Mean 

(90%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

0.30 

(11.36) 

0.15 

(10.55) 

SO 2 1-Hour 

Mean 

(99.7%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

SO 2 15- 

Minute 

Mean 

(99.9%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

SO 2 24- 

Hour 

Mean 

(99%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

2.48 (8.34) 3.53 (9.39) 1.27 

(7.13) 

2.07 (7.09) 3.26 (8.28) 0.73 

(5.75) 

104

Receptor 



Annual 

Mean 

NO 2 

(µg/m 3 ) 

OR4 - 0.65 

Residential (7.58) 

property, Ivy 

Cottages 

OR5 - 0.54 

Residential (7.47) 

property, 

Corcas Farm 

OR6 - 

Residential 

property, 

Riverside 

Cottage 

OR7 - 

Residential 

property, 

Fern Breck 

Cottages 

0.21 

(7.34) 

0.82 

(7.66) 

NO 2 1-Hour 

Mean 

(99.8%ile) 

(µg/m 3 )* 

17.13 

(22.43) 

17.43 

(22.57) 

Max. 8- 

Hour 

Mean CO 

(mg/m 3 ) 

0.02 

(0.21) 

0.01 

(0.20) 

8.79 (18.66) 0.01 

(0.20) 

12.22 

(19.79) 

0.01 

(0.20) 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

(µg/m 3 ) 

0.03 

(10.43) 

0.03 

(10.42) 

0.01 

(10.35) 

0.04 

(10.00) 

PM 10 24- 

Hour 

Mean 

(90%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

0.10 

(10.49) 

0.08 

(10.48) 

0.03 

(10.37) 

0.11 

(10.07) 

SO 2 1-Hour 

Mean 

(99.7%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

SO 2 15- 

Minute 

Mean 

(99.9%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

SO 2 24- 

Hour 

Mean 

(99%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

1.54 (6.56) 2.83 (7.85) 0.53 

(5.55) 

1.60 (6.62) 2.75 (7.77) 0.50 

(5.52) 

0.74 (6.60) 1.76 (7.62) 0.29 

(6.15) 

1.12 (6.16) 1.81 (6.85) 0.40 

(5.44) 

*A percentile is a value that is the rank at a particular point in a collection of 

data. For instance, a 99.8th percentile of values for a year is the value that 

99.8% of all the data in the year fall below, or equal. For example, the NO 2 

hourly average AQLV is 200µg/m³ which cannot be exceeded more than 18 

times a year, i.e. 99.8% of the year, the hourly average should be below 

200µg/m³. Therefore if the 99.8th percentile is below 200µg/m³, then the 

objective has been achieved 

6.7.48 The results presented in Table 6-34 indicate that the contribution from the 

stacks is small and predicted concentrations are well below the relevant AQLVs. 

6.7.49 Worst case results for 2014 are presented in Table 6-35 for Morecambe Bay 

SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. Results were modelled along the 

boundary of the statutory designated sites for nature conservation, therefore the 

results presented are the highest recorded along the boundary. 

105

Table 6-35 Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Statutory 

Designated Site for Nature Conservation Receptor 

Receptor 

OR2 – Statutory 


nature conservation 

(Morecambe Bay SPA 

and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI) 

Predicted Pollutant Concentration Contribution 

from Stacks (Value in Brackets is Concentration 

Inclusive of Background) 

Annual Mean 

NO x (µg/m 3 ) 

N Deposition 

(kgN/ha/year) 

Annual Mean 

SO 2 (µg/m 3 ) 

1.16 (8.86) 0.12 (20.12) 0.12 (3.05) 

6.7.50 The results presented in Table 6-35 indicate that the contribution of SO 2 , NO x 

and N deposition to the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI is small and the predicted SO 2 and NO x concentrations are well below the 

critical levels for vegetation (20 µg/m³ and 30 µg/m³, respectively). The 

predicted N deposition rate is just above the lower critical level (20 

kgN/ha/year). 

6.7.51 Table 6-36 summarises the predicted magnitude of change for NO 2 and CO, 

PM 10 and SO 2 for the construction and operation combined phase in terms of 

atmospheric emissions from the dehydration unit. 

Table 6-36 Air Quality Assessment – Magnitude of Changes in NO 2 and CO, PM 10 

and SO 2 Concentrations/Number of Days 

Receptor 


Cote Walls Farm 


Park Cottage Farm 


Ivy Cottages 


Corcas Farm 




Fern Breck Cottages 


NO 2 Annual 

Mean 

Maximum 8- PM 10 Annual SO 2 24-Hour Mean 

Hour Mean CO Mean (No. Of Days) 

Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible 

Small Negligible Negligible Negligible 



Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 


106


presented in Table 6-37, which has been derived from the sensitivity of each 

receptor and the magnitude of change. 

Table 6-37 Air Quality Assessment – Significance of Impact of Changes in NO 2 

and CO, PM 10 and SO 2 Concentrations/Number of Days 

Receptor 

OR1 - Residential 

property, Cote Walls 

Farm 


property, Park 

Cottage Farm 


property, Ivy 

Cottages 


property, Corcas 

Farm 


property, Riverside 

Cottage 


property, Fern 



NO 2 Annual 

Mean 

Maximum 8- 

Hour Mean CO 

PM 10 Annual 

Mean 

SO 2 24-Hour Mean 

(No. Of Days) 







6.7.53 As indicated in Table 6-37, the significance of the changes in NO 2 and CO, 

PM 10 and SO 2 concentrations at the selected sensitive receptors is predicted to 

be negligible at all locations. 


and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor OR5) is predicted to be small, 


6.7.55 The magnitude of change in the SO 2 annual mean at the Morecambe Bay SPA 

and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor OR5) is predicted to be 

negligible, as indicated in Table 6-35. This equates to a significance of 

negligible. 




significance. 

107

Combined Effects 

6.7.57 It is not anticipated that there would be significant combined impacts as a result 

of traffic emissions and atmospheric emissions due to the distance between the 

receptors, roads and stacks. 

6.7.58 This can be demonstrated by combining the vehicle emissions and stack 

emissions at Park Farm Cottage, which is considered a worst case receptor in 

terms of its proximity to both Back Lane (a road where one of the greatest 

changes in vehicles as a result of the Project are anticipated) and the stacks. 

6.7.59 Combined NO 2 and PM 10 concentrations from construction and operational 

phase traffic and atmospheric emissions from the stacks are presented in Table 

6-38 

Table 6-38 Air Quality Assessment – Combined Predicted Changes in PM 10 and 

NO 2 Concentrations 



2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

Predicted 

Change 

Predicted Annual Mean PM 10 


2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

VR4 and OR3 6.82 8.00 1.18 9.96 10.03 0.07 

- Residential 


Cottage Farm 

Predicted 

Change 

6.7.60 The magnitudes of change as a result of combining emissions from construction 

and operational vehicles and stack emissions are small for NO 2 and negligible 

for PM 10 . The resulting significance of the changes is therefore negligible for 

both NO 2 and PM 10. 

Operation 

Operation Vehicle Emissions 

6.7.61 Whilst comparison of the do-minimum and do-something operational scenarios 

indicated changes in flows below the DMRB screening criteria (as presented in 

Paragraph 6.3.28), a sensitivity test was undertaken to provide an estimation in 

changes in air quality concentrations at worst case locations. 



Table 6-39 


Receptor Predicted Annual Mean NO 2 Concentration (µg/m 3 ) 

2024 Do-Minimum 2024 Do-Something Predicted Change 

VR1 – Residential property 

on Shard Road near to 

junction with Mains Lane 12.81 12.81 0.00 

108

Receptor Predicted Annual Mean NO 2 Concentration (µg/m 3 ) 

2024 Do-Minimum 2024 Do-Something Predicted Change 

VR2 - Residential property 

on Shard Road 10.50 10.50 0.00 

VR3 - Residential property 

on Old Bridge Lane, off 

Shard Road 8.86 8.86 0.00 

VR4 - Residential property, 

Park Cottage Farm 5.40 5.40 0.00 




remain the same at all receptor locations as a result of the Project. In addition, 

predicted concentrations of NO 2 are well below the annual mean NO 2 AQLV at 

all sensitive receptor locations for both scenarios. 













Estuary SSSI 



2024 Do- 

Minimum 

2024 Do- 

Something 

Predicted 

Change 


N/ha/year) 

2024 Do- 

Minimum 

2024 Do- 

Something 

16.80 16.80 0.00 18.85 18.85 0.00 

Predicted 

Change 




remain the same at the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI at 10 m from Shard Road. In addition, predicted concentrations of NO x 

are well below the annual mean NO x critical level for both scenarios. 

6.7.67 The predicted N deposition rate is below the lower level of the critical load (20 

kgN/ha/year) in both scenarios. 

109



Table 6-41 




2024 Do- 

Minimum 

2024 Do- 

Something 



Mains Lane 12.48 12.48 0.00 


Shard Road 11.95 11.95 0.00 




Cottage Farm 9.62 9.62 0.00 

Predicted 

Change 




to remain the same at all receptor locations. In addition, predicted 





scenario. 


for the construction phase in terms of vehicle emissions. 



Receptor 

VR1 – Residential property on Shard 

Road near to junction with Mains Lane 

VR2 - Residential property on Shard 

Road 

VR3 - Residential property on Old Bridge 

Lane, off Shard Road 

VR4 - Residential property, Park Cottage 

Farm 


NO 2 Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 24- 

hour Mean 





110





Receptor 



Mains Lane 


Shard Road 




Cottage Farm 


NO 2 Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 24-hour 

Mean 






concentrations at the selected sensitive receptors is predicted to be negligible 

at all locations. 


and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor VR5) is predicted to be 


negligible. 


deposition rate, there is no change in N deposition, therefore is considered to 

be negligible in terms of significance. 


6.7.76 In addition to vehicular emissions, emissions would be released as a result of 

combustion processes from the gas dryer and gas heater within the Gas 

Compressor Compound during the operation of the Project. Although the 

dryers and heaters would only be utilised approximately 33% of the time, 

emissions have been modelled on the assumption that the process would be 

operational continuously throughout the year, as a worst case. 

6.7.77 The modelling was undertaken using 5 years’ of meteorological data. Worst 

case results (i.e. the highest concentration predicted over the 5 years) for 2024 

are presented in Table 6-44 for residential receptors. 

111

Table 6-44 Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Residential 

Receptors – Operation Phase 

Receptor 

OR1 - 

Residential 

property, 

Cote Walls 

Farm 

OR3 - 

Residential 

property, 

Park 

Cottage 

Farm 

OR4 - 

Residential 

property, 

Ivy 

Cottages 

OR5 - 

Residential 

property, 

Corcas 

Farm 

OR6 - 

Residential 

property, 

Riverside 

Cottage 

OR7 - 

Residential 

property, 

Fern Breck 

Cottages 



Annual 

Mean 

NO 2 

(µg/m 3 ) 

2.09 

(7.37) 

1.04 

(6.31) 

0.65 

(6.25) 

0.54 

(6.14) 

0.21 

(6.01) 

0.82 

(6.29) 

NO 2 1- 

Hour 

Mean 

(99.8%ile) 

(µg/m 3 )* 

25.16 

(23.14) 

21.65 

(21.38) 

17.13 

(19.76) 

17.43 

(19.91) 

8.79 

(16.00) 

12.22 

(17.06) 

Max. 8- 

Hour 

Mean 

CO 

(mg/m 3 ) 

0.02 

(0.22) 

0.02 

(0.22) 

0.02 

(0.22) 

0.01 

(0.21) 

0.01 

(0.21) 

0.01 

(0.21) 

Annual 

Mean 

PM 10 

(µg/m 3 ) 

0.10 

(10.82) 

0.05 

(10.11) 

0.03 

(10.09) 

0.03 

(10.08) 

0.01 

(10.01) 

0.04 

(9.65) 

PM 10 

24-Hour 

Mean 

(90%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

0.30 

(11.02) 

0.15 

(10.21) 

0.10 

(10.15) 

0.08 

(10.14) 

0.03 

(10.03) 

0.11 

(9.72) 

SO 2 1- 

Hour 

Mean 

(99.7%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

2.48 

(8.34) 

2.07 

(7.09) 

1.54 

(6.56) 

1.60 

(6.62) 

0.74 

(6.60) 

1.12 

(6.16) 

SO 2 15- 

Minute 

Mean 

(99.9%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

3.53 

(9.39) 

3.26 

(8.28) 

2.83 

(7.85) 

2.75 

(7.77) 

1.76 

(7.62) 

1.81 

(6.85) 

SO 2 24- 

Hour 

Mean 

(99%ile) 

(µg/m 3 ) 

1.27 

(7.13) 

0.73 

(5.75) 

0.53 

(5.55) 

0.50 

(5.52) 

0.29 

(6.15) 

0.40 

(5.44) 

*NO 2 and PM 10 background concentrations from 2020 have been used to 

estimate 2024 background concentrations, as the background maps are only 

available up to this year 

6.7.78 The results presented in Table 6-44 indicate that the contribution from the 

stacks is small and predicted concentrations are well below the relevant AQLVs. 

112

6.7.79 Worst case results for 2024 are presented in Table 6-45 for Morecambe Bay 

SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. Results were modelled along the 

boundary of the statutory designated sites for nature conservation, therefore the 

results presented are the highest recorded along the boundary. 

Table 6-45 Air Quality Assessment – Dispersion Modelling Results – Statutory 

Designated Site for Nature Conservation Receptor – Operation Phase 

Receptor 

OR2 – Statutory 


nature 

conservation 

(Morecambe Bay 

SPA and Ramsar, 

and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI) 

Predicted Pollutant Concentration Contribution 

from Stacks (Value in Brackets is Concentration 

Inclusive of Background) 

Annual Mean 

NO x (µg/m 3 ) 

N Deposition 

(kgN/ha/year) 

Annual Mean 

SO 2 (µg/m 3 ) 

1.16 (7.25) 0.12 (15.55) 0.12 (3.05) 

*NO x background concentrations from 2020 have been used to estimate 2024 

background concentrations, as the background maps are only available up to 

this year 

6.7.80 The results presented in Table 6-45 indicate that the contribution of SO 2 , NO x 

and N deposition to the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI is small and the predicted SO 2 and NO x concentrations are well below the 

critical levels for vegetation (20 µg/m³ and 30 µg/m³, respectively). The 

predicted N deposition rate is below the lower critical level (20 kgN/ha/year). 

6.7.81 Table 6-46 summarises the predicted magnitude of change for NO 2 , CO, PM 10 

and SO 2 for the operation phase in terms of atmospheric emissions. 

Table 6-46 Air Quality Assessment – Magnitude of Changes in NO 2 , CO, PM 10 

and SO 2 Concentrations for the Operation Phase 

Receptor 



Farm 



Cottage Farm 


NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

Maximum 8- 

Hour Mean 

CO 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

SO 2 24- 

Hour Mean 

(No. Of 

Days) 

Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible 


OR4 - Residential Small Negligible Negligible Negligible 

113

Receptor 

property, Ivy 

Cottages 


property, Corcas 

Farm 



Cottage 


property, Fern 



NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

Maximum 8- 

Hour Mean 

CO 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

SO 2 24- 

Hour Mean 

(No. Of 

Days) 





presented in Table 6-47. 

Table 6-47 Air Quality Assessment – Significance of Impact of Changes in NO 2 , 

CO, PM 10 and SO 2 Concentrations 

Receptor 



Farm 


property, Park Cottage 

Farm 


property, Ivy Cottages 


property, Corcas Farm 



Cottage 


property, Fern Breck 

Cottages 


NO 2 

Annual 

Mean 

Maximum 8- 

Hour Mean 

CO 

PM 10 

Annual 

Mean 

SO 2 24- 

Hour Mean 

(No. Of 

Days) 







114

6.7.83 As indicated in Table 6-47, the significance of the changes in NO 2 , CO, PM 10 

and SO 2 concentrations at the selected sensitive receptors is predicted to be 

negligible at all locations. 


and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor OR5) is predicted to be small, 


6.7.85 The magnitude of change in the SO 2 annual mean at the Morecambe Bay SPA 

and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI (receptor OR5) is predicted to be 


negligible. 




significance. 

Combined Effects 

6.7.87 It is not anticipated that there would be significant combined impacts as a result 

of traffic emissions and atmospheric emissions due to the distance between the 

receptors, roads and stacks. 

6.7.88 This can be demonstrated by combining the vehicle emissions and stack 

emissions at Park Farm Cottage, which is considered a worst case receptor in 

terms of its proximity to both Back Lane (a road where one of the greatest 

changes in vehicles as a result of the Project are anticipated) and the stacks. 

6.7.89 NO 2 and PM 10 concentrations from operational phase traffic and atmospheric 

emissions from the stacks are presented in Table 6-48 

Table 6-48 Air Quality Assessment – Combined Predicted Changes in PM 10 and 

NO 2 Concentrations 



VR4 and 

OR3 - 

Residential 

property, 

Park 

Cottage 

Farm 

2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

Predicted 

Change 

Predicted Annual Mean PM 10 


2014 Do- 

Minimum 

2014 Do- 

Something 

5.40 6.44 1.04 9.62 9.67 0.05 

Predicted 

Change 

115

6.7.90 The magnitudes of change as a result of combining emissions from operational 

vehicles and stack emissions are small for NO 2 and negligible for PM 10 . The 

resulting significance of the changes is therefore negligible for both NO 2 and 

PM 10 . 

6.7.91 It must be noted that the dehydration unit would be operational before 2024, 

however, 2024 has been assessed as a design year. Whilst background 

concentrations are predicted to decline in future years, it is considered that the 

higher background concentrations used for the combined operation and 

construction scenario (i.e. 2014) take account of this and provide worst case 

estimates. 


6.7.92 It is likely that much of the infrastructure would remain in place at the end of the 

life of the proposals. However, assuming the worst case in that there were no 

alternative uses for the infrastructure, the buildings would be demolished, but 

the wellheads and pipelines would remain. It is therefore considered that air 

quality impacts as a result of the decommissioning phase would be the same as 

those predicted for the construction phase, as a worst case. Duration of 

impacts for the decommissioning phase cannot be determined at this stage, 

however, it is likely that decommissioning activities would be undertaken over a 

shorter timescale than for the construction phase. 

6.8 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 

6.8.1 The following section outlines the mitigation and enhancement measures 

proposed to minimise potential effects identified in Section 6.7. 

Construction 

6.8.2 No mitigation measures are required for construction vehicle emissions, as the 

impact from construction vehicle emissions is predicted to be negligible, 

although the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should 

stipulate that no construction vehicles are to pass through any AQMAs. 

6.8.3 In terms of fugitive dust emissions, impacts are predicted to range from 

negligible to moderate adverse in the worst case. It is therefore 

recommended that the CEMP should include mitigation measures for the 


6.8.4 The Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities guidance (BRE, 

2003) details measures to control dust for numerous construction activities. 

The measures considered relevant to the construction of the Project are 

presented in Table 6-49. It is acknowledged that some of the activities 

identified in Table 6-49 may not occur, however, they have been included as a 

precaution. The CEMP may also include baseline monitoring and monitoring 

during the construction phase. 

116

Table 6-49 Air Quality Assessment - Suggested Mitigation Measures for the 

Construction Phase, Derived from The Control of Dust from Construction 

and Demolition Activities guidance (BRE, 2003) 

Dust control 

guidance for 

static and 

mobile 

combustion 

plant 

Dust control 

guidance for 

emissions 

from 

handling of 

materials 

Potential Dust 

Source 

Visible exhaust 

smoke 

Maintenance 

Servicing 

Operating time 

Exhaust direction 

Exhaust heights 

Location of plant and 

equipment 

Material handling 

operations 

Transport of fine 

powdery materials 

Transport of dusty 

material and 

aggregates 

Handling areas 

Vehicle loading 

Loading materials 

onto vehicles and 

conveyors 

Dust Control Guidance 

Vehicles and equipment should not emit black 

smoke from exhaust systems except during 

ignition start-up. 

Engines and exhaust systems should be 

maintained so that exhaust emissions do not 

breach statutory emission limits set for the 

vehicle/equipment type and mode of 

operation. 

This should be routinely scheduled, rather 

than just following breakdowns. 

Internal combustion plant should not be left 

running unnecessarily. 

Vehicle exhausts should be directed away 

from the ground and other surfaces and 

preferably upwards to avoid road dust being 

re-suspended to the air. 

Exhausts should be positioned at a sufficient 

height to ensure adequate local dispersal of 

emissions. 

Plant and equipment should be operated 

away from residential areas or sensitive 

receptors near to the application site. 

Always keep the number of handling 

operations to a minimum by ensuring that 

dusty material is not moved or moved 

unnecessarily. 

Use closed tankers. 

Use enclosed or sheeted vehicles. 

Keep clean and free from dust. 

Use material handling methods that minimise 

the generation of airborne dust. 

Damp down area. 

Drop heights must be kept to minimum and 

enclosed where possible. 


117

Dust control 

guidance for 

roads, 

surfaces and 

highways 


Source 

Chutes, skips and 

conveyor transfer 

points 

Conveyor loads 

Dust dispersing over 

the application site 

boundary 

Major haul roads and 

traffic routes 

Construction and 

maintenance of 

unsurfaced roads 

and verges 

Public roads 

Edges of roads and 

footpaths 

High level walkways 

and surfaces 

(scaffold planking 

and other surfaces) 


Drop heights must be kept to minimum and 

enclosed where possible. 


Damp down where possible. 

Use static sprinklers, bowsers, hoses and 

other watering methods as necessary. 

Install permanent surfaces with regular 

inspection and maintenance. 

Plan routes to be away from residents and 

other sensitive receptors, such as schools 

and hospitals. 

Grade fine materials from unsurfaced haul 

roads. 

Keep in compacted condition using static 

sprinklers, bowsers, commercially available 

additives and binders (subject to Environment 

Agency (EA), Scottish Environment Protection 

Agency (SEPA) requirements). 

Clean regularly subject to Local Authority or 

Highway Authority approval. 

Clean by using hand broom with damping, as 

necessary. 

Clean regularly using wet methods and not 

dry sweeping. 

Vehicle waiting areas Regularly inspect and keep clean by brushing 

and hard standings or vacuum sweeping. 

Spray regularly with water to maintain surface 

moisture if needed. 

Vehicle and wheel 

washing 

Site traffic – 

management/speed 

control 

Washing facilities, such as hose pipes and 

ample water supply should be provided at the 

application site exits where practicable. 

If necessary, all vehicles should be washed 

down before exiting the application site. 

Restrict general site traffic to watered or 

treated haul roads. 

Keep vehicle movement to a minimum. 

Limit vehicle speeds-the slower the vehicle 

the lower the dust generation. Typical 

recommendations are: 

118

Dust control 

guidance for 

emissions 

from 

stockpiles 

Dust control 

guidance on 

disposal of 

waste 

material from 

construction 


Source 

Road cleaning 

Stockpile location 

Building stockpiles 

Small and short-term 

stockpiles – 

protecting from wind 

erosion 

Larger and long term 

stockpiles – 

protecting from wind 

erosion 

Disposal method 


-20mph or less for surfaced roads 

-5mph for unmade surfaces 

Approved mechanical road sweeper should 

be readily available, wit circular brush 

commonly fitted to side for cleaning kerbs, 

removed. 

Frequency of cleaning would depend on the 

application site size, location and operation. 

However, cleaning should be carried out on a 

daily basis (working day) or more frequently if 

required. 

Stockpiles should be located away from 

sensitive receptors e.g. residential, 

commercial and educational buildings, places 

of public access or other features, such as 

water courses. 

Ensure slopes of stockpiles, tips and mounds 

are at an angle not greater than the natural 

angle of repose of the material. 

Avoid sharp change of shape. 

Where possible, ensure stockpiles are kept 

enclosed. 

Dusty materials can be damped down using 

water sprays. 

Wind barriers of a sufficient size may be 

used. 

Shrouding, wind shielding using screens, 

watering and controlled spraying of the 

surface with chemical bonding agents 

(subject to necessary approval). 

Wind barriers of a sufficient size may be 

used. 

Long-term stockpiles can be capped or 

grassed over. 

Use alternative disposal method to burning if 

possible. 

Combustion method Use an incinerator and not open fires. 

Incinerator 

Supervision 

Treated timbers 

Must be an approved appliance (under the 

Clean Air Act 1993). 

Any fires or incineration must be supervised 

at all times. 

Timbers treated chemically to resist rotting; 

119

Dust control 

guidance for 

emissions 

during the 

application 

site 

preparation 

and 

restoration 

Tarmac 

laying, 

bitumen 

surfacing 

and coating 


Source 

Earthworks, 

excavation and 

digging 

Completed 

earthworks 

Storage mounds 

Landscaping 

Transitory soil 

mounds 


insects etc should not be burned. 

Vegetation and cover should be removed in 

discrete sections and not all at once. 

Earthworks, excavation and digging activities 

should be kept damp and, if possible, be 

avoided during exceptionally dry weather 

periods. 

Stabilise surfaces and/or re-vegetate as soon 

as possible. 

Seal surfaces by seeding or surface with 

vegetation that has previously been removed 

from the application site. For example, turfing 

that has been removed. 

Alternatively, cover with correctly secured 

tarpaulins. 

Soils may be landscaped into suitable shapes 

for secondary functions, such as visual 

screening. 

Soil mounds should be treated with surface 

binding agents to reduce wind erosion. 

Consultation with the EA is necessary before 

applying binding agent. 

Processing Crushers should be sited as far away as 

aggregates, crushing possible from sensitive receptors. 

and screening Mobile plant for crushing, screening and 

grading of materials may require authorisation 

(under Environmental Protection act (1990) 

by the appropriate LA. 

Bitumen over-heating Do not overheat bitumen, but use minimum 

acceptable temperature. 

Measure temperature directly, especially on 

large heating plant. 

Avoid if possible heating with open flame 

burners. 

Fume production 

Cover pots or tanks containing hot bitumen. 

Small accident fires Extinguish immediately. 

Spillage 

Direct application of 

open flames 

Minimise spillages, especially any likely to 

contact open flames. 

Use great care. 

Avoid over-heating the surface. 

Bitumen over-heating Do not overheat bitumen, but use minimum 

120

Dust control 

guidance for 

emissions 

from cutting, 

grinding and 

drilling 


Source 

Fume production 

Cutting, grinding, 

drilling, sawing, 

trimming, planning, 

sanding 

Cutting roadways, 

pavements, blocks 

etc 

Raking out 

mortar/pointing 

Angle grinders and 

disk cutters 


acceptable temperature. 

Measure temperature directly, especially on 

large heating plant. 

Avoid if possible heating with open flame 

burners. 

Cover pots or tanks containing hot bitumen. 

Cutting on the application site should be 

avoided by using prefabrication whenever 

possible. 

Avoid cutting out errors and re-bars. 

Employ equipment and techniques that 

minimise dust emissions, using best 

suppression measures. 

Use water sprays to minimise dust from 

cutting equipment. 

Local exhaust ventilation should be used 

where possible. 

Fans and filters should be serviced regularly. 

Design to fill wherever feasible rather than 

cutting back oversized work. 

Use a diamond bladed floor saw with water 

pump dust suppresser. 

Standard angle grinders should not be used 

for this purpose. 

Standard angle grinders should not be used 

for this purpose. 

A mortar raking kit, fitted on to a standard 5” 

angle grinder can be used on soft mortar. For 

hard mortar, a super-saw with oscillating 

blades can be used. 

Dust extraction/minimisation systems should 

always be used. 


6.8.5 Mitigation measures as outlined for the construction phase are recommended 

for this phase of the Project in terms of construction works. 

6.8.6 There would be no requirement for mitigation in terms of operational vehicle 

emissions and atmospheric emissions, as impacts are predicted to be 

negligible. 

121

Operation 

6.8.7 There would be no requirement for mitigation during the operational phase of 

the Project, as operational vehicle emissions and atmospheric emissions 

impacts are predicted to be negligible. 


6.8.8 Air quality impacts as a result of the decommissioning phase are considered to 

be the same as those predicted for the construction phase, as a worst case. 

Therefore mitigation measures as outlined previously for the construction phase 

are recommended, together with mitigation measures specific to demolition 

activities, as outlined in Table 6-50. It is acknowledged that some of the 

activities identified in Table 6-50 may not occur, however, they have been 

included as a precaution. 

Table 6-50 Air Quality Assessment - Suggested Mitigation Measures for 

Demolition Activities The Control of Dust from Construction and 

Demolition Activities guidance (BRE, 2003) 

Potential Dust Source Dust Control Guidance 

Blasting using explosives Blasting should be avoided and other methods used wherever possible. 

Sheeting/screening 

Biological materials 

Asbestos 

Water sprays 

Chutes for dropping 

demolition materials 

Burning of waste 

materials 

Buildings should be screened with suitable debris screens and sheets. 

Bird droppings and other biological material should be removed prior to 

demolition. 

Care must be taken that the material does not become airborne, but is 

sufficiently contained. 

Asbestos must be removed by a registered specialist contractor prior to 

demolition. 

Suitable and sufficient water sprays must be used. 

Spraying should be carried prior and during demolition. 

Enclose chutes and skips. Regular water spraying. 

Material drop heights should be minimised. 

Burning should be avoided if possible. Incinerators should be used 

instead of bonfires. 

Removal of materials from Materials should be removed from the application site as soon as is 

the application site practical 

Transport of materials 

Vehicle routes 

Crushing of material for 

reuse, transportation or 

disposal 

Vehicles removing demolition materials must have their loads efficiently 

sheeted. 

As far as is practical, routes should be located away from residential and 

commercial properties. 

Crushers should be sited as far away as possible from sensitive 

receptors 

Mobile plant, e.g. crushing, screening and road stone coating plant, 

would require authorisation by the LA. 

122


6.9.1 The following section assesses the potential residual effects on the individual 

receptors identified in Section 6.4, taking into account the provision of the 

mitigation and enhancement measures identified in Section 6.8. 

Construction 

6.9.2 The residual impact of construction vehicle emissions on all receptors identified 

in Table 6-17 is predicted to be negligible 

6.9.3 Following the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Table 6-49, 

the worst case residual impact in terms of fugitive dust emissions is predicted to 

be slight adverse. Table 6-51 summarises the residual effects of fugitive dust 

emissions on each individual receptor identified in Table 6-16. 

Table 6-51 Air Quality Assessment – Fugitive Dust Emissions – Significance of 

Residual Impact of Fugitive Dust Emissions 

Receptor 




Park Cottage Farm 


Cottages 


Height o’ th’ Hill 



CR6 – Caravan Park on 

Fleetwood Road 


Fleetwood 

CR8 – Property on South 

Strand 

Magnitude of 

Change 


Impact 

Duration of 

Impact (Worst 

Case) 

Negligible Negligible Up to 3 years 

Small Slight adverse Up to 3 years 


Small Slight adverse Less than a 

year 


year 


year 

Negligible Negligible Less than a 

year 


year 

CR9 – Rossall Hospital Small Slight adverse Less than a 

year 


West Way 






year 


year 

Negligible Negligible Up to 3 years 

123

Receptor 


Bridge Farm 


Head Dyke House 




Elm Farm 

CR17 – Statutory designated 

site for nature conservation, 


Magnitude of 

Change 


Impact 

Duration of 

Impact (Worst 

Case) 


Negligible Negligible Approximately 

a year 


a year 


a year 


a year 

CR18 – Rossall School Negligible Negligible Less than a 

year 

CR19 – Statutory designated 

site for nature conservation 

(Morecambe Bay SPA and 

Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI) 

Small Negligible Up to 3 years 


6.9.4 Residual impacts as a result of fugitive dust emissions on each individual 

receptor identified in Table 6-16 are the same as those outlined previously for 

the construction phase in Table 6-51, i.e. slight adverse in the worst case. 

6.9.5 No mitigation measures were recommended for vehicle emissions or 

atmospheric emissions as impacts were predicted to be negligible for all 

receptors. The residual impact of these emissions on the receptors identified in 

Tables 6-17 and 6-18 is therefore negligible. 

Operation 

6.9.6 No mitigation measures were recommended for vehicle emissions or 

atmospheric emissions associated with the operational phase as impacts were 

predicted to be negligible for all receptors. The residual impact of these 

emissions on the receptors identified in Tables 6-17 and 6-18 is therefore 

negligible. 


6.9.7 Following the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Tables 6-49 

and 6-50, residual air quality impacts as a result of fugitive dust emissions and 

vehicle emissions associated with the decommissioning phase on the receptors 

identified in Tables 6-16 and 6-17 are considered to be the same as those 

124

predicted for the construction phase, as a worst case (i.e. negligible in terms of 

vehicle emissions and slight adverse at worst case receptors in terms of 

fugitive dust emissions). 

6.10 Difficulties Encountered in Compiling the ES 

6.10.1 During the air quality assessment, the following difficulties were encountered: 

Background NO x and PM 10 concentrations are only available to 2020, 

these were therefore used for estimating 2024 concentrations. 

 

 

DMRB results were not verified due to the lack of suitable monitoring data 

along the links included in the traffic model. However, this is not 

considered problematic as the model was used to undertake a sensitivity 

test, rather than for predicting actual concentrations. In addition, 

background concentrations in the vicinity of the Project area are low and 

well below the respective AQLVs, therefore verification would be unlikely 

to lead to exceedences of the AQLVs. 

The potential impacts upon air quality have been assessed with reference 

to available plant / emissions data at the time. The Environmental 

Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 combined the 

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Regulations and the 

Waste Managing Licensing Regulations in 2007. The main purpose of 

these regulations is to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution, including 

emissions (to air, land and water), by determining appropriate 

management controls for industry to protect the environment. The 

activities at an installation are expected to be operated using Best 

Available Techniques (BATs) under an Environmental Permit. Once 

operational, the Project would be subject to these regulations as an IPPC 

installation, therefore, any changes to the plant / emissions data that may 

take place in the interim would be appropriately covered and dealt with 

during the permitting stage. Specifically, as part of the application for a 

Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations, the operator 

would need to undertake an environmental risk assessment, describing air 

emissions and identifying receptors. Prior to such an application, the 

operator would need to ensure that the installation meets statutory 

emissions limit values as laid down by EU Directives. Installations that fail 

to do so would not be permitted. Adherence to the IPPC Reference 

Document on Best Available Techniques on Emissions from Storage 

(BREF) (July 2006) would be ensured, which covers the storage, transfer 

and handling of liquids, liquefied gases and solids (including in relation to 

salt leached caverns), and addresses emissions to air, soil and water. The 

term ‘best available techniques’ is defined in Article 2(11) of the IPPC 

Directive as ‘the most effective and advanced stage in the development of 

activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical 

suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for 

emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not 

practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the 

environment as a whole.’ In addition, the Environment Agency (EA) 

document How to comply with your environmental permit: Additional 

guidance for: Gasification, Liquefaction and Refining Installations (EPR 

125

1.02) (2009), which details the standards and measures required to meet 

the objectives in the Environmental permit would be followed, as well as 

the EA’s document Guidance for the Gasification, Liquefaction and 

Refining Sector (IPPC S1.02) (2006), which provides advice on indicative 

standards of operation and environmental performance, relevant to the 

Gasification, Liquefaction and Refining Sector and provides a clear 

structure and methodology for Operators to follow to demonstrate they 

have addressed adequately all aspects of the PPC Regulations and 

relevant aspects of other environmental Regulations. 

Assumptions have been made where there have been gaps in the 

information provided, however in these circumstances, the worst case has 

been assumed to provide a conservative estimate of impacts. 

6.11 Summary 

6.11.1 The Project would not affect any Air Quality Management Areas but could 

potentially affect nearby sensitive receptors (both human and ecological). The 

air quality assessment has therefore considered the significance of potential air 

quality effects arising from the Project at representative sensitive receptors. 

Worst case scenarios have been assumed. 

6.11.2 The construction and decommissioning phases of the Project would generate 

temporary, local, dust and road vehicle exhaust emissions. The impact of an 

increase in road traffic is considered to be negligible at all sensitive receptors. 

The operation phase would generate atmospheric emissions from natural gas 

combustion and exhaust emissions from road vehicles, however it is considered 

that impacts would be negligible at all sensitive receptors. For the combined 

construction and operation phase, the assessment of effects from the separate 

construction and operation phases have been combined to provide a worst case 

scenario, although it is considered that these would also be of negligible 

significance at all receptors. 

6.11.3 Construction phase (and decommissioning) dust emissions would be controlled 

by the implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, a Construction 

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be prepared prior to any works 

commencing on site. The CEMP would include requirements for maintenance 

and operation of construction plant and detail measures to limit dust on site. 

Following the implementation of mitigation measures, the impact significance of 

construction dust emissions is predicted to be, at worst, slight adverse. 

6.12 References 

APIS website http://www.apis.ac.uk 

Bing maps website: http://www.bing.com/maps 

Buildings Research Establishment’s Guidance (2003) Control of Dust from 

Construction and Demolition Activities 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) National Policy Statement 

for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) 

126

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Overarching National Policy 

Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2009) Local Air 

Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09) 

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003) Local Air 

Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(03) 

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007) The Air Quality 

Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website 

http://laqm1.defra.gov.uk/review/tools/background.php 

Environment Agency (2006) Conversion Ratios for NO x and NO 2 

Environment Agency (2006) Guidance for the Gasification, Liquefaction and 

Refining Sector (IPPC S1.02) 

Environment Agency (2009) How to comply with your environmental permit: 

Additional guidance for: Gasification, Liquefaction and Refining Installations 

(EPR 1.02) 

Environment Agency (2010) H1 Environmental Risks Assessment - Annex (f) 

European Commission (2006) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 

Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on Emissions from 

Storage. 

Environmental Protection UK (2010) Development Control: Planning for Air 

Quality (2010 update) 

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part III, Section 79, Parts (d) and (e) 

Government Office for the North West (2008) North West of England Plan 

Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 

Greater London Authority (2006) Best Practice Guidance: Control of Dust and 

Emissions from Construction and Demolition 

Highways Agency (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, 

Section 3, Part 1, HA207/07 

Highways Agency (2008) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Guidance 

Volume 11 Section 2 Environmental Assessment 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2010) Environmental Impact Assessment 

Scoping Report 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2011) Preliminary Environmental Information 

Report 

127

Lancashire County Council (2001) Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 

2006 

Magic Map website: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/website/magic 

North West Regional Development Agency (2010) Future North West: Our 

Shared Priorities 

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004) Planning Policy Statement 23: 

Planning and Pollution Control 

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Minerals Policy Statement 2: 

Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in 

England, Annex 1: Dust 

Wyre Borough Council (2009) Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment 

Wyre Borough Council (2009) Air Quality Progress Report for 2010 

Wyre Borough Council (2011) Reassessment of Chapel Street AQMA 

Wyre Borough Council (2009) Wyre Borough Council Draft Air Quality Strategy 

Wyre Borough Council website http://www.wyrebc.gov.uk 

Wyre Borough Council (1999) Wyre Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2006 

128

7 ARCHAEOLOGY AND BUILT HERITAGE 


7.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Archaeology and Built Heritage 

assessment undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited, the Marine 

Geophysical Survey undertaken by Osiris Projects, the Terrestrial Geophysical 

Survey undertaken by Archaeological Services WYAS, and the Marine 

Archaeological Assessment undertaken by Wessex Archaeology. It identifies 

the methodology used to assess effects, existing and future baseline 









the ES. 

7.1.3 A number of plans are provided showing the location of statutory or nonstatutory 

sites or features of the historic environment close to the DCO 

Application Site and in the wider vicinity (Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of Volume 2B of 

the ES). As such the figures (taken together) and this chapter fulfil the 

requirement of Regulation 5(2)(m) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: 

Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 to provide such plans and 

an assessment of any effects on such sites, covered by Regulation 5(2)(m) 

likely to be caused by the proposed development. 

7.1.4 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendices 7.1 to 7.5 of 

Volume 1B and Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of Volume 2B. 




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Archaeology and 

Built Heritage in the context of this assessment, through which the provisions of 

the National Policy Statement for Energy (EN 1) and the National Policy 

Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) are 

captured. 

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 

7.2.2 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 gives statutory 

protection to any structure building or work which is considered to be of 

particular historic or archaeological interest and regulates any activities which 

may affect such areas. Under the Act any work that is carried out on a 

Scheduled Ancient Monument must first obtain Scheduled Monument consent. 

129

7.2.3 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their setting are a material consideration in 

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5. 

7.2.4 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies 

special protection to buildings and areas of special architectural or historic 

interest. 

7.2.5 Section 66 (1) of the Act states that ‘In considering whether to grant planning 

permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the 

local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall 

have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or 

any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’. 

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment 

7.2.6 PPS5 sets out the Government’s planning policies on the conservation of the 

historic environment. These policies should be read alongside other relevant 

statements of national planning policy. The policies in PPS5 are a material 

consideration which must be taken into account in development management 

decisions, where relevant. 

7.2.7 The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its 

heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they 

bring to this and future generations. 

7.2.8 Policy HE1: ‘Heritage assets and climate change’ states that local authorities 

should identify opportunities to mitigate, and adapt to, the effects of climate 

change when making decisions relating to heritage assets (para HE1.1). The 

policy also states that where proposals that are promoted for the contribution to 

mitigating climate change have a potentially negative effect on heritage assets, 

local planning authorities (LPAs) should, prior to determination, help the 

applicant identify feasible solutions that deliver similar mitigation but with less 

harm to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting (para HE1.2). Where 

conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage 

assets is unavoidable, the PPS advises that the public benefit of mitigating the 

effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the 

significance of heritage assets (para HE1.3). It should be noted that English 

Heritage has also produced guidance entitled ‘Wind Energy and the Historic 

Environment’ (English Heritage, 2005). 

7.2.9 Policy HE6: ‘Information requirements for applications for consent affecting 

heritage assets’ deals with the requirement for applicants to provide 

descriptions of the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by a 

proposal, along with a description of the contribution of the setting of the 

heritage asset to that significance. Where a proposal includes, or is considered 

to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest the 

LPA should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based 

assessment and where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess 

the interest, a field evaluation (para HE6.1). The policy also states that LPAs 

should not validate applications where the extent of the impact of the proposal 

on the significance of the heritage assets affects cannot adequately be 

understood from the application and supporting documents (para HE6.3). 

130

7.2.10 Policy HE7: ‘Policy principals guiding the determination of applications for 

consent relating to all heritage assets’ deals with the factors LPAs must take 

into account when considering applications for developments. It stresses the 

need to consider the significance of the heritage assets that may be affected 

and its value for future generations. The policy states that this understanding 

should be used by the LPA to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage 

assets conservation and any aspect of the proposals (para HE7.3). 

7.2.11 Policies HE8 and HE9 deal with the additional policy principals guiding the 

consideration of applications for consent relating to heritage assets. The 

policies state that the effects of a development proposal are a material 

consideration in determining planning applications. The policies indicate that 

there is a general presumption that any previously unidentified heritage assets 

will be indentified during the pre-application stage (para HE8.1). The policies 

also state that there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of 

designated heritage assets and the more significant the heritage asset is, the 

greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be (para HE9.1). 

The policy explains that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or 

destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting (para HE9.1). 

Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated 

asset which is less than substantial harm, the policy directs the LPA to consider 

the public benefit of the proposal (para HE9.4). 

7.2.12 Policy HE10: ‘Additional policy principles guiding the consideration of 

applications for development affecting the setting of a designated heritage 

asset’ states that when considering applications for development that affect the 

setting of a heritage asset, LPAs should treat favourably applications that 

preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or 

better reveal the significance of the asset (para HE10.1). LPAs are also directed 

by the policy to identify opportunities for changes in the setting to enhance or 

better reveal the significance of a heritage asset and that these opportunities 

should be seen as a public benefit (para HE10.2). 

7.2.13 Policy HE12: ‘Policy principles guiding the recording of information relating to 

heritage assets’ recognises that a documentary record of a heritage asset is not 

as valuable as the retaining the heritage asset. However it does state that 

where the loss of the whole or a material part of a heritage assets significance 

is justified, LPAs should require developers to record and advance 

understanding of the heritage asset before it is lost using planning conditions or 

obligations as appropriate (para HE12.3). Developers are required by the policy 

to publish the information gained and deposit copies of the report with the 

relevant Historic Environment Record (HER). The policy also requires that an 

archive is generated and deposited with an appropriate depository (para HE 

12.3). 

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

7.2.14 The Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RSS13) was published in 

2003 and approved as The North West of England Plan, Regional Spatial 

Strategy to 2021 in 2008. The RSS contains one policy that is relevant to this 

assessment. This policy is EM1(C): Historic Environment. The policy states that: 

Plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should protect, conserve and 

131

enhance the historic environment supporting conservation-led regeneration in 

areas rich in historic interest, and in particular exploiting the regeneration 

potential of: 

 

 

 

 

 

the maritime heritage of the North West coast including docks and 

waterspaces, and coastal resorts and piers 

the Pennine textile mill-town heritage that exists in East Lancashire and 

Greater Manchester; and the textile mill-town heritage of East Cheshire 

Victorian and Edwardian commercial developments in Liverpool and 

Manchester city centres; the traditional architecture of rural villages and 

market towns of Cumbria, Cheshire and Lancashire 

the historic Cities of Carlisle, Chester and Lancaster; 

And the Lake District Cultural Landscape. 

Wyre Borough Local Development Framework 

7.2.15 The Local Development Framework (LDF) will be the new planning policy 

document for Wyre and will replace the Wyre Borough Local Plan and Wyre 

Borough Local Plan 1st Deposit Draft. However as production of the LDF is not 

yet complete a number of policies have been saved from the Wyre Borough 

Local Plan 1999 for development control purposes. 

7.2.16 There is one saved policy within the Wyre Borough Local Plan 1999 which are 

relevant to this assessment. This is Policy Env9. 

7.2.17 Policy Env9: Conservation Areas states that: Development in and adjoining 

conservation areas as defined on the proposals map will only be permitted 

where: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposals respect the existing character and setting of the area together 

with views into or out of the area, and 

New buildings are sited so as to retain existing building lines and open 

spaces, and 

The density, scale, proportions, height and fenestration accord with their 

surroundings, and 

The use and application of building materials respect local traditional 

materials, techniques and design characteristics, and 

The scale, proportion and height of advertising material and the use of 

materials, including colour, is appropriate, and 

Where acceptable the nature and degree of any illumination should have 

no detrimental impact upon the visual character of the conservation area, 

and 

Landscaping is designed as an integral part of the scheme where 

appropriate. 

7.2.18 Except in those circumstances where it can be clearly shown that demonstrable 

harm will not be caused to the character of the conservation area, and the basis 

of its designation will not be undermined, and in respect of listed buildings is 

132

consistent with policy Env11, development proposals in conservation areas will 

not be permitted where they include: 

 

 

 

‘The demolition of listed buildings or those buildings which make a positive 

contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area; or 

The amalgamation of adjacent plots if this results in the development of 

larger buildings out of scale with their surroundings; or 

The refurbishment of adjoining buildings to create a single larger space 

user where this would adversely affect the character of the conservation 

area.’ 

7.2.19 Conservation Areas are defined as 'areas of special architectural or historic 

interest, the character or appearance of which is desirable to preserve or 

enhance'. Designation provides additional control over the demolition of 

buildings and the quality of development or redevelopment in the area and 

gives additional protection to trees. In certain cases, the designation may 

enable grants to be obtained from Government funded sources towards the 

repair of buildings.” 


7.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Archaeology 

and Built Heritage chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). 

7.3.2 The Council for Europe, in the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural 

Heritage for Society (Faro, 2005), has defined cultural heritage as: 

‘…a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, 

independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly 

evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the 

environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through 

time.’ 

7.3.3 Cultural heritage assets are defined by Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 

‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ as ‘A building, monument, site, place, 

area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance 

meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage Assets are the valued 

components of the historic environment they include Designated Heritage 

Assets (as defined in this PPS) and assets identified by the Local Planning 

Authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making 

process (including local listing).’ World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, 

Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, 

Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas are all designated assets. The 

cultural heritage resource considered in this assessment comprises the totality 

of archaeological remains, historic buildings and historic landscapes. 

7.3.4 Archaeological remains are the materials created or modified by past human 

activities that contribute to the study and understanding of past human societies 

and behaviour – archaeology. Archaeology can include the study of a wide 

range of artefacts, field monuments, structures and landscape features, both 

visible and buried. 

133

7.3.5 Historic buildings are architectural or designed or other structures with a 

significant historical value. These may include structures that have no aesthetic 

appeal. 

7.3.6 The European Landscape Convention (ELC) has been in force in the United 

Kingdom since March 2007. Landscape is defined in the ELC (Article 1) as ‘an 

area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and 

interaction of natural and/or human factors’; furthermore the ELC insists (Article 

2) that landscape exists in urban and marine as well as in rural areas, and that it 

is everywhere (the everyday and the degraded as well as the outstanding). The 

ELC established the need to develop landscape policies dedicated to the 

protection, management and planning of urban and rural landscapes. 

7.3.7 Historic landscapes have been shaped by human activity. They vary widely in 

character and include designated sites and areas such as World Heritage Sites, 

conservation areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and 

heritage coasts, but also places like new towns, historic orchards and canals 

that may be locally recognised for their significance. 




 

 

 

Identification of study area(s) in consideration of the Project details, extent 







2 (HA 208/07) (Highways Agency, 2007) 

Planning Policy Statement 5 Planning for the Historic Environment 

(Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010) 

Code of Conduct (Institute for Archaeologists, 2008) 

 

Standards and Guidance for Desk-based Assessment (Institute for 

Archaeologists, 2008) 

 

 

Undertaking an archaeological and built heritage desk-based assessment 

(including requesting information from third parties) within agreed study 

area(s)) 

Undertaking site visits (surveys) within the agreed study area(s) 

Study Area(s) 

7.3.9 The study area for archaeological assessment has been defined as a 500 m 

radius extending from the application boundary (refer to Figure 7.1 of Volume 

2B). For the built heritage assessment, the study area encompasses a 1 km 

radius from the application boundary (refer to Figure 7.2 of Volume 2B). This 

134

study area has been determined through a combination of the guidelines noted 

in paragraph 7.3.8 and consultation with relevant stakeholders. 

Desk Studies 

7.3.10 Desk study information has been sourced from the following documents: 

 

 

 

North West Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment 

Middleton et al 1995 The Wetlands of North Lancashire 

Ordnance Survey editions 

Yates map of Fleetwood 1786 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greenwoods 1818 map 

Hennets 1828 map 

Liverpool Museum Field Archaeology Unit (2004) An archaeological deskbased 

Assessment of the proposed Preesall gas interconnector 

Liverpool Museum Field Archaeology Unit (2004) An archaeological deskbased 

assessment of the proposed Preesall gas storage site 

Osiris Projects (2011) Geophysical Survey of proposed brine outfall pipe, 

Fleetwood 

Wessex Archaeology (2011) Proposed Brine Outfall Pipe, Fleetwood. 

Marine Archaeological Assessment Draft Technical Report 

Lancashire Historic Landscape Characterisation 

Archaeological Services WYAS (2011) Preesall Underground Gas Storage 

Facility Lancashire Geophysical Survey Interim Report 

7.3.11 Additional information has also been requested from various sources. Table 7- 

1 summarises the sources of baseline information and the nature of the 

baseline information requested / obtained. 

Table 7-1 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Baseline Information 

Requests 

Source 

National 

Monuments 

Record 

National 

Monuments 

Record 

National 

Monuments 

Record 

Lancashire 

Historic 

Environment 


Records of all known archaeological assets within a 500m 

radius of the application boundary 

Records of all listed buildings within a 1000m radius of the 

application boundary 

Records of all aerial photographs covering the application site 

Records of all know archaeological assets within a 500m 

radius of the application boundary 

135

Source 

Record 

Lancashire 

Historic 

Environment 

Record 

Bluesky 

International Ltd 


Records of all listed and locally listed buildings within a 

1000m radius of the application boundary 

LiDAR data for area around Preesall 

Site Visits (Surveys) 

7.3.12 An archaeological site walkover was undertaken between 6 and 10 December 

2010. All areas of the application site which were accessible at this time were 

walked over and visually inspected for evidence of archaeological activity and 

for signs of modern disturbance which had the potential to impact upon any 

possible buried archaeological remains. Where it was not possible to gain 

access to certain areas, the survey was undertaken from public highways. 

Information on the topography and ground cover of the application site was also 

gathered during the site visit. 

Additional Archaeological Investigations 

7.3.13 In order to further determine the archaeological potential of the application site a 

programme of additional archaeological investigations was undertaken in spring 

and summer 2011. In July 2011 a geophysical survey of the proposed brine 

outfall pipe in the Irish Sea study area was undertaken by Osiris Projects. The 

results of this survey were then fed into a marine archaeology assessment 

which was undertaken by Wessex Archaeology in July and August 2001 and 

covered the Irish Sea study area. The resulting reports form Appendices 7.2 

and 7.3 respectively of Volume 1B of this ES. 

7.3.14 From July to October 2011 a terrestrial geophysical survey was carried out by 

Archaeological Services WYAS on specified areas within the application site as 

defined within a Written Scheme of Investigation agreed with Lancashire County 

Council. The geophysical survey consisted of both magnetometer and radar 

surveys. The report detailing the findings of this survey forms Appendix 7.4 of 

Volume 1B of this ES. 

Consultation 

7.3.15 Relevant consultation responses received to the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Scoping Report are summarised in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 1B. 

However, further consultation has been undertaken since the receipt of these 

consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Archaeology 

and Built Heritage assessment. Appendix 7.5 of Volume 1B summarises the 

post-scoping consultation undertaken, including responses received to the 

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report. 

136





Consideration of best practice / guidance outlined in paragraph 7.3.8 

 

 

 

 

 





through post-scoping consultation (if appropriate) 


details 

Identification of effects which, in particular, could be considered to be 

potentially significant in terms of the Infrastructure Planning 

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (‘the EIA 






Value 

7.3.18 Assessments of value consider how far the asset(s) contributes to an 

understanding of the past, through their individual or group qualities, either 

directly or potentially. These are professional judgements, but they are be 

guided by legislation, national policies, acknowledged standards, designations, 

criteria and priorities. Table 7-2 presents the scale of values that have been 

assigned to archaeological remains. 

Table 7-2 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Criteria for Determining 

Value of Archaeological Remains 

Value 

Example 

Very High World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites) 

Assets of acknowledged international importance 

Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged 

international research objectives 

High 

Medium 

Scheduled Monuments (including proposed sites) 

Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance 

Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged 

national research objectives 

Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional 

research objectives 

137

Value 

Low 

Example 

Designated and undesignated assets of local importance 

Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival 

of contextual associations 

Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local 

research objectives 

Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest 

Unknown 

The importance of the resource has not been ascertained 

7.3.19 Table 7-3 presents the scale of values that have been assigned to historic 

buildings. 


Value of Historic Buildings 

Value 

Example 

Very High Structures inscribed as of universal importance as World Heritage Sites 

Other buildings of recognised international importance 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Scheduled Monuments with standing remains 

Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings 

Other Listed Buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in 

their fabric or historical associations not adequately reflected in the listing 

grade 

Conservation Areas containing very important buildings 

Undesignated structures of clear national importance 

Grade II Listed Buildings 

Historic (unlisted) buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities 

in their fabric or historical associations 

Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute significantly to its 

historic character 

Historic townscape or built up areas with important historic integrity in their 

buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other 

structures) 

‘Locally Listed’ buildings 

Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical 

association 

Historic townscape or built up areas of limited historic integrity in their 

buildings or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures) 

Negligible Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of intrusive 

character 

Unknown 

Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic 

significance 

138

7.3.20 Table 7-4 presents the scale of values that have been assigned to historic 

landscapes. 


Value of the Historic Landscape 

Value 

Example 

Very High World Heritage Sites inscribed for their historic landscape 

qualities 

Historic landscapes of international value, whether designated 

or not 

Extremely well preserved historic landscapes with exceptional 

coherence, time-depth, or other critical factor(s) 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Undesignated landscapes of outstanding interest 

Undesignated landscapes of high quality and importance, and 

of demonstrable national value 

Well preserved historic landscapes, exhibiting considerable 

coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s) 

Undesignated historic landscapes that would justify special 

historic landscape designation, landscapes of regional value 

Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable 

coherence, time-depth or other critical factor(s) 

Robust undesignated historic landscapes 

Historic landscapes with importance to local interest groups 

Historic landscapes whose value is limited by poor preservation 

and/or poor survival of contextual associations 

Negligible Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest 


7.3.21 The determination of magnitude of change has been based on the vulnerability 

of the study area, its current state of survival/condition and the nature of the 

impact upon it. The survival and extent of archaeological deposits is often 

uncertain and consequently, the magnitude of change can be difficult to predict 

with any certainty. 

7.3.22 Table 7-5 presents the magnitude of change criteria related to archaeological 

remains. 


Magnitude of Change on Archaeological Remains 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Major 

Example 

Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that 

the resource is totally altered 

Comprehensive changes to setting 

139

Magnitude 

of Change 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No Change 

Example 

Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the 

resource is clearly modified 

Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the 

asset 

Changes to key archaeological materials, such that the asset is 

slightly altered 

Slight change to setting 

Very minor changes to archaeological materials, or setting 

No change 

7.3.23 Table 7-6 presents the magnitude of change criteria related to historic buildings. 


Magnitude of Change on Historic Buildings 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No Change 

Example 

Change to key historic building elements, such that the resource 

is totally altered 

Comprehensive changes to the setting 

Change to many key historic building elements, such that the 

resource is significantly modified 

Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is 

significantly modified 

Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is 

slightly different 

Change to setting of an historic building, such that it is 

noticeably changed 

Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly 

affect it 

No change to fabric or setting 

7.3.24 Table 7-7 presents the magnitude of change criteria related to historic 

landscapes. 


Magnitude of Change on the Historic Landscape 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Major 

Example 

Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components; extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or 

change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; 

resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit. 

140

Magnitude 

of Change 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No Change 

Example 

Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components, visual change to many key aspects of the historic 

landscape, noticeable differences in noise or sound quality, 

considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate 

changes to historic landscape character. 

Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or 

components, slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic 

landscape, limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight 

changes to use or access: resulting in limited changes to historic 

landscape character. 

Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels 

or components, virtually unchanged visual effects, very slight 

changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to 

use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic 

landscape character. 

No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or 

audible changes; no changes arising from in amenity or 

community factors. 


7.3.25 Table 7-8 illustrates how information on the value of the asset and the 

magnitude of change has been combined to arrive at an assessment of the 

significance of effect. The matrix is not intended to ‘mechanise’ judgement of 

the significance of effect but to act as a check to ensure that judgements 

regarding value, magnitude of change and significance of effect are reasonable 

and balanced. Where a significance of effects score is determined by the table 

to be either of two options (e.g. Neutral/Slight, Moderate/Large etc), 

professional judgement will be applied to ascertain which is the most 

appropriate. 

Table 7-8 Archaeology, Built Heritage and Historic Landscape Assessment - Criteria 

for Determining Significance of Effects 

Value 


No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate/Large Large or Very 

Large 

Very Large 

High Neutral Slight Moderate/Slight Moderate/Large Large/Very 

Large 

Medium Neutral Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/Large 

Low Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight Slight/Moderate 

Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight 

141





studies, site visits, surveys and consultation. An archaeological and built 

heritage desk-based assessment has been produced (refer to Appendix 7.1 of 

Volume 1B) as part of the EIA process which contains a full archaeological and 

historical baseline for the terrestrial elements of the study area. In addition a 

marine archaeology assessment has been carried out for the marine element of 

the study area (refer to Appendix 7.3 of Volume 1B), which once again presents 

a full baseline. Finally a terrestrial geophysical survey was carried out on certain 

sections of the study area (refer to Appendix 7.4 of Volume 1B). The resulting 

report presents the detailed results and conclusions of the survey. The following 

text presents a summary of the baseline information gathered from these 

sources with particular reference to receptors which are likely to be directly 

impacted by the project. Please refer to the documents referenced above for a 

full account of the cultural heritage baseline within the study area. 

Archaeology 

Irish Sea 

7.4.2 A marine archaeological assessment carried out as part of the EIA (Proposed 

Brine Outfall Pipe, Fleetwood – Marine Archaeological Assessment Technical 

Report, Wessex Archaeology, 2011), as presented within Appendix 7.3 of 

Volume 1B of this ES. This assessment analysed the results of a marine 

geophysical survey carried out along the route of the brine outfall pipeline 

(Osiris, 2011). This assessment found a possible terrestrial channel feature cut 

into sediments immediately overlying the bedrock. The channel was 

approximately 1.1 km wide, up to 8.2 m deep and filled with early Holocene 

deposits. As the channel is thought to once have been located on land at a time 

when human activity has been recorded in this part of Lancashire then there is 

a possibility that archaeological artefacts and palaeoenvironmental evidence 

may be contained within its fill. 

7.4.3 A number of Mesolithic sites are known across Lancashire which suggests 

preferences for sites adjacent to wetlands, rivers and the coast (Wessex 

Archaeology 2011). Therefore the location of the application site between the 

coast and the River Wyre and a short distance away from the foreshore at 

Cleveleys where two exposures of peat dating to this period have been 

identified could indicate that the area around the application site would have 

been an attractive location for Mesolithic communities. 

7.4.4 Within the study area, the following finds have been identified on the Lancashire 

Historic Environment Record (HER). Refer to Figure 7.1: Archaeological 

Assets of Volume 2B of this ES, for the location of numbered sites identified in 

bold below. 

7.4.5 A terracotta vase was netted by fishermen trawling in the area in 1949 (47). The 

vase was assessed by the secretary of the Fleetwood Historical Society at the 

142

time who suggested that it may have come from a submerged structure, thought 

to be a Roman fort. It is unclear whether the location recorded for the vase is 

the exact location it was recovered from as the grid reference given on the HER 

is the corner of a grid square. 

7.4.6 A second asset dates to the Modern period and comprises a number of WWII 

weapons pits and a trench which were visible on aerial photographs (144). 

These features were not visible on aerial photographs of the area dating to 

1993 suggesting that any above ground remains have been removed. 

7.4.7 The marine archaeological assessment carried out for the project (Wessex 

Archaeology, 2011) found that there were no records of any shipwrecks within 

the application site or within a 50 m buffer in the Irish Sea section of the study 

area. However a total of 84 shipwrecks have occurred within the vicinity of the 

application site where no remains have been located. There may be a potential 

for remains relating to these shipwrecks to be present within the application site. 

7.4.8 A marine geophysical survey carried out to inform this ES (Osiris 2011) 

detected a total of nine sidescan sonar anomalies and five magnetometer 

anomalies that are of archaeological interest within a 50m buffer of the 

proposed brine outfall pipeline (one of these anomalies was detected during 

both surveys, making a total of 13). No further information is available about 

these anomalies at this stage however some or all of them could be associated 

with shipwreck events, foreshore fishing activities or the remains of Rossall 

Grange or Hall (Wessex Archaeology, 2011). Of these 13 anomalies one was of 

more archaeological interest than the others. This anomaly is located towards 

the western end of the brine outfall pipeline and registered as a dark reflector 

with height on the sidescan sonar and as a magnetic anomaly on the 

magnetometer survey; it is likely to be a small piece of ferrous debris. 

Flyde Peninsula (between Cleveleys and Fleetwood) and Wyre Estuary 

7.4.9 There is a record on the HER of a medieval monastic centre at Rossall Grange 

(54). Rossall Grange was held by the Abbey of Dieulacres in Staffordshire from 

1216 until the dissolution when it became the property of Henry VIII. In 1583 the 

Fleetwood family bought the grange from the King and built Rossall Manor 

(Clarke, 1923. The Story of Blackpool). The site is now occupied by Rossall 

School. It has been suggested that the site of the original Grange may now be 

lost to the sea (Clarke, 1923. The Story of Blackpool). If this is the case then 

remains of this earlier Hall and Grange could be preserved within the foreshore 

sands in the vicinity of the application site. The marine geophysical survey 

carried out as part of this EIA identified thirteen seabed anomalies either within 

the application boundary or within a 50 m buffer. There is a possibility that some 

of these anomalies could be related to the masonry remains of the original 

Rossall Grange or Hall (Wessex Archaeology, 2011) 

7.4.10 However there is also evidence to suggest that there is a deserted medieval 

settlement in the vicinity of Rossall School which could also be the original Hall 

or Grange, although this is based upon a solitary report from the Medieval 

Village Research Group in 1973 and is unaccompanied by any firm evidence 

(50). 

143

7.4.11 As the application site runs through Fleetwood from the coast it passes through 

the location of a post-medieval and World War II rifle range (137). A short 

distance to the north of the firing range, within the application site itself evidence 

of drainage and a marl pit has been recorded on aerial photographs (95). Marl 

is a mixture of clay and carbonate of lime, and a marl pit is the pit from which 

the marl is excavated. Marl is used as a fertilizer, among other things. Once the 

application site crosses Amounderness Way in Fleetwood it passes very close 

to the site of a windmill which is shown on William Yates map of 1786 (128) and 

named as New Mill. The mill does not appear on the 1847 OS map of this area 

are there is no hillock or other landscape features in this location which would 

make a suitable site for a windmill. It may be its poor location that led to the 

relatively short existence of the mill. 

7.4.12 The application site then crossed Fleetwood Road and follows the line of a 

disused railway line towards the River Wyre. In doing this it passes through the 

industrial part of the Fleetwood and Fleetwood docks. There are a number of 

archaeological receptors located within the study area around this section of the 

application site associated with the industrial development of Fleetwood and the 

docks in the post-medieval period. 

7.4.13 There are a number of shipwrecks dating to the post-medieval period in the 

Wyre Estuary which have been recorded on aerial photographs. These wrecks 

are still extant on the 1993 vertical APs. (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 138). There is 

also a UKHO report of three wrecks in the Wyre Estuary close to the application 

site which also date to the post-medieval period. One lies to the north of the gas 

storage area (121). The second lies a short distance to the south of 121 close to 

the western edge of the application boundary at Preesall (126). The third UKHO 

wreck dates to the modern period and is located in the middle of the Wyre 

(148). The UKHO record dates to pre 2002 and states that the wreck should be 

removed as soon as possible. Therefore it is unlikely that this wreck is still 

present 

7.4.14 On the eastern bank of the River Wyre towards the northern end of the gas 

storage area of the application site is the location of a landmark tower (122). 

The tower was present on the 1848 OS map but had been removed by 1891. 

7.4.15 To the south of Fleetwood there is place name evidence that it may also have 

been occurring within the study area on the Wyre Estuary. The place name 

Saltcoat Hey is hand-written onto the LCAS version of the OS first edition 

1:10,560 mapping at was is now the modern settlement of Stanah (60). This 

name may have been copied across from the earlier tithe mapping for the area. 

The name could refer to the production of salt from sea water and intertidal 

sand - sleetching - within a saltcote. The brine was often boiled with peat or turf 

cut for the purpose, the control of which is often mentioned in manorial and 

other legal documents. It is notable, however, that this site is both in the river 

estuary where the sea water would have been both muddy and diluted with 

fresh water, and is not close to an obvious source of either peat or turf. 

Preesall to Nateby 

7.4.16 This section of the study area has a high potential for archaeological activity 

dating to the prehistoric period especially where it traverses Pilling Moss. This is 

144

demonstrated by the high number of finds of prehistoric artefacts made across 

the study area. Including an incomplete copper alloy socketed spear head found 

in 2008 in a field toward the southern boundary of the gas storage facility (32). 

The spear head dates to the middle Bronze Age. This section of the study area 

also contains a number of important prehistoric archaeological features 

including a wooden trackway (30) and possible evidence of prehistoric 

settlement at Bone Hill (13 and 41) and elsewhere (40). 

7.4.17 Around the gas storage facility there is evidence of activity dating to the Roman 

period. On the eastern bank of the River Wyre a Roman coin hoard has been 

recorded (44). This has been named the Hackensall Hoard as it was found near 

to Hackensall Hall in 1926. The coins were all in good condition and were found 

within the remains of a leather pouch. It is thought that the hoard was 

deposited around AD 273. 

7.4.18 Two spot finds of a Roman coin are recorded in and close to the gas storage 

facility. The one outside of the application boundary dates from AD 260-268 and 

was found to the east of Cote Walls Farm (45) and another coin dating to 

AD268-70 found to the south of Higher Lickow Farm (46) within the application 

boundary. 

7.4.19 Within the gas storage facility section of the application site is the location of the 

site of Hackensall Tide Mill (57). The earliest reference to the mill occurs in 

several grants of land to the monks of Cockersand Abbey made by Geoffrey de 

Hackensall between 1260 and 1268. The OS first edition 1:10,560 map shows 

clearly a boomerang shaped pool which is not shown on later editions. This 

map clearly labels the site as 'Site of Water Mill' with an adjacent floodgate. This 

indicated that the medieval mill is likely to have remained in use into the Postmedieval 

period. 

7.4.20 There is vague documentary evidence that there may have been a chapel on 

the banks of the River Wyre in the Medieval period in the vicinity of Hackensall 

(53). There is a record of Hereward, Abbot of Cockersand from 1216-35, who 

sent a monk to pray for the soul of King John and others in the early 13 th 

century. The chapel is not mentioned again. 

7.4.21 To the north of the application site near to Whinny Lane is the location of 

Hackensall Hall (63). The present building is Post-medieval but it stands on the 

site of an older building which may originate in the Medieval period. Traces of a 

moat can be seen a short distance away from the house. Close to the hall and 

possibly associated with it, an L shaped bank has been recorded from aerial 

photographs (59). Also close to the hall some ridge and furrow is visible on 

aerial photographs (83). 

7.4.22 The presence of the Tide Mill within the gas storage area and the evidence for a 

possible medieval chapel and the early Hackensall Hall just outside of the 

application boundary suggests that there is some potential for archaeological 

remains dating to the Medieval period in and around the gas storage facility. 

7.4.23 There is significant evidence for activity in the Post-medieval period both in and 

around the application site in this section of the study area. This evidence 

mainly relates to two areas of activity, industrial and agricultural. 

145

7.4.24 The site of a saltworks built by Fleetwood Salt Co in 1902 is recorded to the 

north of Higher Lickow Farm, close to the proposed gas storage facility (69). 

The salt works closed in approximately 1925. The salt works, named 'Preesall 

Salt Mine' is linked by a railway to a 'pumping station' - presumably operating 

the numerous brine wells in this area which are also shown, along with a quay 

in the river Wyre called Preesall Jetty, and to the branch railway that ran to 

Knott End. The salt works has since been demolished although some 

earthworks still remain on the site, as have the majority of the buildings on the 

pumping station site. Most of the routes of the railway can still be seen. To the 

north of the saltworks the route of a mineral railway has been recorded on aerial 

photographs (139) along with a low circular mound, a small circular depression 

and several minor earthwork features. It is possible that this railway line is 

linked to the one associated with the saltworks. 

7.4.25 The area around the gas storage facility has been used for brine extraction 

since approximately the late 19 th century and evidence of this early activity can 

be seen on aerial photographs. Just to the north of Little Height o’ th’ Hill a 

probable sinkhole resulting from brine extraction can be seen on aerial 

photographs (73 and 86). This feature was visible as a square banked C 

shaped enclosure following the same alignment as the field boundaries. 

7.4.26 Further evidence of industrial activity in the study area can be seen in the form 

of the Garstang and Knott End Railway (75a and b). The railway was authorised 

in 1864 and opened from Garstang to Pilling in 1870. It then ran out of capital 

and went into disuse. With the appointment of a receiver, it was revived in 1875, 

but only as far as Garstang. In 1898 a further section of the railway between 

Pilling and Knott End was granted authorisation. The new company also ran 

into financial difficulties and the line wasn’t completed until 1908 (76). 

Passenger services were withdrawn in 1930, the line closed in 1965 and the 

track dismantled. The NTS interconnector part of the application site follows the 

route of the old railway line for the stretch between Nateby and Garstang. 

7.4.27 Another activity that was commonplace in this area of Lancashire in the Postmedieval 

period was clay extraction. Clay is a component of marl, and there is 

evidence of marl extraction elsewhere in the study area as detailed above. The 

marl would have been used to fertilize the fields within the moss as they were 

being improved for use as agricultural land. Clay was excavated by means of 

small pits or trenches of varying length, but c.1-1.5m wide. These are still 

common in the area, particularly on the moss edge south of Pilling village. They 

are often visible on aerial photographs associated with earlier stream channel 

features. Clay digging was undertaken in fields which were too irregular for 

cultivation. It is said that the particular shape of the clay extraction pits, 

sometimes referred to, is derived from the fact that they resulted in the 

excavation of as much clay as could be removed by a man for a penny 

(Middleton 1995). This is reflected in the name Pennyholes field. It has also 

been suggested that the digging of pits for clay extraction could be one 

explanation for the so called “Pilling Graves” which have been recorded in this 

area. Clay pits have also been recorded at Elm Farm (106) and Bowers House 

(107). 

7.4.28 The land around the application site within Pilling Moss has also been used for 

peat cutting. Evidence of this can be seen on aerial photographs (91) where 

146

short stretches of straight and perpendicular line can be seen around West 

Boundary Farm. Evidence of peat cutting is also visible on aerial photographs 

south of Pear Tree Grove near Pilling (92). Here the aerial photographs show a 

pattern of lines made up from pits and short trenches. However it also must be 

considered that both of these examples of peat cutting could also be the 

remains left by clay extraction. 

7.4.29 In the same area as 91 and 92 there is further aerial photograph evidence for 

old field boundaries, watercourses and the same short rows of slots as seen at 

the clay extraction and peat cutting sites (157 and 158). 

7.4.30 The other major asset within the study area which relates to industrial activity in 

the area is the Lancaster Canal which passes through the eastern end of the 

study area (64). The canal was built between 1792-1819 and extended from 

Kendal to Wigan; it was partly leased to Leeds & Liverpool Canal. There are 

thirteen bridges on the Cabus to Winmarleigh section of the canal, which is the 

one closest to the application site, including Nateby Hall Bridge. The now 

disused Knott End-on-Sea branch line of the Lancaster and Preston Railway 

also ran underneath the canal within the study area. 

7.4.31 There are a number of farmsteads dating to the post-medieval period located 

either within the application site or the surrounding study area. Many of these 

farms are recorded on the HER. Some of the Post-medieval farmsteads are 

located within the application site, namely Cote Walls Farm (129) and Higher 

Lickow Farm. Yates map of 1786 shows a small cottage or farmstead on 

Agglebys Lane (130). The farmstead is named on the 1847 OS map as 

Agglebys and a well is also shown to the north west. It is possible that this 

farmstead may have been destroyed by a brine well which collapsed in the last 

few years and also removed a large portion of Agglebys Lane. Others are 

located outside of, but very close to the application site such as Height o the Hill 

Farm (131), Little Height o’ th’ Hill Farm (132), Carters Farm (136), and Burrows 

Farm. Burrows Farm is originally shown on Yates 1786 map at a site to the 

north of the current farm buildings (133) but it appears from cartographic 

evidence that this farmstead was demolished around 1914 and a farmstead, 

originally named New Barn on the 1857 OS map at the current site of the farm 

buildings was renamed Burrows Farm (134). 

7.4.32 As well as the multiple farmsteads in the study area which date to the Postmedieval 

period there has also been evidence of Post-medieval agricultural 

activity recorded across the study area. Within the application site to the south 

east of Cote Walls Farm field boundaries and a potential hollow way visible as 

earthworks on aerial photographs have been recorded (87). There is further 

ridge and furrow to the south of Corcas Lane (84). This has also been identified 

on aerial photographs. 

7.4.33 Close to Burrows Farm to the east of the application site aerial photographs 

show the remains of building platform which possibly dates to the Post-medieval 

period (56 and 85). Around the platform a number of cropmarks are also visible. 

Most of the cropmarks are linear and enclose rectangular areas, relating to the 

present boundaries and are presumably former field boundaries. A circular 

cropmark also visible on the photographs is probably a former pond. 

147

7.4.34 There are number of undated features within the study area. Many of these are 

features which have been identified from aerial photographs and include a 

number of watercourses such as the one south of the gas storage facility 

named as Grange Pool on OS maps (150 and 151). 

7.4.35 Several short lengths of former watercourses are visible in Pilling Moss near to 

Burned House Lane (161). Also on Pilling Moss aerial photographs of the area 

around Head Dyke Farm shows a number of intensively packed former 

watercourses which have now been heavily drained (160). Further to the east 

within Pilling Moss, close to Bradshaw Lane Farm further evidence of former 

watercourses and drainage channels have been identified on aerial 

photographs (166). Three former watercourses have also been identified at 

Cogie Hill Cottages near Nateby (162). The most western of the three appeared 

to have flowed into Pilling Water. More watercourses are visible to the east of 

Elm Farm (163 and 164). A number of kettleholes, both water filled and dry, are 

visible in this area. Whilst the location given for many of these former 

watercourses may lie outside of the application site it is likely that they extend 

into the application site. 

7.4.36 A magnetometer survey was undertaken in the Preesall to Nateby section of the 

study area and identified anomalies due to variation in the soils and superficial 

deposits, particularly in the areas of Pilling and Nateby Moss. The survey also 

identified a number of field drains and pipes. Some of the pipes are also 

associated with land drainage but there are several that probably serve the 

numerous brine wells in the vicinity. There was also several areas where the 

tipping or dumping of strongly magnetic modern material has impacted on the 

data. The recent spreading of bio-waste at the northern end of the gas storage 

facility also had an adverse effect on the potential for identifying any relatively 

weak anomalies in this area, if present, that may have an underlying 

archaeological cause. 

7.4.37 The survey did not identify any anomalies of definite archaeological potential so 

far and very few of any potential at all. However in a field to the south of New 

Hall Farm a series of linear anomalies extending from the eastern end of one 

field and across the whole of the adjacent field were noted. The form and 

alignment of these anomalies is clearly different from the anomalies caused by 

the field drains and they are also more regular than those anomalies interpreted 

as geological further to the west in this corridor. A confident interpretation is 

difficult due to the narrow nature of the survey corridor but it is considered that 

these anomalies could potentially be archaeological in nature. 

7.4.38 It is not yet clear whether the apparent absence of definite archaeological 

anomalies is an accurate reflection of the absence of archaeological activity in 

this landscape. 

7.4.39 A radar survey (WYAS, 2011) was carried out in two fields to the east of Bone 

Hill Farm. In the western most of these fields a high amplitude anomaly was 

present. Assuming a propagation velocity of 0.08 m/ns this response is located 

at a depth of between 2.2 m and 2.7 m below ground level. 

7.4.40 However if there is peat above this response and the peat is waterlogged then 

the actual depth to the feature that produced this response could be much 

148

shallower (as shallow as 1.1 m to 2.6 m). The cause of the anomaly is not 

known; it could indicate the presence of a broadly linear feature but it could also 

be caused by a natural localised variation in the sub-surface. 


7.4.41 There are a number of built heritage assets located within the study area and 

therefore they could all potentially experience impacts as a result of the Project. 

However in practice a significant number of the built heritage assets are located 

some distance away from any above ground structures so would experience 

neither direct physical impacts nor impacts on their setting (Figure 7.2 of 

Volume 2B). A full built heritage baseline detailing all the receptors within the 

study area is included in the Desk-based Assessment (Appendix 7.1 of Volume 

1B). This baseline will concentrate only on those assets which have the 

potential to be affected by the Project due to their proximity to the above ground 

structures of the study area. 

7.4.42 Receptors which will not be considered in this chapter due to there being no 

chance of them being affected include BH2-9 and BH52 as they are all located 

within the ground of Rossall School and their setting is defined by their 

relationship with the other school buildings not the wider area. BH63 has been 

excluded as it is no longer extant. BH37-43, BH45-49, BH53-57 and BH64 

have been excluded as they located some distance away from any above 

ground structures. The term ‘BH’ is used to differentiate the built heritage 

features from the archaeological features within this chapter text. However, 

within Figure 7.2 of Volume 2B, the number only is used to aid legibility 

BH1 Parrox Hall, Preesall (Grade II* Listed) 

7.4.43 A house existed at the site of this building in 1479. The present building dates to 

the 16 th century and is L-shaped in plan and has an Elizabethan chimney at the 

west end and two 20 th century extensions which form the south wings. Most of 

the mullioned and transomed windows have been modernized, but some of the 

originals remain. The arched coach entrance in the East side probably originally 

led into a courtyard. The Hall is of two storeys throughout. The walls are plastercovered. 

The roof is of stone slates. 

7.4.44 The setting of the Hall is informed by its rural location and the estate which 

surround it. 

BH62 Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway (Undesignated) 

7.4.45 The tramway opened in 1885 as a two mile stretch on Blackpool promenade, 

and was the first to be powered by electricity via an underground cable. In 1898 

it was extended from Blackpool North railway station to the ferry terminal at 

Fleetwood, it was powered by overhead cables. 

7.4.46 The setting of the tramway within the study area is informed by the surrounding 

urban environment of Fleetwood. The application site crosses the tramway at St 

Georges Memorial Field, Fleetwood. 

149

BH44 Hackensall Hall, Preesall (Grade II Listed) 

7.4.47 Hackensall Hall, which is a moated manor house dated 1656 with an extension 

dating to 1873, superseded a much older house which went back at least to 

King John. There are still traces of a moat to be seen a little distance away from 

the house. The house is presently sub-divided into two private residences. 

7.4.48 The walls are pebble-dashed. Chimneys, doors and most windows are modern, 

but some mullioned and transomed windows are original. The datestone (1656) 

is on the west front. The roof is constructed from slate. 

7.4.49 The setting of Hackensall Hall is informed by its rural location and its position 

close to the Wyre Estuary. The setting of the Hall can also be understood 

through its relationship with the nearby Hackensall Hall Farm. 

BH58 Cote Walls Farm, Clods Carr Lane, Preesall (Undesignated) 

7.4.50 Cote Walls Farm is shown on the OS first edition 1:10,560 mapping (where it is 

named Coat Walls), as well as on the modern (2009) mapping. A pump is 

marked within the farmstead in 1847.The farm is also named on Hennet's map 

of 1829. 

7.4.51 The setting of this asset is informed by its rural location surrounded by 

agricultural land. 

Fleetwood Conservation Area 

7.4.52 Fleetwood is a historic planned town which was conceived in the early 

nineteenth century and named after its founder, Sir Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood. 

The architect Decimus Burton was commissioned to design and supervise the 

construction of the town which, at its inception, was intended to have two 

principal purposes – the first as a flourishing holiday resort, comparable to 

resorts on England’s south coast and the second as a seaport that would serve 

those travelling to and from the north of the country. 

7.4.53 With its origins as a nineteenth century purpose-built, architect-designed, new 

town, Fleetwood is unique in Lancashire and unusual amongst other postmedieval 

towns in England. For much of the nineteenth century the town was 

known as Fleetwood-on-Wyre, in reference to its position at the mouth of the 

River Wyre. Indeed this was the name used by Decimus Burton on his original 

plan, but it has now fallen out of fashion (Paul Butler Associates, 2008). 

7.4.54 Decimus Burton was an advocate of classical Greek revival architecture and his 

design for Fleetwood embraced these ideals. He produced a remarkable 

geometrical plan, which featured formal squares and crescents, radial roads 

and strict geometric relationships that ensured symmetry of design and 

embodied some of the utopian ideas proposed by Renaissance architects in the 

sixteenth century (Paul Butler Associates, 2008). 

7.4.55 Central to Burton’s plan was Tup Hill, the most northerly of a chain of sand hills 

which stretched the length of the Fylde coast, which became known within the 

new town as the Mount. From this focal point, Burton envisaged that the streets 

of the town would radiate out like the spokes of a wheel and tradition has it that 

150

these streets were marked out by a man leading a horse-drawn plough. 

Running away from the centre of the Mount is London Street, a straight, wide 

road that formed the spine to the proposed town. At exactly 40º to either side of 

this line two streets were planned which would have formed a triangular frame 

to the central area of the town. However, only the eastern one, Victoria Street, 

was built (Paul Butler Associates, 2008). 

7.4.56 Fleetwood Conservation Area encompasses the majority of the town centre. It 

incorporates the entire original planned town and also a section of later 

nineteenth and early twentieth century development, including an extensive 

area of gridiron terraced housing, much of which survives intact. The scale and 

diversity of the Fleetwood Conservation Area ensures that it can be divided 

neatly into 5 distinct sub or character areas: The Mount, Pharos, Commercial 

Core, Burton and Milton. Each character area reflects the layout, form and use 

of different historical development periods and contains buildings, structures 

and features that are united by a common history. 

7.4.57 The Mount Character Area occupies the north western section of the Fleetwood 

Conservation Area and is enclosed by The Esplanade to the north, by the rear 

of properties on Mount Road to the south and east and by the junction of 

Abbott’s Walk and Milton Street to the west. It is dominated by the Mount, the 

most northerly of a chain of sand hills which stretch the length of the Fylde 

coastline. Formerly known as Tup Hill, the Mount was landscaped in the 1830s 

and became the focal point of Burton’s grand design. The special interest of 

The Mount Character Area is derived from its seaside architecture and its 

collection of fine, predominantly red brick, mid to late nineteenth century 

residential and community buildings, which encircle the base of a landscaped 

sand hill. At the time of Fleetwood’s creation, the sea reached a level 

substantially higher than it does at present and the northern side of the Mount 

was immediately adjacent to the shoreline. Following a natural reduction in sea 

level, large tracts of land were reclaimed and developed with amenities typical 

of a seaside resort, including an entertainment venue, ornamental gardens and 

bowling greens. Although this reclaimed area falls beyond the boundary, the 

seaside architecture ensures that it contributes significantly to the setting and 

the special character of the Conservation Area. The large number of Grade II 

listed buildings within the character area also contribute to its significance and 

setting. The special interest provided by the character areas Listed Buildings is 

further enhanced by the numerous unlisted, yet historically and/or architecturally 

interesting, buildings and features within its boundaries. 

7.4.58 The Pharos Character Area occupies the north eastern section of the Fleetwood 

Conservation Area and is enclosed by the sea, the docklands and the mouth of 

the Wyre Estuary to the north and east, by Victoria Street to the south and by 

the rear of properties on the eastern side of North Albert Street and by the rear 

of the North Euston Hotel to the west. The special interest of the character area 

is derived from its collection of fine, imposing and predominantly ashlarred 

sandstone mid-nineteenth century classical style buildings and lighthouses, 

which form the most extensive surviving part of Burton’s planned coastal town. 

There are a number of Grade II Listed buildings and features, including the 

Upper and Lower Lighthouse, within the Character Area that contribute 

positively towards the special architectural and historic character of the area. 

151

There are also a number of non-listed buildings which contribute toward the 

historical character of the area. 

7.4.59 The Commercial Core Character Area occupies the southern section of the 

Fleetwood Conservation Area and can be considered to be the commercial core 

of the town. The area is enclosed to the west by the rear of properties on the 

northern side of Lord Street and by the rear of properties on the western side of 

Pharos Place, by Victoria Street and the rear of properties on the northern side 

of Adelaide Street to the north, by Mount Street and Styan Street to the south 

and by the western side of Dock Street to the east. The special interest of the 

Character Area is derived from its collection of mid to late nineteenth retail, 

residential and ecclesiastical buildings that form the commercial heart of the 

town. There are a number of listed and non-listed buildings within the Character 

Area which contribute towards its historical significance. 

7.4.60 The Burton Character Area occupies the central section of the Fleetwood 

Conservation Area and is enclosed by the Mount Character Area and The 

Esplanade to the north and northwest, by the Pharos Character Area and North 

Albert Street to the east and northeast, by the Commercial Core Character Area 

and the rear of properties on the northern side of Lord Street to the south and 

southeast and by Poulton Street and the Milton Character Area to the west and 

southwest. This sub area is the largest within the Fleetwood Conservation Area 

and is dominated by residential development. 

7.4.61 A number of buildings within this area were constructed under Decimus 

Burton’s supervision, and probably to his design, whilst the remainder were 

constructed on building plots space left undeveloped following the bankruptcy of 

Hesketh-Fleetwood and the cessation of Burton’s services. The special interest 

of the Burton Character Area is derived from its collection of predominantly red 

brick mid to late nineteenth and early twentieth century residential buildings 

(both listed and non-listed) set within Decimus Burton’s classically influenced 

geometrical town plan. 

7.4.62 The Milton Character Area occupies the western section of the Fleetwood 

Conservation Area and is enclosed by the Mount Character Area and the rear of 

properties on the northern side of Abbott’s Walk to the north, by Burton 

Character Area and Poulton Street and Promenade Road to the east, by the 

Commercial Core Character Area and Lofthouse Way and Lord Street to the 

south and to the west by the boundary of the Conservation Area, which is 

formed by the rear of properties on the eastern side of Carr Road and by the 

rear of properties on the western side of Elm Street. 

7.4.63 This Character Area is dominated by residential development and is located 

beyond the urban boundary intended by the town’s founder. The area 

represents a departure from Burton’s radiating streets pattern and the 

introduction of a more uniform gridiron planned form 

7.4.64 The special interest of the Character Area is derived from its collection of 

predominantly red brick late nineteenth century and early twentieth residential 

and community buildings constructed beyond the western boundary of Burton’s 

original planned town. 

152

Historic Landscape 

7.4.65 The Lancashire HER has mapped the Historic Landscape Character (HLC) 

types across the county. The application site transects nine different HLC types, 

a summary of which is provided below. 

Irish Sea 

7.4.66 The brine outfall pipe largely transects the sea bed within the Irish Sea study 

area. At the eastern extent of the study area the pipe transects Sands and 

Mudflats. 

7.4.67 The extensive Sand and Mudflats around the Lancashire coast are a product of 

the regions large tidal range. These areas have been the site of activities in the 

past from the provision of resources such as fish to salt production. 

7.4.68 Generally within this Character type shipwreck sites, groynes, baulks, tide mills, 

piers, jetties, beacons, lighthouses, channel walls, stone banks, sewage 

outfalls, shell middens, artificial oyster and mussel beds, trackways and 

causeways can be seen. Environmental information may be contained within 

submerged surfaces and forests (such as those off the coast to the north of 

Fleetwood). In addition the nature of the type is such that occasional finds are 

made of artefacts washed up from elsewhere. 

7.4.69 The Sands and Mudflats type within this area consist of the sand beach along 

the Irish Sea coast. 

Fylde Peninsula and Wyre Estuary 

7.4.70 The brine outfall pipe transects six different HLC types within this section of the 

study area. 

7.4.71 There are a few small areas of Post-medieval enclosure within this section of 

the study area, they are: adjacent to West Way and to the east of Fleetwood 

Road in Fleetwood and at the termination of the electricity connection in 

Stannah. However the largest area of Post-medieval enclosure which the 

application site passes through is located in the Preesall to Nateby section of 

the study area and therefore this HLC type will be discussed in more detail in 

the relevant section. 

7.4.72 As it passes through Fleetwood the brine outfall pipe briefly transects an area of 

Modern Settlement and then Modern Recreation. 

7.4.73 The Modern Settlement HLC type is mainly an expansion of previously existing 

settlements occurring post c AD1850, so often the Ancient and Post Medieval 

Settlement type is found at its core (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.74 This HLC type contains 18% (747) of Lancashire’s listed buildings. The majority 

of these are farmhouses and domestic houses (many earlier than the type), but 

also included are several structures associated with the railways and canals. 

Other buildings include schools, inns and a large variety of miscellaneous 

structures. Extant boundaries and roads may also reflect an earlier landscape 

153

(Lancashire HLC). The many listed buildings which form part of Decimus’ 

Burtons planned town of Fleetwood are located within the HLC type. 

7.4.75 Generally modern recreation land is directly associated with urban areas. It 

includes larger playing fields such as the St Georges memorial field in 

Fleetwood, parks, caravan parks and golf course amongst others all created 

post c AD 1850 (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.76 Much Modern Recreation extends over areas of prior agricultural use and may 

therefore contain significant timedepth in terms of the retention of earlier 

landscape features or buried archaeology (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.77 As it head eastwards the brine outfall pipe transects a large area of Modern 

Industry. 

7.4.78 Modern Industry (post c AD 1850) is mainly distributed in towns or on their 

perimeters. This type is divided into sub-types (Lancashire HLC). The Modern 

Industry type in this area is associated with the docks along the Wyre Estuary. 

7.4.79 The brine outfall pipe then transects a small area of Saltmarsh just before it 

crossed the Rive Wyre. Saltmarsh has been important for grazing since the 

medieval period if not earlier. Much Saltmarsh has been reclaimed through 

drainage in the mid 18 th to the mid 19 th centuries. However, through failure and 

redundancy of these schemes Saltmarsh has been increasing in area and new 

areas have been established for the benefit of wildlife (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.80 Evidence for human intervention within this type includes the boundaries of 

internal subdivision and sea defences at the interface of the type, usually with 

either Sand and Mudflats or wholly reclaimed land. Such boundaries may 

comprise ditches or fences, but more usually take the form of marker posts and 

stones (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.81 Finally the brine outfall pipe transects a small area of Sand and Mudflats, 

specifically River Wyre estuary mudflats. 


7.4.82 In this section of the study area the application site once again passes through 

Sand and Mudflats, Modern Recreation, Saltmarsh and Post-Medieval 

Enclosure HLC types. 

7.4.83 On this side of the River Wyre the specific land use in the Modern Recreation 

HLC type area is a golf course. Golf courses may potentially retain boundaries 

and landscape features associated either with earlier agrarian regimes, such as 

ridge and furrow, or with the rabbit warrens which once dotted the coastal 

hinterland. Landscaping for golf courses may have disturbed or removed some 

of this information whilst drainage may have degraded it. 

7.4.84 The Post-medieval Enclosure HLC type comprises a variety of field forms, 

usually between 4 and 16 hectares in size, but with a significant proportion of 

small enclosures. Two thirds of the type has an irregular layout while the 

remainder has a more planned pattern. This is a reflection of the piecemeal 

private enclosure of land in Lancashire in the period between AD 1600 to 1850 

154

ather than the widespread planned enclosure much more prevalent in other 

parts of England such as the Midlands. This type may include land which was 

previously enclosed and later re-modelled as well as that associated with the 

agricultural exploitation of new areas that marked the agricultural ‘revolution’ of 

the 17 th to early 19 th centuries (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.85 The typical historical and archaeological components of the Post-Medieval 

Enclosure type are the boundaries which define the fields, the ditches used to 

drain them, the roads and tracks which traverse them and the buildings of those 

living and working within the area. Generally boundaries include water-filled 

ditches, quickset hedges, stone walls and fences (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.86 Generally some of the Post-Medieval Enclosure type covers peaty or former 

wetland soils such as Pilling Moss. Attributes of former mossland areas include 

drainage ditches, causeways, windmills and bridges. There is also a possibility 

of well-preserved archaeological deposits existing under the ground surface in 

these areas (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.87 Some of the main ditches in this type are potentially related to an earlier 

enclosure period, being left in place as they were too large to contemplate 

changing and because they functioned effectively (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.88 The proposed electricity connection cable transects a very small area of 

Saltmarsh after the Mudflats before heading north to the gas storage area. 

Across this area the proposed electricity connection cable transects two HLC 

types, the majority consisting of Post-Medieval Enclosure. Towards the northern 

it transects a small area of Ancient Enclosure HLC type. 

7.4.89 To the south and east of the gas storage facility the application site passes both 

through and very close to areas of Ancient Enclosure HLC type. This type is 

characterised by an irregular enclosure pattern with sinuous or wavy edged field 

boundaries and winding lanes or tracks connecting a dispersed settlement 

pattern. It was established prior to c AD1600 (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.90 Generally the principal archaeological components of Ancient Enclosure are the 

boundaries that define the enclosed land, the predominantly dispersed 

settlement pattern and the pattern of roads and trackways that connect them. 

Hedges (typically mixed in nature compared with the single species, usually 

quickset hawthorn, increasingly found in Post-Medieval Enclosure and, 

particularly, Modern Enclosure), walls, banks (and mixtures thereof) and 

drainage ditches typify the boundaries of small to medium irregular fields, most 

of which appear to derive from the enclosure of individually farmed holdings. 

Occasionally the remains of early ridge and furrow survive, indicating a past use 

as part of an arable regime (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.91 As the applications site continues eastwards the predominant HLC type remains 

Post-Medieval Enclosure. However to the south of Pilling there is a small area 

of Modern Enclosure HLC type 

7.4.92 This type covers eight percent of Lancashire, it is characterised by straightsided 

enclosures of medium size with few small fields and some much larger 

fields. Predominantly Modern Enclosure has an irregular character. Most of the 

155

type represents an alteration of the landscape already enclosed by c 1850 and 

hence has often been constrained by the broad framework of these earlier field 

systems (Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.93 The Modern Enclosure type is broadly characterised by the final drainage and 

enclosure of the mosslands such as Pilling Moss and the more general 

improvement and reorganisation of much of the earlier ancient landscape 

(Lancashire HLC). 

7.4.94 This type consists of the complete reorganisation of farmed landscapes after 

c.1850. Therefore archaeological components of this type include new field 

boundaries (mainly fences and quickset hedges), drainage ditches, buildings 

and roads. The earlier farmed landscapes tend to be considerably denuded of 

relic components, such as walls, ditches and banks, due to the intensity of later 

change and landuse (Lancashire HLC). 


7.4.95 Table 7-9 presents the values assigned to the individual receptors identified 

through the desk studies, site visits (surveys), and consultation. Values have 

been assigned using the criteria presented in Tables 7-2 to 7-4. The location / 

extent of receptors is presented on Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of Volume 2B. 

Table 7-9 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 

Receptor (refer to Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of Volume 2B) 

Channel within the application boundary of the proposed brine outfall 

pipe in the Irish Sea 

Potential for Mesolithic activity in the vicinity of the brine outfall pipeline 

Potential for prehistoric remains in and around Pilling Moss as indicated 

by 30, 13, 41 and 40 

Value 

Negligible 

Low 

Low 

44 Hackensall hoard Low 

45 Roman coin found at Cote Walls Farm Negligible 

46 Roman coin found at Higher Lickow Farm Negligible 

47 Roman terracotta vase recovered by fishermen in 1949 Negligible 

13 anomalies detected during the marine geophysical survey Negligible 

Potential for remains associated with shipwrecks in the Irish Sea to be 

present within the application site 

50 Possible Medieval settlement at Rossall Low 

Negligible 

53 Possible Medieval chapel at Hackensall Negligible 

54 Rossall Hall/Grange Low 

57 Hackensall Tide Mill Low 

63, 59 and 83 site of early Hackensall Hall and associated earthworks Low 

60 Place name evidence indicating salt production site Negligible 

156


Value 

69 and 139 Saltworks and associated mineral railway Low 

64 Lancaster Canal Medium 

73 and 86 evidence of brine extraction Low 

75 and 76 Garstang and Knott End Railway Low 

84 Ridge and furrow south of Corcas Lane Low 

85 and 56 Building platform and cropmarks close to Burrows Farm Low 

87 Field boundaries and potential holloway by Cote Walls Farm Low 

106 and 107 evidence of clay extraction Low 

95 drainage and old marl pit visible on aerial photograph Negligible 

91, 92, 157 and 158 evidence of peat cutting Low 

77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 138 Wreck sites in Wyre Estuary Low 

121, 126 Wreck sites in Wyre Estuary Low 

148 Wreck site in Wyre Estuary Negligible 

122 Landmark tower on the bank of the River Wyre Low 

128 New Mill, Fleetwood Low 

137 Post-medieval and World War II rifle range Low 

144 WWII weapons pits and a trench Low 

150 and 151 watercourses in proposed gas storage facility Negligible 

160-166 Watercourse, former watercourses and kettleholes in and 

around Pilling Moss 

Possible archaeological feature identified to the south of New Hall Farm 

by magnetometer survey 

Possible linear feature identified by radar survey in field to east of Bone 

Hill Farm 

Potential for Medieval remains within proposed gas storage facility 

Potential for Post-medieval industrial and agricultural activity 


Negligible 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

129 and BH58 Cote Walls Farm Low 

130 Agglebys Farm Negligible 

131 and BH59 Height o’ th’ Hill Farm Low 

132 and BH60 Little Height o’ th’ Hill Farm Low 

133, 134 and BH61Burrows Farm Low 

136 Carters Farm Low 

BH1 Parrox Hall 

BH62 Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway 

High 

Low 

157


BH44 Hackensall Hall 

Fleetwood Conservation Area and associated listed buildings (BH10-36, 

50 and 51) 

Sand and mudflats HLC type 

Post-medieval Enclosure HLC type 

Modern Settlement HLC type 

Modern Recreation HLC type 

Modern Industry HLC type 

Saltmarsh HLC type 

Ancient Enclosure HLC type 

Modern Enclosure HLC type 

Value 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 



Project. 

Irish Sea 

7.5.2 It is considered that the future archaeological baseline within the Irish Sea 

section of the study area would remain mainly unchanged in the absence of the 

Project. All currently known assets would remains undisturbed. However there 

is the potential that future archaeological investigations unconnected with the 

Project could identify currently unknown archaeological assets which would add 

to the archaeological resource in the study area. Natural forces are the biggest 

influence both in the creation and destruction of the Historic Landscape 

resource in this section of the study area. Therefore natural causes such as the 

tide or extreme weather events could have an unquantifiable effect on the 

sands and mudflats on the foreshore at Fleetwood. 

Flyde Peninsula (between Cleveleys and Fleetwood) and Wyre Estuary 

7.5.3 It is not anticipated that there would be any change to the future baseline within 

the Flyde Peninsula section of the study area in the absence of the Project. All 

currently known archaeological assets would remain undisturbed. However 

there is the potential that future archaeological investigations unconnected with 

the Project could identify currently unknown archaeological assets which would 

add to the archaeological resource. The built heritage resource would remain 

unchanged, unless any future development is proposed which affects specific 

assets. The historic landscape resource would remain unchanged. 

7.5.4 Within the Wyre Estuary section of the study area it is anticipated that any 

changes in the future archaeological baseline in the absence of the Project 

would result from the effect of the tidal waters and severe weather on the 

various shipwrecks recorded in the area. This could result in breaking up of the 

remains or alteration of their position. However it is not possible to predict if, 

158

when or how these changes may take place. Aside from this it is anticipated 

that the future baseline within the Wyre Estuary would remain largely as it is 

now. 


7.5.5 Within the Preesall to Nateby section of the study area it is considered that the 

future baseline would be affected by the predicted cavern collapse that would 

occur in the absence of the Project. A number of receptors are located in the 

areas that would be affected in the cavern collapse. These receptors would be 

lost once collapse occurs. 

7.5.6 As with all the study areas which the application boundary passes through there 

is the possibility that future archaeological investigations unconnected with the 

Project could uncover previously unknown archaeological assets and add to the 

archaeological resource. However it is not possible to predict this or indicate 

how the future baseline would be affected. 

7.5.7 The built heritage resource would remain unchanged, unless any future 

development is proposed which affects specific assets. The historic landscape 

resource would remain unchanged with the exception that some field 

boundaries may be lost in the event of any future cavern collapse. 


7.6.1 Those receptors considered to be potentially affected by the Project are defined 

in Table 7-10. The nature of effects (in the absence of mitigation and 

enhancement measures) have been considered for the construction (Years 1- 

3), construction and operation combined (Years 4-8), operation (Years 9-40) 

and decommissioning phases. 

Table 7-10 Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment - Receptors Potentially 

Affected 

Receptor 

Type 

Known 

archaeological 

assets 

Specific Receptor (refer 

to Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of 

Volume 2B) 

Channel within the 

application boundary of 

the proposed brine outfall 


13 anomalies detected 

during the marine 

geophysical survey 


The route of the proposed brine outfall 

pipeline passes through this channel and 

has the potential to cause direct physical 

effects on any archaeological artefacts or 

palaeoenvironmental evidence contained 

within the fill of the channel. These 

effects would occur in years 1-3. 

All thirteen anomalies lie along the route 

of the proposed brine outfall pipe in the 

Irish Sea. Therefore they would all be 

disturbed by it. These effects would 

occur in years 1-3. 

47 Roman terracotta vase There would be no effects on this 

receptor as it is a spot find which was 

159

Receptor 

Type 



Volume 2B) 


removed from its location at the time of 

discovery. 

44 Hackensall hoard No effect on this receptor is anticipated 

as it was removed at the time of 

discovery. 

45 Roman coin found at 


46 Roman coin found at 


No effect on this receptor is anticipated 


discovery. 



discovery. 

54 Rossall Hall/Grange Potential direct physical effects on the 

remains of the early Hall/Grange from 

the construction of the brine outfall 

pipeline if the anomalies identified during 

the marine geophysical survey are 

masonry from the Grange/Hall. These 


50 Possible Medieval 

settlement at Rossall 

53 Possible medieval 

chapel at Hackensall 

Potential direct physical effects on the 

remains of the settlement from the 

construction of the brine outfall pipeline if 

they fall within the application site. These 


No effects on this receptor is anticipated 

as it is highly likely to be located outside 

of the application boundary. 

57 Hackensall Tide Mill Potential direct physical effects on the 

remains of the tide mills from 

construction activity within the gas 

storage facility. These effects would 

occur in years 1-3 or 4-8 (dependent on 

when construction in this area of the gas 

storage facility is undertaken). 

63, 59 and 83 site of early 

Hackensall Hall and 

associated earthworks 


as it is located outside of the application 

boundary. 

128 New Mill, Fleetwood If the remains of the mill fall into the 

application boundary then it would 

experience direct physical effects as a 

result of the construction of the brine 

outfall pipeline. These effects would 

occur in years 1-3. 

137 Post-medieval and Any remains associated with the rifle 

160

Receptor 

Type 



Volume 2B) 

World War II rifle range 

95 Drainage and an old 

marl pit visible on aerial 

photographs 

77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

138 Wreck site in Wyre 

Estuary 

121, 126 Wreck site in 

Wyre Estuary 

148 Wreck site in Wyre 

Estuary 

122 Landmark tower on 

the bank of the River 

Wyre 

60 Place name evidence 

indicating salt production 

site 

69 and 139 Saltworks and 

associated mineral 

railway 


range which fall into the application 

boundary will experience direct physical 

effects in years 1-3. 

The location given for this receptor 

places it within the application site where 

it runs adjacent to West Way in 

Fleetwood therefore there is a likelihood 

that it may experience a direct physical 

effect during the construction phase of 

the Project. 

78, 79 and 80, lie some distance from 

the application site and are unlikely to 

experience any effects from the Project. 

77, 81, 82 and 138 are recorded as 

being located on or very close to the 

route of the brine outfall pipeline where it 

crosses the Wyre Estuary. However due 

to the directional drilling methodology 

employed, which would be undertaken at 

a depth of at least 8 m below the 

riverbed, these receptors would not 

experience any effects. 

No effect on these receptors is 

anticipated as they are located outside of 

the area to be impacted by the Project. 

As this wreck is highly unlikely to still be 

present in the Estuary there would be no 

effect on it. 


as while it is within the application 

boundary it is located outside of the area 

to be impacted by the Project. 





These receptors are located in an area 

where the construction of the gas 

compressor compound and the vent 

stack have the potential to affect them. 

These effects would occur during the 

construction phase of the Project. 

64 Lancaster Canal No effect on this receptor is anticipated 


161

Receptor 

Type 



Volume 2B) 

73 and 86 evidence of 

brine extraction 

75 and 76 Garstang and 

Knott End Railway 

84 Ridge and furrow 

south of Corcas Lane 

85 and 56 Building 

platform and cropmarks 

close to Burrows Farm 

87 Field boundaries and 

potential holloway by 


106 and 107 evidence of 

clay extraction 

91, 92, 157 and 158 

evidence of peat cutting 





It is unlikely that the historic areas of 

brine extraction would be affected by the 

Project as the new caverns would be 

located in different areas. 

The railway line lies outside of the 

application boundary for the majority of 

its length. However from Black Lane 

Head heading eastwards the NTS 

Interconnector follows the route of the 

disused railway and therefore there 

would be a direct physical effect on this 

receptor in this area during the 

construction period. 

There would be no effect on this asset as 

it lies outside of the application 

boundary. 

There would be no effect on this asset 

unless it extends into the application 

boundary. 

These receptors would experience 

effects during the construction phase. 

These receptors are located close to the 

application boundary and if they extend 

into it then they would experience direct 

physical effects during the construction 

phase. 

These receptors are located close to the 

application boundary and if they extend 

into it then they would experience direct 


phase. 

This assets would experience a direct 

physical effect during the construction 

phase when the main buildings are 

converted and the barn is demolished. 

130 Agglebys Farm There would be no effect on this receptor 

and it no longer exists. 

131 Height o’ th’ Hill Farm This receptor lies outside of the 

application site so would experience no 

effects. 

162

Receptor 

Type 

Unknown 

Archaeological 

Assets 



Volume 2B) 

132 Little Height o’ th’ Hill 

Farm 

133 and 134 Burrows 

Farm 


This receptor lies outside of the 


effects. 

This receptor lies outside of the 


effects. 

136 Carters Farm This receptor lies outside of the 


effects. 

144 WWII weapons pits 

and a trench 

150 and 151 

watercourses in gas 

storage facility 

160-166 Watercourse, 

former watercourses and 

kettleholes in and around 

Pilling Moss 

Possible archaeological 

feature identified to the 

south of New Hall Farm 

by magnetometer survey 

Possible linear feature 

identified by radar survey 

in field to east of Bone Hill 

Farm 

Potential for Mesolithic 

activity in the vicinity of 

the brine outfall pipeline in 

the Irish Sea. 

Potential for prehistoric 

remains in and around 

Pilling Moss as indicated 

by 30, 13, 41 and 40 

It is not anticipated that there would be 

any effect on this receptor as it lies 

outside of the application boundary so 

would experience no direct physical 

impacts. 

This receptor is located within the gas 

storage area and as a result is likely to 

experience direct physical effects from 

construction activity in this area, 

including the construction of access 

tracks. 

These receptors have the potential to 

extend into the application site and 

therefore would experience direct 


phase. 

This receptor would experience a direct 


phase. 

This receptor would experience a direct 


phase. 

If located within an area that would be 

impacted by the Project then there would 

direct physical effects on any receptors 

associated with the potential Mesolithic 

activity. 




associated with the potential Prehistoric 

activity. 

163

Receptor 

Type 


assets 



Volume 2B) 

Potential for remains 

associated with 

shipwrecks in the Irish 

Sea to be present within 

the application site 

Potential for Medieval 

remains within gas 

storage facility 

Potential for Postmedieval 

industrial and 

agricultural activity 

BH1 Parrox Hall 

BH62 Blackpool to 

Fleetwood Tramway 

BH44 Hackensall Hall 

Fleetwood Conservation 

Area and associated 

listed buildings 





associated with the potential shipwreck 

remains. 




associated with the potential Medieval 

activity. 



be direct physical effects on any 

receptors associated with the potential 

Post-medieval activity. 

Whilst the setting of this asset is 

informed by its rural location there are 

already some industrial elements within 

its setting and it is also located some 

distance (1km+) away from the nearest 

above ground structures associated with 

the Project. Therefore it is considered 

that the Project in general and the gas 

compressor compound and vent stack in 

particular would not have an effect on 

this asset. 

The route of the brine outfall pipeline 

crosses this receptor and therefore it 

would experience a direct physical 

impact during the construction phase on 

the Project. The extent of this impact 

would depend on the construction 

method employed. 

There is a potential for this receptor to 

experience an effect on its setting due to 

its location close to the proposed gas 

compressor compound and vent stack. 

The conservation area and the listed 

buildings contained within it are 

separated from the Project by the 

residential and industrial areas of 

Fleetwood therefore it is not anticipated 

that they would experience any effects. 

129 and BH58 Cote Walls There is a potential for this receptor to 

164

Receptor 

Type 

Historic 

Landscape 

assets 



Volume 2B) 

Farm 

Sand and mudflats HLC 

type 

Post-medieval Enclosure 

HLC type 

Modern Settlement HLC 

type 

Modern Recreation HLC 

type 

Modern Industry HLC 

type 

Saltmarsh HLC type 

Ancient Enclosure HLC 

type 

Modern Enclosure HLC 

type 


experience an effect on its setting due to 

its location close to the gas compressor 

compound and vent stack. 

This HLC type is not expected to 


There is some potential for field 

boundaries within this HLC type to be 

disturbed during the construction phase 

of the project and therefore it would 

experience some effect. 






















Numbers represented in bold within text represent the central point of the 

receptor according to the information provided through the data searches 

carried out. With many of the receptors, especially those that represent linear 

features or features that cover a large area, there is the potential for them to 

extend beyond this point. 



indentified in Section 7.4, in the absence of mitigation or enhancement 

measures. Measures that have been incorporated into the design of the Project 

165

to minimise and potentially significant effects are outlined in Chapter 5 of this 

ES and have been considered in this section. 

Construction 



7.7.2 It is considered that there is a high potential for there to be direct physical 

impacts on the channel which has the potential to contain archaeological 

artefacts or palaeoenvironmental evidence during the construction of the brine 

outfall pipeline in the Irish Sea as the construction of the pipe has the potential 

to remove these remains. As a result of this there is the potential for a minor 

magnitude of change on a receptor of negligible value leading to a significance 

of effects of slight adverse. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect 

would be considered not significant. 


in the Irish Sea 

7.7.3 If any remains associated with the potential Mesolithic activity lie within the area 

that would be impacted by the construction of the brine outfall pipeline they 

would be disturbed. This would lead to a minor magnitude of change upon a 

receptor of low value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered not significant. 

13 anomalies detected during the marine geophysical survey 

7.7.4 All 13 anomalies detected during the marine geophysical survey have the 

potential to be disturbed by the construction of the brine outfall pipeline. This 

would result in a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of negligible 

value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With regard to the 

EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered not significant. 

Potential for remains associated with shipwrecks in the Irish Sea 

7.7.5 It has been identified that there is a potential for remains associated with 

shipwrecks within the Irish Sea to be located within the application boundary 

along the route of the brine outfall pipeline. If present these remains would 

experience a direct physical impact as a result of the construction of the brine 

outfall pipeline. This would lead to a minor magnitude of change upon a 

receptor of negligible value leading to a significance of neutral. With regard to 

the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered not significant. 

Rossall Hall/Grange (receptor 54) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 1) 

7.7.6 It is considered that there is a potential for the remains of the medieval Rossall 

Hall/Grange to be located in the vicinity of the brine outfall pipeline and 

construction of the pipeline could disturb these remains if present. As a result of 

this there is the potential for there to be a minor magnitude of change on a 



166

Possible Medieval settlement at Rossall (receptor 50) (refer to Figure 7.1, 

Sheet 1) 

7.7.7 It is considered that there is some potential for the remains of the possible 

Medieval settlement to be located in the area which the application site runs 

through. Therefore the construction of the brine outfall pipeline has the potential 

to disturb those remains leading to a minor magnitude of change upon a 



Hackensall Tide Mill (receptor 57) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 2) 

7.7.8 The remains of Hackensall Tide Mill are recorded as being within the gas 

storage facility at the location of the temporary construction compound. 

Construction of the compound would cause a major magnitude of change upon 

an asset of low value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. This 

assessment has concluded a significance of effects of slight adverse rather than 

moderate adverse due to the evidence for the presence of the Mill being 

restricted to documentary references and the site of the mill being marked on 

the first edition OS map. Therefore it is unclear at this stage how much of the 

mill remains and what damage has been done to these remains by activity in 

the area such as ploughing in the period since the first edition OS. With regard 

to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered not significant. 

New Mill, Fleetwood (receptor 128) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 3) 

7.7.9 The given location of New Mill, Fleetwood places it partly within the application 

boundary. This means that if there are still remains of the mill present in this 

location the construction of the brine outfall pipeline would result in minor 

magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a significance of 

effects of slight adverse. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would 

be considered not significant. 

Post-medieval and World War II rifle range (receptor 137) (refer to Figure 

7.1, Sheet 1) 

7.7.10 As the brine out fall passes through the area to the south of West Way in 

Fleetwood it has the potential to disturb remains associated with the rifle range 

which is located there. This would have a minor magnitude of change upon a 



Drainage and old marl pit visible on aerial photographs (receptor 95) (refer 

to Figure 7.1, Sheet 1) 

7.7.11 In the same location as the rifle range aerial photograph evidence suggests that 

there is an old marl pit and some drainage ditches or field drains. As the brine 

outfall pipeline has the potential to affect these this would result in a minor 

magnitude of change upon a receptor of negligible value leading to a 

significance of effects of neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect 


167

Saltworks and associated mineral railway (receptors 69 and 139) (refer to 

Figure 7.1, Sheet 2) 

7.7.12 Construction activity in the gas storage are of the application site would cause a 

direct physical impact upon this receptor or remains associated with it. This 

would lead to a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value 

leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, this effect would be considered not significant. 

Garstang and Knott End Railway (receptors 75 and 76) (refer to Figure 7.1, 

Sheet 2 and 6) 

7.7.13 It has been determined that from Black Lane Head eastwards the NTS 

interconnector would have a direct physical impact on this receptor. This would 

result in a moderate magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading 

to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With regard to the EIA 


Field boundaries and potential Holloway by Cote Walls Farm (receptor 87) 

(refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 2) 

7.7.14 This receptor is located in an area where it has the potential to be affected by 

construction activity in the gas storage area. There is also potential for remains 

associated with this receptor to extend further than is currently recorded. The 

direct physical impacts that this would cause would result in a minor magnitude 

of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a significance of effects of 

slight adverse. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be 

considered not significant. 

Evidence of clay extraction (receptors 106 and 107) (refer to Figure 7.1, 

Sheet 8) 

7.7.15 It is considered that there is potential for the remains of clay extraction recorded 

within the study area to extend into the application site. Construction activity 

would cause direct physical impact upon any remains within the application site 

leading to a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading 



Evidence of peat cutting (receptors 91, 92, 157 and 158) (refer to Figure 

7.1, Sheet 6) 

7.7.16 As with the clay extraction it is considered that there is potential for the remains 

of peat cutting recorded within the study area to extend into the application site. 

Construction activity would cause direct physical impact upon any remains 

within the application site leading to a minor magnitude of change upon a 



Higher Lickow Farm (located on Sheet 3 of Figure 7.1) 

7.7.17 It is the intention of the Project that Higher Lickow Farm, which is currently 

derelict, would be renovated and used as security offices during the lifetime of 

168

the project. As part of the renovation one of the barns at the farm would be 

demolished. This would result in a moderate magnitude of change upon a 



Watercourses in gas storage facility (receptors 150 and 151) (refer to 

Figure 7.1, Sheet 3 and 5) 

7.7.18 The effects that this receptor would experience as a result of construction 

activity would result in a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of 

negligible value leading to a significance of effects of neutral. With regard to 


Watercourses, former watercourses and kettleholes in and around Pilling 

Moss (receptors 160 to 166) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 5, 6, 7 and 8) 

7.7.19 As this receptor has the potential to extend into the application site the 

construction of the NTS interconnector would cause a direct physical impact on 

it. This would lead to a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of 

negligible value leading to a significance of effects of neutral. With regard to 



by magnetometer survey (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 6) 

7.7.20 The archaeological feature identified by the magnetometer survey lies within the 

application site along the NTS interconnector corridor. It would experience 

direction physical impacts during the construction phase. This would result in a 

moderate magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a 

significance of effects of slight adverse. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 

this effect would be considered not significant. 

Possible linear feature identified by radar survey 

7.7.21 The archaeological feature identified by the radar survey lies within the 

application site along the NTS interconnector corridor. It would experience 

direction physical impacts during the construction phase. This would result in a 

moderate magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a 



Potential for Prehistoric remains in and around Pilling Moss (receptors 30, 

13, 41 and 40) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 6 and 7) 

7.7.22 The presence of a number of archaeological features and find spots within the 

study area in the vicinity of Pilling Moss indicates that there is a high potential 

for such remains to also occur within the study area. Should these remains be 

present they would experience direct physical impacts as a result of the 

construction of the NTS interconnector. This would result in a moderate 




169

Potential for Medieval remains within the gas storage facility 

7.7.23 The gas storage facility in located in an area where a number of remains dating 

to the Medieval period have been recorded within the study area. Given the 

archaeological record in this area it has been determined that there is a 

potential for as yet unrecorded remains dating to the Medieval period to also be 

present within the application boundary. If these remains are present then there 

is a likelihood that they would experience direct physical impacts from the 

construction of the infrastructure for the gas storage facility. This would result in 

a moderate magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a 



Potential for Post-medieval industrial and agricultural activity 

7.7.24 This assessment has determined that there is a potential for as yet unrecorded 

remains dating to the Post-medieval period to be present within the application 

site, across its length. If present these remains would experience direct physical 

impacts during the construction of the Project. This would lead to a moderate 




Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway (receptor BH62) (refer to Figure 7.2, 

Sheet 2) 

7.7.25 This receptor would experience direct physical impacts from the construction of 

the brine outfall pipeline which would intersect with it. The brine outfall pipeline 

would be constructed underneath the tramway by directional drilling. This would 

limit any impacts to the bank on which the tramway sits and will only affect 

remains associated with the construction of the tramway. Therefore there will be 

a negligible magnitude of change upon an asset of low value leading to a 

significance of effects of neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect 


Post-medieval Enclosure, Saltmarsh, Ancient Enclosure and Modern 

Enclosure HLC types 

7.7.26 As the route of the NTS interconnector passes through these HLC types it has 

the potential to partially disturb field boundaries. This would result in a 

negligible magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a 




7.7.27 As construction of the Project continues into Construction and Operation 

Combined stage all impacts outlined above which will be caused by 

construction will be carried over into this stage. 

170

Operation 

7.7.28 There will be no further impacts on the archaeological receptors in the 

Operation stage as all impacts will already have occurred during the 

construction of the Project. The impacts upon the setting of the built heritage 

assets which occurred during the construction phase will continue into the 

operation stage. 

Hackensall Hall (receptor BH44) (refer to Figure 7.2, Sheet 2) 

7.7.29 This receptor would experience an impact on its setting following the 

construction of the gas compressor compound and vent stack. Given that the 

setting of Hackensall Hall is partly informed by its rural location and the general 

agricultural character of the surrounding landscape the presence of the Gas 

Compressor Compound and the vent stack will introduce elements of modern 

industry into this landscape. However given the location of the receptor in 

relation to the gas compressor compound and the vent stack this magnitude of 

change is not expected to be any greater than negligible and as the asset is of 

medium value this would lead to a significance of effects of neutral. With 


Cote Walls Farm (receptors 129 and BH58) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 2 and 


7.7.30 This asset is located close to the site of the gas compressor compound and 

vent stack and as a result will experience a minor magnitude of change upon 

its setting. As with Hackensall Hall the setting of this asset is informed by its 

rural location surrounded by agricultural land the presence of the Gas 

Compressor Compound and vent stack will draw greater attention to the 

industrial activity within the landscape. The receptor is of low value which leads 





Decommissioning stage as all impacts will already have occurred during the 

construction of the Project. As all infrastructure associated with the Project is 

expected to remain in situ during the decommissioning they the impacts upon 

the setting of the built-heritage assets from the construction and operation 

phases will continue on into the decommissioning phase. 




Construction 

7.8.2 It has been concluded that there will be an impact on the archaeological assets 

that are located within the marine section of the Irish Sea section of the study 

area as there is the potential for submerges archaeological remains along the 

171

oute of the brine outfall pipeline. Detailed sub-bottom profile would be carried 

out on the channel identified during the marine geophysical survey along with 

archaeological analysis of geotechnical samples in order to detect and record 

any archaeological artefacts or palaeoenvironmental evidence which may be 

present within the fill of the channel. 

7.8.3 In order to establish whether the potential for Mesolithic activity within the 

application site is present archaeological analysis of geotechnical sample 

should be undertaken. 

7.8.4 The thirteen anomalies detected by the marine geophysical survey are 

potentially of archaeological interest and will be disturbed by the construction of 

the brine outfall pipe. It is also possible that the remains of the medieval Rossall 

Hall/Grange could be located within the vicinity of the application site and some 

of the anomalies could represent masonry from the Hall/Grange. In order to 

clarify the nature of the anomalies if they are of archaeological interest further 

high level geophysical survey could be undertaken. Alternatively ROV or diver 

investigations along the route of the pipeline would clarify and record the nature 

of the anomalies. 

7.8.5 Archaeological analysis of geotechnical samples has been recommended in 

order to mitigate the effects on the below sea archaeological remains and to 

clarify the archaeological potential of the application site within the Irish Sea. 

During consultations carried out with the marine planning department at English 

Heritage it was agreed that this analysis could be carried out subsequent to the 

submission of the ES. The reason for this was that there were no plans to carry 

out a borehole survey within the marine section of the Project prior to 

submission of the ES. The following section details the methodology that will be 

followed when the borehole survey and analysis is undertaken. 

Methodology for archaeological analysis of geotechnical samples derived 

from boreholes 

7.8.6 The maritime historic environment comprises a wide range of archaeological 

sites and materials which can be broadly divided into two main categories: the 

material remains of human interaction with the sea, such as ship- and aircraftwrecks 

and maritime infrastructure; and submerged prehistoric sites and 

materials, landscapes and palaeoenvironmental remains. Geotechnical 

investigations are concerned primarily with the latter category, as it is these 

materials and remains that are likely to be encountered in the course of these 

types of investigations. 

7.8.7 Physical processes driven by extreme climatic fluctuations during the 

Quaternary resulted in the formation of sediments by a variety of depositional 

and post-depositional processes. It is within these sediments, which are the 

focus of geotechnical investigations, that submerged prehistoric archaeological 

and palaeoenvironmental evidence is preserved. 

7.8.8 In-line with the Marine Policy Statement (March, 2011), opportunities provided 

by the offshore development process should be used ‘to contribute to our 

knowledge and understanding of our past by capturing evidence from the 

historic environment and making this publicly available, particularly if a heritage 

172

asset is to be lost’ Pre-Consultation on the draft UK Marine Policy Statement: A 

Paper for Discussion (Defra, 2009). It is the EIA process that ensures that this is 

able to happen by requiring that archaeological receptors are identified, the 

impacts of development on them are assessed and strategies for mitigating 

impacts are proposed and implemented. 

7.8.9 The effects of sea bed development on the archaeological record and on 

landscape must be identified, described and assessed. Informed decisions on 

these effects can only be made on the basis of sufficient and reliable baseline 

data, for example, geotechnical and geophysical data. 

7.8.10 Marine boreholes should be excavated post-determination, along the line of the 

proposed brine outfall pipe, off Rossall Beach, Fleetwood. The borehole survey 

should be archaeologically monitored and the sediment from these boreholes 

should be archaeologically analysed. An archaeologist should be present to 

observe the sediments once they have been excavated. At least one purposive 

archaeological core should be collected. The location of this core/s will be 

determined by the archaeological assessment of the geophysical data. It is 

considered that the most valuable location for this core would be within the 

channel identified during the marine geophysical survey. This core will function 

as a control against which the archaeological deposit model is validated. Only 

by reserving a core for purely archaeological analysis will it be possible to get 

the full value out of the archaeological assessment. 

Aims and Objectives 

7.8.11 The aim of the archaeological assessment of geotechnical data is based on 

those identified within the Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic 

Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector 2011. The 

aims are to: 

 

 

 

 

Investigate the deposition sequence of sediments within the area 

represented by the cores to identify, as far as possible, the environments 

within which this deposition took place; 

Evaluate the potential for past human exploitation and occupation of these 

past environments; 

Produce an overview of the geological stratigraphy to provide an indication 

of the prehistoric archaeological potential for the area; and 

Comment on the archaeological importance of the identified deposits, 

within the context of the wider palaeoenvironmental history of the region 

and the UK. 

7.8.12 The stratigraphy of core samples is therefore, recorded and the cores subsampled 

for: 

 

 

Palaeoenvironmental and paleoclimatic indicators such as palynomorphs 

(pollen grains, spores and other microfossils), foraminifera, ostracods, 

mollusc shells, insects and plant remains which can be used to reconstruct 

the prehistoric environment; 

Organic materials such as peat, wood or charcoal which can be used to 

date sediment layers; 

173

Mammal macrofaunal remains which can be used to reconstruct 

landscape and habitat; and 

Archaeological artefacts which provide direct evidence of a prehistoric 

human presence in the palaeolandscapes. 

Core Recording 

7.8.13 The archaeological recording of core samples may be a rapid exercise that 

takes place at the same time as the cores are initially logged by the 

geotechnical contractor. The stratigraphic sequence would be recorded, 

detailing the sediment colour, particle size, texture, depth and any inclusions or 

additional comments (e.g. mottling or environmental indicators). A core 

recording serves as preservation by record of the individual core sample that 

may be subject to further archaeological assessment and analysis if necessary. 

7.8.14 The process of deposition is complex; however in low energy environments the 

deposition of alluvial and marine sediments can protect archaeological remains. 

In higher energy environments the process can be highly erosive and the 

discovery of in situ archaeological material is unlikely. Recording of the 

stratigraphic sequence may therefore help to indicate sediments which are 

more likely to preserve archaeological remains and vice versa. 

Core Sampling 

7.8.15 Where material of archaeological or palaeoenvironmental interest is identified 

within core samples during core logging and recordings, sub-samples should be 

taken for archaeological laboratory assessment and analysis is necessary. Subsamples 

should generally be 1 to 5g in size and should therefore not affect the 

integrity of the core samples. See below for details of how samples should be 

taken for different palaeoenvironmental indicators. 

7.8.16 Sediments high in organic matter, for example peat, are generally acidic and 

ideal for pollen preservation. alluvial silts may also be appropriate for pollen 

analysis, Should these sediments be present samples should be take to enable 

pollen analysis if required however pollen analysis may not be undertaken at 

this stage. Great care must be taken in collecting pollen samples. A clean trowel 

should be used for each sample to avoid cross contamination. Ideally, samples 

should be taken above and below interfaces (e.g. between peat and marine 

sediments) and if there is a sizeable peat layer then a sample should be taken 

from the top, middle and bottom of that layer. This should enable a good 

assessment of the prevailing conditions, identification of whether the peat is 

freshwater (which can also be identified from macro sampling) and what the 

preservation is likely to be. 

7.8.17 Should waterlogged plant macrofossils, insects, molluscs and macro-charcoal 

be encountered, these deposits should be sampled to assess the quality of 

preservation of these remains and to identify the potential for analysis. Larger 

sub-samples may be required for these remains. The acquisition of these subsamples 

will be agreed through discussion with other core sample users. The 

type of plants/molluscs that are there should also be identified to determine their 

potential as environmental indicators and the need for further analysis. 

174

7.8.18 Radiocarbon dating would only be possible on reasonably sized macrofossils, 

preferably round wood. Should such samples be identified then they should be 

taken to enable radiocarbon carbon dating if required. Great care should be 

taken in collecting and packing samples to avoid contamination by more recent 

carbon. For each sample, clean trowels should be used, to avoid cross 

contamination between samples. The samples should be packaged in 

chemically neutral materials to avoid picking up new C-14 from the packaging. 

The packaging should also be airtight to avoid contact with atmospheric C-14. 

Also, the stratigraphy should be carefully examined to determine that a carbon 

sample location was not contaminated by carbon from a later or an earlier 

period. 

Further Analysis 

7.8.19 Should sediments suitable for palaeoenvironmental analysis be identified then 

these should also be analysed and if possible dating of the sequences should 

be obtained. 

7.8.20 Assessment and analysis should be undertaken to a level sufficient to enable 

the value of the palaeoenvironmental material surviving within the cores to be 

identified and described. 

Reporting and Production of a Deposit Model 

7.8.21 The results of all the phases of the archaeological assessment undertaken will 

be used in the project assessment report to: 

 

 

 

 

Describe the sedimentary sequence and character of the deposits in the 

development area and create a relative chronology for them; 

Describe the palaeo-topography of the development area and past 

changes in its environment; 

Describe the archaeological potential of the deposits within the 

development area; and 

Inform the development of a deposit or landscape model of the 

development area. 

Publication or Dissemination of Results 

7.8.22 The results of the archaeological analysis should be integrated with the findings 

of other areas of the archaeological assessment and submitted for publication. 

7.8.23 The geotechnical data is an important adjunct to the geophysical data in the 

investigation of submerged prehistory and palaeoenvironments and it is current 

best practice to review the results of the archaeological geotechnical 

assessment against the geophysical data (COWRIE 2007). 

7.8.24 This assessment has identified a number of areas within the application site 

where the Project has the potential to impact upon archaeological remains. It is 

recommended that in these areas a programme of archaeological investigations 

is carried out. The first stage of these investigations should be archaeological 

trial trenching focused on areas of potential. These areas of potential include 

the section of the application site alongside West Way in Fleetwood, where the 

175

application site passes through Wyrefield Farm in Fleetwood, those areas of the 

gas storage area that would be impacted by construction activity, the route of 

the electricity cable on the eastern side of the Wyre and the route of the NTS 

interconnector pipeline. 

7.8.25 If the archaeological trial trenching identifies archaeological features in any of 

these areas then these areas should be subject to targeted archaeological 

excavation. The exact location of any archaeological excavation should be 

determined by the results of the trial trenching. Both stages of the 

archaeological investigations should be carried out in accordance with a Written 

Scheme of Investigation which should be produced and agreed with the Special 

Advisor (archaeology) to Lancashire County Council prior to the 

commencement of fieldwork. The Written Scheme of Investigation should detail 

the scope and methodology for any fieldwork undertaken and if relevant should 

refer to the Archaeological Research Framework for the North West Region 

(Brennand, 2005). 

7.8.26 It is recommended that any renovation of Higher Lickow Farm is carried out in a 

manner that is sympathetic to its origins as a post-medieval farmstead and any 

original features which may remain in the buildings such as fireplaces etc 

should be retained wherever possible. 


7.8.27 If the construction of any element of the project continues into this phase then 

the mitigation measures outlined above should continue in areas where 

mitigation has not been completed in the construction phase. 

Operation 

7.8.28 It is considered that all potential effects on the archaeological resource within 

the study area will have occurred in the construction and the construction and 

operation combined phases and therefore no further mitigation measures are 

recommended for the operation phase. 

7.8.29 There are no built heritage features within the Irish Sea Study Area and 

therefore no mitigation measures are recommended. 


7.8.30 No further mitigation measures are recommended for the decommissioning 

stage of the project. 



receptors indentified in Section 7.4, with the provision of the mitigation and 

enhancement measures identified in Section 7.8. 

176

Construction 



7.9.2 This assessment has concluded that there is a high potential for there to be 

direct physical impacts on the channel which has the potential to contain 

archaeological artefacts or palaeoenvironmental evidence during the 

construction of the brine outfall pipeline in the Irish Sea resulting in a minor 

magnitude of change upon a receptor of negligible value leading to a 

significance of effects of slight adverse. The mitigation measure recommended 

in this assessment will clarify whether this potential exists and record any 

evidence which exists. However any remains which may be present along the 

line of the brine outfall pipeline will still be destroyed resulting in a minor 

magnitude of change and a significance of effects of slight adverse. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not 

significant. 


in the Irish Sea 

7.9.3 The mitigation measure recommended as part of this assessment will clarify 

whether there is a potential for Mesolithic activity to be present along the route 

of the brine outfall pipe, however construction of the pipe still have the potential 

to destroy these remains. This will lead to a minor magnitude of change upon a 



significant. 

Rossall Hall/Grange (receptor 54) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 1) 

7.9.4 It has been concluded that there is a potential for the remains of the medieval 

Rossall Hall/Grange to be located in the vicinity of the brine outfall pipeline and 

construction of the pipeline could disturb these remains if present. The 

mitigations measures recommended above would determine whether these 

remains are present and would contribute to the record of medieval activity at 

Rossall. As a result of this there is the potential for there to be a minor 


effects of slight adverse. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this residual 

effect would be considered not significant. 

13 anomalies detected during the marine geophysical survey 

7.9.5 All 13 anomalies detected during the marine geophysical survey have the 

potential to be disturbed by the construction of the brine outfall pipeline the 

mitigation measures outlined above will clarify the archaeological potential of 

these anomalies and record them, adding to the archaeological resource in the 

area. This will result in a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of 

negligible value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With 


significant. 

177

Potential for remains associated with shipwrecks in the Irish Sea 

7.9.6 It has been identified that there is a potential for remains associated with 

shipwrecks within the Irish Sea to be located within the application boundary 

along the route of the brine outfall pipeline. The mitigation measures 

recommended with determine whether these remains are present and if they 

are identify and record them. However mitigation cannot prevent the remains 

experiencing a direct physical impact as a result of the construction of the brine 

outfall pipeline. Therefore a minor magnitude of change would still be caused to 

a receptor of negligible value leading to a significance of neutral. With regard 

to the EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Possible Medieval settlement at Rossall (receptor 50) (refer to Figure 7.1, 

Sheet 1) 

7.9.7 It is considered that there is some potential for the remains of the possible 

Medieval settlement to be located in the area which the application site runs 

through. The mitigation measures recommended will identify and record any 

remains which are present. However mitigation cannot prevent the remains 

experiencing a direct physical impact as a result of the construction of the brine 

outfall pipeline. Therefore a minor magnitude of change would still be caused to 

a receptor of low value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. 

With regard to the EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not 

significant. 

Hackensall Tide Mill (receptor 57) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 2) 

7.9.8 The remains of Hackensall Tide Mill are recorded as being within the gas 

storage facility at the location of the temporary construction compound. The 

mitigation measures recommend will identify and record any remains 

associated with the tide mill which would be impacted by the Project. Given the 

location of the remains it is likely that they would be totally removed by the 

project leading to a major magnitude of change upon an asset of low value 


Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

New Mill, Fleetwood (receptor 128) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 3) 

7.9.9 The given location of New Mill, Fleetwood places it partly within the application 

boundary. The mitigation measures recommended would identify a record any 

remains present within the application site and construction of the brine outfall 

pipeline would result in minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of low 


EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Post-medieval and World War II rifle range (receptor 137) (refer to Figure 

7.1, Sheet 1) 

7.9.10 Any remains associated with the rifle range will be indentified and recorded by 

the mitigation measures recommended. However, they would still be impacted 

by the construction of the brine outfall pipe leading to a residual minor 


178



Drainage and old marl pit visible on aerial photographs (receptor 95) (refer 

to Figure 7.1, Sheet 1) 

7.9.11 As the brine outfall pipeline has the potential to affect these receptors the 

mitigation measures recommend will determine whether these remains are 

present and record them. However they will still experience a direct physical 

impact from the construction of the brine outfall pipeline this would result in a 

minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of negligible value leading to a 

significance of effects of neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this 

residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Saltworks and associated mineral railway (receptor 69 and 139) (refer to 


7.9.12 Construction activity in the gas storage are of the application site would cause a 

direct physical impact upon this receptor or remains associated with it. The 

mitigation recommended would identify and record any remains associated with 

this receptor leading to a residual minor magnitude of change upon a receptor 

of low value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With regard 

to the EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Garstang and Knott End Railway (receptor 75 and 76) (refer to Figure 7.1, 

Sheets 2 and 6) 

7.9.13 It has been determined that from Black Lane Head eastwards the NTS 

interconnector would have a direct physical impact on this receptor. 

Archaeological investigation of this area will identify what remains of the former 

railway survive and record them before they are impacted. However as they will 

still be destroyed the magnitude of change would remain moderate leading to a 


this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Field boundaries and potential Holloway by Cote Walls Farm (receptor 87) 

(refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 2) 

7.9.14 This assessment has determined that there is a potential for this receptor to be 

affected by construction activity in the gas storage area. The archaeological 

investigations will determine the location and extent of these remains and 

record them prior to them being affected by the Project. This would result in a 

minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading to a 


this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Evidence of clay extraction (receptors 106 and 107) (refer to Figure 7.1, 

Sheet 8) 

7.9.15 Construction activity causing direct physical impact upon any remains within the 

application site associated with the practice of extracting clay will be mitigated 

through archaeological investigation. This would result in a residual minor 


179



Evidence of peat cutting (receptors 91, 92, 157 and 158) (refer to Figure 

7.1, Sheet 6) 

7.9.16 As with the clay extraction any construction activity which would impact upon 

evidence of peat cutting within the application site would be mitigated by the 

archaeological investigations through identification and recording. Therefore the 

residual effects would be a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of low 


EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. 

Higher Lickow Farm (located on Sheet 3 of Figure 7.1) 

7.9.17 It is the intention of the Project that Higher Lickow Farm, which is currently 

derelict, will be renovated and used as security offices during the lifetime of the 

project. As part of the renovation one of the barns at the farm will be 

demolished. Exact details of the renovation are unclear at this time but it has 

been recommended that any renovation is done in a manner that is sympathetic 

to character of this Post-medieval farmstead. This would result in a moderate 


effects of slight beneficial. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this residual 


Watercourses in proposed gas storage facility area (receptors 150 and 

151) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 3 and 5) 

7.9.18 The effects that this receptor will experience as a result of construction activity 

will result in a minor magnitude of change upon a receptor of negligible value 

leading to a significance of effects of neutral. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. This will 

remain unchanged following mitigation measures which will identify and record 

these features. 

Watercourses, former watercourses and kettleholes in and around Pilling 

Moss (receptors 160 to 166) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 5, 6, 7 and 8) 

7.9.19 The archaeological mitigation recommended will determine whether any 

remains associated with this receptor are present within the application site. If 

they are present the construction of the NTS interconnector will cause a direct 

physical impact on them. The archaeological recording of these remains prior to 

them being impacted would lead to a minor magnitude of change upon a 

receptor of negligible value leading to a significance of effects of neutral. With 


significant. 


by magnetometer survey (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 6) 

7.9.20 The archaeological feature identified by the magnetometer survey lies within the 

application site along the NTS interconnector corridor. The archaeological 

mitigation would target this feature in order to determine what it was prior to it 

180

eing impacted. This would result in a moderate magnitude of change upon a 



significant. 

Possible linear feature identified by radar survey 

7.9.21 The archaeological feature identified by the radar survey lies within the 

application site along the NTS interconnector corridor and will be tested through 

the mitigation proposed and recorded. This would result in a residual moderate 




Potential for Prehistoric remains in and around Pilling Moss (receptors 30, 

13, 41 and 40) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 6 and 7) 

7.9.22 The presence of a number of archaeological features and find spots within the 

study area in the vicinity of Pilling Moss indicates that there is a high potential 

for such remains to also occur within the study area. The archaeological 

mitigation proposed will test whether these remains are present and record 

them through excavation prior to the construction of the Project. This would 

result in a moderate magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value leading 



Potential for Medieval remains within the gas storage facility 

7.9.23 The gas storage facility in located in an area where a number of remains dating 

to the Medieval period have been recorded within the study area. The potential 

for such remains to be present in areas which would be impacted by the project 

would be tested in the trial trenching and any remains present would be 

archaeologically excavated and recorded. This would result in a moderate 




Potential for Post-medieval remains across the application site 

7.9.24 This assessment has determined that there is a potential for as yet unrecorded 

remains dating to the Post-medieval period to be present within the application 

site, across its length. The purpose of the archaeological mitigation which has 

been recommended is to determine if these remains are present and if they are, 

to archaeologically excavate and record them. However they will still have 

experienced impacts as a result of the project. Therefore the effects would 

remain as a moderate magnitude of change upon a receptor of low value 



181

Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway (receptor BH62) (refer to Figure 7.2, 

Sheet 2) 

7.9.25 This receptor will experience direct physical impacts from the construction of the 

brine outfall pipeline which will intersect with it. As the brine outfall pipeline will 

be constructed underneath the tramway by directional drilling any impact on the 

receptor will be limited to the bank on which the tramway sits and will only affect 

remains associated with the construction of the tramway. There is no 

appropriate mitigation measure which could be implemented in this case. 

Therefore there will be a negligible magnitude of change upon an asset of low 

value leading to a significance of effects of neutral. With regard to the EIA 


Post-medieval Enclosure, Saltmarsh, Ancient Enclosure and Modern 

Enclosure HLC types 

7.9.26 As the route of the NTS interconnector passes through these HLC types it has 

the potential to partially disturb field boundaries. As there is no practical 

mitigation which can be recommended a negligible magnitude of change upon 

a receptor of low value leading to a significance of effects of slight adverse will 

remain. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be 



7.9.27 As construction of the Project continues into Construction an Operation 

Combined stage all impacts outlined above which will be caused by 

construction will be carried over into this stage. 

Operation 


Operation stage as all impacts will already have occurred during the 

construction of the Project. 

Hackensall Hall (receptor BH44) (refer to Figure 7.2, Sheet 2) 

7.9.29 This receptor would experience an impact on its setting following the 

construction of the gas compressor compound and vent stack. No mitigation 

measures have been recommended for the impacts on this assets as it is 

considered that there is nothing practical that could be done therefore the 

residual impacts remain unchanged from the potential impacts in absence of 

mitigation. The significance of effects remains at neutral. With regard to the EIA 


Cote Walls Farm (receptor 129 and BH58) (refer to Figure 7.1, Sheet 2 and 


7.9.30 This asset is located close to the site of the gas compressor compound and 

vent stack and as a result will experience a minor magnitude of change upon 

its setting. However it is not considered that there is any practical or appropriate 

mitigation measure which can be recommended for this. The receptor is of low 

182

value which leads to a significance of effects of slight adverse. With regard to 

the EIA Regulations, this residual effect would be considered not significant. 



decommissioning stage as all impacts will already have occurred during the 

construction of the Project. 

7.9.32 If infrastructure associated with the Project remains in situ during 

decommissioning, the impacts upon the setting of the built-heritage assets from 

the operation phases will continue into the decommissioning phase. However, 

assuming the worst case in that there were no alternative uses for the 

infrastructure, the buildings would be demolished, but the wellheads and 

pipelines would remain. It is therefore considered that the impacts on the 

setting of cultural heritage features as a result of the decommissioning phase 

would be similar as those predicted for the construction phase, as a worst case. 

Duration of impacts for the decommissioning phase cannot be determined at 

this stage, however it is likely that decommissioning activities would be 

undertaken over a smaller scale and a shorter timescale than for the 



7.10.1 During the compilation of this chapter it was not possible to gain access to a 

number of areas within the application boundary due to landowner refusal. As a 

result of this there are gaps in the geophysical survey results which has led to 

uncertainty regarding the archaeological potential in these areas. In addition it 

was not possible to complete the geophysical survey (both magnetometer and 

radar) on some areas of the application site prior to the submission of the ES. 

This was partly due to some sections of the survey area being unavailable 

within the allotted timeframe for the survey due to the presence of crops in the 

fields. This has also contributed to an incomplete set of survey results. 

7.10.2 The consequences of being unable to complete the magnetometer survey 

means that there are some potential archaeological features which may be 

present within the application site that have not been identified. The 

consequences of being unable to complete the radar survey are that again 

there may be undetected archaeological features within the application site. In 

addition the relatively small area that was subject to radar survey means that it 

is not possible to draw a definitive conclusion regarding the effectiveness of 

radar in detecting archaeological features within the Pilling Moss area. 

However, the County Archaeologist has accepted that as much predetermination 

survey has been done as possible and that the remainder can, 

should the results of the current work prove it necessary, be undertaken at the 

post-permission stage (refer to Appendix 7.5 of Volume 1B). 

7.10.3 When compiling the baseline data for this chapter LiDAR data was assessed. 

However LiDAR data was only available for the area around Preesall and the 

resolution of the data available was not suitable for detecting archaeological 

features. 

183

7.11 Summary 

7.11.1 The Project would not affect any Scheduled Ancient Monuments or have any 

direct physical effect on listed buildings. A non-designated built heritage asset, 

Higher Lickow Farm, would experience a positive effect as a result of the 

proposed refurbishment as it is currently derelict, providing the refurbishment is 

carried out in a manner that is sympathetic to the character of the Postmedieval 

farmstead. 

7.11.2 The main potential effects would be on the setting of a small number of listed 

and non-listed buildings, direct physical effects on non-designated 

archaeological remains and marine sites. The built heritage assets which are 

located within the vicinity of the proposed permanent above ground structures 

have the potential to experience permanent impacts on their setting, although 

these will be minor. 

7.11.3 A programme of archaeological mitigation would be agreed with Lancashire 

County Council’s Archaeologist which will allow the archaeological assets within 

the application site to be identified and recorded. A similar programme of 

mitigation will be agreed with the Marine Planning Department of English 

Heritage to identify and record the marine archaeology that will be impacted by 

the Project. 


Defra Marine Policy Statement (2011) 

English Heritage The European Landscape Convention The English Heritage 

Action Plan for Implementation 

English Heritage, DCMS (2010) PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: 

Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide Communities and Local 

Government Publications, London 

Institute for Archaeologists (2008a) Code of Conduct. Institute for 

Archaeologists, Reading 

Institute for Archaeologists (2008b) Standards and Guidance for Desk-based 

Assessment. Institute for Archaeologists, Reading 

Liverpool Museum Field Archaeology Unit (2004) An archaeological desk-based 

Assessment of the proposed Preesall gas interconnector 

Liverpool Museum Field Archaeology Unit (2004) An archaeological desk-based 

assessment of the proposed Preesall gas storage site 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. (2009) Proposed natural gas storage facility, 

Preesall saltfield, Lancashire, Environmental Statement 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. (2005) National transmission system 

interconnectors, Lancashire, Environmental Statement 

184




Report 

Johnson, B. (2009) North West Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment. 

Archaeological Research Services Ltd, Gateshead 

Middleton, R, Wells, C E, Huckerby, E. (1995) The Wetlands of North 

Lancashire. Lancaster Imprints 

Paul Butler Associates (2008) Fleetwood Conservation Area Appraisal. Wyre 

Borough Council 

185

186

8 CLIMATIC FACTORS 


8.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Climatic Factors assessment, 

undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. It identifies the methodology 

used to assess effects, existing and future baseline information, receptors 

potentially affected and the nature of those effects in the absence of mitigation 

and enhancement measures (potential effects) and with mitigation and 

enhancement measures (residual effects). 






the ES. 

8.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with 8.1 of Volume 2B. 




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Climatic Factors 

in the context of this assessment. 

8.2.2 The Infrastructure Planning Commission’s (IPC) Scoping Opinion (IPC, 2010) 

issued in response to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping 

Report (Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd, 2010) for the Project included a requirement 

to take into account specific references in the revised National Policy 

Statements (NPS). The two relevant NPSs are the Overarching National Policy 

Statement for Energy (EN-1) (Department of Energy and Climate Change 

(DECC), 2011) and the National Policy Statement for Gas Supply and 

Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) (DECC, 2011). 

8.2.3 EN-1 provides generic advice on impacts at paragraphs 4.8.1 – 4.8.13 with EN- 

4 providing technology specific advice. Paragraph 4.8.6 of EN-1 states ‘The 

IPC should be satisfied that applicants for new energy infrastructure have taken 

into account the potential impacts of climate change using the latest UK Climate 

Projections available at the time the ES was prepared to ensure they have 

identified appropriate mitigation or adaptation measures’ and at paragraph 5.2.2 

‘The IPC does not therefore need to assess individual applications in terms of 

carbon emissions against carbon budgets and this section does not address 

CO 2 emissions or any Emissions Performance Standard that may apply to 

plant.’ 

8.2.4 The EN-4 advice is of direct relevance to Underground Gas Storage (UGS) 

Facilities and states in paragraph 2.2.2 ‘as climate change is likely to increase 

risks to some of this infrastructure, from flooding or rising sea levels for 

187

example, applicants should in particular set out how the proposal would be 

resilient to: 

 

 

 

 

 

increased risk of flooding 

effects of rising sea levels and increased risk of storm surge 

higher temperatures 

increased risk of earth movement or subsidence from increased risk of 

flooding and drought 

any other increased risks identified in the applicant’s assessment.’ 

8.2.5 Other local policy documents have been reviewed including the North West of 

England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) to 2021 (Government Office for 

the North West, 2008) which sets out 8 key principles including to reduce 

emissions and adapt to climate change. 

8.2.6 Policy EM1 of the RSS deals with the ‘integrated enhancement and protection 

of the Region’s environmental assets’ and requires ‘Plans and strategies should 

define spatial objectives and priorities for conservation, restoration and 

enhancement as appropriate, and provide area-based guidelines to direct 

decisions and target resources. These will be founded on a sound 

understanding of the diversity, distinctiveness, significance and sensitivity of the 

region’s environmental assets, and informed by sub-regional environmental 

frameworks. Special consideration will be given to the impacts of climate 

change and adaptation measures.’ 

8.2.7 Policy EM6 of the RSS requires ‘a strategic and integrated approach to the long 

term management of flood and coastal erosion risk by taking account of natural 

coastal change and the likely impacts of climate change, to ensure that 

development is sited or re-sited carefully....’ and ‘....making provision for 

mitigation of and adaptation to natural coastal change and the predicted effects 

of climate change over the medium to long-term (100 years) and supporting a 

‘whole shoreline approach’ being taken to coastal risk management.’ 


8.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Climatic 

Factors chapter of the ES. The methodology was set out in the Preliminary 

Environmental Information (PEI) Report (Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd, 2011) 

although it has been slightly revised to include updates to guidance and draw 

on more recent best practice. No comments on the proposed climate change 

methodology were made by those responding through the post-scoping 

consultation exercise. 

8.3.2 There is no single standard guidance relating to the consideration of climatic 

factors in EIAs, rather the assessment methodology is drawn from a range of 

sources, and has therefore been carried out as follows: 

 

Review of the results of consultations including of views expressed by the 

IPC and other consultees through responses to the Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report and the PEI Report 

188

Review of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s 

(IEMA) advice on climate change mitigation and adaptation 

Consideration of the NPSs referred to above (i.e. EN-1 and EN-4) 

Identification of likely Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with 

the Project 

Consideration of existing and future climate baseline 

Review of results of assessments carried out for other topic areas e.g. the 

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 

Review of the Project including proposed mitigation / adaptation measures 

Assessment of residual effects 

8.3.3 Responses to the EIA Scoping Report from the IPC, the Health Protection 

Agency (HPA), NHS North West and the Environment Agency have helped 

guide the assessment. The following scoping opinion comments are relevant to 

climate change effects, mitigation and adaptation (refer to Appendix 5.5 of 

Volume 1B for further detail on responses received to the EIA Scoping Report). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider sourcing materials to minimise transport and maximise transport 

of materials by sea and through the port of Fleetwood 

Comply with national planning policy and agree the FRA with the relevant 

statutory consultees. Take into account the latest climate change 

projections for the UK as detailed in UKCP09 at 

http://ukclimatechangeprojections-ui.defra.gov.uk. 

Consider the effects of rainfall and climate change to ensure that no 

contaminated run-off enters the receiving water environment 

Set out the parameters for the climate change assessment and address 

the cumulative effect on local and regional environmental control 

standards (i.e. local authorities Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)) 

Address the effects of climate change on the proposals (adaptation) and 

how the proposals have provided the means to reduce its impact on 

climate change (mitigation), for example through amelioration of 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The ES should take into account specific references in the relevant revised 

NPS 

8.3.4 IEMA has published advice on climate change mitigation and adaptation in the 

context of EIA. Climate Change Mitigation and EIA (IEMA, 2010) advises: 

‘The assessment should aim to consider whole life effects including, but not 

limited to: 

 

 

Embodied energy in the manufacture of materials used for the 

development 

Emissions related to construction - from materials delivery to on-site 

machinery 

189

Operational emissions related to the functioning of the developmentincluding 

appropriate off-site emissions. 

Decommissioning, where relevant.’ 

8.3.5 IEMA’s Principles on Climate Change Adaptation and EIA (IEMA, 2010) states 

‘A project requiring EIA is vulnerable to a changing climate, as are the 

communities and environment it poses a risk to; EIA should therefore consider 

the potential resilience, both to the anticipated negative impacts and positive 

opportunities of climate change.’ 

8.3.6 In the context of this Project it is not possible to precisely quantify GHG 

emissions due to the inherent difficulties in projecting future emissions over the 

life of a scheme. In addition, the air quality assessment does not consider 

potential effects associated with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Although CO 2 emissions 

may result in related climate change effects on a global scale, CO 2 is not 

harmful to human health in a local context and therefore does not cause 

impacts on air quality, generally defined as pollutant concentrations in ambient 

air. This is reflected by the Air Quality Strategy and Local Air Quality 

Management regime, which do not consider CO 2 concentrations or emissions 

and are therefore not relevant in the context of AQMAs. For the purpose of this 

ES, an exercise has been undertaken to identify the likely sources of GHG 

emissions during the design / construction, construction and operation 

combined, operational and decommissioning phases and define the measures 

and mechanisms which can be put in place to reduce GHG emissions and 

adapt to climate change. 

8.3.7 Identification of likely GHG emissions has drawn on the GHG Protocol 

Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (World Resources Institute and 

World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004 and new draft 

Standard, January 2010) which provides a step-by-step guide for companies to 

use in quantifying and reporting their GHG emissions. 

8.3.8 Three “scopes” (scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3) are defined within the standard 

for GHG accounting and reporting purposes. Table 8-1 and Diagram 8-1 define 

the scopes and provide examples of sources and activities which can result in 

GHG emissions. 

Table 8-1 Climatic Factors Assessment - Scope 1, 2 and 3 Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions Direct GHG emissions occur from sources 

that are owned or controlled by the company, for example, emissions from 

combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles, etc.; emissions 

from chemical production in owned or controlled process equipment. 

Scope 2: Electricity indirect GHG emissions Scope 2 accounts for GHG 

emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the 

company. Scope 2 emissions physically occur at the facility where electricity is 

generated. 

Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions Scope 3 is an optional reporting 

category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 

emissions are a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur from 

190

sources not owned or controlled by the company. Some examples of scope 3 

activities are extraction and production of purchased materials, transportation of 

purchased fuels and use of sold products and services. 

8.3.9 Using the table in the context of the Project allows likely sources of GHG 

emissions through the supply chain and at various stages in the project to be 

identified. 

Diagram 8-1 

Overview of Scopes and Emissions across a Value Chain 

Source: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf 

Consultation 


summarised in paragraph 8.3.3 and in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 1B. Although, 

further consultation has been undertaken since receipt of the scoping opinion 

including making the PEI Report available to a range of relevant consultees 

none has raised any additional issues relating to the climatic factors 

assessment. 






 

 

 




responses to the EIA Scoping Report and through post-scoping 

consultation (if appropriate) 


details 

191

Identification of effects which could represent a key factor in the IPC 

decision-making process, and therefore could be considered to be 

potentially significant in terms of the Regulations 




assessment of effects. The conventional EIA method of identifying significance 

criteria is difficult to apply to the climatic factors topic area (e.g. ascribing values 

to receptors). Instead, determination of the significance of effects takes into 

account the following advice from IEMA’s principles series relating to mitigation 

and adaptation. 

8.3.13 IEMA’s publication Climate Change Mitigation and EIA (IEMA, 2010) states 

‘GHG emissions have a combined environmental effect that is approaching a 

scientifically defined environmental limit, as such any GHG emissions or 

reductions from a project might be considered to be significant.’ 

8.3.14 IEMA’s publication Climate Change Adaptation and EIA (IEMA, 2010) contains 

the following advice regarding significance as it applies to adaptation. ‘Where 

EIA identifies impacts likely to be generated as a consequence of predicted 

changes in the climate their significance should be evaluated based on a 

combination of: 

 

 

 

Scenarios: an impact’s likelihood under a range of climate scenarios 

Vulnerability: a receptor’s vulnerability to existing climatic variations; and 

Resilience: a receptor’s ability to absorb such disturbance and continue to 

function. 

Where the EIA identifies that the likely consequences of climate change pose 

significant risk to a project’s ability to effectively function in the future, the 

assessment should aim to ensure the costs of not adapting are properly 

considered in the design process.’ 

8.3.15 For the purposes of the assessment professional judgement has been used to 

determine whether a ‘significant’ effect with regard to the Infrastructure Planning 

(EIA) Regulations 2009 is likely taking into account the advice given above. 


8.4.1 Baseline information relating to climatic conditions is contained at 

http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/769/500/. The baseline or 

reference climate is conventionally a 30-year average, relating to either climate 

observations or model simulated data. For the UK Climate Change Projections 

Report (UKCP09) the period 1961 – 1990 has been selected as the baseline 

climate. This means all projections of future climate change are relative to the 

modelled climate during this period. The results of comparing the baseline with 

the future baseline predictions are presented in Table 8-2. There is no reliable 

or meaningful method of predicting the effect the Project would have on the 

baseline and future baseline, rather the information provides a useful context for 

192

understanding the possible range of future climatic conditions which need to be 

taken into consideration in designing the Project. 

8.4.2 No other specific baseline information relating to climatic factors is required for 

this assessment, although details of the Project and findings of baseline studies 

undertaken to date as part of PEI and FRA have been used to guide the 

assessment. The baseline information includes details of receptors which may 

be susceptible to climate change and adaptation effects as a result of the 

Project. This information is presented in other topic chapters and includes land 

quality, residential receptors, public rights of way and landscape and ecological 

features. 

8.4.3 In addition, information obtained from the IPC and statutory consultees in 

response to the EIA Scoping Report has been taken into account. This includes 

referring to the IPC’s requirement to have regard to the relevant National Policy 

Statements and reference by the IPC to the consideration of climate change in 

carrying out EIAs. 


8.5.1 The following section provides information on predictions of the future baseline. 

As described above the predictions are based on UKCP09 and are as 

requested in the IPC’s Scoping Response and contained in IEMA’s Climate 

Change Adaptation Guidance. With reference to UKCP09, EN-1 requires at 

paragraph 4.8.7 that ‘Applicants should apply as a minimum, the emissions 

scenario that the Independent Committee on Climate Change suggests the 

world is currently most closely following – and the 10%, 50% and 90% estimate 

ranges. These results should be considered alongside relevant research which 

is based on the climate change projections.’ At paragraph 4.8.9 EN-1 states 

‘Where energy infrastructure has safety critical elements (for example parts of 

new fossil fuel power stations or some electricity sub-stations), the applicant 

should apply the high emissions scenario (high impact, low likelihood) to those 

elements. Although the likelihood of this scenario is thought to be low, it is 

appropriate to take a more risk-averse approach with elements of infrastructure 

which are critical to the safety of its operation.’ 

8.5.2 The following table provides the 10%, 50% and 90% estimate ranges for both 

medium and high emission scenarios for temperature and precipitation and also 

contains the relevant baseline 30 year averages for the Project area. This 

enables an assessment to be made of possible maximum temperature and 

precipitation levels at the Project site throughout the Project lifetime. The year 

2050 predictions have been selected as they represent the nearest available 

predictions to the end of the Project lifetime. 

193

Table 8-2 Climatic Factors Assessment - UK Climate Projections for the Project 

Area – Baseline and 2050 

Variable 

Change in 

Annual Mean 

Temperature 

Change in 

Summer Mean 

Temperature 

Change in 

Winter Mean 

Temperature 

Change in 

average total 

Summer Mean 

Precipitation 

Change in 

average total 

Winter Mean 

Precipitation 

Probability Levels for 

2050 Medium Emissions 

Scenario 

Probability Levels for 

2050 High Emissions 

Scenario 

10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 

1961 – 

1990 

Average 

+2ºC +3ºC +4ºC +2ºC +3ºC +4ºC 8ºC - 

10ºC 

+2ºC +3ºC +4ºC 

(west) & 

+5ºC 

(east) 

+2ºC +2ºC +3ºC 

(west) & 

+4ºC 

(east) 

+2ºC +3ºC +5ºC 12ºC - 

14ºC 

+2ºC +3ºC +4ºC 4ºC - 

6ºC 

-40% -20% +10% -30% -20% +10% 180mm 

– 

260mm 

+10% +20% +30% +10% 20% 40% 180mm 

– 

260mm 

Notes – Probability levels - if a projected annual mean temperature change of 

+4°C is associated with the 90% in 2050 for the UKCP09 medium emission 

scenario, this should be interpreted as it is projected that there is a 90% 

likelihood that temperatures at that location will be equal to or less than 4°C 

warmer than temperatures in the 1961–1990 baseline period. Conversely, there 

is a 10% likelihood that those temperatures will be greater than 4°C warmer 

than the baseline period. 


8.6.1 The Project could potentially affect the climate by contributing to GHG 

emissions and potentially alter microclimatic conditions due, for example, to the 

siting of buildings. In addition, adaptation to climate change could affect 

receptors through, for example, requiring additional areas of land to create flood 

compensation areas or flood defences. 

8.6.2 The Project could also potentially assist in reducing the effects of climate 

change. Paragraph 3.6.2 of EN-1 states ‘Gas will continue to play an important 

role in the electricity sector – providing vital flexibility to support an increasing 

amount of low-carbon generation and to maintain security of supply.’ 

Paragraph 3.8.12 is particularly relevant stating ‘Medium range storage, 

typically gas stored in caverns in salt strata deep underground, has faster 

194

withdrawal and refill rates helping gas supply companies to respond to changing 

market conditions from day to day (‘diurnal’) and week to week.’ As described 

in the Project Description, the Project’s location makes it particularly suitable to 

provide a fast and flexible supply in supporting low-carbon generation. 

8.6.3 The following table identifies those receptors which are potentially affected as a 

result of the Project. Therefore, receptors that could be affected solely as a 

result of climatic factors, but in the absence of the Project, are not considered. 

8.6.4 The nature of effects (in the absence of mitigation and enhancement measures) 

have been considered for the construction (Years 1-3), construction and 

operation combined (Years 4-8), operation (Years 9-40) and decommissioning 

phases. 

Table 8-3 Climatic Factors Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 

Receptor 

Type 



General Existing climate Increase in GHG emissions 

contributing to climate change or 

reduction due to support of lowcarbon 

generation. 

Industries 

and 

residential 

properties 

Residential 

properties, 

users of 

public rights 

of way, 

agricultural 

land 

Microclimate 

Stanah sub-station and 

properties in the vicinity 

of the Seawater Pump 

Station 

Properties in the 

vicinity of aboveground 

Project 

components 

Wyre Way and other 

public rights of way 

Grades 2 and 3 

agricultural land 

Project design leading to shading, 

changing in wind conditions etc 

affecting human environment, 

ecological receptors. 

The most likely potential effect is on 

townscape and visual amenity and 

land use should there be a 

requirement to elevate or otherwise 

amend elements of the Project over 

and above what would normally be 

required to mitigate against flood risk. 

The most likely potential effect is on 

biodiversity, landscape and visual 

amenity and land use should there 

be a requirement to elevate or 

otherwise amend elements of the 

Project over and above what would 

normally be required to mitigate 

against flood risk. 

195


8.7.1 As described above, the effect the Project would have on GHG emissions 

cannot be quantified although it should be recognised that there are likely to be 

Project level adverse effects through increased emissions but potential positive 

effects through supporting low-carbon generation. 

8.7.2 The likelihood of the Project causing an increase in GHG emissions and thereby 

contributing to climate change is assessed through considering the potential 

sources of GHG emissions. Identification of potential sources has used the 

GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (World Resources 

Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004 and 

new draft Standard, January 2010). Potential effects have been considered for 

each of the four Project phases. Table 8-4 summarises the potential sources of 

GHG emissions associated with the construction of the Project. 

Table 8-4 Climatic Factors Assessment - Potential Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions during the Construction Phase 

GHG Scope and 

Description 

Scope 1: Direct GHG 

emissions 

Scope 2: Electricity indirect 

GHG emissions 

Scope 3: Other indirect 

GHG emissions 

Potential Sources of GHG Emissions 

Transport of materials, products, waste and employees 

in company owned / controlled vehicles 

Fugitive emissions (e.g. leaking equipment and venting) 

Use of electricity for construction of caverns (e.g. use of 

Booster Pump Station, De-brining Facility, drilling 

operations) 

Transport of products and people in vehicles not owned 

by the company (e.g. business travel and commuting to 

and from work) 

Transportation / disposal of waste 

Use of materials 

Generation of waste 

8.7.3 Table 8-5 summarises the potential sources of GHG emissions associated with 

the operation of the Project. 

8.7.4 The potential sources of GHG emissions outlined in Tables 8-4 and 8-5 would 

occur during the construction and operation combined phase. For example, 

GHG emissions as a result of transportation would be greater for this phase 

rather than the individual construction or operational phases. 

196

Table 8-5 Climatic Factors Assessment - Potential Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions during the Operational Phase 

GHG Scope and 

Description 

Scope 1: Direct GHG 

emissions 

Scope 2: Electricity indirect 

GHG emissions 

Scope 3: Other indirect 

GHG emissions 

Potential Sources of GHG Emissions 

Generation of electricity, heat or steam 



Transport of materials, products, waste and employees 

in company owned / controlled vehicles 

Fugitive emissions (e.g. leaking equipment and venting) 

Use of electricity for during operation (e.g. compression, 

Interconnector Metering Station) 

Transport of products and people in vehicles not owned 

by the company (e.g. business travel and commuting to 

and from work) 

Transportation / disposal of waste 

Use of materials 

Generation of waste 

8.7.5 The potential sources of GHG emissions associated with the decommissioning 

phase would be similar to those from the construction phase with the exception 

that cavern creation would not form part of the decommissioning. 




to minimise and potentially significant effects are outlined in Chapter 5 of this 

ES and have been considered in this section. 

Table 8-6 Climatic Factors Assessment - Likely Significant Effects 

Receptor 

Type 

Specific 

Receptor 


Likelihood of Potential Significant 

Effect (in the absence of 

mitigation) 

General 

Existing 

climate 

Adverse effect due to 

increase in GHG 

emissions and due to 

reduction in amount of 

CO 2 sequestered as a 

result of vegetation 

removal. 

Beneficial effect due to 

support of low-carbon 

generation and 

increased amount of 

CO 2 sequestered due 

The IEMA Climate Change Mitigation 

and EIA advice note recognises 

“GHG emissions have a combined 

environmental effect that is 

approaching a scientifically defined 

limit, as such any GHG emissions or 

reductions from a project might be 

considered to be significant”. Any 

increase or reduction can therefore 

be considered significant. The 

nature of the Project is such that 

both increases and reductions in 

197

Receptor 

Type 

Specific 

Receptor 




mitigation) 

to landscape planting 

and management 

proposals. 

GHG are likely and it may therefore 

have potentially significant adverse 

or beneficial effects. 

Industries 

and 

residential 

properties 

in built up 

areas 

Microclimate Project design leading 

to shading, changing 

in wind conditions etc 

affecting human 

environment, 

ecological receptors 

Stanah substation 

and 

properties in 

the vicinity 

of the 

Seawater 

Pump 

Station 

The most likely 

potential effect is on 

townscape and visual 

amenity and land use 

as a result of the 

possible requirement 

to elevate or otherwise 

amend elements of the 

Project over and above 

what would normally 

be required to mitigate 

flood risk. 

It is not considered likely that the 

Project will have any significant 

adverse effect on micro-climate e.g. 

due to changes in shading, wind, 

exposure and none of the consultees 

have raised the issue of microclimatic 

effects. The features 

associated with the Project are 

mainly temporary and the permanent 

features such as the Gas 

Compressor Compound are of a 

scale and sufficiently removed from 

properties and other sensitive 

receptors such as protected habitats 

to not cause any micro-climatic 

effects on sensitive receptors. 

The Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment 

has confirmed that as the Project 

lifetime is relatively short, the 

UKCP09 climate change projections 

do not have a significant effect on 

development proposals as 

infrastructure assets which cannot 

tolerate flooding are generally 

located on land well above the 1 in 

200 year with climate change (2056) 

flood levels. 

Consequently there is no 

requirement to provide significant 

additional mitigation over and above 

what would be required to ensure 

vulnerable assets were not flooded in 

a 1 in 200 year event. Given that no 

major areas of additional land take 

etc would be required, there is no 

likelihood of a significant effect on 

other environmental topic areas as a 

result of climate change adaptation. 

Residential 

properties 

in rural 

locations, 

Properties 

in the 

vicinity of 

above- 

The most likely 

potential effect is on 

biodiversity, landscape 

and visual amenity and 

The Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment 

has confirmed that as the Project 

lifetime is relatively short, the 

UKCP09 climate change projections 

198

Receptor 

Type 

users of 

public 

rights of 

way, 

agricultural 

land 

Specific 

Receptor 

ground 

Project 

components 

east of the 

Wyre 

Estuary 

Wyre Way 

and other 

public rights 

of way 

Grades 2 

and 3 

agricultural 

land 


land use as a result of 

the possible 

requirement to elevate 

or otherwise amend 

elements of the Project 

over and above what 

would normally be 

required to mitigate 

flood risk. 



mitigation) 

do not have a significant effect on 

development proposals as 

infrastructure assets which cannot 

tolerate flooding are generally 

located on land well above the 1 in 

200 year with climate change (2056) 

flood levels. 

Consequently there is no 

requirement to provide significant 

additional mitigation over and above 

what would be required to ensure 

vulnerable assets were not flooded in 

a 1 in 200 year event. Given that no 

major areas of additional land take 

etc would be required, there is no 

likelihood of a significant effect on 

other environmental topic areas as a 

result of climate change adaptation. 

8.7.7 The above assessment identifies that the climate is the receptor potentially 

significantly affected by the Project either through an increase in GHG 

emissions at the project level or through a decrease in GHG emissions as a 

result of the Project supporting low- carbon generation. This is based on 

IEMA’s advice that any GHG emissions or reductions from a project might be 

considered to be significant given that GHG emissions have a combined 

environmental effect that is approaching a scientifically defined environmental 

limit. Although the nature of the effects cannot be quantified, nor should it be 

quantified, as the IPC doesn’t need to assess individual applications in terms of 

carbon emissions against carbon budgets (see reference to EN-1 above), given 

that it is a potentially significant effect mitigation measures should be identified. 

8.7.8 The other likely effects are as a result of minor Project modifications required to 

adapt to future predicted climate change, e.g. to raise finished floor levels to 

account for future predicted flood risk as a result of climate change. Although 

these requirements would result in small amounts of additional land take and 

possible slight changes in, for example, visual amenity the effects of these 

adaptation measures are not considered to be significant and would not change 

the results of assessments for other topic areas. Further details of the effects 

on land use, visual and landscape and habitat are dealt with in the respective 

chapters. 




199

General 

8.8.2 IEMA provides an EIA hierarchy for managing project related GHG emissions 

which is reproduced in Table 8-7. 

Table 8-7 Climatic Factors Assessment - IEMA Hierarchy for Managing Project 

Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Avoid 

Reduce 

Substitute 

Compensate 

Within all major development decisions investigate and 

deploy options to eliminate GHG Emissions. 

Ensure that construction and operational activities will 

deliver efficient use of energy and resources. 

Commit to deploying renewables and low carbon materials, 

methods and technologies in place of more carbon intensive 

sources. 

Develop a strategy to compensate on residual or 

‘unavoidable’ emissions. 

8.8.3 In terms of climate change adaptation IEMA provides the following advice with 

regards to mitigation: ‘Mitigation designed to increase either a project’s or the 

environment’s resilience should focus on increasing the capacity of its 

fundamental components to absorb climate related shocks. However, where 

such mitigation could have its own environmental or community impacts an 

adaptive management approach may be appropriate where the mitigation is 

only implemented when specific ‘triggers’, set out in the operational project’s 

climate change adaptation strategy, are passed.’ 

Construction 

8.8.4 Table 8-8 outlines the climate change mitigation / adaptation measures which 

would be implemented during the construction phase. 

Table 8-8 Climatic Factors Assessment - Possible Climate Change Mitigation / 

Adaptation Measures for the Construction Phase 

Possible Climate Change Mitigation / Adaptation Measures – 


Ensure plant brought to the Project site conforms to relevant national or 

international standards, directives and recommendations on emissions 

Monitor electricity usage during construction 

Use energy efficient technology 

Investigate use of alternative energy sources e.g. using green electricity 

company 

Adopt local labour and local procurement policies 

As design and procurement progresses ensure designs and materials 

are climate change resilient 

Ensure the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and 

other appropriate plans (e.g. pollution control and contingency plans) 

200



take into account increased risk of flooding and other climatic extremes 

e.g. high winds, drought conditions. This is particularly important given 

the proximity of the Project to sensitive ecological receptors including 

the Wyre Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Morecambe 

Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site 

Adhere to the Construction Worker Travel Plan 

Control other fugitive emissions 

Minimise extent of drilling as far as possible e.g. accessing salt deposits 

at closest available point without affecting ecologically designated sites 

Specify landscape and ecological measures which take account of 

future climate change (e.g. drought tolerant) 

Consider sourcing materials to minimise transport and maximise 

transport of materials by sea and through the port of Fleetwood 

Train workforce in energy and waste reduction measures 

Work to relevant construction measures recommended in Chapter 6: Air 

Quality. These include: 

Engines and exhaust systems should be maintained so that exhaust 

emissions do not breach statutory emission limits set for the 

vehicle/equipment type and mode of operation 

Servicing should be routinely carried out 

Plant and vehicles should not be left running unnecessarily 

Use minimum acceptable temperature (e.g. for bitumen heating) 

Obtain necessary authorisations (e.g. mobile plant for crushing, 

screening and grading of materials may require authorisation (under 

the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the appropriate local 

authority)) and work to any requirements 


8.8.5 The same mitigation measures outlined in Tables 8-8 and 8-9 would be applied 

for this phase of the Project. 

Operation 

8.8.6 Table 8-9 outlines the operational mitigation measures that would be 

implemented. These measures also take into account the building design 

elements of the Project. 

201

Table 8-9 Climatic Factors Assessment - Possible Climate Change Mitigation / 

Adaptation Measures for the Operational Phase 


Operational Phase 

Ensure plant brought to the Project site conforms to relevant national 

or international standards, directives and recommendations on 

emissions 

Monitor electricity usage 

Use energy efficient technology 

Investigate use of alternative energy sources e.g. using green 

electricity company 

Adopt local labour and local procurement policies 

Implement Sustainable Drainage Systems 

Take on board FRA recommendations which will account for climate 

change scenarios 

Adhere to the principles of the Construction Worker Travel Plan 

Implement leak detection systems 

Control other fugitive emissions 

Manage waste in accordance with the waste management hierarchy 

namely eliminate, reduce, reuse, recycle, dispose 

Train workforce in energy and waste reduction measures 

Ensure planting and material specifications take into account future 

climate change e.g. tolerant to increased rainfall, extremes of 

temperature or drought conditions 

Include measures to reduce the impact on or adapt to changes in 

climate through the detailed design process including constructing 

finished floor levels at a minimum of 7 metres AOD, using natural day 

lighting where possible and naturally ventilating buildings (apart from 

areas such as toilets where Building Regulations require otherwise) 

and specifically: 

At the Seawater Pumping Station insulate the walls and roof 

pitches and double glaze windows to obviate the need for heating, 

capture surface water from the roof and external surfaces, minimise 

external lighting and ensure lights are movement sensor activated 

At the Booster Pump Station, use reclaimed facing bricks and roof 

slates where possible, don’t heat the equipment and plant rooms 

and recover any heat generated by equipment to supplement 

heating of the integral control room and ancillary accommodation, 

collect rainwater from roof pitches and use as primary water source 

to flush toilets / urinals, insulate building, minimise external lighting 

and ensure lights are movement sensor activated. 

At the Gas Compressor Compound, provide insulation to the 

buildings, pipe roof rainwater and drainage from external road 

surfaces via an oil and petrol interceptor to replenish the large 

202



storage pond, minimise external lighting and ensure lights are 

movement sensor activated. 

At the Site Entrance Facilities provide the buildings with insulation, 

reuse bricks, slates and other materials as appropriate, collect 

rainwater from roofs for use as a primary water source to flush 

toilets / urinals, consider the potential for solar panel installation on 

the southerly aspect of the rebuilt barn to heat water for the 

washing facilities provided for site personnel. 

Implement the ecology and landscape masterplan for the project 

including provision of new hedgerows and tree planting and woodland 

management to increase the amount of CO 2 sequestered. Reduce 

the amount of hard estate wherever possible to reduce runoff. 

Use native species that grow successfully in the area and are 

adaptable to a range of conditions e.g. short term inundation, dry 

spells etc and which could be considered tolerant of reasonable 

alteration in climate over time. In addition any planting scheme would 

include incorporate a 5 year maintenance program to ensure the new 

planting establishes as intended. 


8.8.7 The potential mitigation measures outlined for the construction phase would be 

similar for the decommissioning phase although the design of the Project would 

ensure that materials can be easily reused thereby minimising material and 

energy usage. 





8.9.2 The climatic factors assessment has identified in the absence of mitigation that 

the climate is the receptor potentially significantly affected by the Project either 

through an increase in GHG emissions at the project level or through a 

decrease in GHG emissions as a result of the Project supporting low- carbon 

generation. Although the nature of the effects cannot be quantified, nor should 

it be quantified, as the IPC doesn’t need to assess individual applications in 

terms of carbon emissions against carbon budgets (see reference to EN-1 

above), mitigation measures have been identified to reduce GHG emissions 

and adapt to climate change. 

8.9.3 Implementation of the measures described will ensure that emissions of GHG 

as a result of the Project are reduced at all stages. 

203


8.10.1 No significant difficulties have been encountered in compiling the climatic 

factors section of the ES although the nature of the topic area means that 

quantification of impacts and the application of standard EIA significance criteria 

and guidance means that the method of assessment and interpretation of 

results can be less definitive than with other EIA topic areas. It is not 

considered the assessment is in any way deficient because of these factors but 

it should be recognised that the assessment procedure may not be comparable 

with those for other topic areas being focussed more on specifying appropriate 

mitigation measures than determining significance of effects. 

8.11 Summary 

8.11.1 The climatic factors assessment has examined the possible effects upon 

greenhouse gas emissions, the microclimate, and receptors as a result of 

adapting the Project in order to account for climate change. 

8.11.2 Adverse effects as a result of the Project are possible due to increased 

greenhouse gas emissions and reduced carbon dioxide removal by vegetation. 

In order to reduce these effects a range of measures would be implemented 

including adherence to the CEMP, implementing the Construction Worker’s 

Travel Plan and ensuring building design, material and planting specifications 

result in reduced emissions or are tolerant to the effects of climate change. 

Potential beneficial effects could occur due to the Project supporting low-carbon 

generation and increasing the amount of carbon captured due to the landscape 

planting and management proposals. 

8.11.3 The Project is unlikely to have a significant effect on the microclimate. For 

example changes in shading and wind conditions as a result of the siting of the 

buildings are unlikely to significantly affect the human environment and 

ecological receptors. 

8.11.4 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has identified that only minor changes to the 

Project would be required to adapt to climate change and therefore no 

additional mitigation or enhancement measures would be required. The effects 

due to climate change adaptation on receptors such as properties, existing 

infrastructure, the Wyre Way, other Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and 

agricultural land would not therefore be significant. 






Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd (2010) Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping 

Report 

204

Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd (2011) Preliminary Environmental Information Report 

Infrastructure Planning Commission Scoping Opinion (IPC, 2010) 

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2010) Climate 

Change Mitigation and EIA 

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2010) Principles on 

Climate Change Adaptation and EIA 



http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/769/500/. 




Report 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2011) Preesall Underground Gas Storage 

Facility Flood Risk Assessment 

The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 

2009 

World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable 

Development (2004 and new draft Standard, 2010) GHG Protocol Corporate 

Accounting and Reporting Standard 

Wyre Borough Council (2008) Climate Change Strategy for 2008 – 2013 

205

206

9 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION 


9.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Ecology and Nature Conservation 

assessment, undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited and Centre for 

Marine & Coastal Studies Limited (CMACS). It identifies the methodology used 

to assess effects, existing and future baseline information, key ecological 

receptors potentially affected, and the nature of those effects in the absence of 

mitigation and enhancement measures (potential effects) and with mitigation 

and enhancement measures (residual effects). It also considers other 

ecological receptors requiring mitigation. 






the ES. 

9.1.3 A plan is provided showing the location of any statutory or non-statutory sites or 

features of nature conservation and habitats of protected species, important 

habiotats or other diversity features within the DCO Application Site and in the 

wider vicinity (Figures 9.1 and 9.2 of Volume 2B, Figure A9.5 within Appendix 

9.5 of Volume 1B, and Figure A9.11 within Appendix 9.11 of Volume 1B of the 

ES). As such these figures and this chapter fulfil the requirement of Regulation 

5(2)(l) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and 

Procedure) Regulations 2009 to provide such plans and an assessment of any 

effects on such sites, covered by Regulation 5(2)(l) likely to be caused by the 

proposed development. 

9.1.4 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendices 9.1 to 9.19 of 

Volume 1B and Figures 9.1 and 9.2 of Volume 2B, and the Information to 

Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment: Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool 

Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC (DCO Application Document 

Reference 3.2) and Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment: 

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar (DCO Application Document Reference 3.3). 

9.1.5 It should be noted that there are currently three Marine Conservation Zones 

proposed within the vicinity of the Project (forming part of the Irish Sea 

Conservation Zone), these being Ribble, Wyre-Lune and rMCZ8. However, in 

agreement with Natural England (refer to Appendix 9.2 of Volume 1B), these 

sites have not been considered within this assessment, as further work is 

required to formally designate these sites (boundaries may change and there 

are no citations currently available). 



national, regional and local plans and policies. Summarised below are those 

elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Ecology and 

207

Nature Conservation in the context of this assessment. Further detail on each 

is provided in Appendix 9.1 of Volume 1B. 

9.2.2 Relevant International and National legislation comprises: 

 

 

EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild 

Fauna and Flora 92/43/EEC (as amended) (the Habitats Directive) 

EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC (as 

amended, and codified by Directive 2009/147/EC) (the Birds Directive) 

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 

 

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) 

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 

 

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008; Council Directive 

2008/56/EC 

Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 

The OSPAR Commission 1992 

 

The EU Water Framework Directive 2000; Council Directive 2000/60/EC 

9.2.3 Relevant Planning Policy comprises: 

 

 

 

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and 

Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) 

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation 2005 

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

 

 

 

Wyre Borough Local Plan 


Wyre Borough Local Development Framework 

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) (the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action 

Plan (UK BAP) and the Lancashire Local Biodiversity Action Plan 

(Lancashire LBAP)) 

9.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Ecology and 

Nature Conservation chapter of the ES. 

9.3.2 The assessment methodology has been based on the guidance provided in the 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (2006) and the 

208

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in Britain and Ireland: Marine and 

Coastal (2010), which focus on those activities that could potentially generate 

significant ecological effects on valued ‘key’ ecological receptors. 

9.3.3 It is recognised that both IEEM Guidelines are currently being updated and 

combined. However, as these updated Guidelines have not been published to 

date (November 2011), they have not been used in this assessment. It is, 

however, understood that the general principles of the assessment process will 

remain the same. 

Scoping 

9.3.4 In accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact 

Assessment) Regulations 2009 (‘the EIA Regulations’) (Statutory Instrument 

2009/2263), an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report was 

submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in October 2010. 

Section 3.6 of this report defined the proposed scope of the ecological 

assessment, outlined the work that had been undertaken to date, and also 

proposed additional work that would be undertaken for inclusion within the 

Environment Statement. Scoping responses were issued through the IPC, and 

a summary of the responses received (and how responses have been dealt with 

in the ES), is provided in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 1B. 

9.3.5 The provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report form 

the basis of the following methodology and subsequent assessment of effects. 

Post-Scoping Consultation 

9.3.6 Further consultation has been undertaken since the receipt of the responses to 

the 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, to agree a range 

of issues particular to the Ecology and Nature Conservation assessment. The 

table in Appendix 9.2 of Volume 1B summarises the post-scoping consultation 

undertaken, including responses received to the PEI Report. 

Obtaining Baseline Information and Identifying Ecological Receptors 


obtain baseline information and to identify ecological receptors: 

 

 

 

 

 

Undertaking a review of the potential impact parameters of the Project 

Consideration of the embedded ecological design and enhancement 

features of the Project 

Setting of an initial ‘zone of influence’ through consideration of the Project 

details, extent of the application site, issues raised through consultation 

with interested parties, professional judgement and best practice / 

guidance 

Undertaking a comprehensive desk study review of both marine and 

terrestrial ecological resources 

Undertaking detailed field surveys to (a) provide further information with 

which to refine the selection of ‘key’ ecological receptors, and (b) to 

209

underpin the comprehensive assessment of the likely impacts on those 

receptors 

The evaluation of ecological features and resources identified during the 

desk study and field surveys, in terms of their nature conservation value 

Identifying ‘key’ ecological receptors, and ‘other ecological receptors 

requiring mitigation’ (to meet the requirements of legislative protection), 

based on: 

Consideration of best practice / guidance 






Review of Potential Impact Parameters of the Project 

9.3.8 This section describes the parameters of the Project that were used to assess 

the potential for likely impacts to occur on nature conservation resources. This 

includes a description of the following: the construction phase activities (Years 

1-3), the construction and operation combined phase activities (Years 4-8), the 

operational phase activities (Years 9-40), and decommissioning phase activities 

that could have an adverse (or beneficial) effect, and the biophysical changes 

that would result from these activities. These phases are described in further 

detail in Section 5.16. 

9.3.9 With regard to the construction of wellhead compounds, as many caverns as 

possible will be created during the construction phase. The remaining caverns 

will be created during the construction and operation combined phase. 

Wellhead compounds 1, 5 and 7 (and their associated caverns) will be 

constructed during the summer months (whether this occurs during the 

construction phase or the construction and operation combined phase). 

9.3.10 The baseline information already obtained for the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Scoping Report, in combination with this review of impact 

parameters, was then used to set the ‘zone of influence’ for the Project. 

Construction Phase (Years 1-3) 

9.3.11 The activities associated with the construction phase that could potentially have 

an adverse effect on nature conservation resources in the vicinity of the Project 

are as follows: 

 

 

Drilling of caverns and the construction of wellhead compounds on the 

eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine 

Facility (and associated infrastructure, including the pipelines between the 

seven wellhead compounds) on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

210

Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station 

(and associated infrastructure) to the north-west of Higher Lickow Farm on 

the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side 

of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Construction of the north river crossing (including the seawater abstraction 

pipeline and brine discharge pipeline) under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

(to be constructed during the summer months, May to August inclusive) 

Construction of the south river crossing, including the installation of 

electrical cable under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Installation of electrical cable on the western side of the River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline (and associated 

infrastructure) across agricultural land to the west of the River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

The refurbishment of Higher Lickow farmhouse to provide office 

accommodation 

Demolition of the smaller barn and the demolition and rebuilding of the 

larger barn at Higher Lickow Farm 

Construction of the Seawater Pumping Station (and associated 

infrastructure) and water abstraction from Fleetwood Docks through the 

Seawater Pumping Station at Fleetwood Dock, on the western side of the 

River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Construction of the brine discharge pipeline on land on the western side of 

the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, including open trench and directional drilling 

Construction of the brine discharge pipeline into the Irish Sea, including 

the extension to seawall at West Way to accommodate the brine discharge 

pipeline and a new observation platform (the brine discharge pipeline 

would be constructed between April and July, inclusive) 

Movement of four vessels within the Irish Sea during the installation of the 

brine discharge pipeline (cutter suction dredger, tug boat; crane barge; 

and floating pontoon) 

Brine discharge into the Irish SeaInstallation/diversion of services and 

utilities (including temporary drainage 


tracks within the application boundary 

The presence of site traffic on local roads and at the Project, including the 

bulk movements of materials 

Construction of temporary compounds at the proposed seawall crossing, 

adjacent to the route of the brine discharge pipeline west of the Fleetwood 

Wastewater Treatment Works, the proposed site of the Seawater Pumping 

Station, the proposed site of the Booster Pump Station, adjacent to the 

site of the proposed Gas Compressor Compound, and also for temporary 

‘launch pits’ and ‘receiver pits’ required along the route of the brine 

discharge pipeline 

211

The presence of site personnel on and around the Project 

Vegetation clearance 

Earthworks, including topsoil-stripping 

Use of lighting (proposed to be two 4 m high luminieres) during drilling at 

wellhead compounds and river crossings 

Air pollution caused by vehicles and construction activities, including dust 

particulates and nitrogen deposition 

Generation of drilling wastes and waste liquids during drilling operations 

Construction and Operational Phase (Years 4-8) 

9.3.12 The activities associated with the construction and operation combined phase 

that could potentially have an adverse effect on nature conservation resources 

in the vicinity of the Project are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drilling of remaining caverns and the construction of remaining wellhead 

compounds on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Use of lighting (proposed to be two 4 m high luminieres) during drilling at 

wellhead compoundsOperation of the Booster Pump Station, Control 

Centre and De-brine Facility (and associated infrastructure) on the eastern 

side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary) 

Operation of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station 

(and associated infrastructure) to the north-west of Higher Lickow Farm on 

the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

Brine discharge into the Irish Sea 

The presence of site traffic on local roads and at the Project, including the 

bulk movements of materials 

The presence of site personnel on and around the Project 

Air pollution caused by vehicles and construction activities, including dust 

particulates and nitrogen deposition 

Generation of drilling wastes and waste liquids during drilling operations 

Operational Phase (Years 9-40) 

 

 

 

The activities associated with the operational phase that could potentially 

have an adverse effect on nature conservation resources in the vicinity of 

the Project are as follows: Operation of the Booster Pump Station, Control 

Centre and De-brine Facility on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

Operation of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station 

(and associated infrastructure), including generation of air pollution from 

the two stacks associated with the dehydration unit at the Gas 

Compressor Compound 

The presence of security, monitoring, and maintenance site personnel on 

and around the Project 

212

Every 10 to 15 years, the caverns would be filled with brine solution to test 

their mechanical integrity. This would involve charging each cavern with 

seawater from Fleetwood Fish Dock and discharging of brine to the Irish 

Sea, as described for construction above. Caverns would be tested 

sequentially and not all at once. 


9.3.13 The Project is envisaged to be operational for a period of 40 years, although it 

may be possible that the site would be operational for longer. If there are no 

future uses for the caverns and facilities then the caverns would be emptied of 

gas, filled with brine and sealed at the end of the Project. The wellheads would 

be maintained and monitored. The remaining infrastructure could also remain 

in place if required for alternative use. Alternatively the buildings and pipelines 

would be removed. Due to the uncertainty of future uses, for the purposes of 

the Ecology and Nature Conservation assessment it is considered that the 

caverns would be emptied of gas and filled with brine, and all infrastructure be 

left in-situ. 

Biophysical Changes and Resulting Impacts 

9.3.14 The biophysical changes and resulting terrestrial impacts, which have been 

identified for the four phases of the Project described above, include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The temporary removal of habitats through vegetation clearance 

associated with pipelines and temporary compounds (including grassland, 

hedgerows and bankside vegetation of ditches) would result in a 

temporary decrease in biodiversity 

The permanent removal of habitat for permanent infrastructure (including 

Booster Pump Station, Gas Compressor Compound, wellhead compounds 

and permanent roads) would result in a decrease in biodiversity, reducing 

the presence of habitats and the availability of resources (feeding and 

roosting areas) to species of nature conservation importance. The total 

area of permanent land take would be approximately 4.45 hectares 

Vegetation clearance has the potential to cause injury or incidental 

mortality of individuals of species of conservation importance, including 

great crested newts, brown hares, bats and breeding birds 

Building demolition and refurbishment at Higher Lickow Farm would result 

in the loss of nesting / roosting habitat for birds and bats 

The operational new access road may also decrease biodiversity within 

the local area through a potential increase in wildlife road casualties 

Disturbance of species through noise, lighting, and visual presence, 

whether through construction phase, construction and operation combined 

phase or operation phase activities, could alter local species distribution 

both within the application boundary and in adjacent valuable habitats, 

and/or result in reduced breeding success 

Substantial pollution events during the construction phase and the 

construction and operation combined phase of the Project could, if 

unmitigated, lead to pollution of ditches and watercourses, including the 

River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and adjacent valuable habitats. This could 

213

potentially lead to decreases in the quality of the habitats present, mortality 

of aquatic species, and consequential effects on the food chain and 

ecosystem, such as decreases in breeding success and survival of 

predatory speciesReduction of ground levels above the cavern storage 

areas has the potential to alter the structure and function of the 

saltmarsh/mudflat habitats and the agricultural land 

The impact of future management may be positive or negative, dependent 

upon how well it is carried out. Effective management would allow the 

benefits of the Project to be consolidated. Poor management however, 

could reduce the effectiveness of mitigation and enhancement measures 

9.3.15 Changes that have been considered in relation to the marine environment, and 

the likelihood of them being significant, are listed below: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The disposal of brine into the Irish Sea would lead to a change in water 

salinity and composition at the point of discharge and also beyond (in line 

with plume direction and concentration). This would lead to the mortality 

of immobile species in close proximity to the outfall and changes to the 

habitats in the immediate vicinity. The loss of species and habitats in the 

vicinity could have consequential effects on the food chain and ecosystem, 

such as decreases in breeding success and survival of predatory species 

Following initial dilution of the brine discharge plume, the maximum 

changes in ambient water temperature would be 2 o C or less; this localised 

elevation in water temperature is not considered to be significant in 

ecological terms 

Impacts to sublittoral and littoral habitats and species associated with the 

brine discharge pipeline would be spatially localised and it is not 

conceivable that there could be knock-on effects to other groups, e.g. 

foraging shorebirds or fish over the sublittoral and submerged littoral 

The brine outfall if not installed flush to the seabed has the potential cause 

localised changes in the flow dynamics within the vicinity of its installation 

within the Irish Sea 

In the existing high turbidity nearshore environment, suspended sediment 

mobilisation from construction of the brine discharge pipeline is not 

expected to have any significant effect on primary productivity or to 

present a significant threat to seabed habitats already subject to high 

levels of sediment deposition 

No effects on littoral or strandline habitats are expected from activities 

associated with channelling across the top of the seawall to install the 

brine discharge pipeline 

Maintenance washing of the caverns is expected to be required every 10 – 

15 years during the operational phase to test their mechanical integrity. 

The volumes of water abstracted from and discharged as hypersaline 

brine would be minimal compared to the construction phase and is not 

considered likely to represent a significant adverse effect 

 

Only four vessels (cutter suction dredger, tug boat; crane barge; and 

floating pontoon) are proposed and all would be slow moving and 

operating relatively close to the shore (a vessel movement plan would be 

214

produced prior to construction commencing). As such there is no 

anticipated conflict with marine mammals. It is assumed that there would 

be no need for vessels to use dynamic positioning which can result in high 

levels of underwater noise as it is expected that anchors would be used if 

vessels are required to hold station (e.g. during installation of the diffuser) 

The only fixed structure above the seabed would be the diffuser with a 

total exposed surface area of just a few square metres. This is not 

considered to represent a significant change in an area of seabed already 

supporting epifaunal communities 

No physical effects on marine ecology are anticipated from directional 

drilling which would be at least 8 m below the bed of the Wyre Estuary 

Whilst bentonite may be required for directional drilling beneath the Wyre 

Estuary, there is no expectation that there would be any release of this 

substance into the marine environmentOnce operation of the Project has 

ceased, it is expected that the brine discharge pipeline infrastructure in 

both the littoral and sublittoral areas would remain in-situ. Therefore, no 

potential impacts during the decommissioning phase are predicted 

Embedded Ecological Design and Enhancement Features 

9.3.16 Mitigation is an iterative process of avoidance, reduction, and amelioration. The 

first stages of this process have been used to inform the design of the Project, 

such that it avoids key areas or habitats or includes features so that the impacts 

on ecological receptors are minimised. These aspects of the design have been 

embedded within the Project, and have therefore been considered within the 

assessment of potential effects. Such embedded design features relevant to 

ecology and nature conservation are outlined in Chapter 5: Environmental 

Impact Assessment Methodology and described in more detail below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting the requirements of the Environment Agency’s Discharge 

Consent and monitoring compliance 

Compliance with the conditions of the Marine Management Organisation 

(MMO) Marine Licence 

Use of well-established horizontal directional drilling techniques below the 

River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. Drilling would occur at depth of 8 m (minimum) 

below the estuary to ensure existing habitats, silt and sediments, and flood 

defences are not disturbed 

The compound for the north river crossing would be demarcated using 

fencing to ensure site personnel, plant, and materials do not encroach on 

Morecambe Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

Timing of offshore brine discharge pipeline construction activities to avoid 

disturbance of bird species within nearby SPAs (April to July inclusive) 

Timing of the direction drilling of the north river crossing and the 

construction of wellhead compounds 1, 5 and 7 to avoid disturbance of 

bird species within the adjacent SPA (May to August inclusive) 

The sections of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline that cross Pilling Moss – 

Head Dyke BHS and Pilling Moss – Eagland Hill BHS would be installed 

215

during the summer months to avoid impacts on the wintering bird species 

for which these two sites are designated 

Installation of bunds around wellhead compounds, the Booster Pump 

Station and the Gas Compressor Compound to reduce noise and visual 

impacts during the construction, construction and operation combined, and 

operational phases 

Control and monitoring of seawater abstraction from Fleetwood Fish Dock 

Filters incorporated into the seawater abstraction pipe to minimise the 

draw of marine macro-organisms into the water washing infrastructure 

Use of hydrocyclones within the De-brine Facility and the strict monitoring 

of the brine effluent prior to discharge to ensure no undesirable insolubles 

are released 

Use of highly directional luminieres during the construction and the 

construction and operation combined phases to avoid light spill beyond the 

construction works 

Use of low-level directional and motion sensitive lighting during operation 

to avoid light spill beyond tracks and compounds 

The working width would be reduced where possible to limit impacts on 

the habitats associated with Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS 

The working width of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline would be reduced to 

10 m when it passes through hedgerows 

9.3.17 A Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan has also been 

produced for the Project (refer to Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B). This 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will be submitted with 

the Development Consent Order (DCO) Application as a working document, 

which will be further refined through discussions with key stakeholders, 

managers and tenants. The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy 

Plan identifies areas for habitat enhancement, habitat creation, and ecological 

benefits which would contribute towards the net gain of biodiversity associated 

with the Project. The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

would ensure the delivery of enhancements measures through appropriate 

management. 

Discharge Consent 

9.3.18 In order to ensure compliance with the existing Discharge Consent (granted by 

the Environment Agency), the saline discharge would be via a single diffuser 

with a double port configuration with the effluent discharged 1 m above the 

seabed (N.B. this design was selected as it resulted in a smaller total area of 

seabed impact than alternative designs such as multiple diffusers). 

Understanding the proposed saline discharge and the hydrodynamic modelling 

of the resultant plume (refer to Appendix 2.2 of Volume 1B) underpins several 

key elements of the marine assessment, and the following provides a summary 

of anticipated parameters: 

Normal effluent salinity after passing through the caverns would be 150- 

250 psu, up to a theoretical maximum of 260 psu 

216

It is anticipated that washing, with associated hypersaline discharge, 

would take 6 years 

The discharge flow rate would vary over the washing cycle (refer to Table 

9-1) 

Table 9-1 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Variability in the Flow 

Rates and Salinity of Washing Water from up to Seven Caverns 

Rate 

(cumecs) 

Concentration 

(ppt salt) 

Comment 

On commencement

Plate 9.1 

Maximum Salinity (psu) over a Neap Tidal Cycle (scale at 2 km 

intervals) 

9.3.22 The areas of impact for three different water velocities; High (0.9 m.s- 1 ), Mean 

(0.5 m.s- 1 ), and Low (0.1 m.s- 1 ) were calculated (Table 9-2) to provide a guide 

on relative magnitude of change in plume size and shape with change in water 

velocity. 

Table 9-2 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Approximate Area of 

Hypersaline Plume under Different Flow Conditions 

Water Velocity 

(m.s-1) 

Plume Area (m2) 

40+ psu

The vertical extent of the modelled salinity plume was 2 m from the 

seabed 

The volume of water passing back through the plume (i.e. water previously 

exposed to salinity greater than 40 psu) was not taken into account 

9.3.24 This assessment, which is highly conservative in that it assumes the pipeline 

discharges directly into a fixed volume waterbody which experiences no 

exchange with an external waterbody (flushing), indicated that the volume of 

water exposed to the high salinity area of the plume over two spring-neap 

cycles, under these conditions, was approximately 1.5% of the volume of water 

in Morecambe Bay. 

9.3.25 It is necessary to refine this assessment by considering the fact that 

Morecambe Bay experiences a high rate of flushing (exchange with the Irish 

Sea) and that the discharge point is located outside of Morecambe Bay. 

9.3.26 On an average local tidal current speed of 0.4 m/s, water passes through the 

high salinity area of the plume for less than 20% (2 hours) of a 12.5 hour tidal 

cycle. The expected volume of water exposed to the 40+ psu area of the 

discharge plume over one tidal cycle would be less than 0.006% of the total 

volume of Morecambe Bay. 

9.3.27 Most marine species experience a relative narrow salinity range (33-35 psu) 

and under normal conditions any seasonal fluctuations are usually gradual. 

Typically, these fluctuations occur because of changes in seawater 

temperature, freshwater input from estuaries or evaporation in enclosed water 

bodies. There are of course many examples of higher and lower salinities 

occurring naturally, for example in rock pools exposed at high tide and in 

estuaries respectively; some of the species present at site occur in such 

environments but many do not. 

9.3.28 To simplify the assessment of impacts on marine ecological receptors and to 

ensure that a precautionary risk-based approach is taken, the following salinity 

criteria have been adopted. 

 

 

 

40+ psu: Exposure to salinity 40+ psu, for greater than several minutes is 

likely to be lethal to all marine organisms unable to escape (e.g. sessile 

fauna and plankton). Organisms that are more mobile will show some 

behavioural response (e.g. displacement, avoidance, migration and 

burrowing) or experience increases in metabolism if slow to respond. The 

area of seabed exposed to 40+ psu over the long-term is likely to become 

abiotic and generally denuded of benthic life 

levels do not lower beyond the ‘normal’ range (33-35 psu). In the shortterm, 

areas of the seabed closest to the envelope of elevated salinity 

would contain ‘displaced’ organisms. Long-term impacts would be minimal 

9.3.29 When the salinity of the brine discharge exceeds ambient seawater salinity it 

would be denser and thus would tend to sink towards the seabed. For bottomdwelling 

organisms exposed to this high salinity concentration, the ability to 

regulate the body’s osmotic pressure with that of its surrounds is disrupted. 

Saltwater organisms physiologically must conserve water and stem the influx of 

salts (particularly across permeable membranes such as the gills); if the salinity 

gradient is beyond the animal’s ability to regulate the result is likely to be death 

of those organisms (particularly sessile animals) unable to escape or those 

sensitive to osmotic change. Less sensitive organisms (generally more mobile) 

would experience increased respiration and excretion rates. Moreover, since 

the concentration of salinity is likely to fluctuate over relatively short periods of 

time and space, the potential effects on those species unable to move away are 

likely to be detrimental and presumed lethal. 

9.3.30 Although a number of previous studies have examined the toxic effects of brine 

discharge on aquatic organisms, these have focused on either low salinity or 

freshwater impacts (Rainbow and Black, 2001; Laing, 2002; Rowe, 2002; 

Staton et al, 2002). Fewer studies have examined the effects of hypersaline 

tolerances to individual marine species (McLusky, 1981; Robinson et al., 2003) 

and most have centred on the impacts of desalinisation plants within estuaries 

(Bjornsson et al., 1998; Dalla Via et al., 1998; Kelly and Woo, 1999; Butler, 

2002; Soyel and Kumlu, 2003). 

9.3.31 There is an inverse relationship between salinity and dissolved oxygen. The 

relationship is relatively complex and dependent upon the ionic composition of 

the saline; however, for Sodium Chloride (NaCl) dominated solutions Diagram 

9.1 provides a good approximation and shows how dissolved oxygen available 

to marine organisms would drop off as salinity increases and reduced the 

amount of dissolved oxygen that can be carried by the water. 

Diagram 9.1 

Relationship between Dissolved Oxygen and Salinity 

Source: Sherwood et al. (1991) 

9.3.32 A further potential mechanism by which the hypersaline plume could have 

adverse effects on marine ecology is production of toxic halogenated 

compounds as hypersaline meets seawater. 

220

9.3.33 From the scientific literature, a salinity level greater than 40 psu is considered 

lethal to most marine organisms. The tolerance of plankton to over 40 psu, for 

example, is very poor and can result in either a dramatic drop in growth rates or 

death (APEC MRC Working Group 2003 web site: 

www.ntu.edu.tw/ODBS/iris/apecmrc2/a32.html). In addition, littoral algae are 

unable to tolerate changes up to 1.5 times normal levels. The sensitivity of 

benthic animals is greater when they are larvae or juvenile forms. Robinson et 

al. (2003), for example, noted that polychaete and bivalve larvae exhibit a 

behavioural change by either not settling or migrating horizontally to a less 

stressful environment. 

9.3.34 The ratio of mineral constituents in seawater is relatively uniform and small 

changes can have adverse effects on marine ecology. Although the saline 

element in cavern brine would be nearly 100% sodium and chloride (cf. 

approximately 30.6% sodium and 55% chloride in seawater), the dilution which 

has been predicted to reduce salinity to 40 psu within 50 m is also expected to 

act to ensure that the ratio of mineral constituents is in proportion to surrounding 

waters. The same logic applies in relation to other impact mechanisms of 

hypersaline, including toxic compounds and reduced dissolved oxygen. 

Setting the Zone of Influence 

9.3.35 The Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 

(IEEM, 2006) and the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in Britain 

and Ireland: Marine and Coastal (IEEM, 2010) require the identification of a 

‘zone of influence’, within which lie ecological areas and resources that may be 

affected by the development in question. 

9.3.36 A general zone of influence of 2 km from the application boundary has been 

identified for the terrestrial ecology elements of the Project, based on existing 

knowledge of the ecological resources (as outlined in the Environmental Impact 

Assessment Scoping Report) and potential impact parameters of the Project. 

Within this zone, specific study areas have been identified for the more detailed 

desk study and subsequent field surveys required to inform the valuation of 

ecological resources and the selection of ‘key’ ecological receptors. 

9.3.37 The zone of influence for marine ecological receptors and European (Natura 

2000) marine sites is more difficult to determine. Potential effects of the Project 

in the marine environment are considered to also occur within 2 km from the 

work activities; however, given the presence of mobile species and the potential 

effect pathway through the Irish Sea, there is potential for effects at greater 

spatial scales. Therefore, the specific study areas for marine receptors have 

been adapted to reflect the need to consider such effects (generally focussing 

on Morecambe Bay/Liverpool Bay as a whole, particularly for mobile species). 

9.3.38 For the desk study element of the assessment, the following study areas were 

identified: 

 

 

Within the application boundary itself and within a 2 km radius for statutory 

designated sites (increased to 10 km for European marine sites) 

Within the application boundary itself and within a 1 km radius for nonstatutory 

designated sites (Biological Heritage Sites (BHS)) 

221

Within the application boundary itself and within a 1 km radius for any 

areas of woodland identified on Natural England’s ancient woodland 

register 

Within the application boundary itself and within a 1 km radius for 

obtaining records of protected species and / or species of conservation 

concern (excluding bird species) within the last five years 

Within the application boundary itself and within 5 km for bird species 

9.3.39 The study areas for specific detailed ecological surveys differed depending on 

the focus of the particular survey and the requirements of appropriate survey 

guidance. 

Desk Study 

9.3.40 In terms of literary sources, the following key publications were referenced: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barne, J.H., Robson, C.F., Kaznowska, S.S., Doody, J.P., & Davidson, 

N.C., eds., (1996) Coasts and Seas of the United Kingdom. Region 13 

Northern Irish Sea: Colwyn Bay to Stranraer, including the Isle of Man. 

Provided background environmental information for the marine and coastal 

area of Lancashire and Cumbria. Data include environmental 

characteristics; both terrestrial habitat types and typical offshore 

conditions, fish data, ornithology data, marine mammal data, plankton data 

and human influences upon these features 

Irish Sea Conservation Zones (2011) Marine Conservation Zone: Selection 

Assessment Document 

Mills, D.J.L., (1998) Liverpool Bay to the Solway (Rhos-on-Sea to the Mull 

of Galloway) (MNCR Sector 11). Benthic data 

East Irish Sea Developers Group (2005) Desktop Review of Marine 

Mammal Distribution in the NW3 Area. Marine mammal data 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) Offshore Energy SEA, 

Appendix 3a.7 Marine and other Mammals. Environmental baseline 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) UK Offshore Energy 

Strategic Environmental Assessment, OESEA2 Appendix 3. 

Environmental baseline 

9.3.41 In terms of web-based sources, the following were referenced: 

Information on statutory designated sites was obtained from 

www.natureonthemap.org.uk 

 

 

Information on areas of ancient woodland was obtained from the Natural 

England website http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ 

Records of protected / notable species were obtained from the NBN 

Gateway website (http://data.nbn.org.uk/) 

Information regarding biotope classification, current conservation 

information, regulations and designations, species descriptions and other 

related data was obtained from Joint Nature & Conservation Committee 

222

(http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/) and Department for Environment, Food & Rural 

Affairs (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) websites 

Information on the conservation status of marine and coastal organisms 

was obtained from the International Union for Conservation of Nature & 

Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species website 

(http://www.iucnredlist.org/) 

Information on fish species distribution and conservation status was 

obtained from the NBN Gateway website (http://data.nbn.org.uk/) 

Information on marine species and habitat sensitivities was obtained from 

the MarLIN website (http://www.marlin.ac.uk/) 

9.3.42 Records of protected / notable species within the application boundary itself and 

a 1 km radius around it were requested from a range of consultees. Appendix 

9.3 of Volume 1B summarises the sources of baseline information and the 

nature of the baseline information requested / obtained. 

Field Surveys 

9.3.43 A number of field surveys have been undertaken, with the intention of (a) 

providing further information with which to refine the selection of ‘key’ ecological 

receptors, and (b) to underpin the comprehensive assessment of the potential 

impacts on those receptors. These comprised the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Littoral and sublittoral benthic surveys (focussing on the Irish Sea) 

Phase 1 Habitat surveys 

Hedgerow surveys 

Arable weed surveys (focussing on fumitory species - most notably Purple 

Ramping-fumitory) 

Rock Sea-lavender surveys 

Ditch surveys 

Pond surveys 

Terrestrial invertebrate surveys 

Great crested newt surveys 

Breeding birds surveys (including barn owl surveys) 

Wintering birds surveys (focussing on the Wyre Estuary and the land 

functionally linked to the Morecambe Bay / Ramsar) 

Bat surveys (potential bat tree roost surveys and subsequent bat 

emergence / re-entry surveys at Higher Lickow Farm) 

Water vole surveys 

Brown hare surveys 

Badger surveys 

9.3.44 It should be noted that no specific fish surveys, marine bird surveys, plankton 

surveys or marine mammal surveys have been undertaken. Information on 

these receptors has been obtained purely through desk study sources. 

223

9.3.45 Table 9-3 provides brief summaries of the scope of the detailed surveys 

undertaken (along with information on any earlier surveys undertaken, which 

the 2011 surveys have supplemented). Detailed methodologies and results are 

provided in Appendices 9.4 to 9.16 of Volume 1B. It should be noted that some 

of the terrestrial surveys undertaken were restricted by access. However, 

further information on this is provided in the relevant appendices of Volume 1B. 

224

Table 9-3 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Summary of Detailed Surveys 

Survey Previous surveys/scope of surveys Updated in 2011? Relevant Appendix 

Littoral and 

Sublittoral 

Benthic 

Phase 1 

Habitat 

The baseline benthic survey of the littoral and sublittoral area 

was undertaken by WA Marine & Environment in 2001. The 

survey was based around the premise at the time that five 

diffusers would be used along the length of the proposed 

brine discharge pipeline, with the sample sites reflecting this. 

The sublittoral survey comprised 41 sites within the sublittoral 

construction area (11 sites) and the discharge area (30 sites) 

and was undertaken by diving. The littoral survey comprised 

11 sites within the littoral construction area and was 

undertaken by coring sediment samples in support of a widescale 

walk over of the whole area. 

An initial survey was undertaken in April 2003 and between 

22 July and 2 September 2004. As a result of the period of 

time since this initial survey, an updated Phase 1 habitat 

survey was undertaken between 22 and 25 September 2008 

and between 5 and 7 May 2009. 

A survey of littoral habitats at the 

confirmed position of the brine 

discharge pipeline was undertaken 

on 19 July 2011 by CMACS to 

update information gathered 

during the previous surveys. 

As a result of the consultation held 

on 24 January 2011, and as a 

result of changes to the Project 

design and the extent of the 

application boundary, an updated 

Phase 1 Habitat survey of all 

areas within the application 

boundary to which access was 

afforded was undertaken between 

4 and 14 July 2011. 

Further detail of the 

methodology 

employed is 

provided in 

Appendix 9.4 of 

Volume 1B. 

Further detail on the 

methodology 

employed during the 

2011 survey (and 

the previous surveys 

undertaken) is 

presented in 


Volume 1B. 

225


Hedgerows 

Arable 

Weeds 

An initial survey was undertaken between September and 

October 2003 and between 22 July and 2 September 2004. 

Hedgerows were mapped and assessed against the Wildlife 

and Landscape criteria set out in The Hedgerows 

Regulations 1997. 

An initial survey was undertaken between May and June 

2003, May and July 2004 and between 22 July and 2 

September 2004. 

As a result of the period of time since this initial survey, an 

updated survey was undertaken on 2, 3, 29 and 30 June 

2009 focussing on the Preesall (gas storage) site only. The 

first survey visit (2 and 3 June) identified large numbers of 

juvenile plants which could not be identified to species level 

as flowers and/or fruit are required, hence the requirement 

for the latter survey visit (29 and 30 June). Evidence of 

Purple Ramping-fumitory was also searched for between 5 

and 7 May 2009 within all arable fields to which access had 

been afforded of a 100 m corridor either side of the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline. 






hedgerow survey of all areas 

within the application boundary to 

which access was afforded was 

undertaken between 4 and 14 July 

2011. 


on 24 January 2011, it was agreed 

that no update survey was 

required to support this DCO 

Application. However, evidence of 

the presence of Fumaria sp. was 

incidentally recorded during the 

2011 update Phase 1 Habitat 

survey. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 

226


Rock Sea- 

Lavender 

Ditches 

Ponds 

An initial survey was undertaken in July and August 2003. As 

a result of the period of time since this initial survey, an 

updated survey was undertaken on 30 June 2009 (focussing 

on areas to the south of Hackensall Brows). 

An initial survey was undertaken on 8 and 9 September 

2004. As a result of the period of time since this initial survey, 

an updated appraisal of ditch habitat was undertaken in 

conjunction with the updated water vole survey carried out on 

17 and 18 September 2008 and 11 and 12 June 2009. 

As a result of the consultation held on 24 January 2011, pond 

surveys were undertaken to Lancashire Pond Biodiversity 

Survey methodology between 19 April and 23 June 2011 

(although it was subsequently agreed with Lancashire 

County Council on 11 and 12 May 2011 that the aquatic 

invertebrate element of the Lancashire Pond Biodiversity 

Survey methodology should follow the Predictive System for 

Multimetrics (PSYM) guidance). As no ponds would be 

directly affected by the Project, the survey focussed on those 

18 ponds that were considered to be at ‘high risk’ from 

indirect effects. 





Application, as Rock Sea-lavender 

would not be affected by the 

Project. 






appraisal of ditch habitat was 

undertaken in conjunction with the 

water vole survey carried out 

between 26 July and 13 October 

2011. 

N/A 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 


2011 survey is 

presented in 


Volume 1B. 

227


Terrestrial 

Invertebrates 

Great 

Crested 

Newts 

An initial survey was undertaken in May, July and September 

2003 on land to the north of Rossall School and at The 

Heads. Site visits were restricted to areas that were deemed 

likely to provide the most suitable habitat for terrestrial 

invertebrate species. Due to the length of time since the 

initial survey was undertaken, an updated terrestrial 

invertebrate survey was undertaken in August, September 

and October 2010. 

An initial survey was undertaken between 15 April and 28 

May 2003, between 19 and 22 April 2004 and between 26 

May and 12 June 2004. As a result of the period of time since 

this initial survey, update surveys were undertaken between 

8 May and 13 June 2007 and between 20 April and 5 June 

2009. 





Application. 





application boundary, updated 

great crested newt surveys were 

undertaken between 18 April and 

27 May 2011, focussing on those 

ponds that weren’t surveyed in 

2009 (it was agreed with 

consultees that the results of the 

2009 survey were considered to 

be valid for the purposes of the 

DCO Application). 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 

228


Breeding 

Birds 

Barn Owls 

Wintering 

Birds 

Initial breeding birds surveys were undertaken between April 

and June 2003. As a result of the period of time since these 

initial surveys, an update survey was undertaken between 23 

and 25 June 2010. 

As a result of the findings of the initial inspections at one of 

the buildings within the application site, a specific survey for 

breeding barn owls was undertaken on 14 June 2011 by a 

suitably licensed ecologist. 

An initial survey was undertaken between February and 

March 2003. Between July and November 2004, additional 

bird surveys focussed on the roost at Arm Hill. As a result of 

the period of time since the initial survey, an updated survey 

was undertaken between November 2008 and March 2009 

focussing on the Wyre Estuary SSSI / Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar site and the functionally linked land to the east. 

In addition to the above surveys, at a meeting on 17 

November 2010 Natural England requested that baseline 

noise monitoring be undertaken at Arm Hill and The Heads. 

A survey methodology was subsequently agreed with both 

Natural England and the RSPB and the survey was 

undertaken on 18 January 2011, in order to record any 

reaction of the estuarine birds to such noise incidents. 





Application. 

N/A 





Application. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 


survey is presented 

in Appendix 9.13 of 

Volume 1B. 


methodology 


2008/2009 surveys 

and the 2011 

baseline noise 

monitoring survey 

(and the previous 

surveys undertaken) 

is presented in 


Volume 1B. 

229


Bats An initial walkover survey was undertaken on 26 and 27 

August 2004 to identify potential bat tree roosts. Two 

subsequent emergence / re-entry surveys were undertaken 

between 14 and 17 September 2004 at one tree. 

As a result of the period of time since this initial survey, an 

update survey for trees offering potential to support roosting 

bats was undertaken between 5 and 7 May 2009. 

The buildings at Higher Lickow Farm were specifically 

inspected for their potential to support roosting bats on 2 

November 2010 (the larger barn) and 5 May 2011 (the 

farmhouse and the smaller barn). 

As a result of the findings of the initial inspections, dusk 

emergence / dawn re-entry surveys were undertaken at all 

three buildings between 24 May and 26 July 2011. 

Water Voles 

An initial survey was undertaken between May and June 

2003 and between 13 and 28 May 2004. As a result of the 

period of time since this initial survey, an update survey was 

undertaken on 17 and 18 September 2008 and on 11 and 12 

June 2009. Incidental sightings of mink and otter activity 

were also searched for. 






potential bat tree roost survey was 

undertaken between 4 and 5 July 

2011. 






water vole survey was undertaken 

between 26 July and 13 October 

2011. 


methodology 


2010/2011 survey 

(and the previous 

surveys undertaken) 

is presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 

230


Brown Hares 

Badgers 

A survey was undertaken on 24 and 25 March 2003, which 

involved walking transects and recording the presence of 

brown hares within fields. 

An initial survey was undertaken in February 2003 and 

between 13 and 28 May 2004. As a result of the period of 

time since this initial survey, an update survey was 

undertaken on 5 and 6 October 2008 and between 5 and 7 

May 2009. This recorded any signs of badger activity, and 

assessed the status of any setts identified. 





Application. However, incidental 

sightings of brown hares within the 

application boundary have been 

recorded during other surveys 

since 2003. 






badger survey was undertaken 

between 4 and 5 July 2011. 


methodology 


2003 survey is 

presented in 


Volume 1B. 


methodology 





presented in 


Volume 1B. 

231

Assigning Values 

9.3.46 In order to determine the likelihood of a significant ecological effect, it is first 

necessary to identify whether a receptor is sufficiently valuable for a significant 

effect upon it to be material in decision making. To achieve this, where 

possible, animal species and their populations have been valued on the basis of 

a combination of their rarity, status and distribution, using contextual information 

where it exists. Sites, habitats and plant communities are evaluated on the 

basis of current designations or, where no designation exists, against existing 

selection criteria, wherever possible (such as those developed to aid the 

designation of SSSIs or non-statutory designated sites), and contextual 

information. 

9.3.47 In accordance with the approach set out in the Guidelines for Ecological Impact 

Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006), the following geographic 

frames of reference have been used to determine the value of terrestrial 

ecological receptors: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

International 

UK 

National 

Regional 

County 

District/Borough 

Local/Parish 

Of value within the zone of influence of the Project or the context of the 

site 

9.3.48 Those sites, habitats and species classified at District/Borough level and 

above are considered to be sufficiently valuable for a significant effect upon 

them to be material in decision making. Only terrestrial ecological receptors 

equivalent to or greater than District/Borough value have the potential to be 

included within the detailed assessment as terrestrial ecological receptors of 

‘key’ nature conservation importance (‘key’ ecological receptors). 

9.3.49 In accordance with the approach set out in the Guidelines for Ecological Impact 

Assessment in Britain and Ireland: Marine and Coastal (IEEM, 2010), the 

following geographic frame of reference has been used to determine the value 

of marine ecological receptors (these have been adapted to suit the Project and 

its location as considered appropriate): 

 

 

 

 

International 

National 

Regional: Eastern Irish Sea, including Coastal Cell 11 for marine receptors 

and North West River Basin District (for transitional waters) 

Local: waters and coast south of Morecambe and North of Liverpool Bays 

(equivalent to the terrestrial County/District geographic frame of reference) 

232

Project: within zone of direct influence only (

esponses to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and 


Prediction of potential effects on those ‘key’ ecological receptors 

Identification of effects on ‘key’ ecological receptors which, in particular, 

could be considered to be potentially significant in terms of the EIA 

Regulations 

Identification of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures for 

those ‘key’ ecological receptors, and for those ecological receptors for 

which a detailed assessment was not considered a requirement (i.e. they 

were not considered to be ‘key’ ecological receptors) but for which 

mitigation/enhancement is proposed on the basis of: their legal protection; 

their implications on environmental (and related) policies and plans; or 

other issues such as animal welfare issues 

Characterising Impacts 

9.3.56 Following collation of ecological baseline information, the likely impacts of the 

Project have been assessed, based on the existing knowledge of the design 

and against the valuation criteria. 

9.3.57 The assessment of the impacts of the Project on ecological features has taken 

into account both on-site and off-site impacts, such as those that may occur on 

adjacent areas of ecological value. In accordance with the Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006) and the 


Coastal (IEEM, 2010), impacts have been described in terms of the following 

parameters. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive or negative 

Magnitude - refers to the ‘size’ or ‘amount’ of an impact, and has been 

quantified wherever possible (e.g. the area of habitat to be lost etc.) 

Extent - refers to the area over which the impact occurs 

Duration - refers to the time for which the impact is expected to last prior to 

recovery or replacement of the resource or feature (which may be longer 

than the impact causing activity) 

Reversibility - this is addressed by identifying whether an impact is 

ecologically reversible, either spontaneously or through specific action, 

and whether such an outcome is intended 

Timing and frequency - the timing of impacts in relation to important 

seasonal and/or life cycle constraints has also been evaluated. Similarly, 

the frequency with which activities and simultaneous impacts would take 

place can be an important determinant of the effects on receptors, and has 

therefore also been assessed and described 

9.3.58 Impacts can be permanent or temporary and can include direct loss of wildlife 

habitats, fragmentation and isolation of habitats, disturbance to species, 

changes to key habitat features and changes to the local hydrology and/or 

water quality. 

234

Assessing Significance 

9.3.59 The term ‘significant’ has meaning in terms of both the Conservation of Habitats 

and Species Regulations 2010 and the EIA Regulations. Significance in the 

context of the former is used as a coarse filter to establish the overall scale of 

the impact and whether a possible pathway for an effect can be identified. 

Significance in the context of the latter is used to describe the relative 

importance of impacts on any feature of importance, regardless of the 

application of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 

9.3.60 In terms of the application of significance within EcIA, the Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006) and the 


Coastal (IEEM, 2010) similarly define an ecologically significant impact as 

being: 

“an impact that has a negative, or positive, effect on the integrity of a site or 

ecosystem and/or the conservation status for habitats or species populations 

within a given geographical area” (IEEM, 2010). 

9.3.61 Thus, for each ‘key’ ecological receptor, ‘ecological’ significance has been 

determined on the basis of a likely effect on the integrity or favourable 

conservation status of a receptor and an analysis of the factors that 

characterise the effect. 

9.3.62 With regard to the EIA Regulations, significance has been determined on the 

basis of professional judgement. 



studies and field surveys. The value of the ecological receptors and the 

rationale associated with this valuation is provided in Table 9-4. For all surveys 

apart from great crested newts, only the results of the latest survey are 

reported. More detailed results are provided in Appendices 9.4 to 9.16 of 

Volume 1B. 

Statutory Designated Sites 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar 

9.4.2 Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar lies within and adjacent to the application 

boundary at its nearest point within the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of the 

Wyre Estuary. None of the above ground infrastructure associated with the 

Project would be located within Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar; however, 

several of the underground caverns would be located under the saltmarsh 

habitats of this European site. In addition, four underground pipe crossings 

would be installed under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary in two separate 

locations, i.e. under Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar. The location of 

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar is presented on Figure 9.1 of Volume 2B, 

and the citations are presented in Appendix 9.17 of Volume 1B. 

235

9.4.3 Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar is located on the Irish Sea coast of northwest 

England. It is the second largest embayment area in the UK after the 

Wash and is fed by five main river channels (the Leven, Kent, Keer, Lune and 

Wyre) which drain through intertidal flats of sand and mud. The SPA and 

Ramsar have the same boundaries and occupy the same area of 37,404.6 

hectares. 

9.4.4 Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar site is of European importance throughout 

the year for a wide range of important bird species. The area comprises large 

intertidal mudflats and sandflats which support dense populations of marine 

invertebrate species, which in turn provide food for a large population of 

waterfowl. It also includes shingle areas which are an important nesting area 

for breeding sandwich terns within the Morecambe Bay. The main areas of 

nesting are on Foulney and Walney Islands approximately 20 km north of the 

Project, on the opposite side of Morecambe Bay from the Project. 

9.4.5 Wildfowl and waders overwinter in internationally important numbers within 

Morecambe Bay, and the area is also used during the spring and autumn 

migration periods. Morecambe Bay is of particular importance during migration 

periods for waders moving up the west coast of the UK. At the point closest to 

the Project, Morecambe Bay SPA is underpinned the Wyre Estuary SSSI. The 

saltmarsh and intertidal sandflats and mudflats of the Wyre Estuary lie 

immediately adjacent to the Project, at Burrows Marsh, Arm Hill, and Barnaby’s 

Sand. These comprise the Annex I habitats: Atlantic salt meadows and 

mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. In addition to being 

Annex I habitats, intertidal mudflats and coastal saltmarsh are UK BAP Priority 

Habitats, and Saltmarsh and Estuarine Rivers is also a Habitat Action Plan 

within the Lancashire LBAP. 

9.4.6 Saltmarsh areas within Morecambe Bay provide important feeding, roosting and 

breeding areas. On high spring tides, wading birds concentrate on roost sites 

on the upper levels of the saltmarsh. The fields within agricultural use to the 

east of the saltmarsh, beyond the European site boundary but within the 

application boundary, are also used by foraging and roosting bird species 

associated with the European site. Although they are outside of the European 

site boundary, they are referred to as functionally-linked land, as they provide 

suitable foraging and roosting habitat at varying times of winter. The use of 

these fields varies across the winter and passage season, and across years, in 

line with the rotation of the crops. 

9.4.7 The results of the wintering low tide counts undertaken in 2008/09 indicated that 

a diverse and abundant bird species make use of the mudflat habitats of the 

Wyre Estuary. The high tide counts for the same period suggested that the 

saltmarsh on the Wyre Estuary is used by wintering wetland birds for roosting 

purposes, with the area around Arm Hill being of particular importance. WeBS 

data and data from Fylde Bird Club also identified the importance of these areas 

for the qualifying criteria of the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar. A transect 

survey of the fields to the east of the Wyre Estuary (the functionally linked lands 

of the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar) undertaken in winter 2008/09 indicated 

that some wetland birds make use of these habitats for roosting and feeding 

purposes, including small numbers of redshank, lapwing, and oystercatcher, 

and large numbers of pink-footed geese. 

236

9.4.8 The 2011 baseline noise monitoring survey (and observations) found that 

constant background noise came from land to the west of the Wyre Estuary, 

particularly from the operational landfill site and the Fleetwood Fish Dock area. 

Following most noise events, wintering birds using the saltmarsh and mudflat 

habitats did not appear to be affected and appeared habituated to the noisy 

environment on the western side of the Wyre Estuary. The only exception to 

this was when light aircraft passed directly over flocks of pink-footed geese. On 

these occasions the pink-footed geese took flight. 

9.4.9 Further detail on the results of the 2008/2009 surveys and the 2011 baseline 

noise monitoring survey (and the previous surveys undertaken), including 

mapping, is presented in Appendix 9.12 of Volume 1B. Further information on 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar is presented in the Information to Support a 

Habitats Regulations Assessment: Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar ( DCO 

Application Document Reference 3.3). 

9.4.10 As a site of international importance for bird species and for valuable foraging 

and roosting habitats for these species, Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar is 

considered to be of International value for nature conservation. 

Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 

9.4.11 Morecambe Bay SAC lies approximately 1 km north of the application boundary 

at its nearest point. The location of this site is presented on Figure 9.1 of 

Volume 2B. 

9.4.12 Morecambe Bay forms the largest single area of continuous intertidal mudflats 

and sandflats in the UK and the best example of muddy sandflats on the west 

coast. It is designated for the following Annex I habitats, as a primary reason 

for its designation: Estuaries; Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at 

low tide; Large shallow inlets and bays; Perennial vegetation of stony banks; 

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Atlantic salt meadows 

(Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae). The site is also designated as a primary 

reason for its population of Annex II species great crested newts. The ponds for 

great crested newts are located within the sand dune system of the Duddon 

Estuary over 20 km to the north and would not be affected by the Project. 

9.4.13 The estuaries of the SAC are macro-tidal with the Bay being driven by large 

low-water channel systems. Cobble ‘skears’ and shingle beaches occur at the 

mouths of the estuaries; however, they predominantly consist of fine and muddy 

sands. At low water, vast areas of sandflats are exposed, and these range from 

the mobile fine sands of the outer bay grading through to more sheltered sandy 

sediments to low salinity sands and muds in the upper reaches. 

9.4.14 Perennial vegetation of stony banks are represented by Walney Island on the 

shores of Morecambe Bay as a barrier island fringed by shingle with a partial 

sand covering. The southern area has been highly modified by eutrophication 

from a large gull colony, resulting in communities that are unusually species-rich 

for pioneer shingle vegetation. This stony bank area is located over 20 km from 

the Project and would not be affected. 

237

9.4.15 The estuaries within Morecambe Bay support dense invertebrate communities, 

with their composition reflecting the salinity and sediment regimes within each 

estuary. Morecambe Bay supports exceptionally large beds of mussels on 

exposed areas of boulder and cobble and small areas of reefs with fucoid algal 

communities. 

9.4.16 Two types of pioneer saltmarsh are present within Morecambe Bay. Pioneer 

glasswort (Salicornia spp.) saltmarsh occurs intermittently along the coastline of 

the bay, forming a transition from the extensive intertidal sand and mudflats to 

the distinctive saltmeadows at this site. The sea pearlwort community occurs in 

open pans on the upper marsh. In the upper levels of the saltmarshes there are 

important transitions from saltmarsh to freshwater and grassland vegetation. 

9.4.17 Shifting dune vegetation forms a major component of the active sand dune 

system at the entrance to Morecambe Bay on Walney Island and the Duddon 

Estuary at Sandscale Haws, with transition to embryonic shifting dunes. In 

addition this area supports the largest area of calcareous fixed dunes in 

Cumbria, and dune slacks are particularly well-represented at this site. These 

areas are over 20 km from the Project and would not be affected. 

9.4.18 The qualifying species of Morecambe Bay SAC are outlined within the citation 

presented in Appendix 9.17 of Volume 1B. Further information on Morecambe 

Bay SAC is presented in the Information to Support a Habitats Regulations 

Assessment: Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune 

Deep cSAC (DCO Application Document Reference 3.2). 

9.4.19 For the Annex I habitats closest to the Project, comprising Estuaries; Mudflats 

and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Large shallow inlets and 

bays; Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; and Atlantic salt 

meadows, Morecambe Bay SAC is considered to be of International value for 

nature conservation. 

Liverpool Bay/Bae Lerpwl SPA 

9.4.20 Liverpool Bay SPA lies approximately 1.1 km west of the application boundary 

at its nearest point (from the brine discharge pipeline and diffuser). The location 

of this site is presented on Figure 9.1 of Volume 2B. It is an entirely marine site 

extending from Moelfre in North-East Anglesey to Rossall Point near Fleetwood, 

Lancashire, covering an area of 170,292.94 hectares. 

9.4.21 Liverpool Bay SPA supports 5.4% of the North West Europe overwintering 

population of red-throated diver, based on a five year mean peak of 922 

individuals, and 3.4% of the Western Siberia/Western & Northern Europe/Northwestern 

Africa overwintering population of common scoter, based on a five year 

mean peak of 54,675 individuals. It also supports more than 20,000 waterbirds 

in the non-breeding season, with a mean peak average of 55,597 recorded 

between 2001/02 and 2006/07, and at least 80,346 in winter 2001/02. This 

peak mean count of waterfowl is a combination of the red-throated diver and 

common scoter counts from surveys undertaken between 2001/02 and 2006/07. 

9.4.22 Red-throated divers winter in inshore waters of 0-20 m in depth, and in areas of 

extensively sandy seabeds. The greatest densities of this species are located 

238

off the Ribble Estuary, North Wales and the North Wirral Foreshore, over 50 km 

from the Project. As active feeders on fish, the presence of red-throated divers 

is largely determined by the presence, abundance and availability of prey 

species. 

9.4.23 Common scoters tend to occupy areas with a water depth of 2-20 m. The most 

important area for this species is Shell Flat to Formby, Colwyn Bay and Conwy 

Bay. This species is present within Liverpool Bay from August to May, with the 

majority being present during August to March. Common scoters are believed 

to be highly associated with their prey species which comprise cockles, clams 

and other bivalves, and a variety of other molluscs, crustaceans and worms. 

The removal of their prey species has negative effects on their habitat and 

affects their abundance and distribution. The species is also sensitive to 

disturbance caused by moving vessels. 

9.4.24 The distribution and population of seabirds (common scoters in particular) has 

been well-studied in the Liverpool Bay area; with targeted surveys taking place 

since 2001. From a desk study review, only low numbers of common scoters 

have been recorded within 4 km of the brine outfall over the years. The benthic 

survey undertaken in 2001 revealed that the area of the brine outfall does not 

support soft/sandy mud habitats, and there is not an abundance of benthic 

bivalves, which provide prey species for common scoter. Overall, data indicate 

that there is limited common scoter activity in the vicinity of the brine discharge 

pipeline and this area is not considered to be of particular value to foraging 

common scoter. 

9.4.25 From a desk study review, very few divers were recorded within the 2 km grid 

square area containing the brine discharge pipeline. Divers occur more 

sporadically in the Liverpool Bay area, they do not occur in large groups, and 

are more difficult to observe from the air. Areas with seemingly higher densities 

of divers include the mouth of the Ribble Estuary, Formby Point and the mouth 

of the Dee Estuary, away from the application site. 

9.4.26 The citation for Liverpool Bay SPA is presented in Appendix 9.17 of Volume 1B. 

Further information on Liverpool Bay SPA is presented in the Information to 

Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment: Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool 

Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC (DCO Application Document 

Reference 3.2). 

9.4.27 As a European site, Liverpool Bay SPA is considered to be of International 

value for nature conservation. 

Shell Flat and Lune Deep Candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) 

9.4.28 Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC lies approximately 2.5 km west and north-west 

of the application boundary at its nearest point (from the brine discharge 

pipeline and diffuser). The location of this site is presented on Figure 9.1 of 

Volume 2B. 

9.4.29 Shell Flat is a large sandbank at the mouth of Morecambe Bay surrounded by 

shallower areas to the north and south, which meet the Annex I habitat 

‘sandbanks slightly covered by sea water all the time’, and for which it is 

239

considered one of the best areas within the UK. Shell Flat is a banner bank, 

with its widest part closest to the coastal headland and is entirely within water 

less than 20 m deep. The sediment on the top of Shell Flat is soft and smooth, 

becoming rougher and harder on the northern and southern slopes. 

9.4.30 Shell Flat supports large numbers of a small diversity of burrowing worms, 

crustaceans, bivalve molluscs, burrowing anemones, and echinoderms. These 

species are important food resource for many over-wintering bird species, such 

as common scoter. Approximately 87% of the cSAC overlaps with the Liverpool 

Bay SPA, which has been identified as the most important site in the UK for the 

common scoter. 

9.4.31 Lune Deep comprises a reef habitat within a deep water channel. This habitat 

represents a good example of boulder and rock reef. The northern edges of 

Lune Deep are characterised by heavily silted cobble and boulder slope, which 

are subject to strong tidal currents. It provides habitat for erect hydroids and 

bryozoans with some areas having erect sponges which may form the biotope 

Flustra foliacea and Haliclona oculata with a rich faunal turf on tide-swept 

circalittoral mixed substrata. 

9.4.32 The mixed faunal and turf communities over the majority of Lune Deep provide 

habitat for fauna associated with hard substrates. In this area stable boulders, 

cobbles and rock support bryozoans (Flustra foliacea and Alcyonidium 

diaphanum) and hydroids (Nemertesia antennina and Hydrallmania falcate), all 

species which are found attached to rocks, shells or other hard substrate. 

9.4.33 Sediment habitats predominate in the centre and south of Lune Deep and 

sampling indicates an area of muddy sand sediments with a population of 

Ophiura spp. on the surface. 

9.4.34 Parts of Lune Deep (outside the designation) are a licensed offshore disposal 

site which currently receives dredged material from Morecambe Bay. Despite 

this interference, the area is able to support a substantial reef population. The 

area is subject to strong tidal currents, which are likely to distribute excess 

sediment. 

9.4.35 The citation for Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC is presented in Appendix 9.17 

of Volume 1B. Further information on Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC is 

presented in the Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment: 

Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC 

(DCO Application Document Reference 3.2). 

9.4.36 As a European site, Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC is considered to be of 

International value for nature conservation. 

Lune Estuary SSSI 

9.4.37 Lune Estuary SSSI lies approximately 1 km north of the application boundary at 

its nearest point. The location of this site is presented on Figure 9.1 of Volume 

2B. 

9.4.38 Lune Estuary SSSI forms part of the Morecambe Bay intertidal system and 

underpins Morecambe Bay SAC and SPA. Lune Estuary SSSI includes 

240

extensive sand/silt flats together with saltmarsh in the form of a number of 

discontinuous saltings fringing the estuary. The site is designated for the 

passage and wintering waterfowl it supports, and is used by birds on migration 

between the breeding grounds in the far north, and the wintering grounds 

further south. The mudflats are exposed for considerable periods between tides 

and are rich in invertebrates, providing extensive feeding grounds for waders 

and for many of the wildfowl, especially shelduck. The sandbanks also 

provided important low-tide roosting sites for pink-footed geese and other 

waterfowl and the saltmarshes are important high tide roosts. Some of the 

saltmarsh habitats are of interest for their breeding bird populations (most 

notably a nationally important common tern colony on Colloway Marsh, 

approximately 15 km north-east of the Project). They also collectively support a 

variety of plant communities and a number of uncommon plant species. The 

citation for Lune Estuary SSSI is presented in Appendix 9.17 of Volume 1B. 

9.4.39 Lune Estuary SSSI is considered to be of National value for nature 

conservation. 

Wyre Estuary SSSI 

9.4.40 The Wyre Estuary SSSI lies within and adjacent to the application boundary at 

its nearest point within the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats. This SSSI underpins 

Morecambe Bay SPA. None of the above ground infrastructure associated with 

the Project would be located within Wyre Estuary SSSI; however, several of the 

underground caverns would be located under the saltmarsh habitats of the 

SSSI. In addition, four underground pipe/cable crossings would be installed 

under the Wyre Estuary SSSI in two separate locations. The location of this site 

is presented on Figure 9.1 of Volume 2B. 

9.4.41 The Wyre Estuary, lying just south of Lune Estuary is an integral part of 

Morecambe Bay, one of the two largest areas of intertidal estuarine flats in 

Britain. It supports the largest area of ungrazed saltmarsh in North West 

England. 

9.4.42 The most extensive areas of saltmarsh within the SSSI are found on the east 

side of the estuary between Barnaby Sands and Staynall, on the west side 

north of Stanah and on the north side upstream of Shard Bridge. The former is 

adjacent to the Project. 

9.4.43 The Wyre is nationally important in its own right for wintering and passage 

wading birds, particularly black-tailed godwit, wintering turnstone and for 

wintering teal in times of hard weather. Large numbers of lapwing and golden 

plover use the estuary for roosting at low tide. In close proximity to the Project 

is the major high tide roost Arm Hill, with smaller ones at Stanah, Burrows 

Marsh, Barnaby Sands and Knott End Skears. On spring tides birds are 

displaced from the smaller roosts to Arm Hill which, on occasions, can hold over 

1,000 birds. The citation for Wyre Estuary SSSI is presented in Appendix 9.17 

of Volume 1B. 

9.4.44 Wyre Estuary SSSI is considered to be of National value for nature 

conservation. 

241


9.4.45 Winmarleigh Moss SSSI lies approximately 750 m north of the application 

boundary at its nearest point. The location of this site is presented on Figure 9.1 

of Volume 2B. 

9.4.46 Winmarleigh Moss SSSI is the largest area of lowland raised mire remaining in 

Lancashire. The main vegetation types are heather and purple moor-grass 

dominated mire over deep peat, birch scrub and birch woodland. It is also 

important for the range of invertebrates it supports. These include over 90 

species of butterflies and moths, several of which are nationally rare, and 40 

species of Diptera. It is the only Lancashire site for the rare bog bush cricket 

and the moss holds the best populations in the county of the uncommon large 

heath butterfly. The citation is presented in Appendix 9.17 of Volume 1B. 

9.4.47 Winmarleigh Moss SSSI is considered to be of National value for nature 

conservation. 

Non-Statutory Designated Sites 

9.4.48 There are 18 BHS’s within 1 km of the application boundary. These sites are 

considered to be of County value for nature conservation. 

9.4.49 Table 9-4 provides a summary of the designated interests of each site, together 

with approximate distances of each site from the application boundary, at its 

nearest point. Citations for each site are presented in Appendix 9.18 of Volume 

1B. The extent and location of each site is presented on Figure 9.2 of Volume 

2B. 

Table 9-4 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Biological Heritage Sites 

within 1km of the Application Boundary 

Biological Heritage 

Site 

Hillhouse Estuary Banks 

BHS 

Fleetwood Marsh 

Industrial Lands BHS 

Fleetwood Promenade - 

Coastal and Dune 

Grassland BHS 

Rossall School Fields – 

Ditches and Bankings 

BHS 

Hackensall Brows BHS 

Designated Interest 

Semi-natural coastal habitat 

Habitats (including grasslands, scrub, 

swamp and open water), flowering 

plants, breeding and on passage birds, 

breeding butterflies 

Dune and coastal grassland, 

butterflies, striped snail, Roesel’s bush 

cricket 

Ditches and bankings, butterflies and 

Roesel’s bush cricket 

Species-rich flushed and dry 

grassland, bare ground, stone setts 

and accumulated tidal debris 

Distance from Application 

Boundary at its Nearest 

Point (Approximate) 

Within application boundary 





242

Biological Heritage 

Site 

Pilling Moss – Head 

Dyke BHS 

Pilling Moss – Eagland 

Hill BHS 

Clods Carr Lane Fields 

BHS 

ICI Salt Pools BHS 

Fleetwood Farm Fields 

BHS 

ICI Hillhouse 

International Pool BHS 

Lancaster Canal Whole 

Length in Lancashire 

including Glasson 

Branch BHS 

Cockerham and 

Winmarleigh Moss Edge 

BHS 

Rossall Lane Wood and 

Pasture BHS 

Designated Interest 

Over-wintering wildfowl, primarily pinkfooted 

geese and whooper swans 

Over-wintering wildfowl, primarily pinkfooted 

geese and whooper swans 

Arable weeds, including Purple 

Ramping-fumitory 

Series of pools with associated swamp 

and fen communities, semi-natural 

grassland and scrub. The site supports 

a variety of notable breeding birds 

Pink-footed geese, lapwing, 

oystercatcher, curlew and redshank, 

Brackish water-crowfoot 

Brackish water pools and a variety of 

birds 

Rich assemblage of aquatic plants and 

animals 

Pink-footed geese 

Carr woodland, wet pasture, ditch and 

pond; invertebrates 

Distance from Application 

Boundary at its Nearest 

Point (Approximate) 



Adjacent to application 

boundary 

Adjacent to application 

boundary 

13 m 

40 m 

120 m 

300 m 

328 m 

Shepherd Pond BHS Water voles 420 m 

Jameson Road 

Saltmarsh BHS 

Saltmarsh 

Burglars Alley Field BHS Upper saltmarsh transition to nonsaline 

habitat, water voles 

Fleetwood Railway 

Branch Line, Trunnah to 

Burn Naze BHS 

Semi-natural habitat including areas of 

open, species rich vegetation, 

grassland and scrub 

Marine Habitats / Species 

Plankton 

680 m 

825 m 

840 m 

9.4.50 Within Liverpool Bay and running northwards towards Morecambe Bay is a 

frontal system occurring between stratified and low salinity and stratified and 

high salinity waters. As a result of increased nutrient levels owing to riverine 

inputs, this front is found to be relatively rich in plankton which, although in 

comparison to other areas, e.g. the North Sea, the overall Irish Sea stocks of 

plankton are considered to be relatively low (Kennington & Rowlands, 2005). 

243

The phytoplankton community is dominated by diatom and dinoflagellate 

species which periodically form blooms. The zooplankton community in the 

region is composed of mostly copepod crustaceans with important temporary 

members of the plankton in the Irish Sea being the eggs and larvae of many 

fish, including commercially exploited species; especially between March to 

May (Nichols, et al., 1993). 

9.4.51 Given that the plankton underpins the marine ecosystem, the plankton 

population in the Irish Sea within the zone of influence is considered to be of 

Regional value for nature conservation. 

9.4.52 Although plankton would also be present within the Fleetwood Fish Dock in the 

Wyre Estuary, which is to provide water to create the gas storage caverns, it is 

considered that Fleetwood Fish Dock would support limited plankton, being 

semi-isolated from the wider marine and estuarine ecosystem compared to 

coastal waters in the area of the discharge. An exception to this would be any 

blooms in the relatively enclosed waters of the dock, but impacts upon these 

are not considered relevant to the plankton as a whole and the wider coastal 

ecosystem. Overall, the plankton population in Fleetwood Fish Dock is 

considered to be of Project value for nature conservation. 

9.4.53 Refer to Appendix 9.4 of Volume 1B for further information. 

Benthic Environment 

9.4.54 The following text is summarised from A Baseline Benthic Survey of the Littoral 

and Sublittoral Construction Area and Discharge Area for Fleetwood Salt 

Caverns (W A Marine & Environment, 2001). 

Sublittoral 

9.4.55 Seabed sites at the majority of sublittoral sites were structurally complex, with 

mixed sediments ranging from gravel, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders, patchy 

boulder clay areas that were anoxic, sand and silt. Most sites had some 

evidence of recently mobile substrates and a heavy silt layer, which accounted 

for the high turbidity. The high turbidity and scour were assumed to be the 

reason behind the lack of macro algae. A characteristic of these mixed 

substrata was the presence of sessile epifauna such as hydroids and bryozoans 

attached to gravel, pebbles, cobbles and boulders. Other more conspicuous 

benthic epifauna included the anemone Urticina felina, starfish Asterias rubens 

and sea squirt Ascidiella scabra. All sites had a characteristic nudibranch fauna 

with a relatively low diversity and biomass of crustaceans - only the brown crab, 

hermit crab and pink shrimp were recorded. Generally, sediment stability was 

strongly correlated with the type of crustacean fauna present. For example, the 

common lobster was recorded whenever larger boulders were present, with the 

shrimp Crangon crangon recorded in silt patches. The marine surveys revealed 

that the area of the brine outfall does not support soft/sandy mud habitats, and 

there is not an abundance of benthic bivalves. 

9.4.56 On the whole, the biomass of benthic species was also associated with the 

stability of the habitat. In areas with hard, less mobile sediments, biomass was 

generally higher. The biotope classification MCR.Flu (Flustra foliacea and other 

244

hydroid and bryozoan turf species on slightly scoured mixed substrata) was 

found generally across all sites surveyed. A similar habitat type e.g. mixed 

substratum with pebbles, cobbles and occasional boulders with areas of scour, 

was also reported within the same general locality of the brine discharge 

pipeline by W A Marine & Environment (2001) and Emblow (1992). Their data 

showed similar communities of species belonging to the MCR.Flu biotope, with 

biomass and species diversity strongly associated with the stability of the site. 

Most sites were associated with a variety of nudibranch fauna. Generally, the 

presence of a particular species reflected the type and nature of the seabed at 

each site. The commonly occurring species were Corypella browni and 

Eubranchus tricolor. 

9.4.57 A notable sublittoral biotope found was the nationally scarce MCR.Pid (piddocks 

with a sparse associated fauna in upward-facing circalittoral very soft chalk or 

clay). This biotope had a patchy distribution and was found 500 m north and 

100-500 m to the south of the proposed diffuser location (most landwards). W 

A Marine & Environment (2001) also recorded small bare patches of boulder 

clay containing the white piddock (Barnea candida) along the eastern edge of 

the Walney Channel and off Rossall School. The MCR.Pid biotope is listed in 

the UK BAP and is considered to be of National value for nature conservation. 

Other sublittoral habitats in the application boundary are considered to be of 

Project value for nature conservation. 

9.4.58 The aggregations of Sabellaria alveolata in the sublittoral zone were contiguous 

with the aggregations in the littoral zone (see below) and formed part of the 

same feature considered to be of Regional value for nature conservation. 

Littoral 

9.4.59 The littoral survey sites recorded a range of different habitats from consolidated 

cobbles, pebbles and gravel with a thin layer of muddy sand at low water spring 

(0.9 m ACD) to fine sand on the upper-shore (W A Marine & Environment, 

2001). In particular, at the sublittoral fringes, the biotope MCR.Flu 

(characteristic of the main study area associated with the diffusion section) 

showed a transition between ECR.PomByC (Pomatoceros triqueter and 

bryozoan turf on slightly scoured mixed substrata) to MLR.Salv (Sabellaria 

alveolata reefs on sand abraded eulittoral rock). Both of these biotopes were 

exposed at low tide. Further up the shore, but still within the sublittoral fringe, 

the biotopes changed to fine sand with pebbles and gravel (LGS.AP.P). This 

region was characterised by polychaetes such as the Cat worm Nephtys cirrosa 

and occasionally Arenicola marina casts. In general, this biotope has a low 

biodiversity and biomass. The LGS.AP.P biotope continued up to the mid-shore 

where it changed to poorly sorted sand with gavel, cobbles and pebble 

(LGS.BarSnd), which was found at the base of the seawall. 

9.4.60 A number of earlier ecological surveys (W A Marine & Environment, 2001; 

Barne et al., 1996; Mills, 1998; Davis, 1991; Emblow, 1992) have investigated 

benthic habitats and species in the wider range covering all of the Lancashire 

coast. None of these earlier surveys identified any rare communities or species 

but did discover that the benthic habitat had associated communities of robust, 

rapid recruiting species possessing high rates of recovery following periodic 

disturbances from storms. Examples with such a resilient nature are shown by 

245

the sublittoral dominating bryozoan Flustra foliacea, whose tolerance to a 

variety of disturbances such as smothering, increases in suspended sediments, 

temperature, turbidity, increases in salinity and water flow rates; make the 

organisms recovery to original condition from such disturbances possible within 

1 to 5 years. 

9.4.61 The reef formed by aggregations of Sabellaria alveolata was confirmed in the 

littoral area during the 2011 update survey. S. alveolata has a high intolerance 

to physical disturbances including substratum loss and displacement, as well as 

a moderate intolerance to increases in wave exposure, temperature increases 

and increasing water flow rates. In addition, it also has a low tolerance to 

chemical stresses and increases in salinity. Despite these sensitivities, S. 

alveolata is believed to have a moderate to high recoverability rate from such 

effects, meaning that the significance of disturbance related population changes 

would be largely determined by the temporal and spatial extent of the 

disturbance. 

9.4.62 Aggregations of S. alveolata are considered to be of Regional value for nature 

conservation. The other littoral habitats within the application boundary are 

considered to be of Project value for nature conservation. 

Fish 

9.4.63 The Irish Sea supports diverse communities of fish, including resident species 

and temporary visitors that include fish migrating between marine and 

freshwater habitats. Fully marine species include both pelagic and demersal 

organisms; the latter being those that are closely associated with the seabed. 

9.4.64 Some fish stocks form the basis of regional fisheries. These include some 

gadoids such as cod, whiting and pollack; the flatfish plaice, dab and flounder. 

9.4.65 The Irish Sea, and Morecambe Bay in particular, is known to be an important 

spawning and/or nursery grounds for certain fish species. The aforementioned 

commercially targeted species cod, whiting, plaice and also sole spawn in the 

Irish Sea during spring months, and their resulting larvae then use local coastal 

nursery areas to mature and eventually replenish Irish Sea stocks. 

9.4.66 The presence of a number of major rivers in the region, including the Mersey, 

Dee, Wyre and Ribble, makes the area important to a number of diadromous 

fish species. These species migrate through the varying salinity waters of local 

estuaries and coasts between fresh and saltwater habitats to complete their 

lifecycles. Species occurring in the Irish Sea include Atlantic salmon, sea trout 

and eel as well as twaite shad, allis shad and sea lamprey. 

9.4.67 Other notable species in the Irish Sea include representatives of the 

elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and Rays). Around 27 elasmobranch species 

are known to occur in the Irish Sea, including megafauna (basking shark) and 

species that are of both conservation concern and commercially targeted, e.g. 

thornback ray. 

9.4.68 Those species of fish listed on international legislation are considered to be of 

International value for nature conservation. Other species are considered to 

246

e of Regional and National value for nature conservation, on account of the 

legislative protection they are afforded. 


Marine Mammals 

9.4.70 For the purposes of this ES, the term marine mammals refers collectively to 

pinnipeds (seals) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins). 

9.4.71 Foraging on the wide variety of benthic organisms and fish species, more than 

20 species of whale and dolphin and seven species of seal have been recorded 

in the Irish Sea. However, only three species of cetacean: harbour porpoise, 

short-beaked common dolphin and bottlenose dolphin and two species of 

pinniped: grey seal and harbour seal, are regularly seen in waters near the 

application boundary. 

9.4.72 Due to the legal protected afforded to most marine mammals, they are 

considered to be of International value for nature conservation. 


Terrestrial Habitats / Species 

General Habitats 

9.4.74 To the east of the Wyre Estuary, the dominant habitats recorded during the 

2011 survey comprised improved grassland and arable fields bordered by 

hedgerows, fences and drainage ditches. Other habitats included several areas 

of broad-leaved and mixed plantation woodland; dense and scattered scrub; 

individual trees and shrubs; ruderal vegetation; small areas of marshy, semiimproved 

and coastal grassland; a strip of saltmarsh west of Burrows Lane and 

Brown Lane; a small area of species-poor semi-improved grassland; amenity 

grassland; scattered hedgerow trees; a number of ponds; standing water; 

buildings and hardstanding. 

9.4.75 To the west of the Wyre Estuary, habitats comprised improved grassland and 

arable fields bordered by hedgerows, fences and drainage ditches. Other 

habitats comprised ponds and lagoons, amenity grassland and a mosaic of 

scrub, tall ruderal and (species-rich) semi-improved neutral grassland adjacent 

to Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works. As a result of the findings of the 

2011 survey, none of the habitats that it was considered could be affected by 

the Project (either temporarily or permanently) were considered to be 

sufficiently diverse for survey to Phase 2 National Vegetation Classification 

(NVC) level to be undertaken. These habitats are therefore considered to be of 

Local/Parish value for nature conservation. 

9.4.76 Further detail on the results of the 2011 survey, including mapping, is presented 

in Appendix 9.5 of Volume 1B. 

247

Hedgerows 

9.4.77 Six of the 92 hedgerows surveyed during the 2011 survey would be classified 

as ‘important’ under The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 using the Wildlife and 

Landscape Criteria (Hedgerows H57, H58, H59, H64, H70 and H73). 

Hedgerows are a UK BAP Priority Habitat. 

9.4.78 Overall, given that most of the hedgerows within the application boundary were 

species-poor, devoid of valuable ground flora species and relatively recent in 

origin, they are considered to be of Local/Parish value for nature conservation. 



Arable Weeds 

9.4.80 Lancashire County Council provided records of White Ramping-fumitory, Purple 

Ramping-fumitory, Common fumitory, Tall Ramping-fumitory and Few-flowered 

fumitory. Purple Ramping-fumitory is endemic to the UK. It is Nationally Scarce, 

a UK BAP and a Lancashire LBAP species. Tall Ramping-fumitory and White 

Ramping-fumitory are ‘Vulnerable’ in Lancashire. In addition, Clods Carr Lane 

Fields BHS, located adjacent to the application boundary, is designated for its 

arable weed assemblage, including Purple Ramping-fumitory. 

9.4.81 All 2003/2004 records were confirmed by the 2009 survey, which found that 

Purple Ramping-fumitory was present in 12 locations. Many Fumitory seedlings 

(several hundred in one location (36) and several thousand in three locations (8, 

16 and 19)) were identified). However, in three of these locations, and in a 

number of other locations where fewer plants were identified, the subsequent 

application of herbicides had severely weakened the plants, including Purple 

Ramping-fumitory. Purple Ramping-fumitory was abundant and appeared not 

to have been affected by herbicides in two locations (18 and 31). The 

remaining fields surveyed only supported a few plants (up to 50). The 2009 

survey also identified three other fumitory species, the localised Tall Rampingfumitory 

and the more widespread Common Ramping-fumitory and Common 

fumitory. Although White Ramping-fumitory was found in 2004, it appeared to 

be absent in 2009. 

9.4.82 In addition to fumitory species, the 2009 survey highlighted the presence of 

large colonies of Corn Marigold and the possible presence of Field Woundwort. 

Corn Marigold receives the status of ‘Vulnerable’ and Field Woundwort the 

status of ‘Near Threatened’. Neither of these species are priority species in the 

UK BAP or the Lancashire LBAP. 

9.4.83 A number of species of conservation concern were present within the 

application boundary. However, these species were damaged by herbicide use 

in a number of locations. In addition, no part of Carr Lane Fields BHS is within 

the application boundary. As such, arable weeds are considered to be of 

District/Borough value for nature conservation within the application boundary. 



248

Rock Sea-lavender 

9.4.85 Rock Sea-lavender is endemic to the UK, ‘Nationally Rare’ and a Lancashire 

LBAP species. No records of Rock Sea-lavender were highlighted through the 

desk study. In Lancashire, two species of rock sea-lavender occur and they 

often hybridise. The 2009 survey confirmed the presence of one subspecies 

(Limonium britannicum subspecies celticum) south of Hackensall Brows. Two 

separate colonies were identified close together, although far fewer clumps 

were recorded than in 2003 (a total of 18 clumps compared to 230 clumps). In 

2009, no plants were recorded at the causeway north of the inlet for the creek 

through Barnaby Sands Marsh (although they were present in 2003). 

9.4.86 Given that Rock Sea-lavender is endemic to the UK, Nationally Rare and only 

known to exist in 20 locations in the UK, this species is assessed as being of 

National value for nature conservation. 



Ditches 

9.4.88 The 2011 survey revealed that many of the ditches supported a limited flora, 

with the majority of them being dry or only partially inundated with water at the 

time of survey. Where present, bankside vegetation was generally dominated 

by grasses such as Yorkshire-fog, Cock’s-foot and Perennial Rye-grass, with 

Common Reed. Scrub such as Bramble and tall ruderal species including 

Common Nettle were also recorded. 

9.4.89 Overall, given that the ditches were generally of low ecological value, they are 

considered to be of Local/Parish value for nature conservation. 



Ponds 

9.4.91 Ponds were considered to be a UK BAP Priority Habitat. Three of the 13 ponds 

surveyed to Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Survey methodology (Ponds 22, 23 

and NP14) would meet the UK BAP pond criteria, as they were found to support 

‘species of high conservation importance’ including common toad (a UK BAP 

priority species). In addition, water vole (a species fully protected under the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and a UK BAP priority 

species) signs were recorded at Pond 22. 

9.4.92 Overall, given that most of the ponds surveyed would not meet the UK BAP 

pond criteria, supporting a limited diversity of flora and invertebrates, ponds are 

considered to be of Local/Parish value for nature conservation. 



249

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

9.4.94 Records were received for 23 butterfly species from the Butterfly Conservation 

Trust for up to 1 km from the application boundary between 2005 and 2010. Of 

these, two UK BAP species were recorded; small heath and wall brown with 29 

records of small heath recorded in 2005 and 59 records of wall brown in 2010. 

The remainder were a number of records for common species such as painted 

lady, green-veined white, common blue, gatekeeper, meadow brown, orange 

tip, large skipper, small skipper, large white, peacock, small tortoiseshell, a few 

records for less frequently seen species in the area such as clouded yellow, 

holly blue, brimstone, comma, dark green fritillary and one record for purple 

hairstreak. 

9.4.95 At The Heads, one ‘Notable B’ species (recorded from fewer than 100 10km 

squares of the UK Ordnance Survey Grid) Mantura rustica was recorded during 

the 2010 survey. This is a leaf beetle associated with Dock species (Rumex 

spp). In addition, two ‘local’ species (occurring in between 101-300 10 km 

squares in the UK) were recorded: a seed weevil Apion cruentatum which is 

also associated with docks; and a 16 spot ladybird Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata 

which is associated with damp places. The complete species list was quite 

diverse, and indicated damp meadows with a good vegetation structure. 

However, the species recorded were generally widespread and common. 

9.4.96 Roesel’s Bush Cricket was recorded at Rossall School Fields. Few butterfly 

species were noted during the survey. 

9.4.97 The application site generally supports widespread and common species and 

as such, is considered to be of Local/Parish value for the terrestrial 

invertebrate population it supports. 



Great Crested Newts 

9.4.99 Great crested newts were recorded within four ponds during the 2009 survey 

(Ponds 34, 48, 50 and NP21), and within an additional two ponds (Ponds 10 

and 15) during the 2011 survey. Ponds 34 and NP21 were considered to 

support a ‘medium’ population of great crested newts, whereas Ponds 10, 15, 

48 and 50 were considered to support a ‘small’ population. The location of all 

ponds is presented on Figure A9.11 in Appendix 9.11 of Volume 1B. 

9.4.100 During the 2009 survey, 14 ponds were identified within the survey area that 

could not be surveyed due to access restrictions. During the 2011 survey, six 

ponds were identified that could not be surveyed due to access restrictions. 

Therefore, taking the precautionary approach for the purposes of this 

assessment, it is considered that these ponds could support a ‘small’ to 

‘medium’ population of great crested newts. 

9.4.101 Given that newts are common in the county, and given the relatively small 

number of ponds that were found to support great crested newts (a total of six 

ponds out of over 100 surveyed during 2009 and 2011), the application site and 

250

surrounding area is considered to be of District/Borough value for the local 

great crested newt population. 

9.4.102 Further detail on the results of the 2009 and 2011 surveys, including mapping, 

is presented in Appendix 9.11 of Volume 1B. 

Breeding Birds 

9.4.103 The 2010 survey recorded a range of breeding birds typical of arable farmland 

and grassland habitat. Most bird activity was centred around the hedgerows 

and small woodland copses. Birds typically associated with coastal habitats 

were also recorded throughout the area surveyed, including curlew and 

shelduck. 

9.4.104 In total, 42 species of birds were identified, of which 33 species were 

considered likely to be breeding (or have bred) within the habitats surveyed. Of 

these, 11 species were ‘red listed’ birds of conservation concern and/or Priority 

Species in the UK BAP. It is considered likely that these birds would have been 

breeding within suitable habitat within the survey corridor. 

9.4.105 Due to the presence and diversity of red listed species, the application site is 

considered to be of District/Borough value for the local breeding bird 

population. 

9.4.106 Further detail on the results of the 2010 breeding bird survey, including 

mapping, is presented in Appendix 9.12 of Volume 1B. 

Barn Owls 

9.4.107 Records of barn owls were provided by the Environment Agency, Fylde Bird 

Club, and Lancashire County Council. The latter data included records of 

breeding barn owls from 1997, 1998 and 1999 in the vicinity of the Project. 

9.4.108 The 2011 survey confirmed that one of the buildings within the application site 

was being used by breeding barn owls. These barn owls form part of a larger 

population in the area, and they are afforded protection under Schedule 1 of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Therefore, the breeding barn 

owls are considered to be of District/Borough value for nature conservation. 

9.4.109 A number of incidental sightings of barn owls foraging within the local farmland 

have been made during other surveys. 

9.4.110 Further detail on the results of the 2011 barn owl survey is presented in 


Wintering Birds (excluding Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar Species and 

Liverpool Bay/Bae Lerpwl SPA species) 

9.4.111 The wintering bird surveys (carried out in 2003 and 2008/09) identified a range 

of non-SPA/Ramsar site species using the mudflats, saltmarsh and fields within 

and adjacent to the Project. Of the species recorded within the survey area 

(shown on Figure A9.12(i) in Appendix 9.12 of Volume 1B), 12 were identified 

as being of conservation importance (i.e. those species listed on the RSPB ‘Red 

251

list’ of bird species of conservation concern, UK BAP or Lancashire LBAP). Full 

details of the survey results can be found in Appendix 9.12 of Volume 1B. 

9.4.112 In addition, desk study information received from Fylde Bird Club identified 13 

species of conservation importance within and adjacent to the Project. A 

summary of the wintering bird survey results and desk study is presented in 

Table 9-5. 

9.4.113 With the exception of starling, all of these species were recorded in relatively 

low numbers throughout the survey visits in 2003 and 2008/2009. Up to 1,000 

starling were recorded foraging on terrestrial farmland within the application 

boundary, with smaller flocks of less than 250 birds recorded during the winter 

months. Overall, the application site is considered to be of Local/Parish value 

for wintering birds (excluding Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar species). 

Table 9-5 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Important Wintering Bird 

Species (excluding Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar species) Recorded 

within and adjacent to the Application Boundary 

Species Status Eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

Western side of the 

River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

Hen harrier Red List One bird recorded at Barnaby’s Sand in 

2009. 1 No records in the 

vicinity of the Project. 

Grey partridge 

UK BAP/ 

LBAP / 

Red List 

Recorded in small numbers (

Species Status Eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre 

Estuary 

Tree sparrow UK BAP / 

LBAP / 

Red List 

Small numbers regularly recorded (

9.4.117 General bat activity was also recorded, comprising common pipistrelle, soprano 

pipistrelle, serotine bat, a Myotis bat species and an unconfirmed pipistrelle spp. 

In general, bat activity on the northern side of the buildings along the line of 

mature trees and hedge was high for the duration of the surveys. Pipistrelle 

bats were recorded continually foraging along the row of trees between the 

buildings and Monk’s Lane, commuting west to the east and back. Bats 

exhibiting foraging behaviour were also observed in the canopies of mature 

trees and shrubs located around the east, south and west side of the buildings. 

9.4.118 Given that the surveys revealed a small bat roost used on an occasional basis 

by a common and widespread species, bats are considered to be of 

Local/Parish value for nature conservation. 

9.4.119 Further detail on the results of the 2011 potential tree roost survey, including 

mapping, together with further detail on the results of the initial inspections and 

subsequent emergence / re-entry surveys undertaken at Higher Lickow Farm, is 

presented in Appendix 9.14 of Volume 1B. 

Water Voles 

9.4.120 Records of water voles were provided by the Environment Agency and 

Lancashire County Council for the ditches at Rossall School Fields and in the 

fields to the east, on the Fylde Peninsula. 

9.4.121 Although no evidence of water vole activity was recorded from any of the 

ditches surveyed during the 2011 survey, signs of water vole activity were 

recorded in Pond 22 during the Lancashire Pond Biodiversity Surveys. Many of 

the ditches were dry at the time of the survey. 

9.4.122 Evidence of mink was recorded during the surveys of the ditches. This, 

combined with the active management of the ditches and lack of water in some 

instances within the application boundary, is likely to be the reason for the lack 

of water vole activity. However, it is possible that the ditch network could 

become re-colonised by water voles in the future. Given that signs of water 

vole activity have been recorded, and their potential for re-colonisation in the 

future, the application site is considered to be of Local/Parish value for water 

voles. 



Otters 

9.4.124 Otter prints and a spraint were recorded in two separate ditches along the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline route during the water vole/ditch surveys. No otter 

resting sites or holt sites were recorded during the surveys. 

9.4.125 Given that the application boundary is surrounded by a similar network of 

ditches, and given large home range of otters and the lack of suitable resting 

sites or otter holts identified within the survey area, the application site is 

considered to be of Local/Parish value to the local otter population. 

254



Brown Hares 

9.4.127 The 2003 survey recorded evidence of brown hare activity, with most hares 

being observed in the fields to the south of Corcas Lane. To the north of 

Corcas Lane, observed activity was very limited. Furthermore, sightings of 

brown hares have also been recorded incidentally during other species surveys 

undertaken since. Brown hares are a UK BAP Priority species and Lancashire 

LBAP species. 

9.4.128 Given their abundance in the wider area (west Lancashire is a local stronghold 

for the species) and the extensive habitat available to them locally, the 

application site is considered to be of Local/Parish value to the local brown 

hare population. 

9.4.129 Further detail on the results of the 2003 survey is presented in Appendix 9.15 of 

Volume 1B. 

Badgers 

9.4.130 Lancashire Badger Group provided records of setts within 2 km of the 

application boundary. 

9.4.131 During the 2011 survey, one ‘outlying’ sett was identified (that same sett that 

had been previously identified during both the 2004 and 2009 surveys). The 

sett comprised two entrance holes, both partially-used. Very few signs of other 

badger activity were recorded. In addition, the application boundary is 

considered to be of limited value to foraging badgers. 

9.4.132 The application site is considered to be of Negligible value to the local badger 

population. 





Project. 

Marine Ecological Environment 

Climate Change 

 

 

 

 

Increased storminess could affect biogenic reef aggregations by making it 

less likely for stable reefs to form 

May cause sea temperatures to rise altering conditions for the benthic 

communities resulting in: 

Increased community diversity and abundance 

Decreased community diversity and abundance 

255

Increased seawater temperature could result in colonisation of species 

that currently have a more southerly distribution 

Sea Level Rise 

 

 

 

Change to the ranges of the inhabiting benthic communities 

Flooding of a more heterogeneous environment (e.g. seawall defences) 

may lead to greater species diversity as more microhabitats are made 

available to a greater variety of colonising flora and fauna 

The flow patterns of sea currents may be affected by changes in salinity of 

polar seas 

Marine Coastal Zone Classification 

9.5.2 As stated in Section 9.1, there are currently three Marine Conservation Zones 

proposed within the vicinity of the Project (forming part of the Irish Sea 

Conservation Zone), these being Ribble, Wyre-Lune and rMCZ8. Designation 

of these zones would result in the application of management strategies to 

protect and maintain existing environmental habitats and species contained 

within the area; of resident, migratory and vagrant species. Such strategies 

may comprise: 

 

 

 

 

Prevention of the fishing of threatened marine and diadromous fish 

species within the area boundaries 

Protection from the release of polluting/contaminating substances into the 

area 

Increased benthic species abundance as a result of reduced habitat 

destruction from fishing activities 

Decreased benthic species abundance as a result of an increase in 

benthic macrofauna (i.e. flatfish species) resulting from restrictions 

imposed upon fishing 


Sublittoral 

9.5.3 The robustness of the main characterising biotopes in this zone: 

CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs- Flustra foliacea and colonial ascidians on tide-swept 

moderately wave-exposed circalittoral rock and CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs.X- 

Flustra foliacea and colonial ascidians on tide-swept exposed circalittoral mixed 

substrata, suggests that the future benthic habitat here may largely remain 

unchanged over the predicted lifetime of the Project. This is because the 

dominating community is tolerant to alterations in conditions such as 

temperature increase, increased storminess etc. 

Littoral 

9.5.4 Response of littoral habitats to sea level rise and potential increased storminess 

is unclear but likely to include reduced littoral area due to coastal squeeze and 

more temporary aggregations of Sabellaria alveolata into biogenic reef form due 

to more frequent break up of loose and incipient aggregations. 

256

Terrestrial Ecological Environment 

Climate Change 

9.5.5 Whilst the impacts of climate change are by no means certain, there is the 

potential that in Lancashire, the length of the growing season may be increased, 

leading to wetter summers and colder winters. Whilst this is unlikely to affect 

the baseline conditions in the short-term i.e. during the construction and the 

construction and operation combined phases, there is the potential that the 

baseline could change in the longer-term (during the operational phase of the 

Project). During this time, climate change may lead to an alteration in the crops 

grown in the arable fields, which may affect the availability of resources for 

species of conservation concern. In the absence of climate change, cropping 

regimes would be expected to alter in response to market forces and changes 

in farming practices. Climate change may also alter drainage patterns, affecting 

the availability of water in the pond and ditch network. In the event that water 

became scarce it is likely that land use would change to cope with this. This 

could include the creation of reservoirs to provide water. 

9.5.6 With the exception of the coastal habitats, the habitats within the application 

boundary are anthropogenic in origin, common and widespread and thus it is 

likely that many of the species associated with them would either adapt to the 

new conditions or move with the climatic conditions. 

Sea Level Rise 

9.5.7 Sea level rise may lead to ‘coastal squeeze’ which could result in the loss of 

saltmarsh and mudflat habitat adjacent to the application boundary. There are 

areas of farmland nearby that present opportunities for coastal realignment 

nearby, if compensatory measures were required in future years to compensate 

for this loss of habitat. 


9.6.1 As stated in Section 9.3, the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in 

the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006) and the Guidelines for Ecological Impact 

Assessment in Britain and Ireland: Marine and Coastal (IEEM, 2010) require the 

identification of those receptors considered to be ‘key’ ecological receptors (and 

thus have been ‘scoped in’ for the detailed impact assessment). Only those 

ecological resources that it was considered could experience significant effects 

(i.e. impacts that could adversely affect the integrity of the habitat or the 

favourable conservation status of a species’ local population) and which were 

identified as being of sufficient value to be material to decision making (i.e. 

District/Borough level and above for terrestrial receptors, Local and above for 

marine receptors) have been classified as being ‘key’ ecological receptors. In 

terms of the marine receptors, consideration was also given to whether the 

competent authorities have specific Water Framework Directive, biodiversity, 

landscape or other legislative duties that are beyond the conventional approach 

of designated sites and protected species e.g. marine spatial planning, 

integrated coastal zone management and flood risk. 

257

9.6.2 ‘Key’ ecological receptors are summarised in Table 9-6. In terms of potentially 

significant effects (in the absence of mitigation and enhancement measures), 

these have been considered for the construction (Years 1-3), construction and 


phases. 

9.6.3 Table 9-7 identifies those ecological receptors for which a detailed assessment 

was not considered a requirement (i.e. they have been ‘scoped out’), but which 

do require mitigation as part of the Project on the basis of: their legal protection; 

their implications on environmental (and related) policies and plans; and for 

animal welfare reasons. 

9.6.4 Table 9-8 lists those ecological resources which have been ‘scoped out’ of the 

detailed assessment entirely, and which require no mitigation. For each 

resource, the basis for omitting them from the assessment is presented. 

9.6.5 It should be noted that for assessment purposes, candidate designated sites 

are treated as though fully designated. Furthermore, where SSSIs and their 

qualifying features underpin European sites, and where the zone of influence, 

potential effects, and mitigation measures are deemed to be similar, they have 

been aggregated with the relevant European site. For example, the Wyre 

Estuary has been combined with Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar. The bird 

species of the Lune Estuary SSSI have also been combined with Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar, as they are likely to move between estuaries; however, 

the habitats of the Lune Estuary SSSI have been combined with Morecambe 

Bay SAC, as these habitats overlap and are considered to be more remote from 

the Project. 

258

Table 9-6 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Summary of ‘Key’ Ecological Receptors 

Key Ecological Receptor 


Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar 

(including the wintering and passage 

birds the site supports; Wyre 

Estuary SSSI; and the wintering and 

passage birds associated with Lune 

Estuary SSSI) 


Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands 

BHS (excluding breeding and on 

passage birds) 

Value for Nature 

Conservation 

Justification of Value 

Potentially Significant Effect 

International European (Natura 2000) site Disturbance to / displacement of wintering and 

passage birds during the construction phase, the 

construction and operation combined phase and 

the operational phase. 

Temporary loss and permanent loss of habitat for 

foraging and roosting wildfowl and waders during 

the construction phase, the construction and 

operation combined phase and the operational 

phase. 

Degradation of habitats (including Morecambe 

Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI) 

through fugitive dust deposition, air pollutants 

such as nitrogen deposition and oxides of 

nitrogen, and uncontrolled surface water runoff 

during the construction phase and construction 

and operation combined phase. 

Subsidence of habitat during the construction 

and operation combined phase and the 

operational phase. 

County 

BHSs are the most important 

non-statutory wildlife sites in 

Lancashire 

Temporary loss of habitats within the footprint of 

the brine discharge pipeline and associated 

works during the construction phase. 

The works that would take place close to the 

BHS would take place in the summer months 

(May to August), and therefore no significant 

259


Rossall School Fields – Ditches and 

Bankings BHS 

Marine Habitats / Species* 


Conservation 

County 


BHSs are the most important 

non-statutory wildlife sites in 

Lancashire 


effects are anticipated on the birds (such as 

redshank, shelduck, wigeon, great crested grebe, 

and lapwing) using these features during the 

passage period and overwinter. However, there 

is potential to disturb bird species using this site 

during the breeding season. 

Degradation of habitats adjacent to works 

activities through fugitive dust deposition, air 

pollutants such as nitrogen deposition and oxides 

of nitrogen, and uncontrolled surface water runoff 

during the construction phase and construction 


Although approximately 0.08 hectares of this 

BHS is within the application boundary, the 

footprint of the Project would be reviewed to 

ensure that no direct habitat loss would occur. 

However, potential exists for indirect effects on 

the BHS through pollution incidents / 

contamination (including releases of sediments) 

during the construction phase. Excavations for 

trenches and pipework may cause silt runoff and 

potential ponding. The use of chemicals, fuels 

and oils on site throughout the construction 

phase presents a risk to the water environment 

from leaks, spills and accidents. These could 

occur as a result of major pollution incidents or 

more chronic releases of pollutants. 

Plankton Regional The plankton underpins the Mortality through hypersaline conditions during 

260



Conservation 



marine ecosystem and 

contains the juvenile stages of 

some high value species such 

as fish eggs and larvae. 

These are of at least Regional 

value and the plankton as a 

whole is therefore ascribed the 

corresponding value 

the construction phase, construction and 


phase. 

Benthic environment – sublittoral 

(including MCR.Pid biotope) 

National 

MCR.Pid biotope is present 

only in very small patches of 

around 1-2 m 2 , believed to be 

trawl/dredge scars. UK BAP 

habitat. Other biotopes are 

widespread, with no nature 

conservation designation. 

Mortality and displacement of organisms from the 

hypersaline plume during the construction phase, 

the construction and operation combined phase 

and the operational phase. 

Indirect effects due to sediment mobilisation 


Benthic environment – sublittoral 

and littoral 

(including aggregations of Sabellaria 

alveolata) 

Regional 

Although the biogenic reef 

within the application boundary 

is not designated under Annex 

I of the Habitats Directive, and 

the quality is not sufficiently 

high that designation is likely, 

these habitats are classified as 

being of potentially regional 

value as a precaution 

Direct damage of habitats during installation of 

the brine discharge pipeline and associated 

structures during the construction phase. 

Fish 

Atlantic salmon 

Fish 

Twaite shad; allis shad, sea lamprey 

National 

International 

Annex IIa and Va (freshwater 

only) of the EC Habitats 

Directive 

All Annex II of the EC Habitats 

Directive and UK BAP species 

Influence on migration between marine and 

freshwater during the construction phase 

(salmon, shad, and lamprey only). 

Mortality of adult fish through contact with the 


261


and basking shark 

Fish 

Skates and rays, e.g. thornback ray 

Fish 

Other fish species, including 

demersal species such as plaice 

and dab 


Conservation 

Regional 

Up to Regional 


UK BAP species 

Many species are trophically 

important and/or support 

local/regional fisheries 

Marine Mammals International Cetaceans (whales, dolphins 

and porpoises) are legally 

protected within UK waters by 

various legislation, most 

notably the Conservation of 

Habitats and Species 

Regulations 2010, which apply 



and the operational phase (all fish species). 

Loss of planktonic stages (eggs and larvae) in 

the hypersaline plume during the construction 

phase, the construction and operation combined 

phase and the operational phase (other fish 

species, as defined). 

Displacement by the hypersaline plume during 



phase (all fish species). 

Indirect effects due to sediment mobilisation 

during the construction phase (all fish species). 

Indirect effects upon food resources from the 



and the operational phase (all fish species). 

Entrainment within water pumped from the 

Fleetwood Fish Dock to flush salt caverns during 



phase (other fish species, as defined). 

Disturbance from noise associated with the 


Indirect effects due to potential effects upon food 

resources from the hypersaline plume during the 

construction phase, the construction and 


phase. 

262




Conservation 


to English and Welsh waters 

inside 12 nautical miles (nm). 

Pinnipeds (seals) are not 

afforded the same level of 

legal protection as cetaceans 

but are included with other 

marine mammals for the 

purposes of this assessment 

Arable weeds District/Borough Purple Ramping-fumitory is 

Nationally Scarce and endemic 

to the UK, a UK BAP and 

Lancashire LBAP species. Tall 

Ramping-fumitory and White 

Ramping-fumitory are 

‘Vulnerable’ in Lancashire. 

Corn Marigold is ‘Vulnerable’ 

and Field Woundwort is ‘Near 

Threatened.’ 

Breeding birds (including Fleetwood 

Marsh Industrial Lands BHS but 

excluding barn owls) 

District/Borough 

Due the presence of a number 

of red listed breeding bird 

species (such as skylark, corn 

bunting and reed bunting) the 

application boundary is 

considered to be of 

District/Borough value for the 

breeding bird assemblage it 

supports 


Permanent loss of fumitory species during the 

construction phase and the construction and 

operation combined phase. [Locations where 

Corn Marigold and Field Woundwort were 

recorded would not be affected.] 

Temporary disturbance to nesting habitat and 

fragmentation of hedgerows during the 


operation combined phase. 

Permanent loss of nesting habitat during the 


Roosting barn owls District/Borough These barn owls form part of a Loss of nesting site due to the demolition of 

263



Conservation 


larger population in the area, 

and they afforded protection 

under Schedule 1 of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 

1981 (as amended) 


building. 

Potential loss of foraging habitat during the 



* The valuation of marine habitats and species has been predominantly based on the legal protection the specific receptors 

receive. 

264

Table 9-7 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Summary of ‘Other’ Ecological Receptors Scoped out of the Detailed 

Assessment, but Requiring Mitigation 

Ecological Receptor 


Fleetwood Promenade 

- Coastal and Dune 

Grassland BHS 


Arable land, broadleaved 

trees, broadleaved 

plantation 

woodland, mixed 


Conservation 

County 

Local/Parish 

Rationale for Scoping out of Detailed 

Assessment 

This BHS consists of a long band of dune and 

coastal grassland extending approximately 5 

km north and covering an area of 18.29 

hectares. The area of habitat to be temporarily 

lost within the application boundary is small in 

the context of the wider designated site 

(approximately 0.85 hectares), and comprises 

improved grassland and the existing seawall 

(not a habitat for which the BHS is designated). 

In addition, it is considered unlikely that the 

BHS habitat within the application boundary 

would support the invertebrate species for 

which this site is designated. Therefore, the 

temporary loss of this habitat is considered to 

be not significant. 

Nevertheless, in accordance with Policy SP14 

of the Wyre Borough Local Plan, any 

development proposal should respect and 

accommodate existing important features of 

the site such as biological features. 

None of these habitats were considered to be 

of sufficient ecological value to be material to 

decision making. However, arable farmland is 

a Lancashire LBAP habitat and arable field 

margins are a UK BAP Priority habitat. Policy 

Issue Requiring Mitigation 

Temporary loss of habitat during the 


Degradation of habitats adjacent to 

works activities through fugitive dust 

deposition, air pollutants such as 

nitrogen deposition and oxides of 

nitrogen, and uncontrolled surface water 

runoff. 

Temporary and permanent loss of 

habitats during the construction phase 

and the construction and operation 

combined phase. The following loss of 

265


plantation woodland 


Conservation 


Assessment 

EM1(D) of the North West of England Plan, 

Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 identifies 

that tree and woodland cover should be 

expanded, and plantation woodland is included 

on the Lancashire LBAP. Therefore, it would 

be appropriate to implement measures to 

ensure no net loss of biodiversity. 

Hedgerows Local/Parish Six of the 92 hedgerows surveyed were 

considered to qualify as ‘Important’ under The 

Hedgerows Regulations 1997. However, 

hedgerows as a whole within the application 

site have been classified as being of 

Local/Parish value, as most of them are 

species poor, are devoid of valuable ground 

flora species and a relatively recent in origin. 

Nevertheless, hedgerows are a UK BAP 

Priority habitat and it is therefore considered 

appropriate to mitigate for any potential effects 

on this habitat and ensure no net loss of 

biodiversity. 

Ditches Local/Parish None of the ditches that would be potentially 

affected by the Project were considered to be 

of sufficient ecological value to be material to 


habitats would occur: 

Broad-leaved plantation woodland: 

Temporary loss approximately 0.91 

hectares, permanent loss approximately 

0.16 hectares 

Mixed plantation woodland: Temporary 

loss of approximately 0.24 hectares, no 

permanent loss 

Permanent loss of habitats during the 

operational phase as a result of the 

introduction of permanent above-ground 

features. 

‘Important’ hedgerow (H70) would be 

directly affected during the construction 

phase at two locations by the routing of 

the 4.0 m wide access road to wellhead 

compound 5 and wellhead compound 

4. Two permanent access gaps in the 

hedgerow would be required during the 


Temporary and permanent loss (in part) 

of hedgerows during the construction 

phase and construction and operation 

combined phase. 

Permanent loss (in part) of hedgerows 

during the operational phase. 

Temporary disturbance / loss of ditch 

habitat during the installation of the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline during the 

266



Conservation 


Assessment 

decision making. Nevertheless, it is 

recognised that ditches can be a valuable 

ecological resource, including providing wildlife 

corridors. It is therefore considered appropriate 

to mitigate for any potential effects on this 

habitat. 

As part of the embedded design, it is proposed 

to auger bore beneath the main watercourses 

(Grange Pool, Rigby Pool and Pilling Water). 

Ponds Local/Parish Most of the ponds surveyed would not meet 

the UK BAP pond criteria, supporting a limited 

diversity of flora and invertebrates, and overall 

they were considered to be of insufficient 

ecological value to be material to decision 

making. None of the ponds would be ‘lost’ or 

directly affected; nevertheless it is recognised 

that ponds can be a valuable ecological 

resource. As such, it is considered appropriate 

to mitigate for any potential effects on this 

habitat. 



Pollution incidents / contamination 

(including releases of sediments) during 

the construction phase, construction 

and operation combined phase and 

operational phase. Excavations for 

trenches and pipework may cause silt 

runoff and potential ponding. The use 

of chemicals, fuels and oils on site 

throughout the construction and 

construction and operation combined 

phases presents a risk to the water 

environment from leaks, spills and 

accidents. These could occur as a result 

of major pollution incidents or more 

chronic releases of pollutants. 

Indirect hydrological effects. Such 

impacts include minor ground profile 

and watercourse changes which could 

alter surface water and fluvial flows that 

sustain the ponds. 



the construction, construction and 

operation combined phases and 

operational phase. Excavations for 

trenches and pipework may cause silt 

runoff and potential ponding. The use 

of chemicals, fuels and oils on site 

throughout the construction and 

267



Conservation 


Assessment 

Great Crested Newts District/Borough A small/medium population of great crested 

newts is present within the application 

boundary. However, great crested newts were 

only confirmed in six of the 113 ponds 

identified for survey, and the species is locally 

common in the County. 

Based upon the layout of the Project, it is not 

anticipated that any ponds would be ‘lost’ or 

directly affected by the Project. Furthermore, 

none of the six ponds within which great 

crested newts were recorded are considered to 

be at ‘high’ risk from indirect hydrological 

effects. 

However, suitable terrestrial habitats within 

250 m of the breeding ponds could be used by 

great crested newts. This would be relevant for 

all of the ponds along the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline (Ponds 34, 48, 50 and NP21). Ponds 

10 and 15 within the Preesall (gas storage) site 

are greater than 250 m from the footprint of the 

Project (Pond 10 is approximately 330 m away, 

Pond 15 is approximately 710 m away). 

Given that no ponds would be lost and that 

only a relatively small proportion of the 



phases presents a risk to the water 

environment from leaks, spills and 

accidents. These could occur as a result 

of major pollution incidents or more 

chronic releases of pollutants. 

Incidental mortality and/or injury of great 

crested newts during the construction 

phase within suitable terrestrial habitat 

within 250 m of Ponds 10, 15, 34, 48, 50 

and NP21. 

Temporary and permanent loss and 

fragmentation of terrestrial habitat, 

including dispersal routes, within 250 m 

of Ponds 10, 15, 34, 48, 50 and NP21. 

The majority of the pipeline would be 

installed within arable fields, which are 

of limited value to newts. The impacts 

would therefore be restricted to 

locations where the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline crosses hedgerows within 250 

m of confirmed newt ponds and where 

presence has been assumed. 

A licence from Natural England is 

likely to be required for works to 

proceed, and appropriate mitigation 

devised accordingly. 

268



Conservation 


Assessment 

terrestrial habitat which could be used by great 

crested newts would be temporarily affected by 

the pipeline installation, the Project would be 

expected to have no significant effects on the 

great crested newt population. 

However, given their legislative protection, it 

would be appropriate to ensure measures are 

taken to avoid their incidental mortality, and to 

ensure there is no net loss in the terrestrial 

habitat used by newts. 

Bats Local/Parish The 2011 potential bat tree roost survey 

recorded three trees with moderate potential to 

support roosting bats, and a further three trees 

with moderate / low potential to support 

roosting bats. It is anticipated that these trees 

would not be affected by the Project. 

The surveys undertaken at Higher Lickow 

Farm confirmed that the larger barn and the 

farmhouse were used by a small number of 

roosting bats on an occasional basis. 

Pipistrelle bats are common in the local area. 

As such, this small bat roost and associated 

foraging habitat is considered to be of 

Local/Parish value to bats within the 

application boundary However, bats are legally 

protected and, as such, mitigation is required 

in order comply with this legislation. 

The emergence / re-entry surveys undertaken 

at Higher Lickow Farm recorded bats using the 


Potential disturbance to any bats which 

may be roosting in these trees, should 

they be affected by the Project. 

Mortality during demolition of the larger 

barn (before rebuilding) and potential 

disturbance during refurbishment of the 

farmhouse. 

A licence from Natural England is 

likely to be required for works to 

proceed, and appropriate mitigation 

devised accordingly. 

Temporary and permanent loss of 

foraging areas (hedgerows (in part)) 

269



Conservation 


Assessment 

wider area for foraging purposes. However, the 

species / number of bats are not considered of 

sufficient value to be classified as a ‘key’ 

ecological receptor. 

Water voles Local/ Parish Signs of water vole activity were recorded in 

Pond 22 during the Lancashire Pond 

Biodiversity surveys and desk study records 

suggest that they are present within the local 

area. However, no evidence of water vole 

activity was recorded from any of the ditches 

surveyed during the 2011 survey, probably due 

to high levels of mink, and the management of 

the ditches within the application boundary. 

Pond 22 would not be affected by the Project. 

Due to the very low levels of water vole activity 

recorded, the application site is considered to 

be of Local/Parish value to water voles. 

However, water voles and their habitat are 

legally protected and, should they re-colonise 

the application site, mitigation would be 

required. 

Otters Local/Parish An otter’s home range can extend up to 40 km. 

The application boundary and the local area 

supports a network of ditches that are common 

in the landscape. On that basis, and in 

recognition of the minimal evidence of otter 

activity incidentally recorded during the 2011 

water vole survey, the application site is 


during the construction phase and 


phase. 

Permanent loss of foraging areas 

(hedgerows (in part)) during the 


If water voles re-colonise the ditches 

within the application boundary, 

temporary disturbance / loss of ditch 




Temporary disturbance / loss of ditch 




Potential effects to water quality of 

surface water features during the 

construction phase and the construction 

270



Conservation 


Assessment 


considered to be of Local/Parish value for 

otters and no places of shelter would be 

disturbed. 


Brown hares Local/Parish Brown hares are known to be present within 

the application site. However, given their 

abundance in the wider area and the extensive 

habitat available to them locally the application 

site is considered to be of Local/Parish value 

for brown hares. However, given that brown 

hare are a UK BAP Priority Species and listed 

on the Lancashire LBAP, it is appropriate to 

take measures to minimise impacts on this 

species. 

Badgers Negligible Although the application site is considered to 

be of negligible value for badgers, it is an 

offence under the Protection of Badgers Act 

1992 to damage or destroy badger setts, or to 

disturb badgers which are using them. 

Potential mortality, temporary loss of 

farmland habitat during the construction 

phase and the construction and 


Potential damage or disturbance of the 

outlying badger sett. The ‘outlying’ sett 

would not be directly affected by the 

Project and it is anticipated that the 

working width can be adjusted if 

required to avoid disturbance to the sett. 

Temporary disturbance during the 

construction phase to foraging badgers. 

271

Table 9-8 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Summary of ‘Other’ Ecological Receptors Scoped out of the Detailed 

Assessment not Requiring Mitigation 



Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 

Rationale for Scoping out of Detailed Assessment 

Morecambe Bay SAC International No direct impacts on the habitats for which this site has been 

designated. 

No direct or indirect impacts on great crested newts. 

Sediment generated during the construction phase would 

dissipate before it reaches this site. 

Potential effects on the plankton that provide recruitment for 

Morecambe Bay SAC have been considered (refer to Table 9.6) 

Liverpool Bay SPA International No direct impact on the designated area. 

Construction works that have the potential to cause disturbance to 

red-throated divers and common scoters have been timed to 

occur between April and July to avoid impacts on these birds. 

Data supplied by Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust have shown that 

the area affected by the brine discharge pipeline is not of value to 

foraging red-throated divers and common scoters. 

Brine plume modelling (refer to Appendix 2.2 of Volume 1B) has 

shown that the major flows of water are in a north/south direction, 

whilst the SPA is west of the brine discharge pipeline; thus neither 

sediments generated during construction of the brine discharge 

pipeline or the brine discharged via the pipeline would reach the 

major feeding grounds for these birds. 

Potential effects on the plankton that underpin the marine 

ecosystem have been considered in Table 9-6. 

Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC International No direct impact on the designated area. 

272


Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 


Brine plume modelling (refer to Appendix 2.2 of Volume 1B) has 

shown that the major flows of water are in a north/south direction, 

whilst the SAC is west of the brine discharge pipeline; thus neither 

sediments generated during construction of the brine discharge 

pipeline or the brine discharged via the pipeline would not reach 

this site. 

Given that the major flows of water are in a north/south direction 

the area affected by the brine discharge pipeline cannot represent 

a major source of recruitment for the fauna associated with the 

cSAC. 

Wyre Estuary SSSI National The directional drilling of the brine discharge pipeline under the 

Wyre Estuary is planned to extend from a point 150 m from the bank 

of the estuary on the Fleetwood side. The corresponding exit point 

would be east of the existing embankment, some 250 m from the 

Estuary on the Preesall side. The gradient for the directional drill is 

8 o , which equates to a slope of 1 in 14. This means that the drill hole 

would be: 

10m below the saltmarsh on the Fleetwood side 

11m below the saltmarsh on the Preesall side 

At least 8 m below the substratum of the Estuary in mid-channel 

The directional drilling of the proposed electricity supply line under 

the Wyre Estuary is planned to extend from a drill site on the 

Fleetwood side. The exit point would be in improved grassland west 

of Burrow’s Lane. 

The Applicant has advised that whilst bentonite may be required for 

directional drilling, there is no expectation that there would be any 

release of this substance into the marine environment. 

There is potential for subsidence to occur within the saltmarsh. 

273


Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 


Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability predicts the rate of 

subsidence within the saltmarsh to be 46 mm over the lifetime of the 

Project. In ecological terms, this rate of subsidence is not predicted 

to be noticeable. 

Winmarleigh Moss SSSI National Due to the distance of this site from the application boundary 

(approximately 750 m to the north), it is considered that there would 

be no direct or indirect impact to this site or the species for which it 

is designated. 

Lune Estuary SSSI National Due to the distance of this site from the application boundary 

(approximately 1 km to the north), it is considered that there would 

be no direct or indirect impact to this site or the species for which it 

is designated. 


Hillhouse Estuary Banks BHS County Approximately 0.51 hectares of this site falls within the application 

boundary. However, the brine discharge pipeline would be drilled 

beneath this site and, as such, there would be no direct or indirect 

impact to this site or the species for which it is designated. 

Hackensall Brows BHS County A narrow strip at the southern extent of this site falls within the 

application boundary. However, no works would take place within 

this designated site. In addition, works in the vicinity of this site (the 

construction of wellhead compound 1) would be of such a limited 

scale that no indirect impacts would occur on this BHS. 

Pilling Moss – Head Dyke BHS County The Project passes through this designated site (approximately 9.26 

hectares falls within the application boundary). The site is 

designated for the over-wintering wildfowl it supports. Construction 

of the section of NTS Interconnector Pipeline through this BHS 

would be completed during the summer months (May to August) and 

274


Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 


would therefore avoid disturbing wintering birds. The habitats 

present are not of intrinsic ecological nature conservation value. 

Pilling Moss – Eagland Hill BHS County The Project passes through this designated site (approximately 9.34 

hectares falls within the application boundary). The site is 

designated for the over-wintering wildfowl it supports. Construction 

of the section of NTS Interconnector Pipeline through this BHS 

would be completed during the summer months (May to August) and 

would therefore avoid disturbing wintering birds. The habitats 

present are not of intrinsic ecological nature conservation value. 

Clods Carr Lane Fields BHS County Although adjacent to the application boundary, this site is designated 

for its arable weed assemblage. As such, it is considered that there 

would be no direct or indirect impact to this site or the species for 

which it is designated. 

ICI Salt Pools BHS County This site is adjacent to the application boundary; however, given the 

distance from any construction activities (the nearest of which is the 

electrical sub-station), no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated 

on the pools and swamp habitat the site supports. Should works 

take place during the spring/summer months, it is possible that the 

construction of the section of pipeline which passes between the salt 

pools could potentially displace/cause disturbance to breeding birds. 

However, given the small-scale and short-term nature of the works, 

it is considered that the construction of the pipeline is unlikely to 

cause significant disturbance to breeding birds. 

As such, it is considered that there would be no direct or indirect 


Fleetwood Farm Fields BHS County It is possible that the construction of the section of brine discharge 

pipeline in fields north of Fleetwood Farm could take place during 

the winter months and therefore could potentially displace/cause 

275


Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 


disturbance to pink-footed geese, curlew and redshank using the 

adjacent fields. However the brine discharge pipeline would be 

located north of the fields known to be used by the geese, and north 

of an existing road, close to an existing housing estate. Given the 

small-scale and short-term nature of the works (using an excavator 

or wheel-trencher), the adjacent road and properties, and the 

amount of other suitable foraging areas for these birds more than 

500 m from the proposed works, it is considered that the 

construction of the Project is unlikely to cause significant disturbance 

to pink-footed geese roosting and foraging at Fleetwood Farm. 

Should works take place during the spring/summer months, it is 

possible that the construction of the section of brine discharge 

pipeline in fields north of Fleetwood Farm could potentially 

displace/cause disturbance to breeding lapwing and other nesting 

birds. However, the brine discharge pipeline would be located north 

of an existing road, close to an existing housing estate. Given the 

small-scale and short-term nature of the works (using an excavator 

or wheel-trencher), the adjacent road and properties, and the 

amount of other suitable foraging areas for these birds more than 

500 m from the proposed works, it is considered that the 

construction of the Project is unlikely to cause significant disturbance 

to breeding birds. 

As such, it is considered that there would be no direct or indirect 


ICI Hillhouse International Pool BHS County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Lancaster Canal Whole Length in Lancashire County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 

276


including Glasson Branch BHS 

Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 




Cockerham and Winmarleigh Moss Edge BHS County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Rossall Lane Wood and Pasture BHS County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Shepherd Pond BHS County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Jameson Road Saltmarsh BHS County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Burglars Alley Field BHS County Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Fleetwood Railway Branch Line, Trunnah to 

Burn Naze BHS 


County 

Due to the distance from the Project, it is considered that there 



Plankton in the Wyre Estuary Fish Dock Project Potential for entrainment of plankton as sea water is extracted from 

the Fish Dock, but the Fish Dock would support limited plankton that 

is semi-isolated from the wider marine environment, thus the effect 

on the wider environment would be limited and not significant. 

277


Benthic environment –sublittoral 

Other sublittoral habitats within the application 

boundary 

Benthic environment – littoral 

Other littoral habitats within the application 

boundary 


Improved grassland, amenity grassland, scrub 

and tall ruderal 

Value for 

Nature 

Conservation 

Project 

Project 

Local/Parish 


Widespread biotopes with no nature conservation designations. 

These biotopes are not considered to be of sufficient intrinsic 

ecological value to be material to decision making. 

Widespread biotopes with no nature conservation designations. 

These biotopes are not considered to be of sufficient intrinsic 

ecological value to be material to decision making. 

The habitats are not considered to be of sufficient intrinsic ecological 

value to be material to decision making. 

Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland Local/Parish No semi-natural broad-leaved woodland would be directly or 

indirectly affected. 

Rock Sea-lavender National None of the areas known to support Rock Sea-lavender would be 

either directly or indirectly affected. 

Terrestrial invertebrates (non-BHS species) Local/Parish The species noted within the desk study records and those recorded 

during the surveys were considered to be of insufficient ecological 

value to be material to decision making. 

Wintering birds (excluding Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar species) 

Local/Parish 

Due to the temporary nature and small area of the habitats to be lost 

for wintering birds (excluding Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar species) 

during the construction phase and construction and operation 

combined phase, it is considered that effects on this receptor would 

be not significant. 

278

Additional Information on Scoped-Out Receptors 

Effects of Sediment on Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay/Bae Lerpwl 

SPA and Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC 

9.6.6 The installation of the brine discharge pipeline would generate approximately 

24,150 m 3 of excess sediment. This excess sediment could potentially mobilise 

towards these designated sites, where marine habitats could be at risk of 

smothering by sediment deposition. The area where the brine discharge 

pipeline is located, however, is characterised by high turbidity, and it is 

considered that the sediment-saturated water column would be unable to carry 

and transport significant volumes of additional sediment. In addition, brine 

plume modelling (refer to Appendix 2.2 of Volume 1B) has shown that brine 

plume levels are dissipated substantially before reaching these sites, all of 

which are located more than 1 km away. As it is heavier than brine, any 

mobilised sediment would be expected to settle out close to the point where it is 

generated. The generation of excess sediment during the installation of the 

brine discharge pipeline would therefore not be expected to adversely affect 

these sites (and the habitat/species for which they are designated) through 

smothering. 

Effects of Brine on Morecambe Bay SAC, Liverpool Bay/Bae Lerpwl SPA 

and Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC 

9.6.7 The release of brine solution into the Irish Sea could potentially affect marine 

habitats and species. However, due to the dilution effect of the Irish Sea, it is 

expected that at a distance of greater than 500 m from the discharge point, 

salinity levels would return to 5% of normal levels, and that impacts due to 

salinity would be low to insignificant and within acceptable limits. In addition, 

monitoring would ensure that water quality conditions of the Environment 

Agency Discharge Licence would be met prior to release of the brine solution. 

These sites are more than 1 km from the discharge point and therefore no 

adverse effects on species within these sites are considered likely. 

9.6.8 Conservation interest features at Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC include 

infaunal and epifaunal invertebrate communities that are replenished through 

settlement of juvenile stages from the plankton. Whilst the hypersaline plume is 

expected to kill any plankton passing through the zone of >40 psu, the area of 

impact lies well to the east (inshore) of Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC and 

brine discharge modelling shows the plume (and therefore passively 

transported plankton) to move along a south-north axis. Invertebrate 

colonisation of these sites must be derived largely from plankton present 2 km 

or more offshore of the brine discharge point and it is therefore not expected 

that loss of plankton around the brine discharge point could adversely affect 

invertebrate communities at Shell Flat and Lune Deep cSAC. 

9.6.9 Morecambe Bay SAC is slightly further from the brine discharge point than Shell 

Flat and Lune Deep cSAC (2.8 km and 2.5 km) respectively, and therefore there 

is not expected to be any direct impact of the hypersaline plume at this site. 

9.6.10 There is the potential that plankton transported by water flows between these 

sites could be affected by the brine discharge and thus plankton have been 

taken forward into detailed assessment (refer to Table 9-6). 

279


9.7.1 The following section assesses the potential effects on the individual ‘key’ 

ecological receptors identified in Section 9.6, in the absence of mitigation or 

enhancement measures. Measures that have been incorporated into the design 

of the Project to minimise any potentially significant effects are outlined in 

Section 5.16 and Section 9.3, and have been considered in this section. 

9.7.2 Unlike most other chapters within this ES, in accordance with the IEEM 

Guidelines and for clarity purposes, it has been considered appropriate to 

structure this section by individual key receptors, rather than by the four phases 

of the Project (construction, construction and operation combined, operation 

and decommissioning). 

9.7.3 During the construction phase, the construction and operation combined phase 

and the operational phase, water would be extracted from Fleetwood Fish Dock 

and brine would be discharged into the Irish Sea (albeit to a lesser extent during 

the operational phase). However, potential effects related to water abstraction 

from Fleetwood Fish Dock and the discharging of brine into the Irish Sea are 

discussed within the construction and operation combined phase assessment 

only (to avoid repetition of text), as that is the phase when the greatest amount 

of water would be abstracted and brine would be discharged. 

9.7.4 Furthermore, caverns/wellheads (and associated compounds) will be 

created/constructed during both the construction phase and the construction 

and operation combined phase. It is anticipated that a majority of them will be 

created during the latter phase, and therefore potential 

disturbance/displacement effects related to the creation of caverns/construction 

of wellheads (and associated drilling) are discussed within the construction and 

operation combined phase assessment only (to avoid repetition of text). 

9.7.5 Similarly, the operation of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine 

Facility, Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated 

infrastructure) would occur during both the construction and operation combined 

phase and the operational phase. However, these elements will be operational 

for a greater period during the operational phase, and therefore potential 

disturbance/displacement effects related to the operation of the Booster Pump 

Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, Gas Compressor Compound and 

Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure are discussed within the 

operational phase assessment only (to avoid repetition of text). 

Statutory Designated SitesMorecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar (including Wyre 

Estuary SSSI and Lune Estuary SSSI Bird Species) 

Construction - Disturbance/Displacement of Wintering and Passage Birds 

9.7.6 Construction activities close to habitats known to be used by wintering and 

passage birds could cause disturbance/displacement of foraging and roosting 

birds through noise generation and increased human presence. Certain 

activities associated with the Project could disturb those species foraging or 

roosting on the saltmarsh or mudflat habitats and species using adjacent 

280

farmland habitats outside of the designated site (referred to as functionallylinked 

land). 

9.7.7 Disturbance or displacement of birds from foraging or roosting areas may 

decrease body condition and reduce breeding success for individual bird 

species and may also impact on the local wintering bird populations by reducing 

population size, decreasing recruitment and reducing their conservation status. 

This therefore has the potential to affect sites which are designated for wintering 

and passage birds including Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar (including Wyre 

Estuary SSSI and wintering and passage birds associated with Lune Estuary 

SSSI). 

9.7.8 Disturbance of wintering and passage birds would be limited to passage and 

wintering periods, between September and April. The majority of wintering and 

passage bird species were recorded on the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of 

the Wyre Estuary, particularly around the high tide roost at Arm Hill. Low 

numbers of waders associated with the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar were 

recorded using arable fields within and surrounding the Project (referred to as 

functionally-linked land) on the eastern side of the Wyre Estuary. However, 

large numbers of pink-footed geese were recorded using these fields. 

Therefore, works in the functionally-linked land have the potential to disturb a 

significant number of pink-footed geese. 

9.7.9 It is considered that a disturbance distance (i.e. the distance at which a source 

of disturbance would cause birds to change their behaviour in response to that 

disturbance) of approximately 500 m is likely to apply to pink-footed geese, and 

200 m for the majority of wildfowl and waders for which Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar is designated (Madsen, 1985; Liley et al., 2011; and Anon., 2009). 

Birds are disturbed by construction noise levels of 70 dB (A) above (Cutts et al., 

2008). Birds will habituate to regular noise below this level; however, sudden 

irregular noise above 50 dB (A) is also considered to cause disturbance to birds 

(Cutts et al., 2008). 

9.7.10 Lighting may cause disturbance should it fall onto areas used by foraging and 

roosting wintering wildfowl and waders. Lighting in the form of two 4 m high 

luminaires would be used at the north and south river crossings during drilling 

operations. However, this lighting would be shielded and highly directional to 

light the works activities only. No lighting would fall onto the habitats of the 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, or the functionallylinked 

land beyond the works. Therefore, disturbance as a result of lighting is 

considered to be not significant, and is not considered further within this 

assessment. 

9.7.11 Activities including construction of wellhead compounds 1, 5 and 7 and the 

construction of the north river crossing would be completed during the summer 

months (May to August) and would therefore avoid disturbing wintering or 

passage birds on the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats (including habitats on 

either side of the Wyre Estuary at the north river crossing), and functionally 

linked land, where these activities occur. As these timings are part of 

embedded design, it is certain that no disturbance impacts as a result of these 

activities would occur. Therefore the construction of wellhead compounds 1, 5 

281

and 7 and the construction of the north river crossing on wintering and passage 

birds through disturbance is considered to be not significant. 

9.7.12 Activities that are considered to potentially result in disturbance/displacement as 

they could take place in the winter months include: 

 

 

 

 

 

Potential construction of wellhead compounds 2, 3, 4 and 6 (and 

associated drilling of caverns). N.B. the potential disturbance/displacement 

effects of this activity are discussed within the construction and operation 

combined phase assessment. 

Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, and De-brine 

Facility (and associated infrastructure) 


(and associated infrastructure) 

Installation of the southern electrical cable (including the southern river 

crossing) 

Construction of parts of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 

Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility 

9.7.13 Although the area is currently subject to existing noise and visual disturbance 

associated with Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, it is considered likely 

that the construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine 

Facility (and associated infrastructure) would disturb/displace pink-footed geese 

using the functionally-linked land in this area. 

9.7.14 Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and De-brine Facility 

(and associated infrastructure) may take place during the winter months and/or 

the passage period. Therefore there is potential to cause noise and visual 

disturbance to foraging and roosting birds at low and high tide within the Wyre 

Estuary and also to pink-footed geese using the adjacent fields. 

9.7.15 The buildings have been sited behind the existing Preesall Wastewater 

Treatment Works, thus reducing the visual impact of the facility for birds using 

the adjacent mudflats and saltmarsh at low and high tide along the edge of the 

Wyre Estuary. Appropriate landscape planting and bunding would also be used 

to hide the buildings from view, and help to reduce the impact of any noise 

created by construction works. Noise during construction would not exceed 70 

dB within 100 m (refer to Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration), and therefore not 

exceed threshold levels on the designated site. It is therefore considered that 

disturbance of wintering and passage bird species on the habitats of the 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI would be not 

significant. 

9.7.16 These facilities are, however, located near to or within areas of functionallylinked 

land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese, and therefore 

there is potential for the construction of these facilities to result in likely effects 

on this species. This would occur over a period of one winter season. Given 

that there remains a large area of suitable habitat available elsewhere in the 

county for pink-footed geese, the effect of disturbance on pink-footed geese is 

considered to be significant at the District/Borough level. 

282


9.7.17 The construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station 

(and associated infrastructure) is likely to take place during the winter months 

and/or the passage period and therefore has the potential to cause 

disturbance/displacement of foraging and roosting birds using Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, and the functionally-linked fields. 

Construction is likely to take place over a period of three years. 

9.7.18 The Gas Compressor Compound would be located approximately 940 m from 

the mudflat habitats and approximately 500 m from the edge of the saltmarsh 

and is therefore considered unlikely to cause disturbance to or displace foraging 

birds using the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats within the Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI at low tide or high tide. Predicted noise 

levels would also be significantly less than 70 dB at a distance of 500 m (refer 

to Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration). Therefore disturbance of birds using the 

designated habitats as a result of construction of the Gas Compressor 

Compound is considered highly unlikely, and not significant. 

9.7.19 The Gas Compressor Compound is however located within and near to areas of 

functionally-linked land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese, and 

disturbance through noise and visual/physical presence to pink-footed geese is 

considered certain to occur, should they be present at time. Given the large 

number of pink-footed geese recorded in the area, but that other larger areas of 

suitable undisturbed habitat would be available for pink-footed geese in the 

county, disturbance effects are considered to be significant at the 

District/Borough level. 

Installation of the Southern Electrical Cable (Including the Southern River 

Crossing) 

9.7.20 Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the 

River Wyre/Wyre Estuary could take place during the winter months and/or the 

passage period, and therefore has the potential to cause disturbance/displace 

to qualifying bird species using the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI saltmarsh/mudflat habitats or functionally-linked fields. 

9.7.21 The northern section of the cable installation would be approximately 500 m to 1 

km from the edge of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI and 

therefore is unlikely to cause disturbance to or displace foraging and/or roosting 

birds along the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary at low tide or high tide. 

The northern section also runs parallel to an existing road and therefore the 

construction works are unlikely to have a significant effect on foraging and or 

roosting birds using the fields adjacent to the proposed works. 

9.7.22 The southern section of the cable installation runs parallel to Burrows Marsh 

and therefore has the potential to disturb or displace birds foraging and/or 

roosting along the edge of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and within the adjacent 

fields. However, given that small-scale machinery would be used to install the 

cable, it is not anticipated that works would generate more visual and noise 

disturbance than existing farm activities. Noise modelling indicates that the 

works would not exceed 70 dB at 100 m (refer to Chapter 12: Noise and 

283

Vibration), and the presence of the seawall between the works and the habitats 

of the Wyre Estuary would also provide a visual and noise screen from the 

works, thus reducing noise and visual disturbance to species using Burrows 

Marsh. The works would also be transient, moving between areas. 

9.7.23 Overall, given the temporary nature and small scale nature of the proposed 

works, coupled with the screening of noise and visual effects, it is considered 

that disturbance of wintering and/or passage species within the 

saltmarsh/mudflat habitats of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI is unlikely to occur, and therefore effects of the installation of the electrical 

cabling on birds using these areas are considered to be not significant. 

9.7.24 The cabling would be installed within the functionally-linked habitats used by 

pink-footed geese; therefore, there is the potential for disturbance / 

displacement of these species when they are present. However, given that 

small-scale machinery would be used to install the cable, it is not anticipated 

that works would generate more visual and noise disturbance than existing farm 

activities. The works would also be temporary in nature (given that the fields 

would be reinstated upon completion of the installation) and transient. Given 

these factors, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to 

foraging and roosting pink-footed geese in the surrounding area, it is considered 

that disturbance on pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked land as a 

result of the electrical cable installation would be not significant. 

Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 

9.7.25 Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline would take place over 6-12 

months, having the potential to disturb / displace foraging and/or roosting 

wintering or passage birds in these areas. It is considered highly unlikely that 

the NTS Interconnector Pipeline installation would disturb / displace wintering 

and/or passage birds using the habitats of the Wyre Estuary, given the distance 

of over 1 km. Therefore disturbance on foraging and/or roosting birds within the 

saltmarsh/mudflats of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI is 

considered to be not significant. Construction of the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline does, however, have the potential to disturb and displace pink-footed 

geese that have been recorded using the functionally-linked land within and 

adjacent to the NTS Interconnector Pipeline works. 

9.7.26 Given the small area and temporary nature of the works, the avoidance of 

works in winter in important areas for pink-footed geese (i.e. within the Pilling 

Moss BHSs), the fluctuating noise levels of the transient works as it progresses 

along the works corridor, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available 

to foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, it is considered that 

disturbance effects on pink-footed geese during the construction of the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline would be not significant. 

Summary of Effects 

9.7.27 Overall it is considered that there would be no significant disturbance of 

wintering and passage bird species using the habitats within Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI during the construction phase. However, 

there is potential for disturbance / displacement of pink-footed geese using the 

284

functionally-linked land as a result of the construction of the Booster Pump 

Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, Gas Compressor Compound and 

Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure). 

9.7.28 Individually these activities are considered to have result in a significant effect at 

the District/Borough level. However, these elements would also act 

collectively, disturbing/displacing pink-footed geese in this distinct area within 

the application site that forms part of the functionally-linked land to the 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, resulting in 

disturbance/displacement from a large proportion of the application site on the 

eastern side of the Wyre Estuary. Therefore, it is considered that during 

construction, over a period of three years, there is potential for 

disturbance/displacement of a large number of pink-footed geese which is 


Construction - Permanent and Temporary Loss of Roosting and Foraging 

Habitat 

9.7.29 There would be no loss of designated habitats within the Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, as a result of the Project. There would 

however, be both a temporary and permanent loss of habitat within functionallylinked 

land used by wintering and passage wildfowl and waders outside of 

European site boundary as a result of the construction activities described 

below. 

New and Upgraded Internal Access Tracks, and Temporary Haul Roads 

9.7.30 The creation of new and upgraded internal access tracks, together with 

temporary haul roads, would result in the loss of small areas of functionallylinked 

land used by significant numbers of pink-footed geese. The haul roads 

would result in a temporary loss during Year 1; however, these areas would be 

reinstated following works, and therefore this potential effect is considered to be 

not significant. The new and upgraded tracks would be largely installed over 

existing tracks. New tracks would have a relatively small footprint and not 

reduce the size of the fields in a way that would deter pink-footed geese from 

using the areas following construction. Therefore effects in terms of habitat loss 

on foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese as a result of the construction of 

new access roads and temporary haul roads are considered to be not 

significant. 

Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, 

and Associated Infrastructure 

9.7.31 Construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility and 

associated infrastructure would lead to the loss of a relatively small area of 

habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting birds within the functionally-linked 

land. However, given the relatively small footprint of the works (approximately 

0.34 hectares), its location next to Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, and 

the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and roosting 

birds in the surrounding area, impacts on foraging and/or roosting wintering and 

passage birds as a result of the construction of Booster Pump Station, Control 

285

Centre, De-brine Facility, and Associated Infrastructure, is considered to be not 

significant. 


9.7.32 Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and 

associated infrastructure), would lead to the loss of a relatively small area of 

habitat (approximately 1.55 hectares) suitable for foraging and/or roosting 

wintering or passage birds (including pink-footed geese recorded within this 

area) within the functionally-linked land. Given the relatively small footprint of 

the works, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging 

and roosting birds in the surrounding area, it is considered that effects in terms 

of habitat loss for foraging and/or roosting birds as a result of the construction of 

the Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated 

infrastructure) is not significant. 

Installation of the Southern Electrical Cable across Agricultural Land on the 

Eastern Side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

9.7.33 Installation of electrical cable across agricultural land on the eastern side of the 

River Wyre/Wyre Estuary, outside of the European site, would lead to the 

temporary loss of an area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting pinkfooted 

geese recorded in these areas. However, given the temporary nature of 

the proposed works as habitats would be reinstated, the transient nature of the 

work required, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to 

foraging and roosting birds in the surrounding area, habitat loss as a result of 

the installation of the southern electrical cable is considered to be not 

significant. 

Construction of the Southern River Crossing, Including the Installation of 

Electrical Cable under the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary 

9.7.34 Construction of the south river crossing would lead to the temporary loss of a 

relatively small area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting birds at the 

under river exit point on the eastern side of the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary. This 

habitat loss would be outside of the European site but within functionally-linked 

land (potentially used by, or close to areas used by, pink-footed geese). Given 

that the construction works associated with the under river exit points would 

take place within a single small field, and be temporary in nature and therefore 

reversible, and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging 

and roosting birds in the surrounding area, the temporary loss of habitat as a 

result of the construction of the south river crossing and electrical cabling is 

considered to be not significant. 

Construction of NTS Interconnector Pipeline 

9.7.35 Installation of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline would lead to the temporary loss 

of an area of habitat suitable for foraging and/or roosting pink-footed geese 

recorded in these areas. However, given the temporary nature of the proposed 

works and the amount of alternative suitable habitat available to foraging and 

roosting birds in the surrounding area, it is considered that temporary habitat 

loss for foraging and/or roosting wintering or passage birds, particularly pink- 

286

footed geese, as a result of the construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 

is considered to be not significant. 

Summary of Effects 

9.7.36 Overall, it is considered that effect of the permanent and temporary loss of 

habitat within the functionally-linked land on wintering and passage birds 

associated with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar, Wyre Estuary SSSI and Lune 

Estuary SSSI would be not significant. 

Construction - Degradation of Habitats adjacent to Works Activities, 

through Fugitive Dust Deposition, Uncontrolled Pollution Events and 

Surface Water Runoff 

9.7.37 It is considered possible that fugitive dust deposition could occur on the 

saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI during works activities in close proximity to the habitats (refer to 

Chapter 6: Air Quality). Dust deposition could adversely affect the habitats 

within which it falls and also the wintering birds using these affected habitats 

and their food supply. However, fugitive dust generation would be greater 

during the drier summer months, and therefore it is considered unlikely that 

significant effects with regard to fugitive dust generation would occur on 

wintering or passage bird species. Dust deposition would also be restricted 

from spreading by bunding around the wellhead compounds and the presence 

of the existing seawall. Dust deposition on saltmarsh and mudflat habitats 

would have a temporary and rapidly reversible effect, as dust would be diluted 

and washed away as a result of the regular inundation of these habitats with 

water. Nevertheless, there remains some potential for deposition on habitats 

within and close to Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI to 

occur. Given the temporary nature and the reversibility, this effect is not 

considered to be significant at an International level but is considered to be 

significant at a Local/Parish level. 

9.7.38 Modelling of the traffic-related air emissions, as a result of an increase in HGVs, 

has indicated that the increase in oxides of nitrogen emitted and any 

subsequent nitrogen deposition would be negligible (refer to Chapter 6: Air 

Quality). Therefore, effects on the designated sites and the species they 

support are considered to be not significant. 

9.7.39 It is also possible that the River Wyre/Wyre Estuary and waterbodies associated 

with the Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS could be degraded by 

accidental release of stored fuels and oils, cementitious products, and the 

potential release of sediment (refer to Chapter 17: Water Environment). Such 

accidental spillages and surface water runoff would have a negative impact on 

the habitats and the bird species that use them. The impact would be localised, 

although should these occur within watercourses, depending on size and type 

of pollution, impacts may transfer to wider areas downstream or upstream. 

Pollution events would be likely to be one-off occurrences and could be 

reversible, they would also be considered unlikely to occur. Given that pollution 

events and siltation are considered unlikely to occur but they could have far 

reaching effects, it is not considered to be significant at an International level 

but is considered to be significant at a Local/Parish level. 

287

Construction and Operation Combined - Disturbance/Displacement of 

Wintering and Passage Birds 

9.7.40 Lighting may cause disturbance should it fall onto areas used by foraging and 

roosting wintering wildfowl and waders. Lighting in the form of two 4 m high 

luminaires would be used at the construction of the wellhead compounds. 

However, this lighting would be shielded and highly directional to light the works 

activities only. Lighting at the wellhead compounds would also be screened by 

the presence of a 2.3 m high bund around each compound. No lighting would 

fall onto the habitats of the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI, or the functionally-linked land beyond the works. Therefore, disturbance 

as a result of lighting is considered to be not significant, and is not considered 

further within this assessment. 

9.7.41 Activities that could potentially result in disturbance/displacement as they could 

take place in the winter months include: 

 

 

Construction of wellhead compounds 2, 3, 4 and 6 (and associated drilling 

of caverns) 

Operation of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, 

Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and associated 

infrastructure). N.B. the potential disturbance/displacement effects of this 

activity are discussed within the operational phase assessment. 

Construction of Wellhead Compounds 2, 3, 4 and 6 

9.7.42 All wellheads would be constructed in fields which are within or adjacent to 

areas known to support significant numbers of foraging and/or roosting pinkfooted 

geese and small numbers of waders; therefore it is likely that the 

physical presence of the wellhead compounds and associated plant and site 

personnel would disturb birds from within these areas. Noise modelling 

undertaken as part of the assessment indicates that the noise levels associated 

with the construction of the wellheads would exceed 70 dB within and directly 

adjacent to the area of proposed works. However, it would not exceed 70 dB 

within the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and 

Wyre Estuary SSSI. A bund at least 2.3 m high would be constructed around 

each of the wellheads to reduce the visual impact of the wellheads, and reduce 

the impact of noise. Whilst some of the wellhead compounds would be 

constructed within 250 m of high tide habitats, the bunding would provide both a 

visual and noise screen from the works. Therefore, disturbance effects on 

species using the saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of the Wyre Estuary are 


9.7.43 It is, however, probable that the construction of these four wellheads, through 

noise and human presence, would disturb a small number of waders and a 

significantly large number of pink-footed geese using the functionally-linked 

land. This impact would affect species present roosting or foraging within 500 

m of the wellhead compounds and associated works. The impact would be 

temporary in nature during the construction of the wellhead compounds and 

considered to be reversible following construction. However, it would rotate 

around as works to each wellhead took place. 

288

9.7.44 As only low numbers of waders have been recorded within the functionallylinked 

land (within 500 m of the wellhead compounds), and a larger area of 

suitable undisturbed habitat would remain available to these species, it is 

considered that the effect of disturbance on waders would be not significant. 

However, a significant number of pink-footed geese have been recorded within 

the functionally-linked fields within and surrounding the wellhead compounds. 

Given that there remains a large area of suitable habitat available elsewhere in 

the county for pink-footed geese, the effect of disturbance on pink-footed geese 

is considered to be significant at the District/Borough level. 

Drilling of Caverns 

9.7.45 Cavern creation would take place through drilling from the wellhead compounds 

and therefore this process has the potential to disturb/displace birds through 

noise and visual presence. This impact would move around locations as the 

sequential drilling took place. Each wellhead compound would take 

approximately 4 to 6 weeks to drill. The drilling could take place during the 

winter months or the passage period at any of the seven wellheads; although, 

the vast majority of drilling at wellheads 1, 5, and 7 would be programmed for 

the summer months (May to August) and thus would avoid disturbing birds 

using the saltmarsh/mudflats of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI and the functionally-linked land in winter and on passage. 

Disturbance impacts as a result of drilling in the summer are therefore 


9.7.46 Whilst four of the wellheads would be located within 250 m from the top of the 

saltmarsh (i.e. 250 m from the European site boundary), the drilling rigs would 

be partially hidden from view behind a 2.3 m bund around each of the 

wellheads, thus reducing their visual impact and the noise levels associated 

with the drilling. Noise would also be less than 70 dB within the saltmarsh 

habitats at a distance of 50 m, taking into account the 10 dB reduction achieved 

by the screening (refer to Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration). Given the 

screening, predicted noise levels and rotation of locations over a 4 to 6 week 

period, it is considered that disturbance of bird species using the 

saltmarsh/mudflats of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI 

would be not significant. 

9.7.47 The potential does however exist for disturbance to birds using the functionallylinked 

land as a result of noise and the presence of plant, equipment, and 

construction personnel. As only low numbers of waders have been recorded 

within the functionally-linked land, within 500 m of the wellhead compounds, 

and a larger area of suitable undisturbed habitat remains available to these 

species, it is considered that the significance of disturbance on waders would 

be not significant. However, a significant number of pink-footed geese have 

been recorded within the functionally-linked fields within and surrounding the 

wellhead compounds. Whilst bunding would provide a screen from drilling 

activities and site personnel, the noise in close proximity to the drilling is 

considered likely to disturb / displace pink-footed geese recorded in these 

areas. Given that there remains a large area of suitable habitat available 

elsewhere in the county for pink-footed geese, the effect of disturbance on pinkfooted 

geese is considered to be significant at the District/Borough level. 

289

Construction and Operation Combined - Permanent Loss of Roosting and 

Foraging Habitat 

9.7.48 Construction of the seven wellheads adjacent to Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar 

and Wyre Estuary SSSI would lead to the loss of small areas of habitat within 

the functionally-linked land suitable for foraging and/or roosting pink-footed 

geese which have been recorded within fields adjacent to proposed works. 

However, given the relatively small footprint of the wellhead compounds 

(approximately 1.97 hectares combined), and the amount of alternative suitable 

habitat available to foraging and roosting pink-footed geese in the surrounding 

area, it is considered that the effect of permanent loss of habitat under the 

wellhead compounds is not significant. 

Construction and Operation Combined - Subsidence of Habitats 

9.7.49 After one year of construction and operation of the caverns, subsidence of over 

9 mm is predicted to occur within two distinct areas, one in the area of the 

northern zone under mudflats of Barnaby Sands within Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, and one in the area of the southern zone, 

under agricultural fields within functionally-linked land (refer to Chapter 10: 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability). This reduction in the level of the land is 

not considered to result in a significant effect on the mudflat habitats or 

agricultural fields (i.e. it would not lead to increase in submergence of the 

mudflat habitats or changes to the agricultural fields). The habitats would 

continue to persist in these locations, and there would be no discernable 

change in the quality of habitat, or change in use by bird species associated 

with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, and the 

functionally-linked land. Therefore, subsidence of habitats during the 

construction and operation combined phase is considered to be not 

significant. 

Operation - Disturbance/Displacement of Wintering and Passage Birds 

9.7.50 The noise generated during the operation of the Booster Pump Station, Control 

Centre and De-brine Facility, Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Substation 

(and associated infrastructure) would be below 40 dB at the closest point 

to Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI (refer to Chapter 12: 

Noise and Vibration). This noise would be continuous throughout their 

operation, would be at levels considered to not affect bird species (considered 

to be 70dB (Cutts et al., 2008)), and it is considered that birds would habituate 

to the constant noise. Baseline noise levels at Arm Hill from noise monitoring 

(42.5 dB) indicate that the bird species present in this area already experience 

noise levels higher than predicted to occur from the operational facilities. It is 

therefore considered that disturbance of bird species using the habitats of the 

Wyre Estuary and the functionally-linked land would be not significant. 

9.7.51 There would only be low levels of personnel present during the operation of 

these facilities, for security and maintenance purpose, and lighting during 

operation would be low-level at wellhead compounds and access roads. This 

lighting would be highly directional and shielded, and not extend onto the 

habitats within Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, or the 

functionally-linked fields. Lighting at the wellhead compounds would also be 

290

screened by the presence of a 2.3 m high bund around each compound. 

Therefore disturbance due to human presence and lighting during operation on 

wintering and passage birds is considered to be not significant. 

Operation - Subsidence of Habitats 

9.7.52 During the operation of the caverns, subsidence of habitats within Morecambe 

Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, and the agricultural land above the 

cavern creation would continue to occur at a low rate. After 40 years, a 

maximum subsidence is predicted to occur of just over 46 mm within the two 

cavern zones, under mudflat and saltmarsh habitats of Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, and under agricultural land (refer to 

Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability). This overall reduction of 46 

mm is not considered to result in a significant effect on the mudflat and 

saltmarsh habitats present within the designated site, or the agricultural land. It 

would not lead to increase in submergence of the saltmarsh or mudflat habitats 

within the location of the caverns, and would not affect the levels of accretion or 

erosion. The habitats would continue to persist in these locations, and there 

would be no discernable change in the quality of habitat, or change in use by 

bird species associated with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI, and the functionally-linked land. Therefore subsidence of habitats during 

the operation of the Project is considered to be not significant. 


9.7.53 It is assumed that for the purposes of this assessment all above and below 

ground infrastructure would remain in-situ. Therefore, it is considered that no 

potential effects would occur on Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar, Wyre Estuary 

SSSI and the wintering and passage bird species of Lune Estuary SSSI during 

the decommissioning phase. 


Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS (excluding wintering and breeding 

birds) 

Construction 

9.7.54 The brine discharge pipeline runs within the BHS from the south of the 

Seawater Pumping Station as far as the fence marking the southern boundary 

of the Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works, a distance of approximately 1 

km. The brine discharge pipeline then runs directly adjacent and to the east of 

the BHS until shortly before the railway bridge, at which point it turns west to 

cross the southernmost end of the BHS into land adjacent to the road. 

Construction of the brine discharge pipeline would result in direct loss of 

approximately 2.21 hectares of this designated site. Habitat which would be lost 

comprises scattered scrub, semi-improved neutral grassland and tall ruderal. 

Semi-improved neutral grassland is listed in the citation as a reason for 

designation as a BHS. 

9.7.55 The potential effects described above are considered to be significant at the 

County level. 

291

Construction and Operation Combined, Operation and Decommissioning 

9.7.56 All works related to the brine discharge pipeline would have been completed 

during the construction phase. Therefore, it is considered that there would be 

no significant effect during the construction and operation combined phase, 

the operational phase or the decommissioning phase. 

Rossall School Fields – Ditches and Bankings BHS 

Construction 

9.7.57 Approximately 0.08 hectares of this BHS, including a short section of ditch, falls 

within the application boundary. However, this would not be directly affected by 

the Project, and no habitat loss would occur. 

9.7.58 The BHS is designated, in part, for the diversity of vegetation within the network 

of ditches. The potential exists for the works to indirectly affect this BHS through 

runoff which could cause pollution of the ditch and the connected ditches. In the 

absence of mitigation, should significant pollution of the ditch network occur, 

this could constitute a significant effect at the County level. 


9.7.59 All works related to the brine discharge pipeline would have been completed 

during the construction phase. Therefore, it is considered that there would be 

no significant effect during the construction and operation combined phase, 

the operational phase or the decommissioning phase. 


Plankton 

9.7.60 The assessment of effects on plankton excludes planktonic stages of fish 

species. This is considered within the assessment of effects on fish. 

Construction 

9.7.61 The mortality of plankton due to discharging of brine into the Irish Sea and the 

mortality of plankton due to entrainment within water extracted from Fleetwood 

Fish Dock is discussed within the construction and operation combined 

assessment. 

Construction and Operation Combined and Operation 

Mortality of Plankton due to Discharging of Brine into the Irish Sea 

9.7.62 Concern has been expressed during consultations that dead plankton could 

accumulate in Morecambe Bay and adversely affect the ecosystem which 

provides important areas for birds and fisheries that are ultimately dependant on 

planktonic food sources. Cockle and mussel beds are of particular importance 

both ecologically and commercially (further information is provided in Appendix 


292

9.7.63 Section 9.3 explains that as a result of the efficient rate of flushing expected in 

Morecambe Bay, as indicated by various studies undertaken which included 

dye tracing, there is unlikely to be a compounded effect of plankton mortality 

within the Bay. Therefore, the impact of each tidal cycle can be considered 

individually with the assumption that flushing would reset the plankton 

concentration in Morecambe Bay to ambient levels at the end of each tidal 

cycle. 

9.7.64 Of relevance to effects within Morecambe Bay and the wider eastern Irish Sea, 

in spring/early summer and again in autumn plankton mortality would be 

swamped by natural recruitment into the plankton. Plankton entering the zone 

where salinity is greater than 40 psu are predicted to die; however, the plankton 

is comprised of phytoplankton adapted to massive seasonal fluctuations and 

capable of rapid population growth and zooplankton which includes the juvenile 

and larval stages of fish and other taxa with reproductive strategies to produce 

high numbers of offspring to account for very high levels of loss. 

9.7.65 It should also be considered that the impact area for plankton lies well inshore 

of the ecologically important ‘plankton front’ in Liverpool Bay. Although the 

position of this front is annually variable it is some 20 km or so offshore (refer to 

Figure 3 in Appendix 9.4 of Volume 1B) and would not be subject to any direct 

impact. 

9.7.66 The potential effects outlined above would occur at some times during the 

construction phase, for the duration of the construction and operation combined 

phase and intermittently during the operational phase. However, the effects 

would be reversible as there would be regular replenishment from the wider 

Irish Sea. Considering the resilience of the plankton to such effects, it is 

considered that there would be no significant effect on the existing plankton 

community within the Irish Sea; this includes consideration of potential loss of 

recruitment to local benthic invertebrate communities in Morecambe Bay 

(including cockle and mussel beds). 


9.7.67 Given that brine would not be discharged during this phase, there would be no 

effects on plankton. 


9.7.68 Between the MLW mark and the seawall, the brine discharge pipeline would be 

laid in a trench excavated by a digger (aided by dump trucks) which would 

access the beach via an existing ramp from the seawall. 

9.7.69 An area either side of the pipeline (intertidally) would be reserved for 

construction compounds and the storage of spoil. 

9.7.70 The brine discharge pipeline would extend 2.3 km offshore. The construction 

corridor would be 60 m wide through the fore-shore and offshore sections. This 

represents the maximum extent of any activity, including vessel anchoring, and 

for purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the width of the trench in 

both the sublittoral and littoral zone would be no more than 2.5 m deep and on 

average 7 m wide. 

293

9.7.71 In the sublittoral zone, the trench would be excavated from a barge using a 

cutter suction dredger. This type of dredger uses a large mechanical cutter to 

break up larger rocks. The seabed sediments are then brought onto the dredger 

via a pipe / large diameter hose. 

9.7.72 The pipe (900 mm diameter) would be weighted by concrete collars and 

anchored to the seabed before the trench is backfilled. Backfilling would be 

with approximately 83,000 tons of rock to weight the brine discharge pipeline, 

onto which a proportion of excavated sediments from the trench would be 

backfilled to seabed level. Excess sediments would, it is understood, be 

distributed back into the marine environment across the 60 m wide corridor. 

9.7.73 It is assumed that the only activity requiring anchoring of vessels is installation 

of the diffuser at the offshore end of the brine discharge pipeline. 

9.7.74 All work is scheduled to take place in summer months, i.e. between April and 

July. 

Construction 

9.7.75 The mortality and displacement of sublittoral organisms due to discharging of 

brine into the Irish Sea is considered within the construction and operation 

combined assessment. 

Sublittoral – Direct Damage of Sublittoral Benthic Habitats during the Installation 

of the Brine Discharge Pipeline and Associated Structures 

9.7.76 The 2.3 km long brine discharge pipeline would be installed within a 60 m wide 

corridor in a trench up to 2.5 m deep and on average 7 m wide. All sublittoral 

habitat in the directly affected area (7 m x 2.3 km = 16,100 m 2 ) would be 

effectively destroyed by initial dredging and the nature of the habitat left after 

installation of the brine discharge pipeline would depend on the stability of 

backfilled sediments over the rock armour in the trench and the degree of 

change to sediment character resulting from cutter suction dredging and 

associated breakdown of larger particles together with any sorting resulting from 

the backfilling process. 

9.7.77 It is expected that backfilled material would to some extent smother adjacent 

habitats within the overall 60 m wide corridor once the trench has been filled. It 

is considered that approximately 40,250 m 3 of material would be excavated 

from the trench. A worst-case excess of around 60% is expected, and therefore 

24,150 m 3 of excess sediment would be redistributed over the trench to ensure 

that the seabed levels are returned to the pre-construction level. Some of this 

sediment would also dispersed by the sea. 

9.7.78 The survey by W A Marine & Environment in 2001 included 11 dive sites in the 

sublittoral zone which is within the footprint of the diffuser and pipeline corridor. 

These included four potential diffuser positions that would now be pipeline 

positions given the preference for a single two-port diffuser. All of these sites 

were characterised by high turbidity with hydroids and bryozoan turf with 

frequent Asteria rubens and Urticina felina and Alcyonium digitatum rarely 

present. Between 10 to 60% of the substrate appeared to be recently mobile. 

The biotopes represented, using current classifications, were 

294

CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs- Flustra foliacea and colonial ascidians on tide-swept 

moderately wave-exposed circalittoral rock or CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs.X- Flustra 

foliacea and colonial ascidians on tide-swept exposed circalittoral mixed 

substrata. 

9.7.79 MarLIN (2011) provides a useful habitat sensitivity assessment for Flustra 

foliacea and other hydroid/bryozoan turf species on slightly scoured circalittoral 

rock or mixed substrata (CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs) which represents one of these 

two biotopes; there is no indication that an equivalent assessment for the 

remaining, very similar, biotope, would be any different. The relevant impact 

factor assessed by MarLIN is substrate loss and all species used to indicate 

biotope intolerance are considered to have a high intolerance of such 

disturbance; however, recoverability is described as high because of the ability 

of key organisms to recolonise. 

9.7.80 The magnitude of the impact would be relatively localised and for a short time 

until recovery, assuming that seabed character is largely unaffected after the 

trench is backfilled. There is some uncertainty that recovery would be possible; 

for example, if rock armouring is exposed or the backfill material is substantially 

different in character after undergoing cutter suction dredging the resultant 

benthic habitat and associated community could be different. However, it is 

anticipated that the seabed would be restored to pre-construction levels. Thus 

the effects would be short-term (less than 1 year duration), and the sublittoral 

pipeline would be installed between April and July. Overall, based on the 

precautionary approach, the potential effects of direct damage of sublittoral 

benthic habitats during the installation of the brine discharge pipeline and 

associated structures are considered to be not significant at the National level 

and potentially significant at the Project level (due to the possibility of Annex 

1 habitats being present). 

Sublittoral - Sediment Mobilisation during the Installation of the Brine Discharge 

Pipeline 

9.7.81 Habitats adjacent to the trench excavation works would be subject to 

sedimentation and scour as unconsolidated material is disturbed while the 

trench is excavated and backfilled. It is considered that approximately 40,250 

m 3 of material would be excavated from the trench. A worst-case excess of 

around 60% is expected, and therefore 24,150 m 3 of excess sediment would be 

redistributed over the trench to ensure that the seabed levels are returned to the 

pre-construction level. Some of this sediment would also dispersed by the sea 

and may settle temporarily or contribute to background turbidity. 

9.7.82 The application site is already subject to high levels of sediment transport and 

deposition, as evidenced by the diver survey (W A Marine & Environment, 

2001). The area is characterised by hydroids and bryozoan turf and described 

by the biotopes CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs- Flustra foliacea and colonial ascidians 

on tide-swept moderately wave-exposed circalittoral rock or 

CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs.X- Flustra foliacea and colonial ascidians on tide-swept 

exposed circalittoral mixed substrata and these biotopes. The MarLIN website 

has information on the sensitivity of the former biotope to smothering 

(intermediate intolerance) and increases in suspended sediments (low 

intolerance). Sabellaria alveolata is also present in the shallow sublittoral and 

295

littoral zones; this species has low intolerance of both smothering and increases 

in suspended sediments. 

9.7.83 Knowledge of the nature or fate of the excess material in the marine 

environment is therefore relatively unknown and the assessment must 

necessarily be precautionary. 

9.7.84 The effects would be short-term (less than 1 year duration), and the sublittoral 

pipeline would be installed predominantly during the summer with a total 

duration of not more than six months expected. It is recognised that relatively 

high levels of sediment transport and intermittent smothering are characteristics 

of the site. Although there is lack of certainty regarding the nature of seabed 

sediments after cutter suction dredging and the fate of excess sediments, based 

on the precautionary approach, the potential effects of direct damage of 

sublittoral benthic habitats due to sediment mobilisation are considered to be 

not significant at the National level and potentially significant at the 

Project level. 

Littoral - Direct Damage of Littoral Benthic Habitats during the Installation of the 

Brine Discharge Pipeline and Associated Structures 

9.7.85 The trench would be excavated by digger and dump trucks and providing all 

works, including access and egress routes, are restricted to the 60 m wide 

corridor through the littoral there would be no impact to Sabellaria alveolata 

habitat (which has an intermediate intolerance to physical damage (MarLIN, 

2011)). The aggregations seen at the site are believed to be subject to natural 

disturbance from storm events and their spatial distribution should not be 

regarded as fixed. Given the nature of littoral sediments within the corridor 

(predominantly sands with no boulders or cobbles), it is unlikely that S.alveolata 

aggregations would develop here. 

9.7.86 The other littoral habitats (littoral sand biotopes) are all dominated by species 

capable of rapid recolonisation and recovery would be rapid (within 1 year). 

9.7.87 The magnitude of the impact would be relatively localised, assuming that 

seabed character is largely unaffected after the trench is backfilled. There is 

some uncertainty that recovery would be possible; for example, if rock 

armouring is exposed or the backfill material is substantially different in 

character after undergoing cutter suction dredging the resultant benthic habitat 

and associated community could be different. However, the seabed would be 

restored to pre-construction levels. Thus, the effects would be short-term (less 

than 1 year duration), and the littoral section of the brine discharge pipeline 

would be installed predominantly during the summer with a total duration of not 

more than six months expected. Overall, based on the precautionary approach, 

the potential effects of direct damage of littoral benthic habitats during the 

installation of the brine discharge pipeline are considered to be not significant 

at the Regional level but potentially significant at the Project level. 

296


Sublittoral - Mortality of Sublittoral Organisms due to Discharging of Brine into 

the Irish Sea 

9.7.88 Where benthic organisms are exposed to salinity levels above 40 psu, it is 

assumed that all sessile and slow moving organisms would be killed. The 

structural integrity of seabed habitats would be unaffected, although it should be 

noted that recovery through recolonisation of infauna (not considered in detail 

by the 2001 survey as epifaunal habitats dominated) may be delayed by 

accumulations of chloride and other ions in seabed sediments after brine 

discharges cease. 

9.7.89 The main area affected is characterised by hydroids and bryozoan turf and 

described by the biotopes CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs- Flustra foliacea and colonial 

ascidians on tide-swept moderately wave-exposed circalittoral rock or 


exposed circalittoral mixed substrata. The discharge of the brine would cause 

direct mortality to organisms within these biotopes within 50 m of the discharge 

point and some mortality to more sensitive species up to around 500 m from the 

discharge in line with tidal flow and within a total area of approximately 1,700 

m 2 . This represents a small proportion of the total area of this biotope even 

within the application boundary and an insignificant proportion of local benthic 

habitat (

2001 survey as epifaunal habitats dominated) may be delayed by 

accumulations of chloride and other ions in seabed sediments after brine 

discharges cease. 

9.7.93 The area affected is characterised by hydroids and bryozoan turf and described 

by the biotopes CR.HCR.XFa.FluCoAs- Flustra foliacea and colonial ascidians 

on tide-swept moderately wave-exposed circalittoral rock or 


exposed circalittoral mixed substrata. 

9.7.94 The known area of the piddock biotope and area of Sabellaria alveolata in the 

shallow sublittoral are located more than 500 m from the proposed diffuser 

position and therefore beyond the predicted zone of effects. Other examples of 

piddock biotope are likely to be present in the affected area but effects are 

expected to be no greater than for the dominant biotope. 

9.7.95 The potential effects outlined above would occur at some point during the 


phase and intermittently during the operational phase. Effects are expected to 

occur within days of initial brine discharge and to reach maximum spatial extent 

within 6 months. However, the effects would be relatively localised (based on 

the conclusions of the discharge modelling less than 0.007% of the local 

sublittoral area). Considering the recoverability of such organisms, it is 

considered that the impact on sublittoral organisms would be not significant. 

Operation 

9.7.96 The mortality and displacement of sublittoral organisms due to discharging of 

brine into the Irish Sea is considered within the construction and operation 

combined assessment. 


9.7.97 Given that it is anticipated that the brine discharge pipeline would remain in-situ 

once the Project has ceased to become operational, and brine would not be 

discharged during the decommissioning phase, there would be no effects on 

sublittoral organisms. 

Fish 

Construction 

9.7.98 The influence of the brine discharge on migration between the Irish Sea and 

local rivers; the mortality of adult fish through contact with the brine discharge; 

the loss of planktonic stages (eggs and larvae) in the hypersaline plume; the 

displacement of fish by the hypersaline plume; the loss of food resources due to 

discharging of brine into the Irish Sea; and entrainment within water extracted 

from the Fleetwood Fish Dock is considered within the construction and 

operation combined assessment. 

298

Sediment Mobilisation during the Installation of the Brine Discharge Pipeline 

and Associated Structures 

9.7.99 Two possible impact mechanisms have been considered: 1, smothering of 

benthic habitats; and, 2, clogging of gills from increased suspended sediments. 

9.7.100 In relation to smothering of benthic habitats it is expected that dispersal of 

sediments by wave and tidal currents in the marine environment would limit 

accumulation depths. Furthermore, local species would be adapted to relatively 

high degrees of intermittent sediment deposition (siltation) as evidenced by the 

reported conditions during the 2001 survey. Herring are known to spawn in the 

general area. However, it is considered unlikely that there are suitable open 

gravels (as required by this species) in close enough proximity to be subject to 

increased sedimentation from works particularly given the prevailing high turbid 

conditions on site and the absence of evidence of any suitable habitat from all 

local surveys. 

9.7.101 Clogging of gills can occur if sediment levels are temporarily elevated and 

precautionary standards are often applied as a result; for example, the 

Discharge Consent requires that brine effluent does not contain more than 

100mg of suspended solids per litre which is rather lower than natural 

suspended sediment loads resulting from wave and tide action. If, because of 

ground conditions, cutter suction dredging has to be used to install the brine 

discharge pipeline there is potential for substantial mobilisation of suspended 

sediments both during dredging and backfilling, including dispersal of excess 

fine materials not needed as backfill. As explained within the sublittoral benthic 

environment assessment, the nature of sediments after dredging is unclear and 

the potential elevation in sediment loads unknown. 

9.7.102 The effects would be short-term (less than 1 year duration), and the sublittoral 

pipeline would be installed predominantly during the summer with a total 

duration of not more than 6 months expected. Although effects are considered 

unlikely, the potential effects of sediment mobilisation during the installation of 

the brine discharge pipeline and associated structures on fish populations are 

considered to be not significant at any level. 


Influence of the Brine Discharge on Fish Migration between the Irish Sea and 

Local Rivers 

9.7.103 Salmonids are understood to use olfactory cues to locate the river of their birth 

to which they return to spawn. Olfactory cues are understood to be used in the 

final stages of migration with other cues, notably the earth’s magnetic field, 

believed to be important for navigating to the local coastal area from offshore 

feeding grounds (Mills, 1989). The concern is that the saline discharge could 

interfere with fish’s ability to locate their native river. 

9.7.104 Salmonids are believed to swim quite close to the coast in proximity to their 

native river, swimming with the current and then against it when entering the 

river, and generally to swim near the surface although there is relatively little 

data and some conflicting evidence (Malcolm et al., 2010). The limited spatial 

299

extent of the plume (see Plate 9.1) means that fish would be unlikely to 

encounter it unless approaching from an offshore direction and should not have 

difficulty passing inside of the area of the plume if approaching local estuaries 

from either north or south. 

9.7.105 Any impact would cease whenever the discharge was absent (provided that no 

significant effects had occurred as a result) and from this perspective the impact 

is reversible. 



phase and intermittently during the operational phase. However, the scale of the 

plume, even if this affected migratory behaviour, is insufficient to create a 

barrier or lead to significant delays to migration. It is therefore considered that 

there would be no significant impact on the ability of fish species to migrate 

between the Irish Sea and local rivers. 

Mortality of Adult Fish through Contact with the Brine Discharge 

9.7.107 Levels of salinity in excess of 40 psu are expected to be lethal to all marine life 

if animals cannot avoid prolonged exposure. As indicated above, high levels of 

salinity would result in osmotic pressure beyond individuals’ ability to regulate at 

required levels and are associated with reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. 

9.7.108 Whilst it is considered likely that any fish exposed to the hypersaline brine is 

likely to swim away from the plume, the precise mechanism(s) by which this 

would occur is unclear. ‘Saltiness’ is detected directly through ion channels 

which means response to NaCl is rapid; however, there is anecdotal evidence 

of fish encountering ‘brine lakes’ in deep water environments, swimming in and 

dying. This situation, where there is a very marked discontinuity between 

normal ocean waters and the brine, is not necessarily analogous to the 

hypersaline plume where rapid mixing with surrounding waters is predicted such 

that there would be a salinity gradient from background seawater to hypersaline 

over several hundred metres. 

9.7.109 Any effects are predicted to be more severe for demersal species such as 

plaice, sole and rays than for pelagic species although the relatively shallow 

water depths around the discharge point to some extent negate this advantage 

for pelagics. 

9.7.110 There is some uncertainty relating to understanding of how fish would respond 

to the plume and whether they would have the ability to avoid lethal 

concentrations of saline if they come upon these. If fish do not have the ability 

to avoid the plume then the lethal area (up to 1,757 m 2 on neap tides) could, 

over time, affect relatively large numbers of fish including species such as 

plaice and thornback ray that have some commercial value locally (migratory 

species such as salmonids are considered very unlikely to be affected because 

of their ability to detected salinity gradients). In these circumstances a lower 

severity impact is predicted with potentially appreciable alterations to receptor 

populations. Monitoring is required to address this uncertainty. 

300



phase and intermittently during the operational phase. However, only very 

limited mortality would occur presuming that fish avoid the plume. Overall, the 

potential effects of mortality of adult fish through contact with the brine 

discharge are considered to be not significant at any level. 

Loss of Planktonic Stages (eggs and larvae) in the Hypersaline Plume 

9.7.112 This issue is considered separately to loss of other elements of the plankton 

because of the specific importance of fish stocks in supporting commercial 

fishing activities and providing food resources for certain seabirds including, 

notably, red-throated diver protected through the Liverpool Bay SPA 

designation. 

9.7.113 The severity of the impact, as with plankton in general, is dependent upon the 

ability of the receptor to sustain the inevitable degree of loss that would occur to 

local plankton resources. Fish that have planktonic egg and/or larval stages 

have high fecundity strategies to counter the very low conversion rate from egg 

to adult resulting from predation and other natural factors. As explained within 

the plankton assessment, there would be constant replenishment of plankton 

stock, including early fish stages, from local sources as well as the wider Irish 

Sea and no mechanism for fish plankton resources in the important Morecambe 

Bay area to be significantly impacted. 



phase and intermittently during the operational phase. No greater impact on fish 

planktonic stages than was predicted for other parts of the plankton is expected. 

It is therefore considered that the effect on fish as a result of the loss of 

planktonic stages (eggs and larvae) in the hypersaline plume would be not 

significant at any level. 

Displacement of Fish by the Hypersaline Plume 

9.7.115 The presence of high salinity waters in excess of 36 psu are expected to 

exclude fish from affected areas. The maximum area predicted to be impacted 

is around 1,700 m 2 on neap tides, diminishing to 158 m 2 on full spring tides 

although it is expected that the effective displacement area would be constantly 

around the upper range figure since benthos would be killed within an 

equivalent area which would negate foraging opportunities (although there may 

be an initial foraging opportunity for fish after benthos is killed and during 

pauses in brine discharge). 

9.7.116 Several species use the wider area as spawning and nursery grounds none and 

are spatially restricted to habitats present at the site. Reduced foraging 

opportunity is therefore probably of more importance; however, the loss of up to 

1,700m 2 represents an extremely small percentage of habitat available locally 

(a fraction of 1%) which is not expected to have any appreciable impact on fish 

populations locally or at any greater scale. 

301

9.7.117 The effect of the brine saline plume would ultimately be reversible since 

physical habitats would be unaffected, although recovery may take 2-3 years 

following cessation of discharges because of the time required for 

recolonisation of benthic communities. 



phase and intermittently during the operational phase. Although the severity of 

this impact is considered to be minimal, it is recognised that effects would be 

greater for demersal species present at site than for species that occasionally 

visit or pass through the site, including species such as salmonids and other 

migratory species. However, it is considered probable that the potential effects 

on fish populations as a result of displacement by the hypersaline plume would 

be not significant at any level. 

Loss of Food Resources due to Discharging of Brine into the Irish Sea 

9.7.119 Reduced primary and secondary productivity in the plankton could have a 

knock-on effect on higher trophic levels, including fish. However, it has already 

been assessed that no significant effects on plankton stocks are anticipated and 

this potential effect is not considered further within this assessment. 

Entrainment within Water Extracted from the Fleetwood Fish Dock 

9.7.120 The proposed rate of pumping, coupled with 15 mm screening, means that few 

fish would be entrained and killed. It is understood that pumping rates would be 

up to around 2,700 litres per second through a 1.2 m diameter pipeline, thus 

fish within the Dock would be unable to avoid entrainment. It is not considered 

likely that the fish within the Dock represent important components of local 

populations. Therefore, it is considered probable that the effect on fish 

populations as a result of entrainment within water extracted from the 

Fleetwood Fish Dock would be not significant at any level. 

Operation 

9.7.121 The influence of the brine discharge on migration between the Irish Sea and 

local rivers; the mortality of adult fish through contact with the brine discharge; 

the loss of planktonic stages (eggs and larvae) in the hypersaline plume; the 

displacement of fish by the hypersaline plume; the loss of food resources due to 

discharging of brine into the Irish Sea; and entrainment within water extracted 

from the Fleetwood Fish Dock is considered within the construction and 

operation combined assessment. 





fish. 

302


Construction 

9.7.123 The loss of food resources (benthos and fish) due to discharging of brine into 

the Irish Sea is considered within the construction and operation combined 

assessment. 

Potential Disturbance / Injury from Construction Noise 

9.7.124 Marine mammals have evolved to use sound as an important aid in navigation, 

communication and hunting (Richardson et al. 1995). These behaviours may 

potentially be affected by disturbance caused by increasing anthropogenic and 

industrial processes, such as seismic surveys and underwater construction 

activities. 

9.7.125 High intensity noise can cause direct impacts on marine mammals in several 

ways. Loud and prolonged noises can mask communicative or hunting 

vocalisations preventing social interactions and effective hunting. Very high 

intensity noises such as air gun blasts and underwater explosions can cause 

temporary or permanent hearing loss if animals are exposed at close proximity 

(Richardson et al. 1995). In extreme cases, close proximity to extremely high 

source levels can result in internal injuries caused by underwater pressure 

waves. 

9.7.126 Cetaceans are legally protected within UK waters under the Wildlife and 

Countryside Act 1981 and under the Habitats Directive. It is illegal to knowingly 

harm or disturb a cetacean. 

9.7.127 Seals are not afforded the same level of protection as cetaceans. Seals 

vocalize using lower frequencies and so can be expected to have good hearing 

at lower frequencies than cetaceans such as harbour porpoise which use higher 

frequency sound. For example, Thomsen et al. (2006) cite work by Thomsen 

and Schustermann (1998) which found that the hearing range of harbour seals 

extended over a very wide range but was acute over lower frequencies and 

more sensitive than harbour porpoise below 1 kHz. 

9.7.128 The definition of safe limits for exposure of marine mammals to underwater 

noise is controversial and suffers from a lack of good evidence; however, recent 

progress has been made following a comprehensive review of the subject by 

Southall et al. (2007). 

9.7.129 Southall et al. (2007) define injury as a permanent threshold shift (PTS) in 

hearing. PTS is an irreversible elevation of the hearing threshold (i.e. a 

reduction in sensitivity) at a specific frequency (Yost, 2000 cited in Southall et 

al., 2007). With no reliable data to provide noise level thresholds for PTS, 

Southall et al. (2007) suggest a precautionary approach whereby it is assumed 

that a noise exposure capable of inducing temporary threshold shift (TTS) of 

40dB would cause PTS onset in marine mammals. Southall et al. (2007) 

acknowledge that this is relatively precautionary since recovery from higher 

degrees of TTS has been recorded. 

303

9.7.130 The authors divide cetaceans into three functional groups based on their 

hearing sensitivity (auditory bandwidth: low, 7Hz to 22 kHz; mid, 150Hz to 160 

kHz; and high, 200Hz to 180 kHz. Of relevance to the Project, harbour porpoise 

are classed as high frequency cetaceans, dolphin species as mid-frequency. 

Proposed injury criteria are summarised in Table 9-9. It can be seen that for 

cetaceans the thresholds for sound pressure and exposure levels are the same 

for each functional group. Pinnipeds are reported to be somewhat more 

sensitive than cetaceans and therefore expected to incur PTS at lower 

exposure levels. 

9.7.131 Pipeline trenching and vessel noise are ‘nonpulse‘ activities. From Table 9-9 it 

can be inferred that no injury effects would be expected, provided source noise 

levels (sound pressures) were below 230 dB re 1 µPa for cetaceans and 218 dB 

re 1 µPa for pinnipeds. 

9.7.132 For operations that progress over time (such as trenching) the potential for 

cumulative exposure effects needs to be considered. The limit proposed by 

Southall et al. (2007) for cetaceans is 215 dB re 1µPa 2 -s and for pinnipeds in 

water 203 dB re 1 µPa 2 -s (Table 9-9, values for nonpulses). 

Table 9-9 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Proposed Injury Criteria 

for Individual Marine Mammals 

Source: Southall et al. (2007) 

9.7.133 Southall et al. (2007) also provide a mechanism for assessment although the 

process is necessarily more subjective and relies on allocating behavioural 

responses to a severity scale (0 to 9) based on a classification of behavioural 

responses observed in a limited number of test species (free ranging and 

laboratory subjects). Response scores to various levels of underwater noise are 

proposed for high frequency cetaceans such as harbour porpoise in Table 9-10 

and pinnipeds in Table 9-11. 

304

Table 9-10 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Number of High- 

Frequency Cetaceans (Individuals and/or Groups) Reported as having 

Behavioural Responses to Nonpulse Sounds 

Source: Southall et al. (2007) Response scores range from 0, no observable 

response; to 4-7, moderate behavioural changes; and 7+ extensive responses 

Table 9-11 Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment - Number of 

Pinnipeds in Water (Individuals and/or Groups) Reported as having 

Behavioural Responses to Nonpulse Sounds 

Source: Southall et al. (2007). Response scores as indicated in Table 9-10, 

above 

9.7.134 Information on noise levels associated with trenching and cutting (which by 

nature of the high energy contact between metal cutting edges and hard rocks 

is expected to produce relatively higher noise levels) is available from studies 

undertaken in relation to offshore wind energy developments which have 

installed many hundreds of km of cabling in recent years using similar 

approaches. 

305

9.7.135 Measurements during cable installation works understood to have involved 

trenching were made by Subacoustech Ltd on behalf of COWRIE (Nedwell et 

al., 2003). Measurements were made of noise levels during cable installation 

works at North Hoyle using a hydrophone 160 m from the source at a depth of 

2m. Sound pressure was recorded at 123 dB re 1 Pa. Because of the variability 

of noise it is difficult to establish the unweighted source level of the noise, but 

assuming a transmission loss of 22 log (R) the source level was 178 dB re 1 

µPa @ 1m. 

9.7.136 Nedwell et al. (2003) reported that trenching noise was a mixture of broadband 

noise, tonal machinery noise and transients (probably associated with rock 

breakage). It was noted that noise levels and character were variable and 

depended greatly on the type of seabed being cut at the time. After being run 

through a dBht filter (to relate noise levels to the hearing thresholds of various 

marine organisms), all but one measurement were below the 70dBht threshold 

that would be expected to induce a behavioural reaction from fish or marine 

mammals. 

9.7.137 The above measurements are comparable to the stated source noise levels for 

dredging activity in Richardson et al. (1995) of between 172 and 185 dB re 1 

µPa @ 1m. 

9.7.138 Limited information is available on noise levels associated with rock placement. 

SVT Engineering Consultants (2010) provide a recent assessment for this 

activity. They determined that it was unlikely to induce physical injury or 

damage to marine mammals but could induce behavioural disturbance. Source 

noise levels were expected to be in the region of 120 dB re 1 µPa @ 1m and 

behavioural disturbance to be limited to within 450 m. This absolute source level 

may be an underestimate; Nedwell and Howell (2004) for example discuss 

expected noise levels for rock placement and similar activities and suggest that 

source noise levels of around 177 dB re 1 µPa @ 1m could be anticipated. This 

is broadly comparable to cable laying procedures. 

9.7.139 Most noise is expected to be generated at relatively low frequency levels. Low 

frequency sounds tend to be relatively less disturbing to marine mammals than 

higher frequency sounds as the coastal environment is relatively noisy 

(compared to the terrestrial sphere) and animals are habituated to the 

predominant low frequency noises from sources such as wave action. In busy 

areas such as the Irish Sea activities such as shipping, dredging and landbased 

sources contribute to existing lower frequency background noise. It 

should also be noted that the marine mammal species most susceptible to 

disturbance by lower frequency sound are the baleen whales which are adapted 

to communicate using such frequencies. These species are rare in the Irish Sea 

and smaller cetaceans, dolphins and porpoise are more likely to encounter the 

works; harbour porpoise are the cetacean species most likely to be encountered 

(Evans and Shepherd, 2001 and 2006) and this animal is more sensitive to 

higher frequencies than are expected to be generated by the Project. 

9.7.140 Although the site has been identified as of International value to marine 

mammals, this is based on their legislative protection. In fact the area is not of 

known importance for marine mammals. Some temporary displacement of 

marine mammals to distances of not more than a few hundred metres at the 

306

most, if animals are present in the vicinity of works, is possible but would be 

short-term and intermittent (less than 1 year duration), and the sublittoral 

element of the brine discharge pipeline would be installed predominantly during 

the summer (April-July). Furthermore, noise levels would be well below those 

capable of causing injury. Therefore, it is considered that the effect of 

construction noise on marine mammals would be not significant. 


Loss of Food Resources (Benthos and Fish) due to Discharging of Brine into 

the Irish Sea 

9.7.141 It has already been assessed that no significant effects to such food sources 

beyond the Project level are anticipated and this potential effect is not 

considered further within this assessment. However, monitoring is proposed to 

confirm that the conclusions supporting this assessment are valid and this 

would provide similar support to dependent conclusions such as that made here 

(refer to Section 9.8). 

Operation 

9.7.142 The loss of food resources (benthos and fish) due to discharging of brine into 

the Irish Sea is considered within the construction and operation combined 

assessment. 





marine mammals. 


Arable weeds 

Construction 

9.7.144 Nine of the 12 fields supporting valuable arable weeds (including Purple 

Ramping-fumitory) would be affected by the Project. Of these, two supported 

weak Purple Ramping-fumitory plants as they had been sprayed with herbicide. 

Two other fields supported abundant (more than 100 plants) Purple Rampingfumitory 

and Tall Ramping-fumitory. The remaining fields supported few plants 

(up to 50). 

9.7.145 During construction, there would be the loss of habitat that supports these 

species. However, given their arable setting, they appear to be treated by 

herbicides on a regular basis. Nevertheless, this potential effect is considered to 

be significant at the District/Borough level. 

307


9.7.146 Construction of the wellhead compounds above those caverns not created 

during the construction phase would take place during this phase. Therefore, 

loss of arable weed populations would continue during the construction and 

operation combined phase. In the absence of mitigation, this potential effect is 


Operation and Decommissioning 

9.7.147 It is considered that there would be no additional significant effects on the 

arable weed population during the operational phase or the decommissioning 

phase. 

Breeding Birds (Including Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS but 

Excluding Barn Owls) 

Construction 

9.7.148 The construction works would result in a loss of nesting habitat. However, the 

surrounding area provides extensive suitable nesting habitat; therefore, the loss 

is expected to be not significant in the context of the wider area. 

9.7.149 The construction works would also result in temporary disturbance to nesting 

birds, particularly ground-nesting species, if works take place during the bird 

breeding season. 

9.7.150 This includes birds associated with Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS, 

which supports species including reed bunting and skylark, which are listed as 

priority species within the UK BAP. Disturbance effects would be short-term and 

would affect both species within a narrow corridor centred on the brine 

discharge pipeline, and would be likely to affect only small numbers of nest 

sites. Reed bunting territories around the fringes of the water filled lagoon, and 

within the silted lagoon, are unlikely to be adversely affected. Similarly, skylarks 

within the BHS are likely to be confined to the narrow areas of open grassland 

to the north of the Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works. Larger areas of 

open grassland (and hence potentially suitable skylark habitat) lie outside the 

BHS, between the BHS boundary and the A585(T). The majority of the brine 

discharge pipeline would be within the cuttings that bound the derelict railway 

line, and would not be visible from the higher open grassland areas. 

Disturbance effects on Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS are therefore 

considered to be minimal. 

9.7.151 Despite the minimal levels of disturbance to Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands 

BHS, given the scale of the disturbance, effects are considered to be 

significant at the District/Borough level. 


9.7.152 It is understood that all above ground structures (apart from the wellhead 

compounds above those caverns not created during the construction phase) 

would be in place at the end of the construction phase. Therefore, it is not 

anticipated that there would be significant additional loss of nesting habitat 

308

during the construction and operation combined phase. It is therefore 

considered that there would be no significant effect during the construction 


Operation 

9.7.153 There would be no additional loss of nesting habitat as all above ground 

structures would be in-situ. Therefore, it is considered that there would be no 

significant effect during the operational phase. 


9.7.154 It is considered that there would be no significant effect on breeding birds 

during the decommissioning phase. 

Roosting Barn Owls 

Construction 

9.7.155 The building within which evidence of roosting barn owls was found is due to be 

demolished. Therefore, depending on the time of year demolition takes place, 

there is potential for mortality to occur. Given that these barn owls are part of a 

wider population, the effect of this is considered to be significant at the 

District/Borough level. 

9.7.156 Furthermore, suitable foraging habitat would be temporarily lost. Given the 

amount of suitable foraging habitat within the wider area, the effect of this is 



9.7.157 All works related to the demolition of the building would have been completed 

during the construction phase. Furthermore, there would be very minimal 

additional loss of suitable foraging habitat. However, there is potential for 

disturbance due to works in the vicinity. Levels of disturbance would be minimal 

and therefore, it is considered that there would be no significant effect during 

the construction and operation combined phase, the operational phase or the 

decommissioning phase. 


9.8.1 The following section outlines the mitigation measures proposed to minimise 

potential effects identified in Section 9.7. 

9.8.2 For each of the ‘key’ ecological receptors, mitigation measures have been 

developed in response to specific impacts of the Project. The measures are 

proportional to the likely effects and to the value of the receptor concerned. 

9.8.3 Mitigation measures have also been proposed for ‘other ecological receptors 

requiring mitigation’, to meet the requirements of legislative protection (refer to 

Section 9.2 and Appendix 9.1 of Volume 1B). 

309

Mitigation 

Key Receptors 


Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar (including Wyre Estuary and Wintering and 

Passage Birds Associated with Lune Estuary SSSI) - Disturbance/Displacement 

of Wintering Pink-footed Geese during the Construction Phase and the 

Construction and Operation Combined Phase 

9.8.4 In order to reduce potential adverse effects of the Project on wintering pinkfooted 

geese which use the functionally-linked land, adjacent to the Morecambe 

Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, targeted management would be 

undertaken as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy 

Plan for the Project (refer to Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B). Mitigation would be 

provided to ensure pink-footed geese have suitable alternative habitats to roost 

and forage during the construction and construction and operation combined 

phases of the Project. 

9.8.5 The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan would therefore 

include the provision of safe feeding sites in large fields, more than 500 m from 

Project-related activities. Fields close to busy roads would also be avoided. In 

order to forage successfully, the RSPB advice sheet (RSPB, 2008) identifies 

that pink-footed geese require undisturbed daytime feeding sites and a supply 

of carbohydrate-rich food. 

9.8.6 Given the size and duration of the Project, different areas would be disturbed at 

different times. The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

would therefore include specifications for the management of crop rotation, to 

ensure that pink-footed geese would always be provided with safe feeding sites, 

away from Project-related sources of disturbance, for the duration of the 

construction, and construction and operation combined phases of the Project 

(deemed to be Years 1 to 8). The exact locations of the fields would be 

determined in conjunction with consultees. However, the areas that would be 

managed for pink-footed geese would be equivalent to the area that is affected 

by Project-related activities, to ensure there would be no adverse effect on pinkfooted 

geese using the functionally-linked land. 

9.8.7 The cropping regime of the farmland proving safe feeding sites would be 

targeted to enhance the value of retained farmland for pink-footed geese. This 

would include the provision of crops rich in carbohydrates, such as potatoes 

and grain, and the implementation of specific farming practices to encourage 

pink-footed geese into the safe feeding sites. The RSPB advice sheet (RSPB, 

2008) suggests three ways to encourage pink-footed geese: 

 

Avoid disturbing the fields where the geese are feeding: Pink-footed geese 

are highly susceptible to human disturbance; therefore, disturbance from 

people walking, or travelling through fields in all-terrain vehicles, set aside 

as safe feeding sites would be avoided. In addition, if possible, shooting 

would not take place within or adjacent to safe feeding sites. 

310

Retain the winter stubbles and crops as long as possible: Pink-footed 

geese prefer to feed on post-harvest spilt grain and potatoes. They would 

graze on harvested fields for a period after harvest. Therefore, ploughing 

in stubbles and plant material directly after harvest to sow a winter cereal 

would be avoided. Spring-sown cereal would be planted instead. 

Provide geese with access to unharvested fields: Where possible, fields 

set aside as safe feeding sites would not be harvested to provide forage 

for pink-footed geese. This would only be undertaken if a sufficient 

number of undisturbed fields cannot be retained. However, it is 

considered likely that sufficient foraging habitat would be provided. 


Passage Birds Associated with Lune Estuary SSSI) - Temporary Loss and 

Permanent Loss of Habitat for Foraging and Roosting Wildfowl and Waders 

9.8.8 Loss of habitat for wintering and passage wildfowl and waders associated with 

the designated sites is considered to be not significant, therefore no mitigation 

is proposed. 


Passage Birds Associated with Lune Estuary SSSI) - Degradation of 

Designated Habitats adjacent to Works Activities, through Fugitive Dust 

Deposition, Uncontrolled Pollution Events and Surface Water Runoff 

9.8.9 Best practice guidelines relating to pollution prevention and control would be 

adhered to and measures implemented to minimise impacts (for example, use 

of spill kits, refuelling only in designated areas away from watercourses and 

designated sites). All fuels, oils and chemicals would be stored on an 

impermeable base, bunded and secured. To protect aquatic ecosystems, 

construction activities in and near all watercourses would be restricted and 

managed in accordance with Environment Agency Pollution Prevention 

Guidance. Any drilling wastes would be collected and controlled. The drilling 

fluids used for the river crossing drilling would be a water-based mud system 

and all components of the fluids would be within the Cefas/Ospar list of 

substances considered to pose little or no risk to the environment. 

9.8.10 Control of fugitive dust would be undertaken in line with best practice guidance, 

including Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities (Building 

Research Establishment, 2003), as detailed in Chapter 6: Air Quality. 

9.8.11 The mechanism for ensuring delivery of these pollution control measures would 

be through the production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan 

(CEMP), including detailed Method Statements for works activities, and the 

delivery of toolbox talks to construction personnel to increase awareness of 

potential environmental effects. 

311


Passage Birds associated with Lune Estuary SSSI) - Subsidence of Habitat 

during the Construction Phase, the Construction and Operation Combined 

Phase and the Operational Phase 

9.8.12 Subsidence is not considered to be result in a significant effect on the habitats 

of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI, or the functionallylinked 

agricultural land; therefore, no mitigation is proposed. 


Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS 

9.8.13 A small scale translocation operation would also be undertaken to move areas 

of species-rich grassland to suitable locations within the site that would not be 

affected by the works in order to conserve biodiversity. Once the works have 

been completed, the areas of sparsely colonised rubble that have been affected 

by the works would be left to recolonise naturally. Areas of soil would be sown 

with an appropriate mix of locally native grassland species with the aim of 

replicating the existing vegetation insofar as is possible. 


9.8.14 In relation to potential pollution incidents, the provisions of the CEMP and 

general careful working practices (such as those contained in Environment 

Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines) would be employed in order to avoid 

any impacts on existing water quality. 


9.8.15 During the construction phase, the construction and operation combined phase 

and the operational phase, water would be extracted from Fleetwood Fish Dock 

and brine would be discharged into the Irish Sea (albeit to a lesser extent during 

the operational phase). However, as with the ‘Potential Effects’ section, 

mitigation related to water abstraction from Fleetwood Fish Dock and the 

discharging of brine into the Irish Sea are discussed within the construction and 

operation combined phase assessment only (to avoid repetition of text), as that 

is the phase when the greatest amount of water would be abstracted and brine 

would be discharged. 

Plankton 

9.8.16 No significant effects on plankton are predicted. Thus no mitigation is required. 

However, a programme of monitoring is required to meet requirements of the 

Discharge Consent and the following has been agreed with Environment 

Agency: available long term data sets are reviewed on a semi-annual basis (i.e. 

every 2 years) and data interpreted in relation to brine discharge. The details of 

the data interpretation remain to be confirmed but it is recommended that an 

appropriately qualified specialist plankton ecologist with knowledge of the longterm 

data sets be responsible for interpretations. 

312

9.8.17 However, to ensure that remedial actions are taken if required, it is 

recommended that plankton data should in fact be reviewed at least annually for 

the first three years once the brine outfall is operational. 

Benthic Environment - Sublittoral - Potential Direct Damage of Sublittoral 

Benthic Habitats during the Installation of the Brine Discharge Pipeline and 

Associated Structures 

9.8.18 A sensitivity map would be developed using acoustic survey (i.e. sidescan 

sonar) to identify areas of potential Annex 1 Sabellaria alveolata (Stony) Reef. 

Such areas should then be avoided by the brine discharge pipeline route or 

impacts minimised by such other mitigation as might be appropriate. 

9.8.19 Monitoring is required to meet conditions of the Discharge Consent. Monitoring 

would comprise diver, grab and camera survey at all original baseline survey 

sites pre and post first discharge of the brine effluent, every two years during 

the period of discharge with a final survey after completion of the Project. It is 

also stated that the surveys should be carried out in late summer. After the first 

two surveys the number of monitoring sites would be reviewed and, potentially, 

a revised sub-set used (subject to agreement with Environment Agency). 

Benthic Environment - Sublittoral - Sediment Mobilisation during the Installation 

of the Brine Discharge Pipeline 

9.8.20 No significant effects are predicted thus, no mitigation measures are required. 

However, monitoring is required to meet conditions of the Discharge Consent. 

Benthic Environment - Littoral - Potential Direct Damage of Littoral Benthic 

Habitats during the Installation of the Brine Discharge Pipeline 

9.8.21 There is the potential for significant effects at the Project level, thus mitigation 

measures have been recommended: 

 

 

Access to the littoral zone should be restricted to the working corridor and 

vehicles/people not allowed to stray outside of this area. Temporary 

marking should be erected around any areas of Sabellaria alveolata 

aggregations (to be identified by an littoral ecologist) if there is any 

requirement for access/egress routes to stray outside the assumed 60 m 

corridor; 

To minimise recolonisation time, the surface sediments (top 50 cm or to 

the redox layer if shallower) should be excavated first and replaced back in 

position after deeper sediments. 

9.8.22 Monitoring is required to meet conditions of the Discharge Consent, as follows: 

S.alveolata reef 500m either side of the brine discharge pipeline would be 

mapped and its physical condition assessed. This would be undertaken 

annually for at least five years with an updated baseline survey 1-3 months 

before construction and a follow up within 1 month of works. 

313

Fish - Sediment Mobilisation during the Installation of the Brine Discharge 

Pipeline and Associated Structures 

9.8.23 There is the potential for significant effects at the project level to arise if there 

was an elevation of suspended sediment levels above background of more than 

300% at 50 m from the works or 1,000mg/l at any point in the water column 

(threshold would need to be agreed with statutory authorities), whichever was 

greater. Thus suspended sediment levels should be monitored during dredging. 

In the event that suspended sediments exceed these levels the rate of 

excavation would need to be reduced, or timed in relation to tidal movement, to 

reduce sediment load. Monitoring would be by a mobile team independent of 

the dredger, using hand held turbidity meters calibrated with local sediment. 

Fish - Influence of the Brine Discharge on Fish Migration between the Irish Sea 

and Local Rivers 

9.8.24 No significant effects are predicted thus, no mitigation measures are required. 

However, monitoring is required to meet conditions of the Discharge Consent, 

this would confirm that there is no adverse impact and is summarised as 

follows: 

 

 

Routine data gathered by the Environment Agency from local rivers would 

be collated bi-annually, in April (previous year’s rod catches plus past 6 

months data for all other elements) and October (all available data except 

rod catches) 

Simple correlations would be made between fish runs and brine discharge 

concentration 

9.8.25 The above would include consideration of migratory species. 

Fish - Mortality of Adult Fish through Contact with the Brine Discharge 

9.8.26 No significant effects are predicted thus, no mitigation measures would be 

required. 

9.8.27 Nevertheless, monitoring is required to meet conditions of the Discharge 

Consent, this is summarised below. Monitoring would be carried out before and 

immediately after the first discharge of hypersaline and after 6 months when 

maximum salinity levels are reached as follows: 

9.8.28 Monitoring of fish would take place using a 2 m scientific beam trawl to meet 

conditions in the Discharge Consent. This survey is geared towards 

investigating longer term impacts on smaller demersal fish and epifauna. 

Fish - Loss of Planktonic Stages (eggs and larvae) in the Hypersaline Plume 

9.8.29 No significant effects are predicted, thus mitigation measures are not required. 

However, a programme of monitoring is required to meet requirements of the 

Discharge Consent and the following has been agreed with Environment 

Agency: available long term data sets are reviewed on a semi-annual basis (i.e. 

every 2 years) and data interpreted in relation to brine discharge. The details of 

the data interpretation remain to be confirmed but it is recommended that an 

314

appropriately qualified specialist plankton ecologist with knowledge of the long 

term data sets be responsible for interpretations. 

9.8.30 In order to ensure that remedial actions are taken if required it is recommended 

that plankton data be reviewed at least annually for the first three years once 

the brine discharge pipeline is operational. 

Fish - Displacement of Fish by the Hypersaline Plume 

9.8.31 No significant effects are predicted, thus mitigation measure are not required. 

Monitoring is required to meet conditions of the Discharge Consent and is 

summarised as follows: 

 

 

Routine data gathered by the Environment Agency from local rivers would 

be collated bi-annually, in April (previous year’s rod catches plus past 6 

months data for all other elements) and October (all available data except 

rod catches) 

Simple correlations would be made between fish runs and brine discharge 

concentration 

9.8.32 The above would include consideration of migratory species.. 

Fish - Loss of Food Resources due to Discharging of Brine into the Irish Sea 


Fish - Entrainment within Water Extracted from the Fleetwood Fish Dock 


However, consideration could be given to introducing a finer filter (e.g. 5mm) 

behind the coarse 15cm screen. To reduce the potential for mortality to fish and 

plankton. The screen would need to be checked regularly for entrained 

organisms. These additional screening requirements would be revised subject 

to results of initial monitoring over a period of 12 months to cover any possible 

seasonal variability. 


9.8.35 No significant effects are predicted, and therefore no mitigation measures are 

proposed. 


9.8.36 The provisions of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

(refer to Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B) would play a major part in the mitigation 

and enhancement measures for terrestrial habitats / species on the Preesall 

(gas storage) site. This document is referred to below, as appropriate. 

Arable Weeds 

9.8.37 Where seasonality allows, a pre-construction survey would be undertaken to 

confirm the extent of arable weeds within any of the arable fields to be affected, 

in particular those fields which supported abundant Purple Ramping-fumitory. 

315

9.8.38 The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan includes the 

retention of field margins in the majority of locations where arable weeds, 

including Purple Ramping-fumitory, occur. In any event, should it not be 

possible to retain these areas of arable weeds, the top 10 cm of soil, which 

contains the majority of the seeds bank, would be carefully removed and stored 

separately from the remainder of the topsoil. In advance of spreading the seedrich 

layer on the surface before planting or seeding takes place, the ground 

would be disturbed in order to allow the arable weeds to grow. It is possible that 

the disturbance caused by construction would result in a flush of abundant 

fumitory for the first few years, followed by a more natural pattern of growth 

thereafter. Surveys would be undertaken after construction to monitor the 

success of these measures. 

9.8.39 Arable land within Halite Energy Group ownership would continue to be 

managed in a manner sympathetic to fumitory populations, by formal 

agreement. Habitat suitable to support Purple Ramping-fumitory on the Preesall 

(gas storage) site would be enhanced and extended within the provisions of the 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan. Further detail is 

provided in Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B. 

Breeding Birds (Including Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS but Excluding 

Barn Owls) 

9.8.40 Careful timing of all vegetation clearance works and phasing of construction 

works would ensure that breeding birds and their nests are not destroyed or 

disturbed. Vegetation clearance works would be undertaken outside of the bird 

breeding season (the bird breeding season covers end-February to mid-August 

inclusive) wherever possible. If, however, this were not possible each area of 

vegetation to be cleared would be searched for nesting birds prior to clearance 

by a suitably qualified ecologist. If a nest was found, the feature containing the 

nest and its immediate surroundings would be left undisturbed until nesting was 

complete and any young had fledged. 

9.8.41 Reinstatement of habitat would ensure that suitable nesting habitat is restored 

shortly following construction. Additional habitat would also be created including 

arable field/wildflower margins, grassland and scrub mosaic habitat, field 

scrapes, new hedgerows, reed beds and woodland planting which would ensure 

the provision of nesting habitat in a relatively short time. Further details are 

included in the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

presented in Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B). 


9.8.42 For the building within which the barn owl was nesting, demolition or any other 

works likely to cause disturbance would only take place when the owls are not 

nesting in order to avoid committing an offence. In advance of building 

demolition, two replacement nest boxes would be provided. This would ideally 

be provided in nearby buildings, or, if none are suitable, suitable trees within 

200m. 

9.8.43 As stated in Section 9.7, it was not possible to comprehensively inspect the 

other building within which evidence of barn owls was recorded, and therefore a 

316

number of features of the building potentially used by barn owls were not 

inspected. Therefore, further inspection is recommended, as it is proposed that 

this building be demolished and rebuilt. If the building is used by nesting barn 

owls, then the demolition or any other works likely to cause disturbance can 

only take place when the owls are not nesting in order to avoid committing an 

offence. In addition, replacement nesting boxes would be provided as close to 

the building as possible, and certainly within 200m. 

9.8.44 The demolition of either building (should both buildings be confirmed as a nest 

site) is not likely to require a licence, but this would be reviewed with statutory 

consultees. 

Other Ecological Receptors Requiring Mitigation 

9.8.45 The mitigation proposals detailed in this section do not form part of the 

assessment per se, but are necessary to meet legislative or policy objectives. 

Relevant policy documents include the Overarching National Policy Statement 

for Energy (EN1) which states that “development should aim to avoid significant 

harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, including through 

mitigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives; where significant harm 

cannot be avoided, then appropriate compensation measures should be 

sought.” 


Fleetwood Promenade - Coastal and Dune Grassland BHS 

9.8.46 The areas affected by the installation of the brine discharge pipeline would be 

reinstated to maritime grassland provided that adequate seed of all appropriate 

species can be sourced locally. If this is not possible, turf stripping, storage and 

subsequent re-laying may be required to ensure that vegetation is restored in 

the short term. Active management of this area may be required to encourage 

the required vegetation community. 


Arable, Broad-leaved Trees, Broad-leaved Plantation Woodland, Mixed 

Plantation Woodland 

9.8.47 Any habitat temporarily disturbed during the construction phase would be 

reinstated upon completion as soon as is practically possible. 

9.8.48 In order to mitigate for the loss of arable land, field margins would be 

established to encourage a diverse arable weed assemblage in a number of 

locations adjacent to the Wyre Estuary. Arable field / wildflower margin would 

be established. This would be greater than the area lost and there would be a 

net increase in biodiversity with regard this habitat type. 

9.8.49 In addition, areas of native woodland would be established to mitigate for the 

loss of any woodland. Native woodland would be established which would be 

more than the 1.31 hectares (approximate) of woodland that would be lost as a 

result of the Project. Again, there would be a net increase in biodiversity with 

regard this habitat type. 

317

9.8.50 The provisions of the CEMP and general careful working practices would be 

employed in order to minimise any effects on the general habitats and the 

species these habitats support. 

Hedgerows 

9.8.51 As a result of the loss of part of the ‘Important’ Hedgerow H70, it is anticipated 

that a Hedgerow Removal Licence would need to be served on Lancashire 

County Council. 

9.8.52 Reinstatement of hedgerows would comply with British Standard (BS) 8010. In 

order to ensure that there is no loss to biodiversity, hedgerows would be 

replaced with new planting to integrate with the existing vegetation using native, 

locally appropriate species. Replanted hedgerows would be protected on both 

sides by a fence together with wire netting turned out or buried at the bottom for 

protection against rabbits (where necessary). The fencing and netting would be 

maintained until the hedgerow is fully established. All wire fences would be well 

strained when reinstated. 

Ditches and Watercourses 

9.8.53 The majority of the ditches crossed by the NTS Interconnector Pipeline would 

be "flume" cut during a dry season. This technique is proposed as it would 

maintain the ditch and cause the least disturbance to the in-channel. A flume is 

simply a length of pipe of suitable diameter to be lowered and fit snugly inside 

the ditch. This is then sealed at both ends of the pipe with clay. The trench is 

then cut up to the pipe on both sides and then hand cut to the required depth. 

The NTS Interconnector Pipeline is then laid under the flume or the flume may 

be removed if the flow of water is minimal. 

9.8.54 Prior to any construction work, a pre-construction ditch, otter and water vole 

survey would be undertaken. The 2011 survey data indicates low otter and 

water vole activity, with signs of water vole recorded at Pond 22 only. No otter 

resting sites or holts were identified. Should levels of activity have increased, 

consideration would be given to applying the auger bore technique at these 

ditches/watercourses, in consultation with the Environment Agency. 

9.8.55 Method Statements for ditch crossings would be discussed and agreed with the 

Environment Agency before construction commenced. 

9.8.56 Mitigation for the potential pollution incidents during the construction phase and 

the construction and operation combined phase would be provided in a Method 

Statement and CEMP. These documents would detail how these potential 

environmental risks would be managed in agreement with key stakeholders e.g. 

Environment Agency. The CEMP would cover all the potential effects that could 

arise and ensure that no discharge of polluting material or release of sediment 

occurs. The CEMP would reduce the potential for water quality impacts 

associated with the works and thus mitigate for the potential adverse impacts 

identified. 

9.8.57 In general, best practice outlined within Environment Agency Pollution 

Prevention Guidelines would be followed. For example all fuels, oils and 

chemicals would be stored on an impermeable base, bunded and secured. To 

318

protect aquatic ecosystems, construction activities in and near all watercourses 

would be restricted according to Environment Agency guidance. 

9.8.58 During the operational phase, it is envisaged that a suitable water surface 

drainage system would be installed (sustainable drainage system (SuDS)), 

which would further minimise the potential effects on water quality by restricting 

discharge rates and runoff volumes. The final surface water design option would 

be furthered as part of the detailed design of the Project, and would be 

dependent on the infiltration potential of the site. Leak detection systems would 

be employed to limit the possibility and the potential harm of any leaks of brine 

or oils. 

Ponds 

9.8.59 Eighteen ponds were identified which are considered to be at ‘high’ risk of 

indirect impacts as a result of the Project. Potential effects include pollution 

incidents/contamination and other hydrological impacts such as minor ground 

profile and watercourse changes which could alter surface water and fluvial 

flows that sustain these ponds. 

9.8.60 Mitigation for the potential pollution incidents during the construction phase and 

the construction and operation combined phase would be provided in a Method 

Statement and CEMP. These documents would detail how these potential 

environmental risks would be managed in agreement with key stakeholders e.g. 

Environment Agency. The CEMP would cover all the potential effects that could 

arise and ensure that no discharge of polluting material or release of sediment 

occurs. The CEMP would reduce the potential for water quality impacts 

associated with the works and thus mitigate for the potential adverse impacts 

identified. 






9.8.62 During the operational phase, it is envisaged that a suitable water surface 

drainage system would be installed (sustainable drainage system (SuDS)), 

which would further minimise the potential effects on water quality by restricting 

discharge rates and runoff volumes. The final surface water design option would 

be furthered as part of the detailed design of the Project, and would be 

dependent on the infiltration potential of the site. Leak detection systems would 

be employed to limit the possibility and the potential harm of any leaks of brine 

or oils. 

Great Crested Newts 

9.8.63 Although none of the six ponds found to support great crested newts would be 

affected by the Project, the potential exists for construction activities associated 

with the installation of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline within 250 m of these 

ponds, to result in the temporary loss and fragmentation of suitable terrestrial 

habitats and features. The majority of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline would 

319

e installed within arable fields, which would be of limited value to newts. The 

impacts would therefore be restricted to locations where the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline crosses hedgerows within 250 m of confirmed newt ponds and where 

presence has been assumed. The working width of the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline would be reduced to 10 m across all hedgerows. 

9.8.64 As a result, a licence from Natural England is likely to be required for works to 

proceed, and appropriate mitigation devised accordingly. It has been agreed 

with Natural England that this draft licence application be submitted no later 

than 3 months after the submission of the DCO Application (refer to Appendix 


9.8.65 Measures to prevent the incidental killing and/or injury of great crested newts 

would be adopted. It is expected that such measures would comprise the 

installation of temporary exclusion fencing and drift fencing, in combination with 

pitfall traps, in advance of the construction phase, to prevent great crested 

newts from straying into the working area. Prior to vegetation clearance or 

earthworks within the working width, potential refuges for great crested newts 

would also be searched by hand, with further destructive searches, as 

appropriate. The precise extent of drift and exclusion fencing would be in 

accordance with the conditions pertaining to the Natural England licence. 

Measures would be implemented to monitor the integrity of the fencing 

throughout the construction phase. All works associated with the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline in the vicinity of the ponds that support great crested 

newts would be overseen by a suitably experienced licensed ecologist. 

9.8.66 Habitat creation and management on the Pressall (gas storage) site through the 

provisions of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan would 

be expected to increase the suitability of the area to support great crested 

newts. At present, much of the land represents sub-optimal foraging habitat for 

great crested newts. The new planting and alterations in management that are 

proposed would, in particular, provide additional foraging opportunities. 

9.8.67 Surveys would be carried out following completion of the Project, to monitor the 

success of mitigation measures employed. The duration of the monitoring 

required would be dependent on the licensing conditions. 

9.8.68 Should land access permission be granted to permit great crested newt surveys 

within previously unsurveyed ponds prior to the commencement of the 

construction phase, the impact assessment and associated mitigation measures 

would be reviewed in the light of these survey findings. This would be carried 

out in consultation with Natural England. 

Bats 

9.8.69 With regard to the potential bat tree roosts identified during the 2011 survey, 

further investigation would be undertaken pre-construction should any of these 

trees be affected by the Project, to confirm the absence of bat roosts. 

9.8.70 As two of the Higher Lickow Farm buildings are confirmed bat roosts, a licence 

from Natural England is likely to be required for works to proceed to the larger 

barn (demolition before rebuilding), and potentially the farmhouse (depending 

320

on the extent of the refurbishment required). Appropriate mitigation would be 

devised accordingly, which is likely to include provision of replacement bat 

roosting opportunities, and sensitive timings of works. 

9.8.71 It has been agreed with Natural England that this draft licence application be 

submitted no later than 3 months after the submission of the DCO Application 

(refer to Appendix 9.19 of Volume 1B). 

9.8.72 In order to mitigate for the loss of foraging areas, particularly hedgerows, all 

hedgerows would be reinstated as soon as is practically possible. 

Reinstatement of hedgerows would comply with BS 8010. In order to ensure 

that there is no loss to biodiversity, hedgerows would be replaced with new 

planting to integrate with the existing vegetation using native, locally appropriate 

species. 

9.8.73 Furthermore, the provisions of the Landscape and Ecological Management 

Strategy Plan would seek to improve the general network of existing hedgerows 

within the Preesall (gas storage) site. 

Water Voles 

9.8.74 Water vole activity was recorded during the 2011 survey at Pond 22, which 

would be unaffected by the Project. No water vole activity was recorded from 

within the ditches surveyed. However, there remains a possibility for these 

ditches to be re-colonised by water voles in the future (and also within those 

ditches to which access was not afforded in 2011). However, the presence of 

mink in the area may prevent this from happening. 

9.8.75 Nevertheless, a pre-construction water vole survey would be undertaken on all 

ditches within the application boundary (to be directly affected by the Project). 

Should any evidence of water vole activity be recorded during this survey, then 

a programme of mitigation would be devised and agreed with the Environment 

Agency prior to the commencement of construction works in those areas. 

Otters 

9.8.76 In order to confirm the continued low levels of otter activity within the application 

site and the continued absence of resting sites or holts, a pre-construction 

survey would be undertaken. This would focus on all ditches to be affected by 

the Project. 

9.8.77 Should levels of activity have increased, the need for additional mitigation would 

be reviewed, in consultation with the Environment Agency. 

Brown Hares 

9.8.78 In order to mitigate for the temporary loss of farmland habitat, the Landscape 

and Ecological Management Strategy Plan includes measures to support the 

current brown hare population within the Preesall (gas storage) site. Such 

measures include planting suitable species to provide a year-round supply of 

food for the local brown hare population and ensuring that field margins are left 

undisturbed where possible to provide areas suitable for the establishment of 

forms. 

321

Badgers 

9.8.79 Whilst it is considered that no active badger setts would be disturbed by any 

construction activity, a pre-construction badger survey would be undertaken to 

ensure that the level of badger activity within the application site has not 

changed. Should levels of badger activity increase, the need for a licence for 

works to proceed would be reviewed accordingly. 


9.8.80 Those measures that are independent of the potential effects, but which 

nevertheless seek to take advantage of the Project to deliver nature 

conservation gain, are described as ‘enhancement’ measures. The NERC Act 

2006 placed a duty on all public authorities to have regard to the purpose of 

conserving biodiversity; such enhancement measures represent one way in 

which this duty can be met. The following section outlines the enhancement 

measures proposed associated with the Project. In addition, PPS 9 states that 

“planning policies should aim to maintain, enhance, restore or add to 

biodiversity interests. They should promote opportunities for the incorporation of 

beneficial biodiversity in and around new developments.” 

9.8.81 The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan will be submitted 

with the DCO Application as a working document, which will be further refined 

through discussions with key stakeholders, managers, and tenants. The 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan identifies areas for 

habitat enhancement, habitat creation, and ecological benefits which would 

contribute towards the net gain of biodiversity associated with the Project. The 

Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan (refer to Appendix 14.11 

of Volume 1B) would ensure the delivery of enhancements measures through 

appropriate management. These are described below. 

Terrestrial Habitats/Species 

Arable Weed Margins and Wildflower Strips 

9.8.82 In order to provide habitat of value to farmland birds, and encourage botanically 

diverse field margins, arable weed margins and wildflower strips would be 

created in a number of locations. The exact locations would be determined 

following a further consultation, but suggested locations are illustrated on Figure 

14.10 of Volume 2B. 

9.8.83 In locations identified for arable weeds, a margin of arable land would be 

retained at the edge of the crop to encourage arable weeds such as Purple 

Ramping-fumitory. The margin would be cultivated annually and left to 

regenerate without broad-spectrum herbicides or fertiliser. The germination time 

of Purple Ramping-fumitory should dictate the cultivation time which occurs 

mainly in the spring, but can occur in the summer when the seed is exposed to 

light / air. 

9.8.84 In locations identified for wildflower strips, these would be created within a 6 m 

margin, ideally in a sunny aspect. The seed mix would comprise a mix of fine 

grasses, such as fescues and bents. Wildflower seed would comprise between 

322

5% and 20% of the mix by weight and include native plants such as Yarrow, 

Common Knapweed and Oxeye Daisy. Where possible, a local seed source 

would be used. The grass seed would be drilled and the wildflower seed 

broadcast before rolling; the strips would be cut in the autumn. 

Pasture Field Scrapes 

9.8.85 In order to provide insect-rich areas where birds such as lapwings, redshanks 

and curlews can feed, a number of field scrapes would be created. The exact 

locations would be determined following a further consultation, but suggested 

locations are illustrated on Figure 14.10 of Volume 2B. 

Ponds 

9.8.86 In order to enhance the biodiversity value of ponds, it is proposed to implement 

a number of measures at approximately 12 ponds within the surrounding 

Preesall (gas storage) site. The following general measures are proposed: 

 

Removal of encroaching scrub and trees shading the ponds, with the 

exception of the north side 

Use of brash from scrub and tree clearance to create habitat piles / 

amphibian hibernacula in adjacent areas 

 

 

 

 

 

At least a 3 m field margin around ponds would be left to become rough 

grassland 

Removal of aquatic vegetation where the coverage is over 70% and 

maintain aquatic macrophyte coverage at 25% - 70% 

Where aquatic vegetation is absent in ponds, relocate some plants that 

have been removed into such ponds and also introduce good egg-laying 

plants for great crested newts 

Re-profiling of pond 

Silt removal where pond depth has been reduced to 50 cm and spread on 

adjacent arable fields 

9.8.87 It should be noted that since great crested newts are known to be breeding 

within the local area, a Natural England conservation licence is likely to be 

required before the management works can be undertaken. 

Ditches and Watercourses 

9.8.88 In order to enhance the biodiversity value of the ditches and watercourses, in 

particular for water voles, re-profiling of some of the ditches would be 

undertaken. Ditches and watercourses targeted for biodiversity improvements 

are shown on Figure 14.10 of Volume 2B. Once this has been undertaken, 

management practices would be implemented to maintain and enhance the 

ditches and watercourses. Suggested measures include creating a strip of 

rough grassland adjacent to the ditch and removing in-channel and bank 

vegetation when inundation is occurring. 

323

Reed Bed 

9.8.89 In order to provide additional habitat for breeding birds, birds on passage and 

wintering birds, it is proposed to create a reed bed to the south of the Gas 

Compressor Compound. 

Hedgerows 

9.8.90 Approximately 600 m of new hedgerow would be planted. The hedgerow would 

comprise native species of local provenance, incorporating those identified in 

the hedgerow surveys. New hedgerow would provide a wildlife corridor and 

would provide habitat for numerous species such as nesting birds. 

Woodlands and Scrub 

9.8.91 Areas of woodland and scrub would be planted to provide biodiversity 

enhancements. Native species would be used, incorporating those identified in 

the Phase 1 Habitat survey. 

Wintering and Breeding birds 

The following measures, which are described above, would also be of benefit to 

wildfowl and waders: 

 

 

 

 

 

Provision of shallow scrapes within low-lying pasture fields 

Excavation of low lying area for the creation of reed beds 

Arable field margins managed to benefit farmland birds 

Management of existing ponds within arable fields through scrub removal 

Improvements to the network of ditches and watercourses 



‘key’ ecological receptors indentified in Section 9.7, with the provision of the 

mitigation and enhancement measures identified in Section 9.8. 


Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar (including Wyre Estuary SSSI and Lune 

Estuary SSSI Bird Species) 

Construction 

Disturbance/Displacement of Wintering and Passage Birds 

9.9.2 Disturbance to wintering pink-footed geese within the functionally-linked land as 

a result of the construction of the Booster Pump Station, Control Centre and Debrine 

Facility, Gas Compressor Compound and Electrical Sub-station (and 

associated infrastructure), either together or in-combination, would be mitigated 

through the implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management 

Strategy Plan. The Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan 

324

would ensure that sufficient alternative foraging and roosting habitat would be 

maintained for pink-footed geese. Therefore, residual disturbance effects on 

pink-footed geese associated with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar, Wyre Estuary 

SSSI and Lune Estuary SSSI are considered to be not significant. 

9.9.3 Through the embedded design of the Project, including the avoidance of 

sensitive migration and winter periods and the provision of visual and noise 

screening bunds, it has been possible to avoid the residual effects on foraging 

and/or roosting birds in winter and/or on passage that use the saltmarsh and 

mudflats that form part of Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary 

SSSI. Given that no significant effect is envisaged on the bird species using the 

designated land within Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI 

and that there would be no net loss of this designated site habitat, no residual 

effects are anticipated as a result of the Project. 

Permanent and Temporary Habitat Loss 

9.9.4 There would be no loss of designated site habitat, and the small area of habitat 

loss within the functionally-linked land is considered to be not significant. 

Therefore no residual effects with regard to permanent and temporary habitat 

loss are anticipated as a result of the Project. 

Degradation of Habitats adjacent to Works Activities, through Fugitive Dust 

Deposition, Uncontrolled Pollution Events and Surface Water Runoff 

9.9.5 Following the successful implementation of tried and tested control measures 

and by adhering to best practice guidelines, it is considered that residual effects 

associated with habitat degradation would be not significant. 



9.9.6 Disturbance to wintering pink-footed geese within the functionally-linked land as 

a result of the construction of wellhead compounds 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the drilling 

of caverns would be mitigated through the implementation of the Landscape 

and Ecological Management Strategy Plan. The Landscape and Ecological 

Management Strategy Plan would ensure that sufficient alternative foraging and 

roosting habitat would be maintained for pink-footed geese. Therefore, residual 

disturbance effects on pink-footed geese associated with Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar, Wyre Estuary SSSI and Lune Estuary SSSI are considered to be 

not significant. 

9.9.7 Given that no significant effect is envisaged on the bird species using the 

designated land within Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI 

and that there would be no net loss of this designated site habitat, no residual 

effects are anticipated as a result of the Project. 

Permanent Loss of Roosting and Foraging Habitat 

9.9.8 There would be no loss of designated site habitat, and the small area of habitat 

loss within the functionally-linked land during the construction and operation 

phase is considered to be not significant. Therefore no residual effects with 

325

egard to permanent and temporary habitat loss are anticipated as a result of 

the Project. 

Subsidence of Habitats 

9.9.9 There would be no discernable change in the quality of habitat, or change in 

use by bird species associated with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI, and the functionally-linked land as a result of subsidence. 

Therefore, subsidence of habitats during the construction and operation phase 

of the Project is considered to be not significant. 

Operation 


9.9.10 Due to the low-level of noise generated during the operation of the Booster 

Pump Station, Control Centre, De-brine Facility, Gas Compressor Compound 

and Electrical Sub-station (and associated infrastructure) and the presence of 

only a low number of site personnel, disturbance of wintering and passage bird 

species both within designated sites and functionally-linked land is considered 

to be not significant. 


9.9.11 There would be no discernable change in the quality of habitat, or change in 

use by bird species associated with Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI, and the functionally-linked land as a result of subsidence. 

Therefore subsidence of habitats during the operational phase of the Project is 


Degradation of Habitats due to Changes in Air Quality 

9.9.12 Following the application of best practice guidance, it is considered that dust 

deposition would not impact on the habitats or the qualifying bird species of 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre Estuary SSSI (refer to Chapter 6: Air 

Quality). 



9.9.13 No residual effects are anticipated during the decommissioning phase. 


Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS 

9.9.14 Loss of approximately 2.21 hectares of this designated site would be mitigated 

for by undertaking a small scale translocation operation to move areas of 

species-rich grassland to suitable locations within the site that would not be 

affected by the works. Once the works have been completed, the affected area 

would be sown with a grassland species mix which would replicate the existing 

vegetation as far as possible. As such, the residual effects would be not 

significant. 

326


9.9.15 Following the implementation of pollution control measures to prevent any 

adverse impacts on the ditch network, the residual effects would be not 

significant. 


9.9.16 It is considered that the residual effects on marine habitats/species would be 



Arable Weeds 

9.9.17 In most cases, areas supporting Purple Ramping-fumitory would be avoided. 

Where this is not possible, the soil would be kept and stored separately for 

reinstatement. In addition, future management of the arable field margins would 

be targeted to arable weeds, such as Purple Ramping-fumitory. Following the 

implementation of these measures, it is considered that the residual effects 

would be not significant. 

Breeding birds (Including Fleetwood Marsh Industrial Lands BHS but 

Excluding Barn Owls) 

9.9.18 Careful timing of all vegetation clearance works and, if necessary, preconstruction 

checks would ensure that breeding birds and their nests are not 

destroyed or disturbed. Reinstatement of habitat would ensure that suitable 

nesting habitat is restored shortly following construction and additional nesting 

habitat would also be created. Following the implementation of these measures, 

it is considered that the residual effects would be not significant. 


9.9.19 Direct impacts on nesting barn owls would be avoided through sensitive timing 

of demolition works, and the loss of roosting sites would be mitigated for 

through provision of at least two nest boxes. Following the implementation of 

these measures, it is considered that the residual effects would be not 

significant. 

Residual Effects Summary 

9.9.20 Table 9-12 summarises the residual effects on key ecological receptors. 

327

Table 9-12 

Ecology and Nature Conservation Assessment – Summary of Residual Effects on Key Ecological Receptors 

Key Ecological Receptor Potential Effects Temporary/Permanent Residual Effects (following mitigation) 

Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar (including 

the wintering and passage 

birds the site supports; 

Wyre Estuary SSSI; and 

the wintering and passage 

bird species associated 

with Lune Estuary SSSI) 


Industrial Lands BHS 

(excluding breeding and on 

passage birds) 



BHS 

Disturbance to wintering and passage 

birds. 

Temporary loss and permanent loss of 

habitat for foraging and roosting wildfowl 

and waders. 

Degradation of habitats (including 

Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI) through fugitive dust 

deposition, air pollutants such as nitrogen 

deposition and oxides of nitrogen, and 

uncontrolled surface water runoff. 

Temporary 

Not significant 

Subsidence of habitat. Permanent Not significant 

Temporary loss of habitats within the 

footprint of the brine discharge pipeline 

and associated works. 

Degradation of habitats adjacent to works 

activities, through fugitive dust deposition, 

air pollutants such as nitrogen deposition 

and oxides of nitrogen, and uncontrolled 

surface water runoff. 

Indirect effects on the BHS through 

pollution incidents / contamination 

(including releases of sediments). 

Temporary 

Temporary 



Plankton Mortality through hypersaline conditions. Permanent Not significant 

Benthic environment – 

sublittoral 

(including MCR.Pid 

Mortality of organisms through hypersaline 

conditions. 

Displacement by hypersaline plume. 

Permanent 


328


biotope) 

Benthic environment – 

sublittoral and littoral 

(including aggregations of 

Sabellaria alveolata) 

Indirect effects due to sediment 

mobilisation. 

Direct damage of habitats during 

installation of the brine discharge pipeline 

and associated structures. 

Temporary 

Temporary 



Fish 

Influence on migration between marine 

and freshwater (salmon, shad and lamprey 

only). 

Indirect effects due to sediment 

mobilisation (all fish species). 

Temporary 


Mortality of adult fish through contact with 

hypersaline plume (all fish species). 

Loss of planktonic stages (eggs and 

larvae) in the hypersaline plume (other fish 

species, as defined). 

Displacement by the hypersaline plume 

(all fish species). 

Indirect effects due to potential effects 

upon food resources from the hypersaline 

plume (all fish species). 

Entrainment within water pumped from the 

Fleetwood Fish Dock to flush salt caverns. 

Permanent 


Marine mammals Disturbance from noise. Temporary Not significant 

Indirect effects due to potential effects 

upon food resources from the hypersaline 

plume. 

Permanent 


329


Arable weeds Permanent loss of fumitory species. Permanent Not significant 

Breeding birds (including 


Industrial Lands BHS but 

excluding barn owls) 

Temporary disturbance to nesting habitat 

and fragmentation of hedgerows. 

Temporary 


Permanent loss of nesting habitat. Permanent Not significant 

Roosting barn owls 

Loss of nesting site due to the demolition 

of building. 

Permanent 


Potential loss of foraging habitat. Temporary Not significant 

330


9.10.1 A number of terrestrial surveys undertaken were limited by access restrictions. 

Therefore, the assessment has been unable to present a complete picture of 

the baseline terrestrial ecological environment. However, for the purposes of the 

assessment, a precautionary approach has been undertaken to alleviate the 

issues posed by the access issues i.e. ponds that could not be surveyed are 

assumed to support ‘small’ to ‘medium’ populations of great crested newts. 

9.11 Summary 

9.11.1 The Project would not result in any habitat loss associated with the Natura 2000 

sites or other statutory designated sites within the application boundary. The 

careful timings of works, and other elements of the embedded Project design, 

along with the implementation of the mitigation outlined in the Landscape and 

Ecological Management Strategy Plan, would ensure that the Project would not 

have any residual negative impacts on pink-footed geese (a qualifying feature of 

the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar). 

9.11.2 The application boundary also includes a number of Biological Heritage Sites, 

considered to be of County value for nature conservation. However, any direct 

impacts would only be small scale and temporary in nature, and following 

habitat reinstatement, no residual effects are anticipated. 

9.11.3 The offshore element of the brine discharge pipeline would be installed in the 

summer months (April-July) to avoid disturbance to overwintering birds 

associated with Liverpool Bay SPA. The release of sediment into the marine 

environment would not affect marine fauna or sensitive habitats associated with 

Morecambe Bay SAC. Although the seabed in the locality of the brine 

discharge pipeline is not considered to support extensive areas of valuable 

invertebrate communities, marine surveys will be undertaken prior to 

construction to ensure that the final brine discharge pipeline alignment avoids 

sensitive marine habitats as far as possible. The discharge of brine into the 

Irish Sea would take place whilst caverns are being created and periodically 

throughout the time that the caverns are operational. This release of brine 

would take place in accordance with an Environment Agency Discharge 

Consent. Monitoring would take place in accordance with the discharge consent 

that would ensure that the effects of the brine discharge on the marine 

environment are monitored and that remedial action would be undertaken if 

required. 

9.11.4 The effective implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management 

Strategy Plan would ensure that there are no significant effects on other key 

ecological receptors, including arable weeds, breeding birds and barn owls. No 

significant effects are anticipated on great crested newts and roosting bats, 

although licences from Natural England are likely to be required for works to 

proceed. 

9.11.5 Given that approximately 4.45 hectares of habitat would be permanently lost as 

a result of the Project, and in recognition of the considerable amount of habitat 

creation which is proposed as part of the Landscape and Ecological 

331

Management Strategy Plan, there would be no net loss in biodiversity as a 

result of the Project. 

9.11.6 The detail of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy Plan for the 

main site area would be agreed through further consultation with Natural 

England, the Environment Agency, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

(RSPB), Lancashire County Council, Wyre Borough Council and the Wildlife 

Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside. The Landscape and 

Ecological Management Strategy Plan is included within the DCO Application 

as a working document. The purpose of the Landscape and Ecological 

Management Strategy Plan will be creating opportunities for maintaining and 

enhancing the area for wildlife, with appropriate management to ensure there is 

no net loss in nature conservation, in accordance with Section 5.3 of National 

Policy Statement EN-1 ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy’ and 

Policy SP14 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan. 


Anon (2009) The Severn Estuary European Marine Site: Natural England & the 

Countryside Council for Wales’ advice given under Regulation 33(2) (a) of the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended. Natural 

England/CCW 

Barne, J.H., Robson, C.F., Kaznowska, S.S., Doody, J.P., & Davidson, N.C., 

eds. (1996) Coasts and Seas of the United Kingdom. Region 13 Northern Irish 

Sea: Colwyn Bay to Stranraer, including the Isle of Man. Joint Nature 

Conservation Committee, Peterborough 

Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe S, Lambton S (2000) Bird Census 

Techniques, Second Edition 

Buildings Research Establishment (BRE) (2003) Control of Dust from 

Construction and Demolition Activities 

Connor et al (1997) JNCC Marine Biotope Classification for Britain and Ireland, 

Volume 2 

Cresswell, Harris & Jefferies (1989) Surveying Badgers 

Cutts, N, Phelps, A. & D. Burdon (2008) Construction and Waterfowl: Defining 

Sensitivity, Response, Impacts and Guidance. Report to Humber INCA. Institute 

of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull 

Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (2000) Quality Status 

Report of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel 

2000 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) Offshore Energy SEA, 

Appendix 3a.7 Marine and other mammals. Accessible at; http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/consultations/Offshore_Energy_SEA/OES_A3a7_Marine_Mammals. 

pdf 

332

Department of Energy & Climate Change (2011) UK Offshore Energy Strategic 

Environmental Assessment, OESEA2 Appendix 3. Accessible at; 

ftp://ftp.mumm.ac.be/marisa/Literatuur%202011/wind/Algemeen/OESEA2_Appe 

ndix3.pdf 





East Irish Sea Developers Group (2005) Desktop Review of Marine Mammal 

Distribution in the NW3 Area. Revision:01, Ormond Project. Prepared by Rudall 

Blanchard Associates Ltd., London 

Edwards, M & John, WD (1996) ‘Plankton’, in Coasts and Seas of the United 

Kingdom Region 13: Northern Irish Sea Colwyn Bay to Stranraer, including the 

Isle of Man. JNCC 

English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines 

Froglife (2001) Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook 

Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (2003) Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual 




Report 

The Hedgerows Regulations (1997) available from the Stationery Office website 

at www.hmso.gov.uk 

Holt, TJ, Jones, DR, Hawkins, SJ & Hartnoll, RG (1995) The Sensitivity of 

Marine Communities to Man: Induced Change: A Scoping Report. CCW 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). 

http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2010) Guidelines for 

Ecological Impact Assessment in Britain and Ireland. Marine and Coastal (Final 

Version 5 August 2010). http://www.ieem.net/marine-ecia/ 

Irish Sea Conservation Zones (2011) Marine Conservation Zone: Selection 

Assessment Document 

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey 

Lancashire Biodiversity Partnership (2001) Habitat Action Plan for Rivers and 

Streams 

333

Liley, D. & Fearnley, H. (2011). Bird Disturbance Study, North Kent 2010/11. 

Footprint Ecology. 

Madsen, J. (1985). Impact of Disturbance on Field Utilization of Pink-footed 

Geese in West Jutland, Denmark. BioI. Cons. 33:53-63. 

Malcolm IA, Godfrey J and Youngson AF (2010) Review of migratory routes and 

behaviour of Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel in Scotland’s coastal 

environment: implications for the development of marine renewables. Scottish 

Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 1 No 14 

Mills, D.J.L., (1998) Liverpool Bay to the Solway (Rhos-on-Sea to the Mull of 

Galloway) (MNCR Sector 11). In Marine Nature Conservation Review. Benthic 

marine ecosystems of Great Britain and the north-east Atlantic (ed. K. Hiscock), 

315–338. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough 

Mills D (1989) Ecology and Management of Atlantic Salmon. Chapman and Hall 

Ltd., London 

Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales (2010) Liverpool Bay 

Special Protection Area. Departmental Brief 

Potts, G.W. & Swaby, S.E. (1993) Review of the Status of Estuarine Fishes 

Report to English Nature 

Robinson, CA, Heincelman, TJ, Foy, DP & Jett, HL (2003) The impact of salinity 

on distribution of macro-invertebrates in Mud Bay, Winyah Bay, South Carolina 

Strachan, R & Moorhouse, T (2006) Water Vole Conservation Handbook 2 nd 

Edition 


2009 (SI/2010/2263) 

Town and County Planning Association (2004) Biodiversity by Design: A Guide 

for Sustainable Communities 

W A Marine & Environment (2001) A Baseline Benthic Survey of the Littoral and 

Sublittoral Construction Area and Discharge Area for Fleetwood Salt Caverns 

http://data.nbn.org.uk 

www.defra.gov.uk 

www.jncc.gov.uk/mermaid 

www.marlin.ac.uk 

www.naturalengland.org.uk 

www.natureonthemap.org.uk 

www.ntu.edu.tw/ODBS/iris/apecmrc2/a32.html 

334

10 GEOLOGY, HYDROGEOLOGY AND 

STABILITY 


10.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability 

assessment, undertaken by Mott MacDonald Group Ltd. It identifies the 

methodology used to assess effects, existing and future baseline information, 

receptors potentially affected and the nature of those effects in the absence of 

mitigation and enhancement measures (potential effects) and with mitigation 

and enhancement measures (residual effects). 






the ES. 

10.1.3 A plan is provided showing the location of a site of geological importance within 

the DCO Application Site and in the wider vicinity (Figure 10.3 of Volume 2B of 

the ES). As such the figure and this chapter fulfil the requirement of Regulation 

5(2)(l) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and 

Procedure) Regulations 2009 to provide such plans and an assessment of any 

effects on such sites, covered by Regulation 5(2)(l) likely to be caused by the 


10.1.4 The near surface ground conditions across the Project are detailed, along with 

the deep geological conditions encountered within the proposed area for 

construction of the underground gas storage scheme. Both Internationally and 

Nationally important sites of biodiversity and geological conservation value are 

traversed by the Project. The main UGS Facility is situated within a Local 

GeoDiversity Site (formally Regionally important Geological and 

Geomorphological Site (RIGS)) and a proportion of the gas storage caverns will 

be situated below Morecambe Bay Special Area of Protection (SPA) and 

Ramsar (an Internationally important site for bird species, forming part of the 

Natura 2000 network of European sites), and the Wyre Estuary Site of Special 

Scientific Interest (SSSI) (a nationally important site), hence the potential impact 

of the Project is considered against these. Consideration is also given to the 

existing legacy of unstable ground within the area due to historic underground 

workings, and a summary of the detailed studies undertaken to show that no 

further instability will be incurred as a result of the Project, and how existing 

instabilities can be accommodated by the Project. 

10.1.5 This chapter should be read in conjunction with DCO Application Documents 

9.2.2 Geology Summary Report (GSR) (Mott MacDonald, 2011) and 9.3.1 Risk 

Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2011), and Appendix 10.1 of Volume 1B and 

Figures 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 of Volume 2B. 

335




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability in the context of this assessment. 

Table 10-1 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Summary of 

Relevant Regulatory/Planning Policy 

Regulatory / 

Planning Policy 

Framework 


Statement 9 

(PPS9) 

Overarching 

National Policy 

Statement for 

Energy (EN-1): 

Department of 

Energy & Climate 

Change (2011 

Requirements 

PPS9 sets out Government policy on the 

protection of biodiversity and geological 

conservation through the planning system. 

In relation to geological conservation the 

policy relates to sites that are designated 

for their geology and/or geomorphological 

importance. The key principle of PPS9 

requires that planning policies and 

decisions not only avoid, mitigate or 

compensate for harm but seek ways to 

enhance and restore biodiversity and 

geology. 

In relation to biodiversity and geological 

conservation, the policy recognises the 

need to protect the most important 

biodiversity and geological conservation 

interests, stressing that appropriate weight 

is attached to avoidance of significant 

harm to designated sites. However 

planning decisions also need to weigh 

these effects against beneficial effects of 

low-carbon energy. in relation to RIGS 

designated sites, whilst planning 

authorities should give due consideration 

to these they should not be used in 

themselves to refuse development consent 

Preesall site response 

A detailed geological 

investigation of the area 

has been undertaken to 

establish the extent of the 

Preesall Halite body. It is 

identified that UGS 

construction can only occur 

within a RIGS designated 

landscape, however surface 

infrastructure routing has 

been located 

sympathetically such as to 

avoid drumlin features 

where possible. Halite is 

also actively managing the 

historic geological risk from 

the existing brinefield. 

The Project infrastructure is 

proposed to be situated 

within a RIGS designated 

area, and proposed cavern 

formations will be situated 

directly below the 

Morecambe Bay SPA and 


SSSI. In the first instance, 

infrastructure has been 

located such as to minimise 

impact on drumlinoid 

landforms; in the latter 

instance, detailed 

geological studies have 

been undertaken to 

determine that safe cavern 

formation and storage of 

gas can occur, and 

modelling of potential 

336

Regulatory / 


Framework 


Statement for 

Gas Supply 

Infrastructure and 

Gas and Oil 

Pipelines (EN-4): 

Department of 

Energy & Climate 

Change (2011) 

Requirements 

Requires that applicants undertake and 

supply to the IPC, a detailed geological 

assessment to demonstrate the suitability 

of the geology at the site for the type of 

underground gas storage proposed. For 

storage schemes within salt, the geological 

assessment should include depth below 

surface, salt thickness, salt purity and 

presence of shale bands which could 

affect cavern design. In addition, a study of 

the geological integrity of the overlying 

strata and potential for collapse, taking 

account of the proposed minimum and 

maximum working pressures, is required. 

The assessments should include the 

construction, operational and 

decommissioning phases and should 

cover the long term integrity of the affected 

strata after decommissioning or closure of 

the storage facility. 

In relation to water quality and resources, 

for salt storage the applicant should 

assess their requirement for water 

abstraction to ensure no derogation to 


induced ground subsidence 

within the SPA, Ramsar, 

and SSSI areas has been 

undertaken and found to be 

acceptable. 

Detailed geological 

investigations have been 

undertaken as summarised 

in the GSR (DCO 

Application Document 

9.2.2) to identify safe areas 

for cavern construction. 

Detailed design of cavern 

18 has been undertaken by 

Professor Rokahr (Expert 

opinion on determining the 

maximum and minimum 

internal cavern pressure 

and the maxiumum rates for 

pressure changes in the 

planned No.18 gas storage 

cavern in the Preesall 

project area, University of 

Hannover, 2011), modelling 

the in-situ ground 

conditions and operational 

pressures to show that 

caverns can be safely 

constructed and operated. 

A risk assessment has 

been undertaken (DCO 


9.3.1), which shows that 

risk of gas escape from 

caverns to environmental 

receptors is negligible. 

Aerial surface subsidence 

potentially induced by the 

caverns has further been 

assessed and found to be 

acceptable in relation to the 

designated environmental 

sites. 

Halite has designed to 

extract directly from 

Fleetwood Fish Dock and 

have applied for a licence to 

337

Regulatory / 


Framework 

The Water 

Framework 

Directive 

(2000/60/EEC) 

Requirements 

aquifer systems or licensed abstractors will 

occur. 

Requires the ES to include measures to 

dispose of brine which mitigate its potential 

adverse environmental effects. 

Requires applicants to seek to avoid or 

minimise adverse impacts on proposed 

pipeline routes from usage below the 

surface i.e. undetected underground 

cavities from mine workings, waste 

disposal. Applicants should assess the 

stability of the ground conditions 

associated with the scheme and 

incorporate their findings within the ES. 

The applicant should submit details of the 

drilling technique suitability for ground 

conditions encountered and when crossing 

designated areas of geological or 

geomorphological interest submit details of 

other routes considered. underground 

utilities. 

Proposed pipeline routes should be 

designed such as to ensure that existing 

water quality and water resources are 

protected. 

The Directive provides a framework for the 

protection of surface (fresh) water, 

estuaries, coastal water and groundwater. 

The objectives of the Directive are to 

enhance the status, and prevent further 

deterioration, of aquatic ecosystems, 

promote the sustainable use of water, 

reduce pollution of water (especially by 

‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’ 

substances) and ensure progressive 

reduction of groundwater pollution. Among 

the main features of the Directive are that 

all inland and coastal waters within defined 

river basin districts must reach at least 

good status by 2015. 


this effect. 

Halite has designed to 

dispose of brine into the 

Irish Sea 2.3km offshore; a 

licence to this effect has 

been applied for. 

Halite have undertaken 

pipeline option route 

appraisals (DCO 


9.2.6) and detailed pipeline 

subsidence risk 

assessments in areas of 

potential ground instability 

(DCO Application 

Document 9.2.3 NTS 


Subsidence Assessment 

Report (Mott MacDonald, 

2011)). A detailed drilling 

report for the cavern wellstrings 

is further provided 

(DCO Application 

Document 9.2.5 Drilling 

Report, Baker Hughes 

(2011)). 

The Project will utilise 

abstraction and discharge 

from/to existing 

estuarine/sea water for the 

cavern formation stage. 

338


10.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). 




 

 

 

 








10 (HD 45/09) (Highways Agency, 2009) 

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2005) 


Pipelines (EN-4) (Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2011) 

10.3.3 The geographical extent of this study considered all locations where physical 

works will take place, and where ground disturbance may be induced. In 

addition, consideration has been given to existing mine and brine-workings, the 

stability of which could affect off site receptors. Baseline data has been collated 

from desk studies, site visits and liaison and consultation with interested parties 

as a result of responses to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping 

Report and through post-scoping consultation. 

10.3.4 A review of the geological and hydrogeological conditions and the issues 

relating to cavern stability has been undertaken, based on the findings 

presented in DCO Application Documents 9.2.2 Geology Summary Report 

(GSR) (Mott MacDonald, 2011) and 9.3.1 Risk Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 

2011). The former presents the findings of a rigorous and project specific 

literature review of the many disparate geological reports produced for this and 

predecessor schemes, and provides a detailed review of all available new and 

background data for the scheme, including intrusive and non-intrusive 

investigations, and specialist technical reports in relation to seismic risk and 

subsidence risk. A 3-D geological and hydrogeological model, geotechnical 

material and mass properties, and sub-surface hazards are identified for the 

main UGS site. The latter presents a preliminary examination of the risk to the 

public posed by the construction and the operation of the main UGS facility for 

the Project. 

10.3.5 The prevailing hydrogeological conditions have been characterised based upon 

existing available data and an assessment of the geographical distribution of 

the natural wet rockhead has been made. An assessment has also been made 

of the anthropogenic wet rockhead distribution derived from man-made 

339

activities and also for the potential for the wet rockhead to migrate over the 

lifetime of the Project. 




Table 10-2 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Baseline 

Information Requests 

Source 

British Geological Survey 

Environment Agency 

Lancashire RIGS Group 

Natural England website 

http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk/ 


Geological mapping (Solid & Drift); detailed 

geological studies of the Preesall Halite 

Aquifer designation mapping, Groundwater Source 

Protection Zones; groundwater abstractions & 

discharges 

Local Geological Sites (Regionally Important 

Geological/Geomorphological Sites) 

Geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) 

Consultation 




consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability assessment. Table 10-3 summarises the postscoping 

consultation undertaken, including responses received to the 

Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report. 

Table 10-3 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Post-Scoping 

Consultation 

Consultee 

Lancashire 

County Council 

Date of 

Consultation 

Letter 

received 16 

August 2011 

Summary of Consultation 

Geology 

Both the Secretary of State and County Council considered that the 

geological assessments that had been submitted with past planning 

applications were incomplete. The Technical Assessor to the Inquiry 

was of the view that at least two more seismic survey lines and the 

drilling of and geophysical logging of boreholes along the survey 

lines be undertaken. 

Following a review of the geological information and a critical review 

of the previous planning submissions and further geological 

assessments 'hazard exclusion zones' have been identified outside 

of which, based on available data, the risks of cavern construction 

were considered too high. 

Two polygonal areas have been identified outside the buffer area in 

the northern part of the site where it is proposed to develop the 

340

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


caverns. The proposed areas are significantly smaller than the area 

within which caverns were proposed in previous applications 

resulting in fewer caverns and a slightly smaller gas storage 

capacity. All wellheads and associated above ground infrastructure 

would be located on the east side of the Wyre estuary. 

A review of the following documents has been carried out: 

Geological Summary Report (GSR) – March 2011 (Mott 

MacDonald) (Erroneously dated March 2010) 

 

Preliminary Risk Assessment – March 2011 (Mott MacDonald) 

Reports on pulse tests and gas injection tests – March 2011 

(Golder) 

 

 

Drilling Report – March 2011 (Baker Hughes) 

Pipeline Subsidence Assessment Report – March 2011 (Mott 

MacDonald) 

Preliminary Environmental Information Report – March 2011 

(Hyder) 

The GSR includes a number of items of new and revised information 

not included in earlier versions of the report, as follows: 

Methods and results of mechanical tests on salt and 

interbedded mudstones, with cross-referencing to the Golder 

reports (page 26) 

Thermal properties of the salt and overburden (page 28) 

Confirmation of the extent of the Preesall mine (page 30) 

Constraints on the position of the Burn Naze Fault (page 35) 

 

 

 

 

Additional hydro geological information and discussion of wet 

rockhead (page 38) 

A relative safety index‟ in relation to potential gas migration 

pathways, with cross-referencing to the risk assessment report 

(page 46) 

Potential subsidence contours based on the current indicative 

cavern layout (page 51) 

Volumetric analysis of the indicative cavern layout 

In general terms it is concluded that the new information strengthens 

the conclusions drawn in earlier versions of the GSR as regards the 

practical achievability of accommodating caverns in the Preesall 

Halite and that the developer has demonstrated that the previous 

concerns expressed by the County Council and the Secretary of 

State could not be sustainably maintained. Nevertheless it is 

considered that there is still a need to address certain matters and 

which are set out under the following headings rather than in respect 

of individual reports: 

Wet rockhead 

341

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


On the basis of the hydro geological analysis in an earlier version of 

the GSR, it is now considered that wet rockhead is not a major issue 

for the area within which caverns are proposed. The current version 

contains new information and argument which appears to overplay 

the issue and which will be discussed further with HEGL, but it is not 

considered that wet rockhead will extend into the development area. 

Hazard exclusion zones and cavern locations 

The description of the hazard exclusion zones in the GSR around 

the old salt caverns (page 32) states: “The hazard zones are applied 

to the centre of the existing cavern or exploratory hole” (italics 

added). Since the distance between the walls of adjacent caverns is 

an important factor in hazard avoidance it is considered that the 

exclusion zones should be measured from the cavern walls. 

Reference is made on page 33 of the GSR to the drilling of BW130 

and the supposed incident of drill rods dropping at the top of the salt, 

suggested a cavity. Information provided by the drilling company 

rebuts the statement of the drill-hand and it is unlikely that the facts 

of this matter can now be resolved with certainty. However, an 

appropriate exclusion zone is proposed for this well and, during the 

drilling of cavern development wells, measures should be adopted to 

confirm the integrity of the salt/mudstone interface at specific cavern 

locations (see Drilling procedures below). 

In other respects the exclusion zones appear satisfactory. 

Subsidence 

On page 34 of the GSR there is a reference to the possible impact 

of suspect former brine wells on sub-surface infrastructure 

(specifically the connection pipeline to the NTS) in the brine-field 

area, and this is the subject of a stand-alone report – the Pipeline 

Subsidence Assessment Report. That report provides an 

assessment of, inter alia, the potential future subsidence related to 

Preesall Mine and brine wells BW44 and BW50 and the impact on 

the pipeline route passing between them. It is noted (page 30) that 

there is a “pinch-point” of about 80m width between the mine and 

the brine wells where settlement of up to 50mm could occur over a 

length of 30m of the pipeline. It is implied (though not stated) that 

this is an acceptable amount of settlement and which may be found 

acceptable subject to the comments on monitoring and maintenance 

referred to below. Surface, subsurface and brine-well settlement 

monitoring measures are proposed, and possible mitigation 

measures are identified for consideration as necessary. These 

include induced collapsing or infilling of BW44 and BW50 and 

protective piling adjacent to the wells or the pipeline. 

Geomechanics 

A number of items are missing from Tables 4.4 (gas threshold 

pressure testing) and 4.5 (rock testing) of the GSR (which are also 

reproduced as Tables 3.3a and 3.3b in the Pipeline Subsidence 

Assessment Report); these should be included in future versions of 

342

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


the report. 

In Appendix 3 of the Drilling Report (Drilling Fluids), section 2.3.5, 

second paragraph, the fracture pressure is defined as the pressure 

that breaks down the rock matrix and forms fractures. However, in 

the accompanying Figure 2-1 the Frac gradient does not correspond 

to the breakdown pressure data that have been specified in Table 

4.4 of the GSR. 

Otherwise it is considered that the geomechanical data included in 

the various reports provides a comprehensive basis for the overall 

assessment of the proposals. 

Construction procedures 

The Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) by Mott MacDonald 

includes a more detailed overview of the project than other 

documents previously produced; the project description has been 

reviewed as it relates to the formation and operation of the storage 

caverns. 

During cavern washing a nitrogen gas blanket would be used to 

prevent overwashing of the cavern roof (page 20). The gas/brine 

interface would be monitored by recording the well-head nitrogen 

pressure. The volume of cavern space created each day would be 

calculated from the brine volume and specific gravity, and by 

checking volume against depth it will be possible to ensure that the 

planned cavern diameter is not exceeded. Sonar surveys would be 

carried out intermittently for confirmation of the cavern volume and 

shape. This addresses queries that have been raised by the County 

Council about the control of cavern size. 

The Schedule on pages 30-31 of the PRA shows all surface 

infrastructure being completed prior to the drilling of any wells. 

Whilst it is clear that substantial surface infrastructure must be 

installed before cavern washing (to allow for the provision of 

seawater and the disposal of brine), it is questioned whether at least 

some of the wells could be drilled before the infrastructure is 

developed, for the purpose of demonstrating such matters as the 

success of the drilling technology (especially for the slant wells) and 

the integrity of the salt/mudstone interface. 

On a regulatory matter, it is noted that the disposal of drilling wastes 

is intended to be in existing caverns 118 to 123 (PRA page 31), but 

there is no mention of the necessity for an environmental permit 

(waste management licence) to cover this activity in the section on 

regulatory requirements (page 38) or on the linked HSE web page. 

Drilling procedures 

Further details of the proposed drilling procedures are given in the 

Baker Hughes Drilling Report. In relation to previous concerns that 

the curvature of the slant wells would prevent coring of the 

salt/mudstone interface, it is noted that possible procedures for core 

recovery are now suggested in the Drilling Report (page 20). Baker 

Hughes suggests either the use of a wireline-conveyed coring 

343

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


device or the drilling of a straight section at the interface to allow 

coring. It is considered that either of these would be acceptable. 

Several precautions for minimising casing wear are now specified in 

Appendix 4 of the Drilling Report (Casing Design and Installation) 

and which are considered acceptable. According to the Executive 

Summary of this appendix, manufacturers have confirmed the 

sealing integrity of casing connections (couplings) in curvatures 

exceeding 10º / 30m (the maximum proposed for Preesall 

installations is less than 6º / 30m). However, connections have not 

been tested for combined bending and rotation through such 

curvatures. Baker Hughes recommends that such testing be carried 

out if screw connections are to be used, but it is understood that 

HEGL now propose to use welded connections which will have 

similar integrity to the rest of the casing. 

Risk assessment 

The Preliminary Risk Assessment is an attempt to quantify the 

surface and subsurface risks associated with the development. The 

sub-surface risk assessment has been reviewed. 

The assessment is essentially in two parts, namely a literature 

review and specific analysis of the Preesall conditions. The literature 

review focuses on published HSE documents and in broad terms the 

generic assessments in those reports, which are based to a large 

extent on failure rates worldwide, are accepted. It is questionable 

whether some of the averages quoted from the HSE reports are 

relevant to specific situations and the conclusion on page 46 that the 

failure rate for pipe systems is similar to the rate for geological 

cavern failures is probably incorrect, since the latter are almost 

unknown. However, the PRA rightly points out on page 48 that the 

risk assessment of the Preesall proposal needs to be more specific 

than the generic approach of the HSE documents. 

The source-pathway-receptor approach adopted in the PRA is 

accepted, together with the qualitative assessment of the likely 

sources (points from which gas might escape), gas migration 

pathways and potential receptors. The identified pathways do not 

include near-surface man-made features such as utility runs (pipe 

bedding materials can provide pathways more-or-less directly into 

properties), or overpressured, fractured rock, although “more 

permeable beds” are included (page 49). The near-surface 

pathways are less significant than the deeper migration pathways 

but further assessments should include them. The appendices 

setting out the risk calculations include pathway P9, which is not 

listed or defined in the text, but from the context it is assumed it 

refers to Sherwood Sandstone to the west of the Burn Naze Fault. 

A main concern relates to the attempt to quantify the pathways, and 

specifically to the numerical values applied to some of the factors. 

Many of the assumptions used in the risk calculations are such that 

some quite feasible variations in the figures used would completely 

344

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


alter the relative importance of the different scenarios considered. It 

is therefore difficult to see what the comparative analysis achieves. 

Moreover, the absolute likelihood of any of the scenarios being 

accurately represented in numerical terms is extremely low. 

It is questioned whether the calculations provided in the PRA can be 

considered realistic, and therefore whether they have any practical 

value. Nevertheless, it is the numerics rather than the overall 

assessment of risk that is questioned. On a qualitative basis, and 

principally because of the use of hazard exclusion zones, it is 

considered that the current proposals incur negligible risk of fatality, 

injury or significant property damage. 

The review of risk failures should ensure that the number and extent 

of recorded loss of gas incidents are comprehensively reported. 

Monitoring and Maintenance 

Recently there has been a serious rupture of well head 45. 

Concerns have previously been expressed to the stability of the 

former brinefield and in particular the caverns in proximity to the 

proposed caverns and above and below ground infrastructure. 

There is historic evidence of unpredictable catastrophic failure of 

caverns in close proximity to the proposal. Details of the location of 

the existing caverns should be presented at a readable scale along 

with monitoring records of the former caverns, the current monitoring 

regime and results thereof to demonstrate the stability of the 

caverns, what risk they pose to the development proposal, what 

future monitoring regime will be employed and what amended 

design of the below and above ground infrastructure may be 

required and what mitigation measures and safeguards would need 

to be in place. Details of the extent of existing caverns should be 

projected to the surface and shown in cross section form in relevant 

directions or presented in a three dimensional visual model. This 

should also be demonstrated for the interconnecting pipe work to the 

gas transmission line and for the electricity supply given the known 

instability of the cavern and wellhead located to the north of Height 

O'th Hill Farm in close proximity to which the power supply cable is 

proposed to be aligned. It is essential to demonstrate consistency in 

submissions regarding the extent and duration of former mining 

activities for both the dry mine and the former caverns and how 

these relate to the proposed above and below ground infrastructure. 

Recently there have been recorded earthquakes in the area and into 

which investigations are being carried out to establish their cause 

and possible association with investigations for shale gas. 

Assessment should be made of the impacts such events may have 

on the integrity of the editing brine caverns and on the proposed 

above and below ground infrastructure. 

Cable Routing 

It is proposed to create two under River Wyre crossings; one for 

electrical connections to Stanah in the south and one for sea water 

345

Consultee 

Environment 

Agency 

GeoLancashire 

(Lancashire 

RIGS Group) 

Fleetwood 

Town Council 

Date of 

Consultation 

18 November 

2010 


delivery and saturated brine removal and associated 

telecommunications equipment in the north. The County Council 

questions the justification for this and the potential disturbance 

associated with the electricity connection to Stanah when an 

alternative may be available on the western side of the estuary 

irrespective of the route not being in Halite Energy Groups 

ownership, that the route would be longer and in the absence of any 

assessment of the presence of contaminated land. The County 

Council is also concerned to the routing of the electricity cable in 

such close proximity to existing caverns know to be unstable as 

referred to above. 

Monitoring of Existing Caverns 

Concerns have previously been expressed to the programme of 

monitoring for the former brine wells to ensure their integrity and 

stability. Reference is made to such in the section on geology 

above. This concern has been demonstrated in the recent failure of 

well heads. There are no current planning requirements to 

undertake any programme of monitoring or provide the results or an 

action plan for such in the event instability is identified. Whilst some 

of the responsibility for such may fall to the Health and Safety 

Executive, Halite are invited, as part of the submission for a 

development order consent, to agree to an ongoing programme of 

monitoring of the existing brine wells, the submission of the results 

of such programme and any action plan to be implemented in the 

event any instability is identified or in the event of brine wee, cavern 

or wellhead failure to ensure stability or remedial action in the event 

of failure. 

The Environment Agency provided comments on 

Extent of the caverns relative to the location of any flood defence 

embankments 

Likelihood of subsidence in caverns and how this might affect the 

embankments 

16 June 2011 Commented that potential environmental risks to controlled water 

during the construction phase of the project had been fully 

considered. The Environment Agency would like to discuss 

referenced (in PEI) Method Statements at the earliest opportunity. 

19 May 2011 Our main concern would be regarding alterations to the section in 

the drumlin and adjacent areas within the boundary of the origin 

RIGS designation; that would include any reduction in access. 

Not convinced enough has been done to identify exact location / 

depth of fault lines, and therefore proximity to proposed caverns. As 

the area is known to experience tremors, need as much evidence as 

possible to reassure that the caverns would withstand greater 

tremors (than those experienced to date). 

With fault lines and earth tremors in area, and proximity to Heysham 

346

Consultee 

Preesall Town 

Council 

Stalmine-with- 

Staynall Parish 

Council 

Date of 

Consultation 


Nuclear Power Station, Council would like reassurance that in the 

worst case scenario gas escape / explosion would not lead to a 

nuclear incident. 

The Council request a detailed evaluation of the problems notified to 

Halite regarding brine wells. 

Geology of the ground is not suitable for the development - possible 

earthquakes, subsidence, and local knowledge has strong feelings 

against the stability of the ground. 

Questioned the geology of rock salt to withstand the development, 

and the effect on people’s human rights. Original salt mines were 

stopped due to flooding and half of them collapsed. 

Previously has been an explosion in old mine, therefore ground is 

still unsuitable for this type of development. Also been subsidence 

in old mine field area. 

There is a geographical fault in the area. 

Concern over safety of area following earth tremors in April 2009 in 

Ulverston area of Cumbria (shock waves felt in Preesall and 

Fleetwood areas), and also recent earthquake in Poulton le Fylde. 

What seismic tests have been carried out, and have they been fully 

investigated? 

Dangerous to store a potentially hazardous substance in proven 

unsuitable geographical infrastructure. 

The PC is not convinced enough survey work has been done to 

discover the nature of the geology in the proposed development 

area. Lack of comprehensive survey information was highlighted at 

the last public inquiry and nothing has changed. Still much unknown 

about the conditions under the River Wyre and the extent and nature 

of the Burn Naze fault beneath the western bank. Halite 

presentation did not make it clear that some of the storage caverns 

may be under the river alongside the fault, which is cause for 

concern. 

Local residents have known about subsidence of old salt workings 

and bore holes for years, and further collapses are expected. New 

caverns near old caverns and mine workings causes alarm for 

residents. Halite’s assurances about the safety of the proposed 

operation do not meet with residents’ visual observation and 

perceptions of the area. 

More work needs to be done to map old wells and mine workings to 

ensure the safety zone planning for the development does not 

impinge on any former extraction works. 

Roadworks, buildings and pipelines need to routed well away from 

old workings. The PC is not clear whether Halite has enough data 

on old workings to produce a safe effective plan. Development of 

above ground facilities at Higher Lickow Farm would be folly as this 

347

Consultee 


Water 

Protect Wyre 

Group 

Date of 

Consultation 


area is at risk of collapse. 

Subsidence due to old workings is a fact, and there will be new 

episodes as more old wells / workings collapse as a result of 

underground erosion, leading to larger joined caverns with roofs that 

cannot be supported. 

The leakage of gas through the fissured ground may have a 

significant impact on the UUW wastewater assets, particularly 

UUW’s wastewater treatment works (WwTW) in the vicinity of the 

gas storage caverns. These are: 

Preesall WwTW: Located to the east bank of the Wyre Estuary it 

would appear the storage of gas would surround this particular 

works serving approximate population of 26,000 in Knott End and 

Preesall. 

Fleetwood WwTW: Located on the west of the Wyre Estuary, this 

works is less than 2 miles away from the gas storage caverns and is 

a very significant works serving the whole of the Blackpool and 

Fleetwood area (population of up to 426,000 during peak season). 

Significant investment over £60 million has been spent on the works 

over the last 4 years, meeting an expectation of improved treatment, 

sludge management and odour. 

A key concern of the proposed development would be to ensure that 

these assets remained well protected from any gas leakage which 

would occur through the fissured ground strata that is believed to 

exist underneath the Wyre Estuary. The developer would have to 

satisfy UUW that sufficient boreholes / ground investigation had 

been done to understand / assure UUW that the development would 

not increase the risk of future explosions of gas impacting upon the 

treatment facilities or sewers draining to these works. 

This would also apply to the Fylde Coast Interceptor Tunnel which is 

located at a depth of 26m below the inlet of the treatment works. 

This tunnel is potentially at a depth not dissimilar to the salt caverns. 

The tunnel runs the whole length of the Fylde Coast from the 

Manchester Square headland at the southern end of the Golden 

Mile, along the front up to Rossall School, prior to turning in the 

direction of the treatment works. The risk of gas escaping the 

caverns and entering the tunnel provides a clear route for passage 

of leaked gas all the way along the front to south Blackpool. 

Hence the development potentially puts at risk both UUW assets 

and properties / hotels in close proximity to the tunnel and the 

coastline. 

24 May 2011 Discussion on cavern location and volumes, veracity of the 

geological model, identification of sub-surface hazards, subsidence 

and seismic risk. 

Further to recent meeting at Halite offices, there were 3 instances 

where PWG’s geologist (Howard Phillips) said he needed more 

348

Consultee 

Ribble 

Fisheries 

Consultative 

Association 

Date of 

Consultation 


information to make his value judgements and PWG was asked to 

formally write to you with this request. The 3 items are: 

Grid Refs for each of the cavern locations. 

Tabular (top and bottom of salt) data for all the boreholes which 

reach the halite bed. 

Copies of the latest geology maps produced by Mott Macdonald 

(larger than A4, preferably A1 or A2). 

Have 3 additional requests: 

Does the E1 borehole data show marl layers which are consistent 

within the upper strata of the halite bed? 

Are the faults correctly shown in the section across the caverns 13 

and 9? 

What distance apart are the points used to interpolate the 3D 

geology in those areas beyond the seismic lines? 

Consultation Response Letter (27 July 2011) 

Re-iterated the objection the chairman (C.D. Hinks) submitted in 

2009 (see below). 

Have concerns about the proposals relating to safety of the area 

especially after the accident earlier this month, and so would totally 

support the letter Halite received from the Protect Wyre Group dated 

21 June (from Ian Mulroy), and the position adopted by the Group 

on this issue. If such an incident is sufficient to cause disruption on 

land what would be the impact at sea; probably where it would be 

undetected for a considerable time when the damage would already 

be done? The precious habitat in the Irish Sea is irreplaceable and 

would, in all probability, never recover. 

Objection Letter (25 May 2009) 

There are numerous abandoned salt mines within close proximity of 

the project and there is a danger of gas escaping into them. One of 

these caverns was used for the storage of toxic mercury sludge. 






 

 





through post-scoping consultation. 

349


details 

Identification of effects which , in particular, could be considered to be 







assessment of effects. There are no published guidelines or criteria for 

assessing and evaluating effects on geology, hydrogeology or ground stability 

within the context of an EIA, hence guidance has been taken from the Design 

Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Parts 10 and 11 

(HD 45/09) (Highways Agency, 2009 and 1993). The sensitivity of a receptor is 

determined according to the methodology detailed in Table 10-4. 

Table 10-4 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Criteria for 

Determining Value of Potential Receptors 

Value Criteria Examples 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Attribute has 

a high quality 

and rarity on 

a national 

scale 

Attribute has 

a high quality 

and rarity on 

a local scale 

Attribute has 

a medium 

quality and 

rarity on a 

local scale 

Geology & 

Stability 

Nationally designated sites such as 

geological SSSI’s or non-designated 

sites meeting SSSI selection criteria 

Groundwater Major aquifer providing a regionally 

important resource or supporting site 

protected under wildlife legislation. 

SPZ I. 

Geology & 

Stability 

Areas including Local GeoDiversity 

Sites (RIGS Geological Heritage 

Sites), or sites of more than local 

importance (but not meeting SSSI 

selection criteria) 

Groundwater Major aquifer providing locally 

important resourced or supporting 

river ecosystem. 

SPZII. 

Geology & 

Stability 

Sites with geology of sufficient 

interest to meet the criteria for a 

country or metropolitan area 

Groundwater Aquifer providing water for 

agricultural or industrial use with 

limited connection to surface water. 

SPZII. 

350

Value Criteria Examples 

Negligible Attribute has 

a low quality 

and rarity on 

a local scale 

Geology & 

Stability 

Groundwater Non-aquifer 

Other sites of little or no geological 

interest 

10.3.10 The magnitude of change has been determined using the criteria presented in 

Table 10-5. 


Determining Magnitude of Change 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Major 

adverse 

Moderate 

adverse 

Minor 

adverse 

No 

Change 

Minor 

beneficial 

Moderate 

beneficial 

Major 

beneficial 

Criteria 

Results in loss of attribute and/or quality and integrity of the attribute. 

Integrity and status of site significantly affected, either physically or 

visually 

Results in effect on integrity of the attribute, or loss of part of the 

attribute. Integrity and status of site moderately affected, either 

physically or visually. Significant change in terms of its geological 

objectiveness 

Results in some measurable change in attributes quality or 

vulnerability. Slight impact to the integrity and status of a site, either 

physically or visually 

Results in effect on attribute, but of insufficient magnitude to affect the 

use or integrity. No geological feature physically or visually affected 

Results in some beneficial effect on attribute or a reduced risk of 

negative effect occurring 

Results in moderate improvement of attribute quality 

Results in major improvement of attribute quality 

10.3.11 The significance of effects has been determined by combining the value of the 

resource with the magnitude of change, as illustrated in Table 10-6. 

10.3.12 Potential effects would be either beneficial or adverse. 

351


Determining Significance of Effects 

Value 


No Change Minor Moderate Major 

High Neutral Moderate/Large Large/Very 

Large 

Very Large 

Medium Neutral Slight/Moderate Moderate/Large Large/Very Large 

Low Neutral Slight Moderate Large 

Negligible Neutral Neutral Slight Slight/Moderate 




10.4.1 The Project is located near Preesall, Lancashire, and comprises construction of 

19No caverns within the Preesall Halite Deposit to the immediate east of the 

Wyre Estuary. Cavern sizes will be typically 60-100m diameter, with heights 

varying between 70-300m, and depths to cavern roofs between 220-450mbgl, 

ultimately allowing safe storage of 900Mm 3 of natural gas at standard 

conditions, at maximum storage pressures of 95Bar, 600Mm 3 of which would be 

workable volume. Infrastructure for the main storage facility area, situated to the 

east of the Wyre Estuary, will comprise 7No surface well-head compounds 

linking dual riser pipes to each of the caverns; a Booster Pump Station to the 

immediate east of the existing Hackensall Sewage Treatment Works; a Gas 

Compressor Compound; a Security and Site Entrance Facility, electrical power 

cabling to be run in underground trench from Stanah to the SW of the River 

Wyre, sea-water and brine discharge pipelines to be run in underground trench 

and the gas interconnector transmission pipelines to be run in underground 

trench. Aggregate surfaced roadways will link the well-heads, Booster Pump 

Station and GCC, whilst a permanent paved surface access road will link the 

existing A588 to the main UGC site entrance and security facility and the GCC. 

Infrastructure through the Fleetwood Peninsula to the west of the Wyre Estuary 

will comprise a Seawater Pump Station, situated at the existing Fleetwood Fish 

Dock, and seawater and brine discharge pipelines to be run in underground 

trench. Infrastructure to the east of the main Preesall Storage facility will 

comprise gas transmission pipelines constructed in underground trench and a 

Gas Metering Station to be constructed near Nateby where the facility gas 

transmission pipelines will feed into the existing NTS pipelines. Overall the 

Application Boundary for the Project extends 19km E-W. 

Ground Conditions 

10.4.2 Topographically the Project area is predominantly low-lying with ground 

elevation typically

(RIGS), however the majority of the permanent surface works are situated 

within low-lying regions, with only Wellhead Compound 1 and the Stanah cable 

trenching works, traversing the higher elevation drumlin land features. Ground 

use across the scheme, comprises mixed rural and built environment within the 

Fleetwood Peninsula, and rural arable and pasture fields to the east of the Wyre 

Estuary; the Wyre Estuary itself is fringed with salt marsh and is designated a 

protected area for the habitats and species it supports (Morecambe Bay SPA 

and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI ). Details of the environmentally protected 

areas are provided in Table 10-7 below: 

Table 10-7 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment – Environmentally 

Protected Areas 

Location 

Protected 

Designation 

Description 

Cross- 

Reference 

Morecambe 

Bay 

Morecambe Bay 

SPA and Ramsar. 

The designations recognise the 

international importance of 

Morecambe Bay as a habitat for 

wintering and passage waders 

and wildfowl, and for breeding 

seabirds. 

Wyre Estuary 

Wyre Estuary Site 

of Special Scientific 

Interest (SSSI) 

The Wyre Estuary SSSI 

underpins Morecambe Bay 

SPA/Ramsar. The site is 

designated for its intertidal 

estuarine flats and ungrazed 

saltmarsh habitats which support 

internationally important numbers 

of wintering and passage waders 

and wildfowl. 

Wyreside, SW 

of Preesall 

River Wyre Section 

Local GeoDiversity 

Site (RIGS) 

Drumlinoid landforms possibly 

forming the southern extension of 

the Kendal/Lancaster swarm. 

Expanded from the original 

designation which related to a 

river-side cliff exposure through a 

drumlin. 

Appendix 

10.1 of 

Volume 

1B 

The following geological information has been interrogated to determine the 

baseline geological conditions for the Project Area; DTI Strategic Environmental 

Assessment Area 6, Irish Sea, seabed and superficial geology and processes 

(Report CR/05/057) (British Geological Survey), Geological Survey of Great 

Britain (England & Wales) Blackpool Sheet 66: 1:50,000 Solid & Drift (1968), 

Geological Survey of Great Britain (England & Wales) Garstang Sheet 67: 

1:50,000 Solid with Drift (1990), Geological Survey of Great Britain (England & 

Wales) Garstang Sheet 67: 1:50,000 Drift (1990), and accompanying BGS 

Sheet Memoirs Geology of the country around Blackpool: Memoir for 1:50,000 

Geological Sheet 66 (British Geological Survey, 1990). In addition further 

detailed BGS studies have been undertaken in association with previous UGS 

353

applications and this UGS application. A detailed summary of the geology for 

the Project is provided within DCO Application Document 9.2.Geology 

Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2011). A brief baseline overview is provided 

as follows: 

Off-Shore Geology 

10.4.3 Sea-bed sediments comprise predominantly slightly gravelly sand, trending with 

increased bathymetric depth, to slightly gravelly muddy sand sediments. The 

beach is likely to comprise sand and pebbles which are believed to be 

susceptible to movement under storm conditions (Britsurvey, 1998). The 

intertidal area is characterised by pebbles and cobbles immediately west of the 

Sea Wall. The superficial geology underlying the seabed sediments comprises 

Older Marine & Estuarine Alluvium comprising soft to firm grey silty clays, 

underlain by fine to medium sands coarsening to sands and gravels with depth. 

Typically these deposits are recorded to depths in excess of -10mAOD and 

represent marine transgressive deposits onto the Devensian glacial shoreline. 

They are underlain by Devensian Boulder Clay. Near shore the unconsolidated 

sediment is recorded to be

deposits are known to exist to the eastern approaches to the Wyre Estuary, 

where historically land has been reclaimed for industrial development, and 

typically this is found to comprise PFA/ash fill deposits to depths of up to 7m. 

Further discussion of the extent and risk from these Made Ground bodies is 

provided within the Landscape Chapter. 

10.4.7 The BGS memoir and published borehole records indicate rockhead contours 

beneath the Flyde Peninsula to be circa -30mAOD. Solid geology comprises the 

Kirkham, Singleton and Hambleton Mudstone formations of the Mercia 

Mudstone Group. Typically these deposits comprise interlaminated reddish 

brown and greyish green mudstones and siltstones. Collapse breccias are 

evident locally within the upper 50m of the Kirkham mudstones, as a result of 

Preesall Halite dissolution within this area. Sherwood Sandstone is encountered 

at depths rising from 600-350mbgl, south to north. 

10.4.8 No major folds or faults are known beneath the Fylde Peninsula within the 

immediate environs of the Project area. 

10.4.9 Recent blown sand deposits, classified by the EA as a Secondary A aquifer (a 

permeable layer capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than 

strategic scale and possessing potential for base supply to rivers), are 

encountered at the northern headland of the Fylde peninsula, and as a very 

narrow thin coastal strip. All other deposits within the near surface environment 

likely to be impacted by the Project are classified as Unproductive Strata 

(negligible significance for water supply/river base flow). No public supply 

groundwater source protection zones exist within the Fylde Peninsula. 

Wyre Estuary Geology & Hydrogeology 

10.4.10 No detailed sediment mapping for the Wyre Estuary is available, however the 

BGS mapping and memoirs describe contemporary marine and estuarine 

alluvial deposits, muds, i.e. soft to very soft, silty clays and clayey silts, and fine 

silty sands with salt-marsh accreting at Barnaby’s Sands and Burrows Marsh. 

The Wyre Estuary Channel within the vicinity of the proposed Project crossings 

extends to a maximum depth of circa -5mAOD. Proposed pipeline crossings of 

the Wyre will be undertaken by directional drilling techniques ensuring a 

minimum roof cover to the estuary channel of 8m, hence the crossings are likely 

to encounter recent alluvial deposits, Old Marine & Estuarine Alluvial deposits 

and Devensian Boulder Clay deposits. The pipeline crossings will be located 

beneath Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. 

10.4.11 All superficial deposits described above are classified by the EA as 

unproductive strata. The underlying Mercia Mudstone bedrock is classified as a 

Secondary B aquifer (predominantly lower permeability layers which may store 

and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as 

fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering). 

Wyreside Geology & Hydrogeology 

10.4.12 The geology and hydrogeology of the Wyreside area which will host the 

proposed main UGS cavern facility, is detailed within the GSR. The area is a 

designated Local GeoDiversity site due to the drumlinoid landforms, possibly 

355

forming a southern extension of the Kendal/Lancaster drumlin swarm. Details of 

the RIGS designation are provided within Appendix 10-1, and detailed on 

Drawing No MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-0022.Specifically the original Local 

GeoDiversity (RIGS) designation related to a 4.5m high river cliff section 

through a drumlin, on the western bank of the Wyre, situated immediately 

adjacent to the proposed Well-head Compound 1. Drumlins forming the higher 

ground comprise Glacial Till, predominantly consisting of stiff, reddish brown 

clay with cobbles and boulders of sandstone, limestone and igneous rock, with 

irregularly distributed sand and gravel bodies. At elevations of 380mbgl, with the halite body 

thickening from 100m to 400m. 

10.4.14 Extensional faults define the Preesall Basin. British Geological Survey research 

report Faulting at Preesall and other saltfield: information relevant to gas 

storage in the Preesall halite (report CR/09/038, 2009) provides a summary of 

research into the faults. Mineralogy within the fault planes suggests a synsedimentary 

Permo-Triassic age, with potential for fault re-activation through 

until the late Cretaceous Period (100Ma). The locations of faults are detailed 

within the GSR on Drawings MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-001, 002 in plan and 

Drawing MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-009 in section. Consultation responses 

have expressed concern with regard to fault reactivation and resultant 

earthquakes. 

10.4.15 Storm Beach Deposits forming the Preesall Ridge 1.5km to the NE of the site 

area, are classified by the EA as a Secondary A aquifer (a permeable layer 

capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and 

possessing potential for base supply to rivers), otherwise all other superficial 

deposits classify as unproductive. Of the solid geology which will potentially be 

impacted by the project, Mercia Mudstone classifies as a Secondary B aquifer 

(predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited 

amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin 

permeable horizons and weathering). Under the Environment Agency’s 

commitments to the WFD, this aquifer is assessed as being of Good Chemical 

but Poor Quantitative Quality. The Preesall Halite is identified as unproductive. 

356

10.4.16 Baseline geological conditions within the Wyreside area proposed for the main 

UGS facility are substantially impacted by two phenomena commonly 

associated with shallow salt bodies which has resulted in a legacy of unstable 

ground; namely historical underground working of the Preesall Halite Deposit 

(physical undermining) and ‘wet rockhead’ brecciation (chemical deterioration of 

overlying cap-rock). The geographic distribution of these features is detailed on 

Drawing MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-001 within Appendix 10-2. 

10.4.17 Two methods of underground working were employed, as detailed on Drawing 

MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-001 within Appendix 10-2. Detailed discussion of 

the works are provided within the GSR and DCO Application Document 9.2.3: 

NTS Interconnector Pipeline Subsidence Assessment Report (Mott MacDonald, 

2011), however the following provides a brief summary to put into context the 

historical baseline ground condition. 

 

 

The Preesall Salt Mine was sunk and operated by the United Alkali 

Company between 1894 and 1934; thereafter ownership passed to ICI. 

Mining was undertaken by pillar and stall methods at two levels within the 

Preesall Halite deposit; an upper mine with a working height of 12.2m at 

circa 100-140mbgl, and a lower mine with a working height of 6m at circa 

270mbgl. The mine operated in a dry condition until 1919 however by 

1930 groundwater control within the upper mine became untenable and 

the mine was abandoned. In 1934, a 5-acre collapse crater subsided 

above the north-east footprint of the mine. The mine was subsequently 

flooded and mine shafts capped. 

The Preesall Brinefield: brinefields comprise underground cavities 

dissolved or washed into the salt deposit by boreholes sunk to the salt 

deposit, with the brine solute subsequently pumped to surface for salt 

extraction by evaporation. Between 1876 and 1993, successive owners 

(Fleetwood Salt Works, United Alkali and finally from 1956, ICI), sunk 112 

brinewells typically to form cavities of 30-60m diameter and up to 100m 

height. Chronologically brinewell geographic distribution advanced from 

the north-east to the south-west as improvements in drilling techniques 

allowed exploitation of the thicker and deeper deposits. Brining techniques 

evolved over time; initially uncontrolled over-exploitation by ‘wild-brining’ 

and ‘forced brining’ techniques effectively undermined and weakened the 

overlying Mercia Mudstone. This early over-exploitation, combined with 

shallow overburden and increased fracture intensity resulted in a legacy of 

unstable ground, with cavern roof collapses migrating to surface to form 

crown-holes. The brining industry was forced to address these failings, 

and with improved design, drilling and monitoring technologies, techniques 

evolved to ensure controlled safe dissolution practice. 

357

Figure 10.1 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment – Schematic 

Diagram to Illustrate the Collapse Mechanisms of Brine Caverns 

Source: BGS Research Report CR09/037 

10.4.18 The existing legacy of aerial settlement and crown-hole collapse features are 

detailed on Drawing MM-277663-G-DR-00-XX-0001 and summarised within 

Table 10.8. The crown-hole collapse features subsequently fill with surface 

waters to form ‘flashes’, effectively closed brine stratified water bodies with 

fresh water derived from precipitation run-off and perched groundwaters near 

surface and denser brine enriched waters at depth as host rock salt content 

increases. The flashes are designated as Biological Heritage Sites known as 

the ICI Salt Pools. Collapse of such features has the potential to locally modify 

the hydrogeological regime, inducing further salt dissolution, however given that 

there is no mechanism for continued groundwater circulation, ultimately the 

collapse craters will become brine saturated and stratified, hence impacts would 

be expected to be localised. 

Table 10-8 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Detail of Existing 

Surface Subsidence Features 

Source: BGS Research Report CR09/037 

358

10.4.19 ‘Wet rockhead’ brecciation is a further legacy of shallow salt deposits. Halite is 

an extremely low permeability but highly soluble material hence potential exists 

for dissolution by circulating fresh or low salinity groundwaters. Such dissolution 

leads to potential natural cavity formation at the salt rockhead and opening of 

previously halite healed fractures within the overlying mudstone bedrock, 

ultimately leading to weakening and brecciation of the overburden, which may 

manifest itself as surface subsidence. BGS Research Report Rockhead 

conditions, salt extraction, subsidence and stability of the Preesall saltfield with 

comparison to other saltfields: information relevant to gas storage in halite in the 

Preesall saltfield (Report CR/09/037, 2009) states that the extent of 

groundwater circulation is a complex interplay between many factors including 

precipitation levels, hydraulic head, water tables and the porosity and 

permeability of the strata; the extent of dissolution depends upon circulation; 

should stagnation occur, the waters will attain chemical balance with the host 

rock and dissolution will cease. As alluded to in Section 10.4.16, the 

hydrogeological regime at Preesall may be anticipated to be low permeability 

and low porosity; moreover the groundwater catchment has low topography 

hence hydraulic heads will be low. The Sherwood Sandstone situated to the 

east of the Preesall Fault acts as a potential groundwater source, however 

given the impermeable nature of the basin rock to the east, a natural flowpath 

across the basin is improbable. Wilson & Evans (1990) mapped the extent of 

natural wet rockhead within the Preesall Basin and recorded signature 

brecciation within a zone 400-600m wide and 50-75m below the superficial 

deposits adjacent to the Preesall Fault at the eastern boundary of the basin. 

This extent is detailed in Drawing MMD-277663-G-DR-00_XX-0001 within the 

GSR, reproduced here within Appendix 10-2. Due to the likely low flow rates, 

natural wet rockhead dissolution may be anticipated to be a long-term process; 

induced settlements are unlikely to impact surface infrastructure, however 

where brecciation exists, mass permeability will be increased. 

10.4.20 Both the brinewells and the Preesall Salt Mine, upon decommissioning / 

abandonment were flooded with brine and capped such that a closed 

equilibrated system was formed. Construction of brinewells utilised compressed 

air from circa 1910 onwards, to control dissolution, commonly forming air 

pockets within the cavern roofs. Over time, as salt behaves visco-elastically, the 

caverns creep towards closure, increasing pressure within the closed system, 

particularly increasing pressure at the well-head or the air-pocket, given that 

brine is essentially incompressible. Where casing strings remain hanging within 

caverns, there is a remnant potential for compressed air blow-out failure to 

occur should the casing string be breached within the air pocket, allowing rapid 

migration of air up the casing strings to the wellhead. Such blow-out failures 

have been previously recorded at Preesall and manifest as a temporal leakage 

under pressure from the well-head of a brine/air mix until such time as 

pressures equilibrate. A blowout failure occurred on BW45 in June 2011 and 

has been the subject of a detailed investigation (DCO Application Document 

9.2.4 Assessment of Brinewell 45 Incident: Subsurface Aspects (Mott 

MacDonald, 2011)). Further details are provided within Section 10.5.5. 

10.4.21 A further existing risk within the Wyreside area is proffered by abandoned 

underground brinewell BW107, situated to the south of the proposed main UGS 

site, which in 1974 was licensed for backfill with brine and mercury sludge 

waste. 

359

Preesall to Nateby Geology & Hydrogeology 

10.4.22 The proposed 12km scheme alignment between Preesall and Nateby 

comprises construction of the NTS interconnector gas pipeline, hence potential 

impacts to the geological environment are likely to be restricted to the 

superficial geological environment. Topographically the area is low and flat 

traversing through Pilling Moss and to the south of Winmarleigh Moss, however 

the easterly 2km approaching the NTS pipeline become more undulatory as 

Glacial Till deposits are encountered. Pilling Moss has been historically 

denuded with removal of peat beds for fuel, hence existing underlying 

superficial geology for the bulk of the route comprises Old Marine & Estuarine 

Alluvium consisting of very soft to firm grey silty clays, underlain by loose fine to 

medium sands, and localised peat deposits, draping the Glacial Till. Published 

BGS boreholes along the scheme alignment indicate ground conditions are 

likely to comprise the Old Marine & Estuarine Alluvium to depths of 5-9mbgl, 

underlain by variable thicknesses of Glacial Till, which itself overlies the 

Sherwood Sandstone aquifer, typically encountered at >20mbgl. 

10.4.23 All superficial deposits along the scheme alignment are classified by the EA as 

Unproductive Strata (negligible significance for water supply/river base flow), 

however at depth the Sherwood Sandstone is classified as a Principal Aquifer 

(high intergranular or fracture permeability which may support water supply on a 

strategic scale). The proposed pipeline route passes through two areas where 

the Sherwood Sandstone is identified within Source Protection Zone 3, defined 

as the area around a source within which all groundwater recharge is presumed 

to be discharged at source. These SPZ3 areas relate to licensed abstractions 

from boreholes within Garstang. 

10.4.24 Table 10-9 details all licensed groundwater abstractions from the Study Area., 

and each relates to abstraction from the Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer. Due to 

the shallow nature of proposed works; it is unlikely that any impact to the aquifer 

will be incurred. 

Table 10-9 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Groundwater 

Abstractions 

Purpose 

Description 

Industrial, 

Commercial and 

Public Services 

Industrial, 



Industrial, 



Use Description 

General Use Relating 

To Secondary 

Category (Medium 

Loss) 


To Secondary 


Loss) 


To Secondary 


Loss) 

Abstraction 

Start 

Abstraction Point Name 

End 

01-Jan 31-Dec Borehole at 

North View, 


01-Jan 31-Dec Borehole at 

Black Hill Farm, 


01-Jan 31-Dec Boreholes at 

New Road, 

Preesall area. 

360

Purpose 

Description 

Industrial, 



Industrial, 





To Secondary 


Loss) 


To Secondary 


Loss) 

Abstraction 

Start 

Abstraction Point Name 

End 

01-Jan 31-Dec Borehole at Tarn 

View, Preesall. 

01-Jan 31-Dec Boreholes at 

Kentucky Farm, 


Seismicity 

10.4.25 During consultation significant concern was raised by consultees in relation to 

potential for earthquakes to impact the scheme, following 3 recent earthquakes 

within the region since 2009. In response Halite commissioned Mott MacDonald 

to undertake a Seismic Desk Study for the Study Area (DCO Application 

Document 9.2.7, 2011). Interpretation of historical earthquakes in the UK shows 

the fault rupture hazard at Preesall to be low, even by UK standards. The 

seismic hazard desk study has shown the Preesall underground gas storage 

facility to be located in an area of low seismic activity even by UK standards. 

For a 10,000-year return period a conservative value for the peak horizontal 

ground acceleration of any seismic event is 0.15g. 



through the desk studies, site visits (surveys) and consultation. Values have 

been assigned using the criteria presented in Table 10.4. 

Table 10-10 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment – Evaluation of 

Receptors 

Receptor 

Geology & Stability 

Value 

Groundwater Value 

Off-Shore Geological 

Environment 

Fylde Peninsula Geological 

& Hydrogeological 

Environment 

Wyre Estuary Geological 

Environment including 

Morecambe Bay SPA and 


SSSI 

Wyreside Geological 

Environment including River 

Negligible 

Negligible 

High 

(SPA, Ramsar, and 

SSSI designations 

do not directly relate 

to the geological 

environment) 

Medium 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Low/Medium 

361

Receptor 

Geology & Stability 

Value 

Groundwater Value 

Wyre Section Local 

GeoDiversity Site, Preesall 

Halite Deposit, Existing 

Property. 


Geological Environment 

Negligible 

(generally underlain by 

unproductive strata, however 

localised shallow pathways through 

glacial deposits and interface with 

surface hydrology via ‘flashes’ may 

exist). 

Negligible (underlain by the 

Sherwood Sandstone Principal 

Aquifer, locally classifying as SPZ- 

3 (Source Catchment Protection 

Zone for PWS holes in Garstang) 



Project. 

Developments 

10.5.2 There are no known future development proposals which may affect the 

geological or hydrogeological setting within the immediate environs of the 

Project area. Cuadrilla UK Shale Ltd are currently undertaking investigative 

studies to assess the potential for shale gas exploitation of the Bowland Shale 

situated circa 9km to the south of the Preesall site and at depths of circa 2.5km. 

Following 2 minor earthquakes with their focus relatively near to Cuadrilla’s 

exploration area, exploration was suspended pending an investigation as to 

whether the ‘fracing’ technique utilised for Shale Gas exploitation was inducing 

seismicity. The study has recently been published (Geomechanical Study of 

Bowland Shale Seismicity: Pater & Baisch (Cuadrilla Resources Ltd, 2011); 

however the size and extent of any induced seismicity is considered to lie within 

the natural spectrum of seismicity for Preesall and hence will not adversely 

impact the Study Area. Further detailed discussion is provided within Chapter 

18, and within the DCO Application Document 9.2.7 Seismic Desk Study (Mott 

MacDonald, 2011). 

Crown-hole and Blow-out Risk of the Existing Brinefield & Mine 

10.5.3 The location of the existing brinefield and dry mine are detailed on Drawing 

MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-0001 within the GSR and within Appendix 10-2. 

Historically the underground workings have left a legacy of unstable ground, 

due to collapse of the existing brine cavern roofs, and collapse of the NE corner 

of the dry mine, resulting in the formation of 5No crown-holes at surface as 

detailed in Table 10.8. Halite have commissioned Mott MacDonald to undertake 

three studies in relation to the stability of the existing brinefield, namely: 

362

NTS Interconnector Pipeline Subsidence Assessment (DCO Application 

Document 9.2.3) 

Brinewell Monitoring and Risk Management Strategy (Mott MacDonald 

Report Ref 277663/007, 2011) 

Legacy Brinewell Impact Assessment Report (DCO Application Document 

9.2.1) 

10.5.4 The former of the reports provides a back analysis of previous crown-hole 

development, and assesses in detail all historical and current data on the 

underground workings within the vicinity of the proposed GCC to Back Lane 

interconnector pipeline corridor. A model for crown-hole development is 

postulated and ground stability through the corridor assessed. Seismic and 

sonar surveys undertaken by Halite to improve definition of risk through this 

area, are discussed within the report. Primarily crown-hole development is 

found to be a direct consequence of brine over-extraction utilising early brining 

techniques, and is also a function of the shallow depth of the early exploited 

halite deposit. Future crown-hole formation is predicted for 2 brinewells close to 

the interconnector pipeline corridor (BW’s 44 and 50), with the likelihood that 

such failure may occur within the next 50 years. 

10.5.5 The second report develops a procedure for risk assessment to be applied 

across the existing brinefield, and provides an assessment of the existing 

brinefield stability in relation to surface subsidence leading to potential crownhole 

development, and in relation to temporal blow-out failure of caverns. A 

baseline monitoring strategy for forward management of the asset has been 

proposed. The assessment concurs with the NTS Interconnector Pipeline report 

and classifies 12 brinewells as potential high risk in relation to future crown-hole 

development. Of these, 5No are known to possess a real risk (BW’s 44, 50, 64, 

89 and 97); the remaining 7 are classified as potentially possessing high risk 

due to a paucity of data. A further 27 brinewells are also considered to be at 

potential high risk of blow-out failure. Hence, there is a historic legacy of ground 

instability across the historic brinefield, and this will continue regardless of the 


10.5.6 The third report focuses on the brinewells which could potentially impact upon 

the proposed Project infrastructure only, applying the same risk assessment 

procedure as discussed in 10.5.5. 

10.5.7 5 brinewell cavities, situated within arable land owned by Halite are established 

to be at risk of future crown-hole development. Typically collapse manifests 

itself initially over a period of weeks and months, with the ground surface 

exhibiting signs of stress (aerial subsidence, tension cracks), before 

progressively collapsing back to the active wedge profile; over a period of years, 

the crown-hole will gradually expand through perimeter sidewall slumping until 

it’s passive wedge profile is attained. The size of the collapse feature is a 

function of the migrating collapse chimney from the cavern (Fig 10-1), and the 

depth and composition of the superficial soils. Halite monitoring of the Study 

Area ground surface to date has found no evidence of imminent collapse, 

however future loss of land-use and habitat should be anticipated. 

363

Aerial Settlement Risk of the Existing Brinefield & Mine 

10.5.8 Salt behaves as a visco-elastic material and hence voids created within salt 

ultimately incur creep closure which manifests itself at ground surface as 

settlement. The magnitude of settlement is a function of the size of void, depth 

and characteristics of overlying rock. Within the existing Preesall Brinefield, 

existing caverns are typically 30-60m diameter, 140mbgl. Overlying rock comprises the Mercia Mudstone, which deforms 

visco-plastically, overlain by near surface Glacial Till deposits. The magnitude of 

the ongoing surface settlement resulting from the existing field has not been 

modelled, however topographic surveying undertaken by ICI from the 1960’s to 

the 1990’s, and recent reinstatement of the monitoring regime by Halite, has 

recorded existing on-going aerial settlements, but typically these are localised 

and

Table 10-11 Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability Assessment - Receptors 

Potentially Affected 

Receptor Type 

Off-Shore 

Geological 

Environment 

Fylde Peninsula 

Geological & 

Hydrogeological 

Environment 

Wyre Estuary 

Geological 

Environment 

Specific Receptor Nature of Effect 

Geological 

Environment 

Geological & 

Hydrogeological 

Environment 

Tram and 

roadways 

Neighbouring 

property 

Morecambe Bay 

SPA & Ramsar 

Wyre Estuary 

SSSI 

Project construction will require mechanical 

excavation of a 2.5m deep, 5m wide trench for 

emplacement of the preformed HDPE 900mm 

diameter brine discharge pipeline with concrete 

anchor collars. Following construction the trench 

will be backfilled with rock armour. 

Project construction will require mechanical 

excavation of typically 2.5m deep, 5m wide trench 

for emplacement of the preformed HDPE 900mm 

diameter brine discharge pipeline. The trench will 

excavated through the unproductive Old Marine & 

Estuarine Alluvium and potentially Made Ground 

and will be backfilled post construction with inert 

material. Excavation may be below groundwater 

level, hence control in the form of sump pumping 

may be required. Environmental impacts during 

the construction phase for such works will be 

mitigated by compliance with a Site Environmental 

Management Plan 

Within several localities (Broadway/The Strand, 

Blackpool Tramway, Amounderness Way, 

Fleetwood Road) the pipeline will be directionally 

drilled beneath existing roadways and tram-lines at 

depths up to 10m. For these launch and reception 

shafts will be constructed. Dewatering measures 

may be required. There is a potential that the 

works could induce subsidence. 

Project construction will require installation by 

directional drilling techniques of 6No pipelines and 

cable crossings (4No from Fleetwood to nr 

Hackensall Sewage Treatment Works, 2No from 

Stanah to nr Stalmine) under Morecambe Bay 

SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. The 

ducting will be installed to allow a minimum cover 

to the river channel of 8m. Post-construction phase 

and decommissioning the ducting will be left insitu. 

Temporary construction compounds, including 

launch and reception pits will be required for each 

crossing point. Such surface excavation works will 

require excavation below the groundwater level, 

hence groundwater control will be required; within 

soft alluvial deposits this may have potential to 

induce localised ground disturbance during 

construction. Potential environmental impacts from 

such construction works will be mitigated by 

compliance with a Site Environmental 

365

Receptor Type 

Wyreside 

Geological 

Environment 


Wyre Section 

RIGS 

Preesall Halite 

Deposit 

Existing 

Property 

Management Plan. The compounds will be 

located outside of the boundaries of Morecambe 

Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. 

Failure of the brine discharge pipeline during 

operation has the potential to discharge 

hypersaline water to groundwater; should this 

occur beneath the Wyre Estuary, there is potential 

for flow migration to the protected estuarine 

environment. 

Proposed UGS Storage Caverns12-19 are situated 

within the Preesall Halite Deposit typically at 

depths >400mbgl, geographically located beneath 

Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre 

Estuary SSSI. There is potential major impact risk 

from collapse of the proposed caverns during the 

construction, operation and post operation Project 

phases. Such collapse would manifest itself as 

surface crown-holes leading to loss of land and 

habitat, and potentially increasing salinity levels 

within the Estuary. A further risk is that caverns 

may induce aerial subsidence of the estuarine 

environment. 

The main UGS surface operational infrastructure 

will be constructed within the RIGS site, including 

Gas Compressor Compound, Brine Pumping 

Station, Wellhead Compounds, Security building, 

access roads and associated pipeline trenches. 

The key focus of the RIGS designation is the 

drumlinoid landform, and other than well-head 

compound 1, the proposed surface development is 

positioned within inter-drumlin areas to minimise 

impact. Of particular importance is the river-side 

cliff exposure through a drumlin. This is situated to 

the immediate west of well-head compound 1. 

Construction activities within this area will require 

excavation for the central UGS facility building 

foundations, associated earthworks, road 

construction and excavation of pipeline corridors. 

Excavation works will require excavation below the 

groundwater level, hence groundwater control will 

be required; within soft alluvial deposits this may 

have potential to induce localised ground 

disturbance during construction. Potential 

environmental impacts from such construction 

works will be mitigated by compliance with a Site 

Environmental Management Plan. 

Subsurface UGS Storage Caverns 1-11 will be 

situated within the Preesall Halite Deposit at 

366

Receptor Type 

Preesall to 

Nateby 

Geological 

Environment 


Geological 

Environment 

depths >220mbgl. There is potential major impact 

risk from collapse of the proposed caverns during 

the construction, operation and post operation 

Project phases. Such collapse would manifest 

itself as surface crown-holes leading to loss of land 

and habitat, and potentially increasing salinity 

levels within the Estuary. A further risk is that 

caverns may induce aerial subsidence at surface 

and hence other receptors are the Hackenshall 

Sewage Treatment Works, Cote Walls Farm and 

the proposed UGS surface infrastructure. 

Construction of the UGS Storage Caverns will 

require drilling of wells into the Preesall Halite 

Deposit, requiring installation of drill-string casings 

and well-heads. Sea-water and saturated brine will 

be transmitted under pressure through the casing 

string to enable cavern formation. Leakage from 

the casing strings has the potential to locally 

impact groundwater bodies, significantly increasing 

salinity. 

Seismic events cause cavern instability leading to 

pipeline infrastructure rupture or damage to UGS 

cavern integrity. 

Project construction will require installation by 

mechanical excavation of a 2-3m deep, 5m wide 

trench for emplacement of the preformed HDPE 

1066mm diameter interconnector gas pipeline, 

construction of an at grade access road (in the 

west) and construction of an NTS metering station 

(in the east). Excavation may be below 

groundwater level, hence control in the form of 

sump pumping may be required and there is 

potential for pollution from construction activities 

Within 2 areas, Hall Gate Lane and Bone Hill Road 

Lancashire County Roads require traversing hence 

pipeline installation may be via trenchless 

directional drill methods requiring launch and 

reception shafts. Dewatering and drilling works 

may induce subsidence. 



identified in Section 10.6, in the absence of mitigation or enhancement 


to minimise and potentially significant effects are outlined in Chapter 5 and have 

been considered in this section. 

367

Construction 

Off-Shore Geological Environment 

10.7.2 Construction of the UGS caverns requires discharge of the brine effluent 

produced; hence construction of the brine discharge pipeline will be required in 

Year 1 only. The off-shore geological, hydrogeological and stability environment 

has been classified as having a negligible value. Given the muddy, sand 

environment, excavation of the trench will temporarily cause increased 

sediment release into the local marine environment. However no further longterm 

impact on the geological or hydrogeological environment will occur, hence 

without mitigation measures it is considered that this will have a minor adverse 

impact during construction, therefore the impact significance has been 

assessed as neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be 


Fylde Peninsula Geological & Hydrogeological Environment 

10.7.3 Likewise the brine discharge pipeline construction will be required during Year 1 

only. Local destruction of the geology will occur within the linear trench, and 

construction activities below the groundwater level pose a potential pollution 

risk. Leakage of the brine discharge pipe during the solution mining stage is a 

further potential effect which could locally release hyper-saline waters into the 

groundwater environment. As the Fleetwood Peninsula superficial geology 

aquifer classification is unproductive strata the value of the Fylde Peninsula 

geological and hydrogeological environment is classified as having a negligible 

value. The magnitude of impact on the geological environment is no change, 

therefore the impact significance to geology has been assessed as neutral. In 

relation to groundwater, the magnitude of impact of construction beneath the 

groundwater table or pipeline leakage during the solution mining stage would be 

moderately adverse, therefore the impacts significance has been assessed as 

slight. In relation to stability, localised subsidence may be induced where deep 

excavations are required, particularly if ground conditions prove soft. The 

magnitude of impact has been assessed as moderate/major adverse for the 

highway/tramway, hence the impact significance in relation to ground stability is 

slight/moderate. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be 


Wyre Estuary Geological Environment 

10.7.4 Construction of the pipelines beneath the Wyre Estuary will be undertaken by 

Directional Drilling methods such as to isolate the works from the overlying 

environmentally protected areas. Construction of the northern pipeline route will 

be required within Year 1. The purpose of the southerly pipeline route is to 

provide power for constructional UGS operability hence this will be required for 

Years 1-3. Once installed the pipeline ducting will remain in-situ, buried within 

the subsurface sediment environment. The Project design allows for a minimum 

vertical cover of 8m from pipeline to Wyre Estuary Channel such that the 

integrity of the channel is maintained including some redundancy allowance for 

future base channel erosion, Pipelines will be pressure tested prior to use and 

pressure will be actively monitored during brining operations associated with the 

northern route to guard against leakage. These operations are therefore 

368

envisaged to have no impact on the geological environment. Given the 

presence of Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar and the Wyre Estuary SSSI, the 

value of the geological environment is high, however the drilling methodology 

proposed means that the classification of magnitude of impact is no change. 

The significance of effect is therefore neutral. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. 

Wyreside Geological Environment 

10.7.5 Construction of the drilling platforms, later to transform to wellhead compounds, 

construction of the brine pumping station and construction of temporary haul 

roads will occur in Year 1 and drilling for wells will also commence, together 

with casing emplacement and integrity testing of the salt formation. Brine 

discharge pipelines and access roads will require construction in Year 1. The 

geological environment is a designated Local Geo-Diversity Site, relating to the 

drumlinoid landform and specifically the riverside cliff exposure to the west of 

proposed well-head 1, hence the value is assessed as medium. Construction 

operations, particularly excavations and earthworks will have the potential to 

impact the geological features and groundwater, as will the cavern washing 

pipelines. The proposed design has attempted to be sympathetic to the drumlin 

features and will occupy only a relatively small area of the designated site, with 

much of the infrastructure situated within the inter-drumlin areas, hence the 

magnitude of the impact is considered to be minor adverse. Given the low 

permeability nature of the geology, groundwater impact may be anticipated to 

be localised, hence the magnitude of effect is considered to likewise be minor 

adverse. The significance effect for the geological and groundwater 

environment therefore classifies as slight/moderate. With regard to the EIA 


River Wyre Cliff-Face Drumlin Section 

10.7.6 Appendix 10-1 details the Local Geodiversity citation applicable to the UGS 

Facility site. Construction for Wellhead No 1 will occur within 50m of the 

medium value cliff-face, hence during construction measures will be put in place 

to ensure the stability of the river-side cliff-face adjacent to well-head 1 is not 

impacted. This will likely take the form of a minimum working distance from the 

cliff-face and regular inspection regime. The magnitude of change is therefore 

assessed to be no change, hence the significance is evaluated as neutral. 

With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not 

significant. 

Preesall to Nateby Geological Environment 

10.7.7 The NTS Interconnector pipeline construction will commence in Year 1. 

Construction operations will generally be confined to a 37m working corridor 

and have potential to impact the groundwater environment. The geological, 

hydrogeological and stability value is negligible, given that no designated areas 

are directly affected, hydrogeological conditions are assessed as low 

permeability unproductive strata, and the route corridor is isolated from 

structures, thereby reducing ground stability risk. The magnitude of impact is 

assessed as no change, hence the impacts significance is evaluated as 

369

neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered 



Wyre Estuary and Wyreside Geological Environment 

Construction of the UGS Caverns 

10.7.8 Cavern construction will be phased such that the less technically challenging 

caverns are constructed first. Caverns 12-19, situated beneath the eastern 

Wyre Estuary, and particularly under Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and 

the Wyre Estuary SSSI, will be constructed utilising extended slant wells from 

land-based wellheads within years 3-8. This drilling technology will ensure that 

there is no direct surface impact to protected areas. 

10.7.9 The positioning and design of caverns has taken due cognisance of the detailed 

geological model, in-situ and laboratory testing undertaken, and identified subsurface 

ground hazards as detailed within the GSR, following internationally 

recognised conservative recommendations for the safe design of salt caverns. 

Professor Rokahr, an internationally recognised expert in the design of 

underground structures, particularly salt mechanics and salt cavern design, and 

current Head of the Institute for Underground Construction, Hannover 

University, has been commissioned by Halite to undertake detailed design of a 

cavern at the pre-planning stage utilising the rock mechanical data and the 

proposed operational pressure regime to model behaviour of the caverns 

through the operational and decommissioned lifespan of the cavern. The design 

work (Professor Dr.-Ing. Reinhard B. Rokahr Ltd (2011) Expert opinion on 

determining the maximum and minimum internal cavern pressure and the 

maxiumum rates for pressure changes in the planned No.18 gas storage cavern 

in the Preesall project area) shows that the Preesall Halite is entirely capable of 

supporting the proposed gas facility. 

10.7.10 Crown-hole collapse will therefore not occur due to the specific designed nature 

of the caverns and the stringent monitoring and management regimes which will 

be imposed under COMAH regulations. The caverns are situated beneath the 

high value Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI, and the 

medium value River Wyre Local Geodiversity site, however the detailed studies 

undertaken show that the risk of cavern collapse is negligible, hence the 

magnitude of impact in relation to cavern stability is no change. The impact is 

neutral and hence with regard to the EIA Regulations, UGS cavern instability is 


10.7.11 Concern has been expressed through consultation of the potential of seismic 

events inducing cavern collapse. Halite have undertaken a detailed seismic risk 

assessment (DCO Application Document 9.2.7), which finds anticipated seismic 

events to be of low magnitude even by UK standards, hence the magnitude of 

impact to cavern stability is no change, and significance effect is evaluated as 

neutral. This significance determination extends through the operational and 

post-operational cavern phases. 

10.7.12 The opening of deep subsurface voids will induce creep behaviour within the 

salt deposit, which may manifest itself as aerial surface settlement over time. 

370

Creep occurs due to the fact that pressures within caverns must be maintained 

at lower pressures than the surrounding in-situ earth pressure (lithostatic 

pressure), to ensure against fracturing of the host rock. 

10.7.13 Potential creep rates are modelled to be highest during the construction stage 

for individual wells, thereafter diminishing to steady state during operation when 

cavern pressures will be cycled between 0.3-0.83% of the lithostatic pressure; 

and diminishing once more following decommissioning when the caverns will be 

backfilled with brine and capped, such as to maintain cavern pressures at brinestatic 

gradients. Halite has undertaken a Project specific subsidence 

assessment (Mott MacDonald Report 277663/BA01/008, 2011), to assess the 

worst-case scenario assuming a fully visco-elastic response of all overburden 

above the proposed cavern roofs. The results consider 3-D settlement induced 

from the entire proposed cavern field, and are presented below for each phase 

and summarised within the Geological Summary Report (DCO Application 

Document 9.2.2) (1) . The results suggest that maximum total settlement to be 

encountered over the operational lifespan of the scheme will be of the order of 

46mm, situated over two areas; the Barnaby Sands mudflats and between Cote 

Walls Farm and Hackenshall Sewage Treatment Works. Maximum differential 

settlements are indicated to be of the order of 0.1mm/m. For the former area, 

the implications of such settlement is discussed below in 10.7.14. For the latter 

area, such differential settlements are well within tolerable limits for structures, 

nevertheless a magnitude of effect classification of minor adverse is assessed. 

Considering the medium value assigned to the Wyreside geology and stability 

environment, the significance effect is evaluated as slight/moderate. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not 

significant. 

10.7.14 The subsidence assessed to be induced within the high value estuarine 

environment (Barnaby Sands) is situated within mudflat areas close to the Mean 

High Water Tide, however the subsidence envelope is not predicted to extend 

to the Mean Low Water Tide and there is therefore no potential for areas which 

are currently intertidal to become subtidal and therefore there is no potential for 

loss of area to the Morecambe Bay SPA and Ramsar, and Wyre Estuary SSSI. 

As the environment is dynamic, there is a degree of uncertainty as to how 

progressive settlements will interact with landform channels, however 

ecologically the subsidence rates and total settlements are deemed to be 

acceptable to the ecological environment, hence the magnitude of effect on the 

estuarine environment is assessed as no change, hence the significance effect 

is evaluated as neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would 


10.7.15 After 8 years of operation, a worst case aerial subsidence to impact upon the 

estuarine environment will be of the order of 20mm, attaining a maximum 

steady creep rate of 1mm/yr. The effects are deemed not significant, as 

discussed within 10.7.13 and 10.7.14. 

371

Operation 

Operation of UGS Caverns 

10.7.16 After 40 years of operation, a worst case aerial subsidence to impact upon the 

estuarine environment will be of the order of 46 mm. Again the effects are 

deemed not significant, as discussed within 10.7.13 and 10.7.14. 


Decommissioning of UGS Caverns 

10.7.17 At the end of the life of the UGS Facility, the caverns may have the potential for 


be considered at that time. If there were no alternative uses for the caverns, 

these would be emptied of gas, filled with brine and sealed. The wellheads 

would be maintained and monitored in accordance with an approved scheme 

and in a manner consistent with the ongoing maintenance and monitoring 

activities being conducted for the existing ICI caverns. The remaining 

infrastructure could remain in place if required for alternative uses. 

Alternatively, the buildings and pipelines would be demolished. As the details of 

decommissioning are not know it would be assumed in this assessment that the 

caverns are filled with brine, sealed and all buildings and pipelines are 

demolished. 

10.7.18 Adopting these measures, cavern pressures will stabilise to brine-static, though 

creep pressure will still apply, hence cavern creep rates will diminish. After 100 

years following construction, a worst case aerial subsidence to impact upon the 

estuarine environment will be of the order of 100mm, adopting the creep 

settlement rates as reported within Mott MacDonald Report 

277663/BA01/008 (18) . Differential settlements induced across structures are 

modelled to be of the manageable order of 10mm or less. Again the effects are 

deemed not significant, as discussed within 10.7.13 and 10.7.14. 

Existing Brinefield Risk 

10.7.19 DCO Application Document 9.2.1, Legacy Brinewell Impact Assessment, 

presents a study of potential risks posed to the Project operation from the 

existing brinefield. Two forms of risks are identified; crown-hole and blow-out. In 

the case of the former, potential impacts to the environment via impact on the 

Project, are identified associated with BW’s 44, 50 and 97. The impact would be 

fracturing/breaking of surface infrastructure, which may have the potential to 

temporarily enforce closure of the UGS facility, though would be uncritical in 

relation to the gas storage caverns. In relation to magnitude of risk this would 

equate to a moderately adverse impact, hence the significance would be 

moderate/large. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be 

considered significant. 

10.7.20 Considering blow-out risk, this has the potential to temporarily close access to 

the UGS facility, however as critical Project infrastructure is situated below 

ground away from the immediate existing brinewell vicinities, closure of the 

facility would not be required. Hence the magnitude of risk this would equate to 

a minor adverse impact, and the significance would be slight/moderate. With 

372

egard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not 

significant. 




Construction and Construction and Operation Combined 

Wyre Estuary and Wyreside Cavern Stability & Aerial Subsidence 

10.8.2 In-situ pressure testing and logging for all caverns will be undertaken during the 

construction process for each cavern to ensure global stability of all caverns 

against collapse. Crown-hole formation will therefore not occur for any of these 

new deeper and storage specific designed caverns. However it is 

acknowledged that surface subsidence induced by salt creep may occur, and to 

assess the potential impact of this Halite has conducted subsidence analyses. 

The maximum surface subsidence rates are anticipated to be of the order of 

1mm/yr. The potential effects of seismicity either natural or induced has been 

assessed and confirmed to be of negligible risk to the proposed UGS cavern 

stability. Further details on the various studies underpinning these findings are 

reported in the Mott MacDonald Geological Summary Report DCO Application 

Document 9.2.2, and within the Baker Hughes Drilling Report (DCO Application 

Document 9.2.5. 

10.8.3 The significance of effect on the baseline geological environment and by 

implication the protected environment is slight/moderate in relation to the 

existing structures and proposed Project Structures within the immediate vicinity 

of the UGS facility, and neutral in relation to the estuarine environment. 

However it is recognised that this is based on conservative modelled 

predictions, hence to safeguard this assertion, Halite propose to undertake a 

topographic monitoring regime across the site. Should the monitoring show 

aerial subsidence in excess of predicted settlements, the suspect caverns will 

be maintained at maximum operational pressures such as to stabilise the 

situation, and further investigation undertaken, with, if required, caverns 

backfilled to prevent collapse. 

Groundwater Protection 

10.8.4 Mitigation for the construction phase excavations beneath groundwater levels, 

the construction and operation combined phase (and potentially the 

decommissioning phase) would be provided in a Method Statement and 

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).These documents 

would detail how these potential environmental risks would be managed in 

agreement with key stakeholders e.g. Environment Agency. It is essential that 

the CEMP covers all the potential impacts that could arise at this site and that 

no discharge of polluting material or release of sediment occurs during these 

phases. 



373




Existing Brinefield Risk to UGS Scheme 

10.8.6 DCO Application Document 9.2.1 highlights that within the existing brinefield 

there are 3 brinewells (BW,s 44, 50 and 97) which are considered could 

instigate ground instability with potential to impact on the proposed Project. 

Halite has commissioned a study in relation to the two former wells DCO 

Application Document 9.2.3 which have potential to impact upon the proposed 

NTS Interconnector pipeline. The study has highlighted hazard zones 

associated with these caverns, and the proposed infrastructure corridor has 

been designed to avoid these zones, hence the magnitude impact is considered 

to reduce to no change, leading to a neutral significance. Ground monitoring 

regimes will be employed to validate the subsidence prediction, and to provide 

early warning of exceedence to allow implementation of mitigation measures. 

10.8.7 Further investigation of BW97 has been scheduled by Halite to establish the 

extent of the BW97 cavity, which has the potential to instigate ground instability 

across the electrical and communications cabling corridor from United Utilities 

Stanah Substation to the UGS Facility. Options to mitigate this risk would be 

installation of linear cabling flexibility, isolation of cable routing from the 

instability zone (i.e. directional drilling), or localised re-routing. 





10.9.2 It is forecast that aerial settlement will occur, however conservative estimates 

indicate that the additional induced rate will be of the order 1mm/yr, hence the 

change will be minimal and will fall in line with natural ambient topographic 

variation. 


10.10.1 Ground stability is an unusual consideration for an environmental statement. 

This chapter has attempted to provide an assessment of the stability risk, 

however as with the extensive, detailed geological modelling work undertaken, 

reference should also be made to the informing technical support documents. 

10.11 Summary 

10.11.1 Part of the Project would be located on a Local Geological Site although it is 

considered the features associated with site would not be affected. 

10.11.2 A Geological Summary Report has been prepared for the Project and is 

available as a separate document (DCO Application Document Reference 9.2.2 

Geology Summary Report (Mott Macdonald (2011)). The report presents a 

374

complete review of the geology of the Preesall area to assess whether a 

suitable salt body exists within which caverns for gas storage can be 

constructed and operated safely. The geological review has been carried out by 

an experienced design team and then peer reviewed by a team of expert 

geologists not previously involved with the design of the Project. 

10.11.3 The proposed development of new caverns has been assessed with regard to 

the known geological and mining hazards applying general assessment tools in 

cavern design, such as the internationally recognised conservative 

recommendations for the safe design of salt caverns as developed by Professor 

Rokahr, University of Hannover. Professor Rokahr is an international expert in 

the design of caverns in salt. The generic design rules provide guidance for the 

depth range within salt at which a cavern be located, maximum and minimum 

operating pressures, minimum distances between adjacent caverns and 

distances from hazards such as old mine workings and geological faults. 

Applying these rules led to the identification of two areas in the west of the 

Preesall area within which it is considered that caverns for the storage of gas 

can be safely constructed and operated. The area identified is much reduced in 

area from the previous proposals promoted by Canatxx Gas Storage. 

10.11.4 The data review and the reappraisal of the geology with respect to the hazards 

associated with gas storage in caverns are considered to be adequate for 

planning purposes. Further work would be undertaken during the detailed 

design and construction phases. This further information will be added to the 

geological and mechanical models and used to refine the risk assessments. 


AA Wilson and WB Evans: British Geological Survey (1990) Geology of the 

country around Blackpool: Memoir for 1:50,000 Geological Sheet 66 

Baker Hughes (2011) DCO Application Document 9.2.5: Drilling Report 

British Geological Survey (2009) Faulting at Preesall and other saltfield: 

information relevant to gas storage in the Preesall halite (Report CR/09/038) 

British Geological Survey (2009) Rockhead conditions, salt extraction, 

subsidence and stability of the Preesall saltfield with comparison to other 

saltfields: information relevant to gas storage in halite in the Preesall saltfield 

(Report CR/09/037) 

British Geological Survey DTI Strategic Environmental Assessment Area 6, Irish 

Sea, seabed and superficial geology and processes (Report CR/05/057) 

Cuadrilla Resources Ltd (Nov 2011) Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale 

Seismicity: Pater & Baisch http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/cms/wpcontent/uploads/2011/11/Final_Report_Bowland_Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf 

Geological Survey of Great Britain (England & Wales) (1968): Blackpool Sheet 

66: 1:50,000: Solid & Drift 

375

Geological Survey of Great Britain (England & Wales) (1990): Garstang Sheet 

67: 1:50,000: Drift 

Geological Survey of Great Britain (England & Wales) (1990): Garstang Sheet 

67: 1:50,000: Solid with Drift 




Report 

Mott MacDonald (2011) DCO Application Document 9.2.1: Legacy Brinewell 

Impact Assessment 

Mott MacDonald (2011) DCO Application Document 9.2.2: Geology Summary 

Report 

Mott MacDonald (2011) DCO Application Document 9.2.3: NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline Subsidence Assessment Report 

Mott MacDonald (2011) DCO Application Document 9.2.4: Assessment of 

Brinewell 45 Incident: Subsurface Aspects 

Mott MacDonald (2011) DCO Application Document 9.2.7: Seismic Desk Study 

Mott MacDonald (2011) DCO Application Document 9.3.1: Risk Assessment 

Mott MacDonald Report (August 2011) Surface Subsidence Assessment 

(277663\008) 

Mott MacDonald (October 2011) Brinewell Monitoring and Risk Management 

Strategy (Report 277663\NWD\MAN\007) 

Professor Dr.-Ing. Reinhard B. Rokahr Ltd (2011) Expert opinion on determining 

the maximum and minimum internal cavern pressure and the maxiumum rates 

for pressure changes in the planned No.18 gas storage cavern in the Preesall 

project area 

376

11 LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS 


11.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Land Use and Socio-Economic 

Assessment, undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited and AWJ Marine. It 

identifies the methodology used to assess effects, existing and future baseline 









the ES. 

11.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Figures 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of 

Volume 2B and Appendix 11.1 of Volume 1B of the Environmental Statement 

(ES). 




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to land use and 

socio-economics in the context of this assessment. 


National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

11.2.2 The Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for EN-1 (2011) sets out 

national policy for energy infrastructure. The NPS, when combined with the 

relevant technology-specific energy NPSs, provides the primary basis for 

decisions. Within this document are sections relating to land use and socioeconomics, 

including open space, green infrastructure and Greenbelt, sections 

of which are summarised below: 

 

 

Socio-Economics (5.12): This section states that the Infrastructure 

Planning Commission (IPC), when making decisions, will consider the 

potential socio-economic impacts of new energy infrastructure identified by 

the Applicant and by other sources considered to be relevant and 

important. This section also states that limited weight will be given to 

assertions of socio-economic impacts that are not supported by evidence. 

In addition this section states that the IPC will consider relative relevant 

positive provisions the Applicant has made or is proposing to make to 

mitigate impacts and any legacy benefits that may arise. 

Land Use Including Open Space, Green Infrastructure and Green Belt 

(5.10): 

377

‘The IPC should not grant consent for development on existing open 

space, sports and recreational buildings and land unless an assessment 

has been undertaken either by the local authority or independently, which 

has shown the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to 

requirements or the IPC determines that the benefits of the project 

(including need), outweigh the potential loss of such facilities, taking into 

account any positive proposals made by the applicant to provide new, 

improved or compensatory land or facilities. The loss of playing fields 

should only be allowed where applicants can demonstrate that they will be 

replaced with facilities of equivalent or better quantity or quality in a 

suitable location. 

The IPC should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the 

best and most versatile agricultural land without justification. It should give 

little weight to the loss of poorer quality agricultural land (in grades 3b, 4 

and 5), except in areas (such as uplands) where particular agricultural 

practices may themselves contribute to the quality and character of the 

environment or the local economy. 

In considering the impact on maintaining coastal recreation sites and 

features, the IPC should expect applicants to have taken advantage of 

opportunities to maintain and enhance access to the coast. In doing so the 

IPC should consider the implications for development of the creation of a 

continuous signed and managed route around the coast, as provided for in 

the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.’ 

Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) 

11.2.3 The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) classified 

agricultural land in England and Wales by grade, according to the extent to 

which their physical or chemical characteristics impose long-term limitations on 

agricultural use for food production. The ALC system classifies agricultural land 

into 5 grades numbered 1-5, with Grade 3 divided into sub-grades 3a and 3b. 

Other land is shown as land predominantly in urban use or other land primarily 

in non-agricultural use. The ALC system was introduced in 1966 and 

subsequently mapped for the whole of England and Wales from reconnaissance 

field surveys. However, these maps are not sufficiently accurate for use in 

assessment of individual fields or development sites and are recommended for 

use only as general guidance. Since 1976, selected areas have been 

resurveyed in greater detail and to revised guidelines and criteria, namely the 

introduction of the 3a and 3b ALC sub grades in 1988. 

Safeguarding our Soil: A Strategy for England 

11.2.4 The Government’s vision for the sustainable management of soil is set out in 

the ‘Safeguarding our Soil: A Strategy for England’ (Defra 2009). The vision 

states “By 2030, all England’s soils will be managed sustainably and 

degradation threats tackled successfully. This will improve the quality of 

England’s soils and safeguard their ability to provide essential services for 

future generations”. This means that: 

378

Agricultural soils will be better managed and threats to them will be 

addressed 

Soils will play a greater role in the fight against climate change and in 

helping to manage its impacts 

Soils in urban areas will be valued during development, and construction 

practices will ensure vital soil functions can be maintained 

Pollution of soils is prevented, and historic legacy of contaminated land is 

dealt with. 

Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on 

Construction Sites 

11.2.5 Defra has also produced a code of practice for the sustainable use of soils on 

construction sites. The ‘Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use 

of Soils on Construction Sites’ (Defra, 2009) consolidates best practice 

guidance on the pre-construction planning necessary to protect soils and on the 

management of soils during the construction process. The overriding objective 

is that soil resources receive appropriate protection and are utilised to the best 

effect in construction projects. Defra’s ‘Good practice Guide for handling Soils’ 

is also an important document that should be considered during the 

construction phase of a proposed development. 

National Planning Policy Statements 

11.2.6 National policy with regard to rural land uses, including agricultural interests, is 

set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural 

Areas’. This states that the quality of agricultural land should be considered with 

regard to planning applications and in some areas (such as uplands) account 

should be taken of agricultural practices that contribute to the quality and 

character of the environment. PPS7 has now been superseded by PPS4 

‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’, however, paragraphs 28 and 29 of 

PPS7 have been saved and therefore are relevant when considering the 

protection of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. Paragraph 28 defines 

the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of 

the Agricultural ALC. 

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 

11.2.7 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) introduced a new 

right for people to walk freely over ‘Access Land’ in England and Wales, 

including mapped areas of mountain, open moor, heath and down (collectively 

defined as open country) and registered common land, much of which was 

previously off-limits. 

Regional Policy 

Lancashire Rights of Way Improvement Plan 

11.2.8 The Lancashire Rights of Way improvement Plan (ROWIP) was published in 

June 2005 to meet the requirements of the CROW Act. The ROWIP assesses 

the extent to which rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the 

public, the opportunities provided by rights of way for exercise and other forms 

379

of open air recreation and enjoyment, and the accessibility of rights of way to 

blind and partially sighted persons and others with mobility problems. Themes 

and policies within this Plan are particularly important to consider when diverting 

public rights of way (PRoW). 

Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2006 

11.2.9 Relevant policies within the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2006 

include the following: 

 

Policy 31 deals with the public rights of way. This policy states: 

“Proposals for minerals or waste developments which would have an 

unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity and recreational value of a 

Public Right of Way will not be permitted unless:- 

i) adequate arrangements are made in advance of the development 

first commencing, to protect the existing route or provide acceptable 

alternatives, both during and after working; or 

ii) it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the minerals or waste 

development which cannot be met from a less damaging alternative site or 

source of supply.” 

 

Policy 32 deals with recreational facilities and states: 

“Proposals for minerals or waste developments will not be permitted if they 

would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the recreational value of 

managed access areas, recreational routes, country parks, water-based or 

other recreational facilities or picnic areas, unless it can be demonstrated 

that there is a need for the development which cannot be met from a less 

damaging alternative site or source of supply” 

Local Policy 

The Wyre Borough Council Local Plan 

11.2.10 The Wyre Borough Council (WBC) Local Plan was adopted in July 1999. A 

review of the Local Plan commenced and in 2004 the ‘Local Plan Review 1st 

Deposit Draft’ was published for consultation. This Review has, however, been 

abandoned in favour of the new Local Development Framework (LDF) (which is 

currently at the options stage). A number of the Local Plan polices have been 

‘saved’ until such time as the new LDF is in place. Relevant saved policies from 

the Local Plan include the following: 

 

Policy EMP12 deals with ‘diversification of the rural economy’ and states: 

“Proposals which would facilitate the diversification of the rural economy 

will be approved where: 

a) the scale and nature of the activity is not detrimental to the character 

of the area; and 

b) any new buildings are shown to be necessary and appropriate to a 

rural location; and 

380

c) the proposed use does not conflict with adjacent land uses nor 

adversely affects the economic viability of a farming or other unit; and 

d) the proposal fully satisfies Policy SP14.” 

11.2.11 The supporting text to this policy considers that ‘encouraging appropriate new 

employment uses into the rural area to provide alternative sources of job 

creation is essential to ensure its economic well being’ but that ‘if such 

development is permitted, strict control will be exercised in terms of its scale, 

location and design’. 

 

 

Policy SP14 deals with ‘standards of design and amenity’ and states: 

‘the proposal should be compatible with adjacent existing land uses and 

any other relevant adjacent proposal of this Plan’. 

Policy TREC12 deals with ‘public rights of way’ and states: 

“In order to ensure that public access to the countryside is maintained and 

enhanced, the Borough Council, as local planning authority, will, through 

its responsibility for controlling the development and use of land, 

safeguard all public rights of way including footpaths, bridleways, byways 

and unclassified county roads. 

Proposals will not be permitted which:- 

a) adversely affect any existing right of way, and the public’s enjoyment 

of it unless a satisfactory alternative is provide; or 

b) detract from the character of any existing right of way; or 

c) do not accord with the need to improve and provide access to the 

countryside for the disabled.” 

The Fleetwood-Thornton Area Action Plan 

11.2.12 The Fleetwood-Thornton Area Action Plan (AAP), adopted in 2009, looks ahead 

to the year 2021, setting out a comprehensive vision and spatial strategy for the 

Fleetwood-Thornton area. The Plan area is restricted by the west side of the 

Wyre Estuary but includes the site of the Fish Dock on which the proposed 

Seawater Pumping Station (SWP) is and the route of the brine pipeline would 

be located. The AAP Proposals Map shows the site of the proposed SWP as 

being in the Fleetwood Docks Mixed Use Development Area. Relevant policies 

from this plan include the following: 

Policy 3 

“Industry and Business 

1. In order to protect and consolidate the Fleetwood fishing and port 

related industries and specialist industrial sector at the Hillhouse site, 

employment development for B1, B2 and B8 uses (business, general 

industrial and storage and distribution) will be permitted in the following 

areas as identified on the Proposals Map:- 

381


i) Fleetwood Docks Mixed Use Development Area (E1); 

ii) Fleetwood Docks Employment Area (E2);... ” 

11.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Land Use and 

Socio-Economics chapter of the ES. 




 

 

 

 

 


of the application site; issues raised through consultation with interested 

parties, as a result of responses to the EIA Scoping Report, and through 

post-scoping consultation (if appropriate); professional judgement, and 

best practice / guidance outlined in the following documents: 

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (Department of 

Energy and Climate Change, 2011a) 


Pipelines (EN-4) (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011b) 


parties) within agreed study area(s)) 


Study Area(s) 

11.3.3 The study area for the assessment of current land use is defined as 500 m 

around the application site boundary (including agricultural land) and 1 km 

around the application site boundary for future land use. The study area for 

contaminated land is within the application site boundary and within 500 m of 

the application boundary. 

11.3.4 The study area for the assessment of marine activities including navigation and 

commercial fisheries is defined as any activity taking place at sea that could be 

directly affected by the Project. 

11.3.5 The study area for the socio-economic assessment has been defined taking into 

consideration the extent of the application site, the potential receptors that could 

be affected and the scale of the potential impacts that are predicted to occur. 

Direct physical potential impacts (for example, severance of public footpaths) 

are considered within the application site only. Wider indirect potential effects 

on employment, local businesses and the economy (including the tourism 

economy) are considered for the wards in which the Project is located, the wider 

borough of Wyre and Lancashire County. 

11.3.6 Whilst the application site traverses a number of wards within Wyre Borough, 

the potential effects associated with this Project are unlikely to be realised at an 

382

individual ward level, unless they relate to impacts arising from direct physical 

changes, for example, severance of landholdings or loss of infrastructure. 

Desk Studies 

11.3.7 Desk study information has been obtained from a number of sources. Table 11- 

1 summarises these sources of baseline information and the nature of the 


Table 11-1 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment – Sources of Baseline 

Information 

Baseline Topic 

Issues Covered 

in Topic 

Source 

Baseline Information 

Requested/Obtained 

Agricultural Land 

Grade of 


Soil types 

http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ 

Soilscapes online mapping - 

http://www.landis.org.uk/soils 

capes/ 


Classification (ALC) and 

soil types 

Demography 

Population 

structure of 

Wyre 

Age structure of 

Wyre 

Projected 

population 

growth 

National Statistics Online - 

www.statistics.gov.uk and 

www.nomisweb.co.uk 


website - 

www.lancashire.gov.uk 

Obtained statistics relating 

to population, age 

structure and projected 

population growth. 

Economy and 

Employment 

Unemployment 

rate 

Deprivation 

Percentage of 

Wyre Borough 

that is 

economically 

active 

Employment by 

occupation 

Job types 

Average weekly 

earnings 

Levels of 

educational 

attainment 

Locations of 

schools 

Average 

property prices 

National Statistics Online - 

www.statistics.gov.uk and 



website - 


Ordnance Survey data and 

aerial mapping - Ordnance 

Survey Explorer map 296 

(Lancaster, Morecambe & 

Fleetwood) 

Obtained statistics relating 

to unemployment, 

deprivation, employment 

by occupation, job types, 

average weekly earnings, 

educational attainment, 

locations of schools and 

average property prices. 

Tourism economy 

Revenue 

generated by 


website - 

Obtained information 

relating to revenue 

383



in Topic 

Source 



tourism in Wyre 

Tourist facilities 

in the study 

area 


Ordnance Survey data and 

aerial mapping - Ordnance 

Survey Explorer map 296 

(Lancaster, Morecambe & 

Fleetwood) 

generated by tourism in 

Wyre and locations of 

caravan sites within the 

study area and other 

tourist attractions including 

the beach at Fleetwood. 

Public Rights of 

Way 

Footpaths within 

the study area 


MARIO (Maps and Related 

Information Online – 

http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk 

) 

Requested pedestrian 

counts data for PRoW in 

Wyre from Wyre Borough 

Council. However, at the 

time of writing this ES 

Chapter this information 

was not available. 

Obtained the locations of 

PRoW within the study 

area. 

Recreation 

General 

recreation 

within the study 

area e.g. 

bathing, bird 

watching, kite 

surfing. 

Sustrans routes 

Recreational 

fishing 

General 

recreational 

facilities 


website - 


Sustrans (www.sustrans.org.uk) 

Fylde Boat Angling Club 

Obtained brief details of 

general recreational 

activities undertaken 

within the study area 

including walking, cycling, 

bird watching, bathing, 

wind surfing, kite surfing 

and beach buggying. 

Obtained details of 

Sustrans routes within the 

study area. 

Requested details of 

recreational fishing 

undertaken in the area. 

However, the Fylde Boat 

Angling Club suggested 

contacting the Irish Sea 

Conservation. 

Irish Sea Conservation 


recreational fishing 

undertaken in the area. No 

response was received. 

Fleetwood and District Angling 

Club 


recreational fishing to 

inform the baseline. No 

response was received. 

Industrial and 

Commercial 


commercial 

businesses 

Site visit (see paragraph 11.3.8 

below) 

Obtained details of 

industrial and commercial 

businesses operating 

384



in Topic 

Source 



within the study 

area. 

within the study area. 

Contaminated 

Land 

Historical 

contamination 

Landfill history 

Locations of 

Waste Transfer 

Sites 

The Environment Agency 

(EA) (www.environmentagency.gov.uk) 

Landmark Information Group 

(2003) Report 

Obtained details and 

locations of historical and 

active landfill and locations 

of Waste Transfer Sites. 

Commercial 

Fisheries 

Commercial 

fishing 

undertaken 

within the Irish 

Sea 

Fish landing 

data 

Admiralty mapping – Chart 

Number 1320, Fleetwood to 

Douglas 

North West Inshore Fisheries 

and Conservation Authority 

(NWIFCA) 


about fishing activity in the 

vicinity of the proposed 

outfall. 

Marine Management 

Organisation 




outfall and fish landings 

data for the sea areas 

around the proposed 

outfall. 

Fleetwood Fisherman’s 

Association 




outfall. 

Site visit (see below) 

Observations made of 

commercial fishing activity 

within the area 

Marine Activity 

Navigation 

Dredging 

operations 

Fleetwood Fish 

Dock 

Admiralty mapping – Chart 

Number 1320, Fleetwood to 

Douglas 

Site visit (see paragraph 

11.3.8) 

Obtained details regarding 

navigation, dredging 

operations, Fleetwood 

Harbour Marina and the 

Fleetwood Harbour Yacht 

Club. 

385


11.3.8 Site visits were undertaken on 31 January and 1 February 2011 to determine 

current land uses within 500 m of the application site boundary. In addition, a 

site visit was undertaken on 10 August 2011 to observe commercial fishing 

activity within the area. 

Consultation 


summarised in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 1B. However, further consultation has 

been undertaken since the receipt of these consultation responses to agree a 

range of issues particular to the Land Use and Socio-Economic assessment. 

Table 11-2 summarises the post-scoping consultation undertaken, including 

responses received to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report. 

Table 11-2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Post-Scoping 

Consultation 

Consultee 

Date of 

Response 


Trinity House 4 April 2011 Trinity House interest is essentially limited to the offshore 

aspects of the Project and in particular the navigational marking 

that may be required to be provided by the Applicant to mitigate 

the risk that the Project may present during construction, 

operation, decommissioning and potentially thereafter if any 

obstruction remains after removal operations have been 

completed. 

Trinity House stated that the EIA needs to include a brief 

assessment on the impact of the outfall pipeline on navigation in 

the area. In particular whether the clearance depth will be 

reduced over the outfall and the diffusers at the seaward end 

and therefore whether marking is required by means of aids to 

navigation and, if so, how this is to be provided by the Applicant 

/ operator and thereafter maintained. In this connection it needs 

to be borne in mind that if marking is required because there is 

an obstruction which is considered to be a danger to navigation, 

then such marking will be required to be maintained by the 

Applicant / operator until such time as the obstruction is 

removed or is considered to no longer require marking as a 

danger to navigation. It may also be that the operator / 

Applicant would for their own reasons wish to provide marking of 

the seaward end of the outfall. 

Trinity House understand the pipelines crossing the River Wyre 

would be put in place using directional drilling techniques from 

the shore, and will not involve construction in the river. However 

should this not be the case, Trinity House would expect to be 

consulted regarding any navigational marking required. As the 

part of the river where the pipeline crossing is proposed is within 

the limits of jurisdiction of ABP Fleetwood as the statutory 

harbour authority, the developer should also consult with their 

386

Consultee 

Hambleton 

Parish 

Council 

Maritime and 

Coastguard 

Agency 

Marine 

Management 

Organisation 

Natural 

England 

Date of 

Response 


harbour master to ensure he has no concerns from the 

navigational point of view. 

27 May 2011 Questioned what assessment has been made on the impact 

upon property prices / insurance premiums, and what is the 

documented outcome. 

There are a number of caravan parks in the Over Wyre area 

(including Hambleton), upon which much of the local economy 

depends on. Asked how holiday businesses would be affected 

by the presence of the Project. 

Asked what economic benefits to the local community, if any 

there would be, and how many permanent jobs would be on site 

once the Project is complete. 

13 June 2011 Stated that the works are unlikely to have an adverse impact 

with regards to the safety of navigation provided specific 

conditions outlined in their response are adhered to (see Section 

11.8 of this chapter for further details). 

Stated that the Applicant must consult with the local Harbour / 

Navigation Authority, who has jurisdiction over the area, and 

under the Port Marine Safety Code. 

15 June 2011 Fleetwood Fish Dock is identified as source of water for the 

washing of caverns. Section 1.2.26 of the Scoping Report 

states ‘the amount of water required is very large’ such that the 

use of freshwater is an ‘environmentally unviable option’. 

Questioned whether the quantity of water would be so large that 

it could impact on navigation and access within the port for 

larger fishing vessels. 

Assume the development will require vessels to access the site. 

Will this impact on dredging operation in the Estuary? Any 

environmental implications should be considered in terms of the 

dredging operation itself, and also the disposal of the dredged 

material (i.e. impacts of increased quantity of dredged material 

on the disposal sites). 

The position of the site could impact directly on small-scale 

inshore fishers targeting shrimp in the estuary itself. Any direct 

impacts on such fisheries would need further investigation. 

Displacement of fishing activity should also be considered in 

respect of the outfall pipe (in construction and operation). 

Would recommend assessment of the congestion of navigation 

(during construction and operation) and the potential 

implications. 

15 July 2011 Stated that the ES should include a thorough assessment of the 

Project’s effects upon PRoW and access to the countryside and 

its enjoyment through recreation. 

Natural England would also expect to see consideration of 

opportunities for improved or new public access provision on the 

387

Consultee 

Ribble 

Fisheries 

Consultative 

Association 

Wyre 

Borough 

Council 

Date of 

Response 


site, to include linking existing public rights of way and/or 

providing new circular routes and interpretation. They also 

recommend reference to the Lancashire ROWIP to identify 

PRoW within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be 

maintained or enhanced. 

Subject to the pipeline route / other temporarily disturbed areas 

being reinstated without damage to the soils, and the Project 

having a relatively small permanent surface footprint (say

Consultee 

Fylde 

Ramblers 

Association 

Fleetwood 

Fishermen’s 

Association 

North West 

Inshore 

Fisheries and 

Conservation 

Authority 

(NWIFCA) 

Marine 

Management 

Organisation 

Lancaster 

Port 

Commission 

Date of 

Response 


The Adopted WBC Local Plan (Saved Policies) includes policies 

directing development to the urban areas and limiting 

development in the countryside / rural areas: 

Policy EMP12 (Diversification of the Rural Economy). 

Policy TREC12 (PRoW). 

22 August 2011 Requested that clear diversion signs should be provided on all 

PRoW affected, including FP12 and the proposed United 

Utilities bridleway. 

Regarding the Wyre Way where it is anticipated that the 

disruption will last for two months. The Fylde Ramblers 

Association would like to see a temporary crossing point 

provided over the haul road during the two month period. 

10 August 2011 On 10th August 2011, meetings were held with commercial 

fishermen and fishery regulators in Fleetwood to discuss the 

potential effects of the Project on commercial fishing activity in 

the area. Key comments included: 

10 August 2011 

Direct physical effects of the project on commercial fishing 

activity are unlikely 

Effects of the brine discharge on commercial fish stocks are a 

big concern 

The effect of the outfall on water movement in the inshore 

10 August 2011 area was also a concern 

Impacts on recreational fisheries were felt to be likely 

Refer to Appendix 11.1 of Volume 1B of the ES for the full 

meeting minutes. 

No date 

available, verbal 

response. 

No issues with the Project as it doesn’t impact the Lancaster 

Port Commission. 





Consideration of best practice / guidance outlined in Section 11.2 

 

 

 







details 

389










Value 

11.3.12 The relative value of agricultural land has been assessed using the criteria 

indicated in Table 11-3, according to Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). 

Table 11-3 

Criteria for Determining Value of Agricultural Land 

Value 

ALC Category 

High Grade 1 

Medium 

Grade 2 and 3a 

Low 

Grade 3b 

Negligible Grade 4 and 5 


11.3.13 The magnitude of change has been assessed using the criteria indicated in 

Table 11-4. 

Table 11-4 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

No Change 

Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Change on Agricultural Land 

Land Take of Agricultural Land 

The loss of more than 20 hectares of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) 

agricultural land. In some areas where BMV land is rare and of particular 

importance, lesser amounts might be classed as a major impact. 

The loss of between 5 hectares and 20 hectares of BMV land, depending 

on the quantum and quality and its relative availability in a locality. 

The loss of small areas (< 5 hectares) of BMV land. The loss of lower 

quality land where it is identified as having special agricultural 

significance in the locality. 

No net loss of agricultural land. 

390


11.3.14 Significance has been calculated by combining the magnitude of change and 

value, as shown in Table 11-5. 

Table 11-5 

Criteria for Determining Significance of Effects on Agricultural Land 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Value of Agricultural Land 

High Medium Low Negligible 

Major Large Moderate Slight Neutral 

Moderate Large Moderate Slight Neutral 

Minor Slight Slight Slight Neutral 

No Change Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 



Land Use and Socio-Economics 

11.3.16 There are no specific published or recommended significance criteria for the 

type of assessment set out in this chapter and it is therefore typically based 

upon professional judgement. Unlike other assessments, it is not possible to 

determine value / sensitivity of receptors or magnitude of change through the 

use of specific standards. 

11.3.17 In this assessment, effects are defined as: 

 

 

 

Positive – which indicates an advantageous or beneficial effect to an 

environmental resource or receptor, which may be minor, moderate or 

major in significance 

Negligible – which indicates an imperceptible effect to an environmental 

resource or receptor 

Negative – which indicates disadvantageous or adverse effect to an 

environmental resource or receptor, which may be minor, moderate or 

major in significance 

11.3.18 Where positive or negative effects have been identified, these have been 

assessed against the following scale: 

 

 

 

Minor - slight, very short term or highly localised effect 

Moderate - a noticeable effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) 

Major - a considerable effect (by extent, duration or magnitude) of more 

than local effect or in breach of recognized acceptability, legislation, policy 

or standards 



391

11.3.20 When judging the significance of the effect on employment and local business, 

consideration has been given to whether there would be a fundamental change 

to existing patterns and trends. With regard to determining significant effects on 

tourism, consideration has been given to existing research concerning gas 

storage developments along with potential severance issues for users of PRoW. 



studies, site visits and various consultation. 

11.4.2 To avoid repetition between chapters, some aspects of land use have not been 

considered within this chapter, but have been considered in other chapters, as 

follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details of air quality issues are outlined in Chapter 6: Air Quality 

Details of statutory designated sites, non-statutory designated sites and 

habitats are provided in Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation 

Details of potential noise issues are provided in Chapter 12: Noise and 

Vibration 

Details of visual effects are provided in Chapter 14: Seascape, 

Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity 

Details of the local road network are provided in Chapter 16: Transport 

and Access 

Details of bathing water quality are outlines within Chapter 17: Water 

Environment 


11.4.3 The majority of the study area situated to the west of the Wyre Estuary consists 

of land predominantly in urban use. Approximately 20% is agricultural land, of 

which the majority is Grade 3, with a relatively good quality capable of 

producing moderate to high yields of a narrow range of crops. There is also a 

small area of Grade 5 (very poor) land located to the east of Jameson Road 

(refer to Figure 11.1 of Volume 2B). 

11.4.4 There are also two farms located in the south of the study area to the west of 

the estuary. These are Fleet Farm and Farmer Parrs Animal Worldboth situated 

off Rossall Lane (refer to Figure 11.2 of Volume 2B). 

11.4.5 In general the landscape of the study area situated to the east of the Wyre 

Estuary is a flat or gently rolling, lightly populated rural environment situated on 

land classified as a mix of Grade 2 and Grade 3 agricultural land (refer to Figure 


11.4.6 There are a number of individual farmsteads and private properties in the study 

area to the east of the estuary. These include New Hays Farm, Burrows Farm, 

Park Cottage Farm, Cote Walls Farm, Crookabreast Farm, Fern Hill Farm, 

Height o’ th’ Hill, Ivy Cottages, Riverside Cottage, Carter’s Farm and the 

Grange (refer to Figure 11.2 of Volume 2B). 

392

Soils 

11.4.7 The Soilscapes online soil map indicates that the application site is 

characterised by naturally wet and loamy soils of coastal flats, slowly 

permeable, seasonally wet acid loams and clays, and raised bog peat soils. 

Demography 

11.4.8 The Wyre Borough contains two distinct areas that have very different economic 

and social needs. The River Wyre acts as a natural barrier between the urban 

areas of Thornton, Cleveleys and Fleetwood to the west and the more rural 

area of Garstang to the east. The proposed application site traverses both of 

these parts of the Borough. 

11.4.9 Between 2001 and 2009 the population of Wyre has increased by 5% as 

demonstrated in Table 11-6 which presents the mid-year population estimates 

for the borough. Population change for the 12 Lancashire authorities (this 

excludes Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool) between 2001 and 2009 was 

2.6%, 1.8% for the North West and 4.8% for England. 

Table 11-6 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Mid-Year Population 

Estimates for Wyre Borough (2001 – 2009) 

Population 

(thousands) 

Year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

105.8 106.8 108.0 109.0 109.7 110.4 110.8 110.8 111.1 

Source: Office of National Statistics (ONS) 

11.4.10 In terms of age structure, Wyre Borough, has a higher proportion of people 

aged between 45-64 and 65+ than the other 12 Lancashire authorities (refer to 

Table 11-7). Consequently there are a higher number of state pension 

claimants in Wyre than other Lancashire districts. Areas to the east of the River 

Wyre and close to Garstang within the study area are popular residential 

locations for elderly residents. 

Table 11-7 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Resident Population by 

Age Group (mid 2009) 

Area 

Wyre 

Borough 

Population 

(thousands) 

Percentage within each Age Category 

0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ 

111.1 15.1 11.5 22.0 27.7 23.6 

Lancashire 1,165.8 17.2 13.6 24.8 26.7 17.7 

Source: ONS 

11.4.11 ONS has released yearly population projections up to 2033, down to the district 

authority level for each area of England. For the population as a whole, the 

population is projected to increase by 18% between 2008 and 2033 to reach 

393

60.7 million. Projected population growth for the North West is expected to be 

8.7% which is the lowest projected regional growth and within Lancashire 

(excluding Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool) growth is projected to be 

8.6%. Wyre district is projected to experience the second highest rate of growth 

of the Lancashire districts at 13.1%, behind Lancaster at 13.8%. 

Economy and Employment 

11.4.12 The unemployment rate for Wyre is significantly below the Lancashire, regional 

and national averages (refer to Table 11-8). However, disparities exist at the 

ward level with employment and income deprivation levels being highest in the 

Fleetwood area as reflected in the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 results for 

the income and employment deprivation domains which identify some wards as 

having Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) 2 in the 10% most deprived. 

Table 11-8 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Employment and 

Unemployment in Wyre Borough for the Period April 2009 to March 2010 

All People 

Wyre 

(numbers) 

Wyre (%) 

North West 

(%) 

Great Britain 

(%) 

Economically Active 53,200 76.3 74.4 76.5 

In employment 51,700 74.0 67.8 70.3 

Employees 42,300 61.6 59.6 60.9 

Self Employed 9,100 12.0 7.8 9.0 

Unemployed 2,400 4.5 8.7 7.9 

Economically Inactive 15,500 23.7 25.6 23.5 

Source: ONS Annual Population Survey 

11.4.13 Table 11-9 presents details of employment by occupation in Wyre. The highest 

percentage of people are employed in administrative and secretarial 

occupations closely followed by 14.9% working in skilled trade occupations, 

which are both higher than the averages for the North West and Great Britain. 

Table 11-9 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Employment by 

Occupation in Wyre Borough for the Period April 2009 – March 2010 

Occupation 

Type 

Managers and 

Senior Officials 

Professional 

occupations 

Wyre (numbers) Wyre (%) North West (%) Great Britain (%) 

6,600 12.9 14.6 15.7 

4,800 9.3 12.6 13.7 

2 A Lower-layer Super Output Area is the primary area for which deprivation data is released. 

394

Occupation 

Type 

Associate 

professional and 

technical 

Administrative and 

secretarial 

Skilled trade 

occupations 

Personal service 

occupations 

Sales and 

Customer Services 

Occupations 

Process Plant and 

Machine 

Operatives 

Elementary 

Occupations 

Wyre (numbers) Wyre (%) North West (%) Great Britain (%) 

7,200 13.9 13.9 14.7 

8,100 15.7 11.1 11.2 

7,700 14.9 10.4 10.4 

3,800 7.4 9.2 8.7 

5,600 10.8 8.6 7.4 

Unavailable Unavailable 7.5 6.6 

5,300 10.3 11.7 11.1 


11.4.14 Table 11-10 presents a breakdown of employee jobs by industry which 

highlights that service sector employment represents the largest proportion 

which is consistent with trends for the North West and Great Britain. However, 

within Wyre Borough the percentage of employee jobs within the tourism and 

construction industries is slightly above the North West and Great Britain 

averages. 

Table 11-10 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Employee Jobs for 

Wyre Borough for 2008 (Source: ONS Annual Population Survey) 

Employee Jobs by Industry Wyre (%) North West (%) Great Britain (%) 

Manufacturing 9.9 11.6 10.2 

Construction 6.9 5.2 4.8 

Service 80.7 82.1 83.5 

Distribution, hotels & restaurants 27.8 23.5 23.4 

Transport & communications 3.6 5.8 5.8 

Finance, Information Technology, 

other business activities 

9.2 19.7 22.0 

Public admin, education & health 35.3 28.2 27.0 

Other services 4.8 4.9 5.3 

Tourism-related* 9.9 8.2 8.2 

*Tourism consists of industries that are also part of the services industry 

395

11.4.15 Average weekly earnings data is collated for both place of residence and 

workplace location. Residence-based results better reflect the earnings of 

employees living in a particular borough and the data for Wyre Borough is 

presented in Table 11-11. Earnings in Wyre by residence are below the North 

West and Great Britain average which is a similar trend for other Lancashire 

districts. The Lancashire County Council Area Profile for Wyre suggests that 

residents of Wyre Borough have a relatively low earnings potential which has 

associated effects for mortgage/house purchasing capacity, wealth generation 

and quality of life. Average weekly earnings are also higher by place of 

residence rather than by place of work, which demonstrates that people living in 

Wyre are likely to be working outside of the district. 

Table 11-11 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Earnings by Residence 

for Wyre Borough for 2009 

Gross Weekly Pay 

Wyre (£) North West (£) Great Britain (£) 

Full time workers 422.6 460.2 491.0 

Male full-time workers 482.5 498.3 534.4 

Female full-time workers 403.0 408.3 426.6 

Source: ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings – Resident Analysis 

11.4.16 At ward level, there are some significant income disparities with wards in 

Fleetwood recording some of the lowest average income results. 

11.4.17 Table 11-12 presents data about levels of educational attainment for Wyre 

Borough. The data demonstrates that the proportion of people in the borough 

qualified to National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Levels 3 and 4 is lower than 

the national, regional and county level average. 

Table 11-12 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Proportion of the 

Population Aged 16-64 Qualified to Educational Levels 2, 3 and 4 for Wyre 

Borough 

Area NVQ Level 2 (%) NVQ Level 3 (%) NVQ Level 4 (%) 

Wyre 66.1 44.8 23.8 

Lancashire 66.8 49.0 27.7 

North West 64.5 46.9 27.0 

England 65.0 48.9 29.6 


11.4.18 There are four schools and one college within 500 m of the application site 

boundary (refer to Figure 11.2 of Volume 2B), comprising: 

 

 

Larkholme Primary School and Skylarks Nursery School off Windermere 

Avenue 

Flakefleet Primary School on Northfleet Avenue 

396

Fleetwood Cardinal Allen Catholic High School off Melbourne Avenue 

Rossall School along Broadway 

Fleetwood Nautical Campus (part of the Blackpool and Fylde College) 

along Fleetwood Road 

11.4.19 In addition, the William Allen Vocational Enterprise (WAVE) Centre is located on 

Melbourne Avenue next to Cardinal Allen Catholic High School (refer to Figure 


11.4.20 Diagram 11-1 presents quarterly average residential property prices between 

1996 and 2010 for Wyre compared to the North West, Lancashire and England 

and Wales. Overall, there has been an increase in average property values 

which is consistent with national trends. 

Diagram 11-1 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Quarterly Average 

Residential Property Prices between 1996 and 2010 

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Housing 

Statistics provided on Lancashire County Council website 

Tourism 

11.4.21 Tourism is an important component of the Lancashire economy and the 

proximity of Wyre Borough to Blackpool has benefitted the borough’s tourism 

numbers. In 2008 the total revenue generated by tourism for Wyre Borough 

was £242 million, reducing slightly from £243 million in 2007. However, the 

number of tourist days for the borough increased between 2007 and 2008 by 

9%. Tourists are attracted to Wyre Borough as it offers a variety of attractions 

including Cobble Hey Farm and Gardens, The Jungle Queen, Old Holley Farm, 

Farmer Parr’s Animal World, Fleetwood Town Football Club, Fleetwood Market, 

Marine Hall, Copthorne Coarse Fishing Lakes, Garstang Country Hotel and 

Country Club and Fleetwood Museum. 

11.4.22 Tourist facilities within in 500 m of the Project include (refer to Figure 11.2 of 

Volume 2B): 

397

Fleetwood beach 

Cala Gran Holiday Park and Broadwater Caravan Park, both located off 


Flints Caravan Park and Kneps Farm Caravan Park, both located off River 

Road 

Stalmine Hall Park Residential Caravan Site and Woodside Country Park 

Residential Caravan Site situated to the north of Stalmine (residential 

sites) 

Midwood Caravan Park located off Head Dyke Lane 

Sportsmans Caravan Site located on The Heads 

Bridge House Marina and Caravan Park located off Nateby Crossing Lane 

A small unnamed caravan park located off Wardley’s Lane 


11.4.23 There is a network of PRoW within the study area which includes several 

footpaths and bridleways (refer to Figure 11.3 of Volume 2B). These include: 

FP12 

FP11 

BW2a 

FP42 

FP61 

FP45 

FP43 

FP31 

BW29 

FP34 

FP39 

FP4 

FP2 

11.4.24 The Lancashire Coastal Way, a popular 137 mile footpath that follows the 

coastline between Merseyside and Cumbria, traverses the proposed brine 

outfall pipeline along the seawall (refer to Figure 11.3 of Volume 2B). 

11.4.25 In addition the Wyre Way long distance path traverses the application site 

boundary on both sides of the Estuary. To the east it follows the line of the Wyre 

Estuary from Knott End to Hambleton and to the west it runs up through Stanah 

along the Estuary and along West Way eventually linking up with the 

Lancashire Coastal Way. 

11.4.26 There are no areas of open country as defined under the CRoW Act (2000) 

within 500 m of the application site boundary. 

Recreation 

11.4.27 The littoral area where the brine discharge pipe is proposed is largely sand and 

muddy sand. There are a number of popular recreational activities that take 

place within this area, including walking, cycling, bird watching and bathing. The 

conditions in this area are also noted as being suitable for wind surfing, kite 

surfing and occasionally beach buggying. 

398

11.4.28 There are recreational fisheries in this area for cod Gadus morhua, codling 

(immature cod), bass Dicentrarchus labrax, plaice Pleuronectes platessa, and 

rays. Therefore recreational angling is a popular activity that takes place from 

Fleetwood beach along with organised fishing trips on vessels such as the Blue 

Mink. The local NWIFCA fishery officer reports counting over 300 anglers and 

over 100 angling boats operating in this inshore area on one day. 

11.4.29 There are two Sustrans routes within the study area that provide traffic free 

cycle routes, one route follows the route of the Lancashire Coastal Path along 

the sea wall (National Route 62) and the second local route follows the line of 

Broadway between its junction with Rossall School and Hatfield Avenue (see 

Figure 11.3 of Volume 2B). 

11.4.30 There are a number of recreational facilities located within 500 m of the urban 

area of the application site boundary (west of the Wyre Estuary), including 

Fleetwood Promenade, which has undergone recent regeneration. Other public 

and private recreational facilities within this area include (refer to Figure11.2 of 

Volume 2B): 

 

 

 

 

 

The King George’s Memorial Playing Field adjacent to the Fleetwood 

Nautical Campus 

A playing field to the east of Rossall School 

Broadwater Football and Cricket Ground 

Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park and ‘The Model Aerodrome’ off Jameson 

Road 

Wyre Estuary Country Park, located off River Road 

11.4.31 There are also a number of recreational facilities located to the east of the Wyre 

Estuary, within 500 m of the application site boundary (refer to Figure 11.2 of 

Volume 2B), facilities include: 

 

 

 

 

Knott End Golf Club 

The playing field and associated football ground north of Stalmine 

Knott End Sailing Club 

A bowling club by Fowler’s Farm off Cartmell Road 

11.4.32 It should be noted that there are no town and village greens situated within the 

study area. 

Industrial and Commercial 

11.4.33 Industrial and commercial sites within the study area include the Fleetwood 

Docks and associated industries (for example the Fleetwood Wastewater 

Treatment Works), the former ICI Works north of Stanah and the Preesall 

Wastewater Treatment Works south of Knott End Golf Club (refer to Figure 11.2 

of Volume 2B). 

399

Contaminated Land 

Historical Evidence 

11.4.34 A review of the potential historical sources of contamination within the working 

corridor has been undertaken with reference to the historical OS maps provided 

in the Landmark Information Group (2003) report. Potential historical 

contamination sources include former ponds, railways, reservoirs and tram 

roads, areas of possible in-filling, reclaimed land, the former Fleetwood Salt 

Works and associated infrastructure brine wells, areas of possible in-filling, 

tanks, landfill sites and a sewage works. 

11.4.35 The nature and extent of Made Ground and associated contamination from 

previous land uses along the route of the brine discharge pipeline is unknown. 

However, historical researches indicate the presence of infilled ponds along the 

route, of which the infill material could be contaminated. There could also be 

potential contamination from the areas of disused/abandoned railways and road 

construction. Information on the nature, level and extent of any contamination 

from such sources remains unknown at present. 

Landfill History 

11.4.36 The EA website indicates the presence of 15 active and historic landfill sites 

within 500 m of the application boundary. Details for each registered landfill site 

are summarised in Table 11-13 and presented on Figure 11.2 of Volume 1B. 

Table 11-13 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Landfill Sites within 500 

m of the application boundary 

Landfill Name and 

Address 

Land at Jameson 

Road, Fleetwood 

Jameson Road Land 

Fill Site Phase 1, 

Jameson Road, 

Fleetwood, 

Lancashire 

18 Acre Tip, 

Jameson Road, 

Fleetwood 

Licence No. 

Licence 

Holder 

54160 Wyre Borough 

Council 

54096 Sita 

(Lancashire) 

Ltd 

Null 

Fleetwood 

Corporation 

Comments 

This historic landfill was 

previously licensed to accept 

non-biodegradable wastes 

(not construction). 

Historic 

Licensed as a co-disposal 

landfill site. 

Hazardous landfill class. 

Site is currently active 

According to the EA this 

landfill accepted waste from 

premises used wholly or 

mainly for trade, business, 

sport, recreation or 

entertainment (excluding 

household and industrial 

waste) 

Historic 

400


Address 

ICI Chemicals and 

Polymers Limited 

Hillhouse 

International 

Fleetwood Power 

Station, Wyre Dock, 

Fleetwood, 

Lancashire 

Jameson Road 

Power Station, 

Jameson Road, 

Fleetwood, 

Lancashire 

Stanah House Farm, 

River Road, 

Thornton, Lancashire 

Bank Farm Burrows 

Lane, Staynall, 

Lancashire 

Borehole No 107, 

High Gate Lane, 

Little Height o' th' Hill, 

Stalmine, Lancashire 

ICI Mine Subsidence 

Landfill Site, Off Back 

Lane, Preesall, 

Lancashire, FY6 0HX 

Licence No. 

Licence 

Holder 

54006 Hillhouse 

Remediation 

Ltd 

Null 

Null 

Central 

Electricity 

Generating 

Board 

Central 

Electricity 

Generating 

Board 

Comments 

Licensed to accept industrial 

waste. 

Hazardous landfill class. 



historic landfill accepted 

waste from a factory or 

industrial process (excluding 

waste from mines, quarries 

and agricultural wastes). 

Historic 


historic landfill accepted 

waste from a factory or 

industrial process (excluding 

waste from mines, quarries 

and agricultural wastes) and 

household waste. 

Historic 

Null Unknown According to the EA this 

landfill accepted household 

waste. 

Historic 

Null 

Garstang 

Rural District 

Council 



and commercial waste. 

Historic 

Null Null According to the EA this 

landfill accepted waste from a 

factory or industrial process 

(excluding waste from mines, 

quarries and agricultural 

wastes) and Industrial 

wastewater, sewage sludge 

and chemical wastes mixed 

with municipal solid waste). 

Historic 

54026 ICI Chemicals 

& Polymers 

Ltd 

Licensed to accept inert 

materials to assist in the 

infilling of a sub-terranean 

mine subsidence depression. 


North Woods Hill Null Garstang According to the EA this 

401


Address 

Farm, Woods Lane, 

Pilling, Lancashire 

Nateby - Garstang 

Railway Cutting, Park 

Farm, Nateby, 

Garstang, Lancashire 

Park Farm and 

Longmoor Lane, 

Nateby, Near 

Garstang, Lancashire 

Licence No. 

Licence 

Holder 

Rural District 

Council 

Comments 


and commercial waste. 

Historic 


landfill accepted inert waste. 

Historic 


landfill accepted inert waste. 

Historic 

Rossall College 1 Null Null This site was landfilled before 

the controls imposed under 

the Control of Pollution Act 

(i.e. before 14 June 1976). 

Therefore, the Environment 

Agency only has limited 

records for this site. It is 

believed that the site received 

domestic waste before 1950. 

Limited landfill gas monitoring 

has measured low 

concentrations of carbon 

dioxide. 

Historic 

Rossall College 2 Null Null This site was landfilled before 

the controls imposed under 

the Control of Pollution Act 

(i.e. before 14 June 1976). 

Therefore, the Environment 

Agency only has limited 

records for this site. It is 

believed that the site received 

domestic waste before 1950. 

Limited landfill gas monitoring 

has measured low 

concentrations of carbon 

dioxide. 

Historic 

Source: EA Website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk) 

Waste Transfer Sites 

11.4.37 Reference to the Landmark Information Group (2003) report together with a 

web based search, indicates the presence of three registered Waste Transfer 

402

Sites within the application boundary. Details are summarised in Table 11-14 

and presented on Figure 11.2 of Volume 1B. 

Table 11-14 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Waste Transfer Sites 

within the Study Area 

Site Name, 

Address & 

Location 

Jameson Road 

Household Waste 

Recycling Centre 

(HWRC), Fleetwood 

B & M Salvage 

Limited, Unit 1, 

Herring Arm Road, 

Fleetwood 

C & C Autosalvage, 

Sidings Road, 

Fleetwood 

Licence 

No. 

L509 

L326 

Site 

Operator 

Sita 

(Lancashire) 

Ltd 

B&M Salvage 

Fuels Limited 

Comments 

Licensed to accept asbestos, car batteries, 

general household/commercial/industrial waste, 

household chemicals, mineral oils. 

Maximum Input

Official Fisheries Statistics 

11.4.40 There are two sources of official information that can be used to assess fishing 

activity in a particular area. These are the fish landing statistics and the 

observations of fishing activity made by enforcement bodies. 

11.4.41 All commercial fishermen operating within the EU are required by law to report 

their landings. As well as reporting the quantity and type of fish landed, 

fishermen are required to report the area in which the fish were caught. 

11.4.42 Within Europe, the areas where fish are caught in the sea are reported by 

reference to a grid of rectangles established by the International Council for the 

Exploration of the Sea (ICES). These rectangles measure 1 degree of 

longitude wide and half a degree of latitude tall. The grid of ICES rectangles in 

the Irish Sea is illustrated in Diagram 11-2. 

11.4.43 The proposed brine discharge outfall for the Project lies at the eastern edge of 

statistical rectangle 36E6. This ICES rectangle includes all of the Shell Flat and 

Lune Deep fishing areas that were reported by local fishermen to be their key 

areas of activity. 

Diagram 11-2 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - The Irish Sea, Showing 

the Boundary of the Statistical Rectangles used to Report the Location of 

Fishery Landings 

11.4.44 Landings data for ICES rectangle 36E6 have been obtained from the MMO. 

Analysis of this data shows that an average of 1,886 tonnes of fish and shellfish 

were caught from area 36E6 in recent years (2007-2010 3 ), with a value of over 

£2M. Over the same period, landings of fish and shellfish to the port of 

3 This time period has been selected because legislation introduced in 2006 has improved the accuracy of landings data, 

and the inclusion of data from earlier years is likely to result in an under-estimate of the value of landings. 

404

Fleetwood have averaged almost 195 tonnes, with a quayside value of nearly 

£215,000. The landings data are summarised in Tables 11-15 and 11-16. 

11.4.45 Economically, the most valuable fish species landed at Fleetwood are Sole 

Solea solea, Plaice Pleuronectes platessa, Whelks Buccinum undatum, and 

various species of ray (notably the Thornback Ray, Raja clavata, which is 

known locally as Roker). With the exception of whelks, these are species that 

are caught by trawlers operating from the port. 

Table 11-15 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Average fish landings 

of key species (for the period 2007-2010) from ICES rectangle 36E6 to all 

ports per year 

Species Average weight (t) Average Value (£) 

Sole 105.65 £ 771,073 

Queen Scallops 1163.51 £ 440,612 

Scallops 159.92 £ 328,760 

Plaice 129.36 £ 115,530 

Thornback Ray 49.00 £ 57,726 

Whelks 90.19 £ 56,277 

Skates and Rays 38.38 £ 39,882 

Brill 12.67 £ 38,571 

Brown Shrimps 3.72 £ 36,529 

Nephrops (Norway Lobster) 12.75 £ 26,630 

Turbot 5.31 £ 25,979 

Bass 3.93 £ 23,088 

Lobsters 1.22 £ 12,053 

Cod 5.10 £ 9,426 

Crabs (C.P.Mixed Sexes) 9.86 £ 7,740 

Flounder or Flukes 25.87 £ 7,651 

Gurnard and Latchet 11.10 £ 6,838 

Monks or Anglers 2.09 £ 5,771 

Dabs 11.80 £ 3,486 

Spurdog 2.05 £ 3,047 

Lesser Spotted Dog 8.16 £ 2,956 

Lemon Sole 0.74 £ 2,485 

TOTAL 1852.38 £ 2,022,110 

TOTAL* 1886.47 2,035,613 

* This is the total for all species reported in the official statistics. This table only 

shows the main species landed 

405

Table 11-16 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Average fish landings 

of key species (for the period 2007-2010) from ICES rectangle 36E6 to 

Fleetwood Per year 

Species 

Average weight 

(t) 

Average Value (£) 

Sole 8.27 £ 54,463 

Queen Scallops 2.17 £ 2,036 

Scallops 2.33 £ 3,738 

Plaice 66.23 £ 52,349 

Thornback Ray 14.95 £ 15,339 

Whelks 32.95 £ 22,081 

Skates and Rays 18.30 £ 18,091 

Brill 3.31 £ 10,204 

Brown Shrimps 0.01 £ 150 

Nephrops (Norway Lobster) 1.28 £ 3,483 

Turbot 0.76 £ 2,966 

Bass 1.38 £ 8,537 

Lobsters 0.14 £ 1,386 

Cod 1.56 £ 3,041 

Flounder or Flukes 21.29 £ 6,797 

Gurnard and Latchet 5.34 £ 3,410 

Monks or Anglers 0.35 £ 724 

Dabs 6.43 £ 1,744 

Spurdog 1.23 £ 1,510 

Unidentified Dogfish 4.14 £ 1,243 

Mullet – Other 0.29 £ 385 

Tope 1.13 £ 332 

TOTAL 86.39 £ 85,116 

TOTAL* 194.71 £ 214,884 

* This is the total for all species reported in the official statistics. This table only 

shows the main species landed 

Enforcement Observations 

11.4.46 The activities of fishing vessels are monitored by fishery regulators. Some of 

the information from this monitoring activity can help to build up an independent 

picture of the activity of fishing vessels. 

406

11.4.47 The most useful information for this purpose is produced by the Vessel 

Monitoring System (VMS), which records the location and speed of fishing 

vessels every two hours. VMS equipment is required on all fishing vessels 

larger than 15 m length overall. 

11.4.48 For the current assessment, VMS data cannot be used to provide a picture of 

fishing activity because vessels longer than 15 m overall length are not 

permitted to fish within 6 nautical miles of the coast (by a byelaw made by the 

NWIFCA). Thus any VMS records for the area are likely to be related to 

vessels in transit to fishing grounds further offshore, and not indications of 

fishing activity. 

11.4.49 Although the VMS data cannot be used to verify information provided by 

fishermen, interviews were held with fishery officers from enforcement bodies to 

provide independent verification of this information. 

Interviews 

11.4.50 Interviews were held with representatives of the Fleetwood Fishermen’s 

Association, the NWIFCA, and the MMO. The key points made in these 

interviews are summarised below (refer to Appendix 11.1 of Volume 1B for full 

details). 

11.4.51 Fishing activity in the area is governed by local fisheries byelaws (made and 

enforced by the NWIFCA ), as well as national and EU fisheries legislation. The 

NWIFCA byelaw 9 also prevents vessels larger than 15 m overall length from 

fishing within 6 nautical miles of the coast. Only relatively small fishing vessels 

can therefore operate in the vicinity of the Project. 

11.4.52 The Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation has 23 member vessels, of which 

four are shorter than 15 m overall length. Interviews with local fishermen and 

regulators suggest that there are presently only two trawlers that fish in the 

vicinity of the proposed brine discharge outfall off the Fylde coast. These are 

the fishing vessels Albion (LH170) and Emily J (E123). The Albion fishes with 

an otter trawl, and the Emily J is a scalloper and beam trawler. 

11.4.53 A small number of fishermen, including the skipper of the Albion, fish for 

shrimps Crangon crangon along the Fylde coast. These fishermen use “push 

nets”, which are small fishing nets that are pushed along the seabed by 

fishermen wading in the shallow water along the beach. 

11.4.54 The main commercial fisheries in the area were reported to be for plaice 

Pleuronectes platessa, sole Solea solea and roker Raja clavata. During the 

winter months there can also be an occasional fishery for cod and codling 

Gadus morhua in the area. 

11.4.55 The inshore area along the Fylde coast is considered by fishermen to be an 

important nursery area for roker, plaice and sole. 

11.4.56 The main fishing areas in the vicinity of the Project are shown on Diagram 11-3. 

There are trawling areas to the north (in the Lune Deep) and to the west (on 

Shell Flat), as well as push-netting for shrimps at various locations along the 

Fylde coast. 

407

11.4.57 Commercial fishermen noted the importance of the area for recreational 

anglers, who fish inshore of the areas where commercial vessels operate. (The 

activities of recreational anglers is considered within paragraph 11.4.27. 

Diagram 11-3 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Fishing Areas in the 

Irish Sea Reported by Fishermen and Fisheries Regulators 

11.4.58 Interviews with the fishermen operating in the area, fisheries regulators, and 

inspection of the Global Positioning System (GPS) plotter aboard the fishing 

vessel Albion show that there is very little commercial fishing activity close to 

the proposed outfall. Trawlers cannot operate closer than 2 km from the 

proposed outfall because the seabed is too rough to allow them to fish safely. 

11.4.59 There is an overlap between the proposed location of the brine discharge outfall 

pipeline and the push-net fishery for shrimps along the Fylde coast, where the 

outfall crosses the beach area. 

11.4.60 There was some concern that the outfall pipe could have longer-term effects if it 

is not successfully buried. 


11.4.61 Dredging is undertaken in the Wyre Estuary on a regular basis. Dredging 

operations are confined to the two docks situated to the east of the Fleetwood 

peninsular (Wyre Dock and Fleetwood Fish Dock) and the Roll-on Roll-off 

channel. 

408

11.4.62 The ferry service operated by Stena between Fleetwood and Larne ceased 

operation on 24 December 2010. 

11.4.63 Within close proximity of the docks is Fleetwood Harbour Marina which is 

owned and operated by Associated British Ports (ABP). The Fleetwood Harbour 

Yacht Club was created for those based at the marina, has a club house on site 

and organises racing, cruising and social programs for members. The marina 

features 420 berths ranging from 7 m up to 17 m. 



through the desk studies, site visits (surveys) and consultation. A value was 

only assigned to best and most versatile agricultural land as it is not possible to 

determine value / sensitivity of receptors or magnitude of change through the 

use of specific standards for all other receptors identified. Therefore ‘no value’ 

was assigned against all other receptors. Values have been assigned using the 

criteria presented in Table 11-3. 

Table 11-17 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Evaluation of 

Receptors 

Receptor 

Best and Most Versatile agricultural land 

Value 

Mix of Grade 2, 3 and urban within the 

application boundary therefore a Medium – 

Negligible value. 


11.5.1 The following section considers what the future baseline would be without the 

Project. 

11.5.2 An extension/upgrade to the Wyre Way was approved on 7 January 2011 by 

Lancashire County Council. The extension and upgrading works run between 

the Wyre Estuary Country Park at Stanah and Fleetwood Marsh Nature 

Reserve at Jameson Road. The extension/upgrade is proposed to link up with a 

new bridleway which runs around the northern and western perimeter of the 

Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works. This new bridleway was a planning 

condition for the treatment works. The path is to be constructed as part of a 

Section 106 Agreement and it is understood that United Utilities intend to 

construct the path in spring / summer 2011 (refer to Figure 11.2 of Volume 2B). 

11.5.3 In addition the Fleetwood - Thornton AAP identifies an area of land to the south 

and east of Fleetwood Fish Dock as ‘Fleetwood Docks Mixed Use Development 

Area’ set aside for mixed use development and two areas of land to the south 

and west of Fleetwood Fish Dock as ‘Fleetwood Docks Employment Area’ set 

aside for employment use (refer to Figure 11.2 of Volume 1B). 

409







Table 11-18 Land Use and Socio-Economic Assessment - Receptors Potentially 

Affected 

Receptor Type Specific Receptor(s) Nature of Effect 


Best and Most Versatile 


Temporary and permanent loss during the 


Demography Local population No significant change to the local demography 

including population numbers and age 

structure or provision of community facilities. 

Economy and 

Employment 

Individual property prices 

Effects on house prices are not considered 

further in this assessment as the planning 

system does not exist to protect the private 

interests of one person against the activities of 

another, although private interests may 

coincide with the public interest in some cases. 

Therefore it is the issue of amenity that has 

been addressed in this ES through identifying 

changes in noise levels, visual amenity, 

severance of farm holdings etc rather than 

carrying out a study as to how comparable 

schemes have affected property prices in the 

past. 

Local businesses and 

residents of Wyre 

Borough and potentially 

other parts of Lancashire 

The regional and national 

economy 

Creation of employment opportunities 

during the construction, construction and 

operation combined, operation and 

decommissioning phases. 

Upskilling benefits for the local workforce as 

a result of training and apprenticeships 

during the construction, construction and 

operation combined, operation and 


Positive effects for retail outlets during the 


combined, operation and decommissioning 

phases. 

Effects on stability of UK gas prices during 

construction and operation combined and 

operation phases, detail of which are included 

within DCO Application Document Reference 

410


Tourism economy 

Public Rights of 

Way 

Larkholme Primary 

School and Skylarks 

Nursery School 

Flakefleet Primary 

School 

Fleetwood Cardinal 

Allen Catholic High 

School 

Rossall School 

Fleetwood Nautical 

Campus 

WAVE Centre 

Local tourist economy 

and individual caravan 

sites. 

Lancashire Coastal Way 

and FP12 

Wyre Way 

Proposed United Utilities 

Bridleway 

BW2a 

Wyre Way and FP42 

FP61 

FP45 

FP43 

FP31 

BW29 

9.1.5 ‘Preesall Need Case’. The stability of 

gas prices in the UK are therefore not 

considered further within this chapter. 

It is not anticipated that there would be any 

significant effects on these receptors as a 

result of changes in land use. 

No significant effects predicted on the local 

tourism economy or individual caravan sites. 

Temporary disruption to users during the 


Permanent benefits to users during the 


phase, operational phase and the 

decommissioning phase. 



















411


FP34 

FP39 

FP4 

FP2 









Recreation Beach users Dust and noise nuisance during the 


Temporary disruption in terms of 

accessibility. 


Commercial 

Recreational anglers 

The Promenade 

The King George’s 

Memorial Playing Field 

A playing field to the 

east of Rossall School 

Broadwater Football 

and Cricket Ground 


Nature Park and ‘The 

Model Aerodrome’ 

Wyre Estuary Country 

Park 

Knott End Golf Club 

Playing field and 

associated football 

ground north of 

Stalmine 

Knott End Sailing Club 

Bowling club by 

Fowler’s Farm 

Sustrans cycle route 

Fleetwood Docks and 

associated industries 

The former ICI Works 

north of Stanah 

Preesall Wastewater 

Treatment Works 

south of Knott End 

Golf Club 

Temporary disruption in terms of accessibility 



significant effects on these receptors as a 

result of changes in land use. 

However, temporary disruption anticipated for 

National Sustrans Cycle Route 62 and the 

local route following Broadway during 

construction. 


significant effects on receptors as a result of 

changes in land use. 

412


Contaminated 

Land 

Commercial 

Fisheries 


Active and historic 

landfill sites 

Waste transfer sites 

Areas of contaminated 

land 

Trawlers operating 

from Fleetwood 

Shrimp fishing on the 

Fylde coast 

Private boat owners 

Members of the 

Fleetwood Harbour 

Yacht Club 

Fleetwood Fish Dock 



significant effects on receptors as a result of 

changes in land use. 

No negative effects on the operation of fishing 

vessels are expected. 

Minor local effects may arise during 

construction of the brine discharge pipe. 

Local effects may persist if the burial of the 

outfall on the beach area and adjacent 

shallow waters is not successful. 



Temporary disruption to shipping navigation 


Potentially temporary disruption during 

construction phase and construction and 

operation combined phase for users of 

Fleetwood Fish Dock if abstraction causes 

sand accretion within the dock. 




to minimise and potentially significant effects are outlined in Chapter 5 and have 

been considered in this section. 

Construction 


11.7.2 During the construction phase approximately 56.2 ha of Grade 2 agricultural 

land and 36.6 ha of Grade 3 agricultural land would be required. Approximately 

1.1 ha of urban land would be temporarily required. As the Grade 3 land cannot 

be differentiated between 3a and 3b it has been assumed the land is Grade 3a 

(worst case). Therefore the temporary agricultural land take within the 

application boundary has a medium value with a major magnitude of change. 

Effects would therefore be moderate for temporary land take during 

construction. With regard to the EIA Regulations significance of effects on 

agricultural land are therefore considered to be significant. Temporary effects 

on urban land during construction are considered to be neutral. 

11.7.3 In addition, approximately 4.9 ha of Grade 2 agricultural land and 7.1 ha of 

Grade 3 agricultural land would be permanently required. Approximately 0.7 ha 

413

of urban land would be permanently required. Therefore the permanent 

agricultural land take within application boundary has a medium value with a 

moderate magnitude of change. Effects would therefore be moderate during 

construction. With regard to the EIA Regulations effects are considered to be 

significant. 

Demography 

11.7.4 There would be no significant change to the local demography including 

population numbers and age structure or provision of community facilities. This 

is because the workforce would comprise approximately 300 people, some of 

which would be local people. Therefore effects are predicted as negligible. 


significant. 


11.7.5 As stated above the Project would generate approximately 300 jobs during 

construction (years 0-3). Other than specialised personnel the Project would 

also require skilled and semi-skilled personnel who could be sourced locally. A 

broad range of employment opportunities would therefore be available including 

project managers, site managers, engineers, technicians, landscapers, hauliers 

and general labourers, effects are therefore predicted to be moderate positive 

on the local jobs market. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would 

be considered significant. 

11.7.6 In addition, the Project would bring with it opportunities for upskilling the local 

workforce as a result of training and apprenticeships during construction. This is 

likely to lead to minor positive effects on the local economy. There would also 

be minor positive effects for retail outlets during the construction. There would 

also be potential for minor positive, indirect economic impacts as a result of 

multiplier effects, for example, as a result of spending at local retail outlets by 

the construction workforce and the provision of services to the Applicant during 

the construction phase. It is not possible at this stage to provide a meaningful 

estimate of the number of indirect jobs that would be created or their likely 

significance to the local economy. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these 

effects would be considered not significant. 

11.7.7 No effects are anticipated on local schools as a result of the construction works. 

Access would be maintained at all times to educational facilities throughout the 

duration of the construction phase and trenches excavated for pipelines would 

be reinstated following construction. As a result effects are predicted to be 

negligible (with regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be 

considered not significant) and therefore local schools are not considered 


Tourism 

11.7.8 It is unlikely there would be significant effects to tourism revenue or the tourist 

economy at a borough level during construction. A Tourism and Economic 

Impact Assessment was undertaken in June 2010 for the Proposed Ryedale 

Gas Project which states ‘the largest attraction in Ryedale District, 

414

Flamingoland, is located close to the Knapton Gas Facility and until recently the 

Knapton operation had screening issues and was emitting H2S odours. 

However, during this time, Flamingoland attracted in the region of 200,000 

visitors per year and the gas facility did not appear to have a negative impact on 

visitor numbers’. The Tourism and Economic Impact Assessment also 

concluded that ‘providing sufficient screening is provided around the gas 

processing facility the Ryedale Gas Project is unlikely to have an impact on 

tourism’. In addition consultation was undertaken with local authorities and 

tourist boards with existing gas storage infrastructure in place. Key points raised 

during the consultation included: 

 

 

 

 

‘The majority of officers consulted were unaware that gas storage facilities 

existed within the destinations they manage – despite the fact that 

relatively large above ground facilities had been constructed and were 

operating. 

Most officers felt that there could be some disruption to local tourism traffic 

during construction of wellhead facilities and associated pipelines. 

Potential impacts on transport and access is considered further in Chapter 

16: Transport and Access, therefore not considered further in this 

assessment. 

None was aware of any adverse correspondence or comments from 

consumers or from local tourism businesses. 

All stated that they did not believe that the existence and operation of gas 

storage facilities was having a negative impact on tourism volume or value 

at the destination.’ 

11.7.9 Based on the opinions of tourism officers for the above areas, there is no 

evidence to suggest that the Project would have a negative impact on tourism. 

11.7.10 As the majority of the Project is likely to be underground with minimum 

infrastructure above ground potential effects to tourism are therefore likely to be 

negligible. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be 


11.7.11 No effects are anticipated on caravan sites as a result of the construction works. 

Access would be maintained at all times to educational facilities throughout the 

duration of the construction phase and trenches excavated for pipelines would 

be reinstated following construction. As a result effects are predicted to be 

negligible (with regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be 

considered not significant) and therefore caravan sites are not considered 



11.7.12 During the construction period 15 PRoW would be affected. 

11.7.13 There would be temporary disruption for users of the Lancashire Coastal Way 

and FP12 during the construction period as these PRoW are would be closed 

for 24 weeks. During the initial weeks of construction (weeks 1 – 12) the seawall 

is proposed to be closed to pedestrians to allow for the installation of the brine 

discharge pipeline, the removal of existing ramps and the foundations for the 

415

observation platform which would result in minor negative effects for users due 

to the localised and temporary nature of the works. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. Between 

weeks 13 – 24 restrictive pedestrian access would be reinstated, however, this 

would be subject to site deliveries. Users of this footpath would be temporarily 

affected during the construction phase as they would have to find alternative 

routes around the works. 

11.7.14 The proposed haul road to the auger drilling site would cross the Wyre Way 

therefore temporary minor negative effects for users of this footpath are likely 

to arise. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered 

not significant. It is considered that such temporary disruption would last for a 

period of no longer than two months. 

11.7.15 Part of the proposed United Utilities Bridleway is proposed to be closed for six 

weeks during the construction phase in order to install the brine discharge pipe, 

therefore temporary negative effects for users of this bridleway are likely to 

occur. The natural diversion for users would be to use Jameson Road during 

this period. Negative effects are likely to be minor in scale due to the temporary 

and localised nature of the works. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these 


11.7.16 There would be temporary disruption to BW2a during the construction phase to 

allow for the trenching and installation of cable ducts. However, access for 

vehicles, pedestrians and horses is proposed to be maintained using metal 

plates across open trenches. Disruption is not expected to exceed three 

working days. As access would be maintained throughout construction phase 

effects are likely to be negligible. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these 


11.7.17 FP42 forms part of the Wyre Way and is proposed to be diverted for three years 

to allow for the construction phase. Access tracks are proposed along part of 

the line of the existing route of FP42 which would pose safety risks to 

pedestrians if the footpath was not diverted. Gate crossings are therefore 

proposed along the line of the diversion to ensure pedestrian safety during 

construction. Users of the footpath would therefore temporarily be disrupted 

resulting in negative effects. Although the Wyre Way would be diverted for 

three years it is not anticipated that this diversion would result in a significant 

negative effect as the diversion comprises approximately 210 m (0.21 km) of 

the total 66 km route therefore negative effects are likely to be minor in scale. 


significant. Visual impacts arising from the industrialisation of the area and 

views from the diverted Wyre Way are considered further in Chapter 14: 

Seascape, Landscape, townscape and Visual Amenity. 

11.7.18 FP61 follows the route of a proposed access track. It is proposed that this 

footpath would be closed from commencement of the construction phase for 

three years with users temporarily directed along FP45 and FP43. Effects to 

users, although temporary, are likely to be negative and moderate negative in 

scale. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered 

significant. 

416

11.7.19 Users of FP45 would be temporarily affected during the construction phase due 

to the installation of the gated crossing point at its junction with FP61 which 

would be in place for three years, however, effects are likely to be negligible as 

access along this footpath would be maintained throughout the three years. 


significant. 

11.7.20 Temporary disruption to users of FP43 would occur during the construction of 

the access track to the more southerly wellhead compound and during the 

installation of gas and water pipelines. Temporary diversions would be required 

to maintain access, which would lead to minor negative effects to users of this 

PRoW. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered 


11.7.21 It is anticipated that there would be one days’ disruption during the construction 

phase, for users of the following footpaths: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FP31 

BW29 

FP34 

FP39 

FP4 

FP2 

11.7.22 However, it should be noted that pedestrian access would be maintained during 

the single day of construction and there would be no severance issues for 

users, for this reason effects are predicted to be negligible. With regard to the 

EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. Potential 

effects relating to landscape and visual effects and noise disturbance, are 

considered in this Chapters 12: Noise and Vibration and 14: Seascape, 

Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity. 

Recreation 

11.7.23 It is likely that users of the beach area would experience temporary adverse 

impacts such as dust and noise nuisance as a result of trenching during the 

construction phase (this is referred to in Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration). In 

addition, access to the beach would be restricted and there would be temporary 

disruption to users of King George’s Memorial Field due to trenching and pipe 

laying resulting in minor negative effects due to the temporary and highly 

localised nature of the works. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects 


11.7.24 Sustrans routes National Route 62 (the Lancashire Coastal Way) along the sea 

wall and the local route following the line of Broadway between its junction with 

Rossall School and Hatfield Avenue would be temporarily affected by 

construction works while the discharge pipeline is laid over a period of 12 

weeks. This would result in minor negative effects, due to the temporary 

nature of the works (effects predicted on the Lancashire Coastal Way are 

417

included within paragraph 11.7.13 above). With regard to the EIA Regulations, 

these effects would be considered not significant. 

11.7.25 Recreational anglers are likely to experience temporary disruption during the 

construction phase as the brine outfall is buried in the Irish Sea over eight 

months resulting in minor negative effects. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 

these effects would be considered not significant. However recreational fishing 

within the Wyre Estuary would not be affected as directional drilling techniques 

are proposed therefore no construction works would be required within the 

estuary itself. 

11.7.26 Apart from a small area of approximately 154sqm for the observation patform 

on Rossall Promenade land rights for works to areas of open space are to be 

secured by temporary possession powers under the DCO, rather than by 

compulsory purchase. This means that under Section 131 and 132 of the 

Planning Act 2008 no exchange land should be necessary. An applciation is to 

be made for a certificate to this effect from the Secretary of State prior to 

submission of the DCO application. 

Industrial and Commercial 

11.7.27 It is not anticipated that there would be any effects on industrial and commercial 

receptors as a result of changes in land use as effects arising as a result of 

construction would be temporary during the laying of pipelines and access to 

industrial and commercial receptors would be maintained at all times and 

reinstated following construction, effects are therefore likely to be negligible. 


significant. Economic benefits are included within paragraphs 11.7.5 and 

11.7.7. Industrial and commercial resources are not considered further in this 

section as no impacts are anticipated. 

11.7.28 Contaminated Land 

11.7.29 The brine discharge and seawater pipeline route would not pass directly 

through any of the landfill sites or Waste Transfer Sites identified in Section 

11.4, therefore there would be no impact on contaminated land during the 


Commercial Fisheries 

11.7.30 The proposed brine discharge outfall has the potential to impact on commercial 

fisheries. There is no commercial fishing activity in the Wyre Estuary, so no 

effects are expected to arise from the associated proposed directionally drilled 

pipeline and cable crossings. 

11.7.31 Construction effects associated with the proposed brine discharge pipeline 

within the Irish Sea are likely to be limited to the footprint of the proposed brine 

discharge pipeline, and any safety exclusion zone around it. 

11.7.32 It can be anticipated that during the construction phase of the Project there 

would be a restriction zone around the brine discharge pipe within the Irish Sea 

(for safety purposes). It is clear that this would not intrude upon trawling 

grounds, but would overlap with shrimp fishing areas. However, the commercial 

418

shrimp fishery in the area is small, and as previously discussed in section 11.4, 

interviews with local fishermen and official landings statistics estimate an annual 

value of shrimp landings in the area at around £150 over recent years. 

11.7.33 GIS software has been used to calculate the likely overlap between a 300 m 

safety exclusion zone and the shrimping areas in the vicinity of the brine 

discharge pipeline. The extent of the area where fishing might be temporarily 

disrupted is approximately 0.3 km². This disruption would be temporary, and 

would cease when construction is complete. 

11.7.34 Based upon this information, it likely that the construction of the brine discharge 

pipeline will have a negative effect on shrimp fishing. The significance of this 

effect is likely to be minor because it will be both localised and short-term. With 


significant. 


11.7.35 In terms of temporary disruption to shipping navigation in the Irish Sea, it is 

considered unlikely that there would be any potential effects, as the brine 

discharge pipeline and diffuser would be located in the shallows away from 

shipping lanes (particularly the Lune Deep) and channel markings. Safety 

markers would also be installed to mark the construction working area with a 

tug boat, cutter section dredger and crane barge anticipated to be required 

during the duration of the works. Effects are therefore likely to be negligible. 


significant. 

11.7.36 The seawater and brine pipelines crossing the Wyre Estuary would be put in 

place using directional drilling techniques from the shore, therefore would not 

involve any construction in the estuary, impacts to users and navigation in the 

estuary are therefore also likely to be negligible. With regard to the EIA 


11.7.37 There would be up to 80 mega litres of water abstracted per day over the 

cavern washing period from Fleetwood Fish Dock. Abstraction from the dock 

would be constrained by a cut off switch. This means that when the water within 

the dock reaches the agreed level with ABP pumps will stop. This could happen 

for a short period around neap tides. However, abstraction may increase sand 

accretion within the dock and cause the dock to silt up resulting in negative 

impacts. As such the dock would be surveyed prior to abstraction commencing. 

If abstracting does silt up the dock the Applicant would bear the cost of 

additional dredging. Therefore effects are likely to be minor in scale. With 


significant. 



11.7.38 There is no effect on agricultural land additional to that referred to in relation to 

the construction phase. However, it is noted that some permanent land take 

would be required for wellhead construction during the construction and 

419

operation combined phase. As the exact timing is currently unknown such land 

take impacts have been included as part of the construction phase. 

Demography 

11.7.39 There would be no significant change to the local demography including 

population numbers and age structure or provision of community facilities. This 

is because the workforce would comprise approximately 85 people, some of 

which would be local people. Therefore effects are predicted as negligible. 


significant. 


11.7.40 As stated above the Project would generate approximately 85 jobs during the 

construction and operation combined phase (years 3-8). These jobs include 

approximately 35 operational jobs plus occasional contractor maintenance 

company employees and approximately 50 construction jobs (drilling). Other 

than specialised personnel the Project would also require skilled and semiskilled 

personnel who could be sourced locally. A broad range of employment 

opportunities would therefore be available including project managers, 

professional contractors, maintenance staff and general labourers, effects are 

therefore predicted to be minor positive on the local jobs market. With regard 

to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. 

11.7.41 There would also be positive effects for retail outlets during the construction 

and operation combined phase due to potential increased spending of 

approximately 85 employees, however this benefit is likely to be very minor in 

scale. There would also be potential for minor positive, indirect economic 

impacts as a result of multiplier effects, for example, as a result of spending at 

local retail outlets by the construction/operation workforce and the provision of 

services to the Applicant during the construction and operation combined 

phase. It is not possible at this stage to provide a meaningful estimate of the 

number of indirect jobs that would be created or their likely significance to the 

local economy. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be 


Tourism 

11.7.42 There would be no impacts on the tourism economy during the construction and 

operation combined phase as stated in paragraph 11.7.11 there is no evidence 

to suggest that the development or existence of gas processing facilities has a 

negative impact on tourism, impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard 



11.7.43 There would be no effects to users of the PRoW network during the 

construction and operation combined phase as all diversions (as identified for 

the construction phase) would be reinstated to their original routes. However, 

minor positive effects would arise due to completion of the viewing platform at 

the sea wall along the Lancashire Way. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 


420

Recreation 

11.7.44 There would be no potential effects upon beach users during the construction 

and operation combined phase as excavations for pipeline laying undertaken 

during the construction phase would have been reinstated at this point and 

therefore no disruption is anticipated. 

11.7.45 There would be no effects with regard to access for recreational anglers as the 

brine discharge pipeline would be buried and operational. A safety buoy would 

mark the outfall which would reduce risks to small craft fishing in the area. 

However, the operation of the brine discharge pipeline has the potential to affect 

fishing activity indirectly (through impacts on fish stocks or on water movement 

in the area). The potential effect of the brine discharge on fish stocks is 

considered in Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation and the potential 

effect of the outfall on water movement is considered in Chapter 17: Water 

Environment. 

11.7.46 There would be no potential effects on Sustrans routes during the construction 



11.7.47 It is considered that there would be no effects during the construction and 



11.7.48 Only the direct effect of the outfall on commercial fishing activity is assessed 

here. The operation of the proposed brine discharge pipeline has the potential 

to affect fishing activity indirectly (through impacts on fish stocks or on water 

movement in the area). The potential effect of the brine discharge on fish 

stocks is considered in Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation. The 

potential effect of the outfall on water movement is considered in Chapter 17: 

Water Environment. 

11.7.49 There is no overlap between the proposed brine discharge pipeline and 

commercial trawling grounds in the area (refer to the Marine Dispersion 

Modelling Report presented in Appendix 2.2 of Volume 1B). Potential impacts 

on this activity are therefore likely to be negligible. With regard to the EIA 


11.7.50 There is however, an overlap between the proposed brine discharge pipeline 

and the shrimp fishing areas along the Fylde coast, which could therefore 

experience potential adverse impacts. However, as the proposed brine 

discharge pipeline would be buried and operational at this phase shrimp fishing 

would be unaffected therefore direct impacts on shrimp fishing would be 




11.7.51 The proposed brine discharge pipeline in the Irish Sea would be operational 

during this phase with a marker / buoy at the location of the outfall for navigation 

421

safety reasons. As the brine discharge pipe and diffuser would be buried within 

the shallows away from shipping lanes and channel markings impacts are 

considered to be negligible. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects 


11.7.52 The seawater and brine pipelines crossing the Wyre Estuary would be in place 

and operational during this phase, no impacts are anticipated on navigation or 

users of the estuary as per the construction phase. 

11.7.53 During this phase one cavern would be operational, therefore there would be a 

requirement for up to 80 mega litres of water abstracted per day from Fleetwood 

Fish Dock. Abstraction from the dock would be constrained by a cut off switch. 

This means that when the water within the dock reaches the agreed level with 

ABP pumps will stop. This could happen for a short period around neap tides. 

However, abstraction may increase sand accretion within the dock and cause 

the dock to silt up resulting in minor negative impacts. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. As per the 

construction phase, the dock would be surveyed prior to abstraction 

commencing. If abstracting does silt up the dock the Applicant would bear the 

cost of additional dredging. 

Operation 


11.7.54 No additional effects are anticipated during the operation phase over and above 

those identified for the construction phase. 

Demography 

11.7.55 There would be no significant change to the local demography during the 

operation phase (including population numbers and age structure or provision of 

community facilities) this is because the Project would employ 35 permanent 

members of staff. Impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard to the EIA 



11.7.56 As stated above the Project would employ approximately 35 permanent 

members of staff during the operation phase (years 8-40). Other than 

specialised personnel the Project would also require skilled and semi-skilled 

personnel who could be sourced locally. A broad range of employment 

opportunities would therefore be available including management opportunities, 

professional contractors, maintenance staff and general labourers, effects are 

therefore predicted to be minor positive on the local jobs market. With regard 


11.7.57 There would be moderate positive residual effects for the regional and national 

economy as a result of enhanced security of gas supply infrastructure. National 

objectives relating to security of supply cannot be achieved without new 

infrastructure. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would 


422

Tourism 

11.7.58 There are no impacts predicted on the tourism economy during the operation 

phase, impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard to the EIA 



11.7.59 There would continue to be permanent minor positive effects for users of the 

Lancashire Coastal Way and FP12 due to the new viewing platform at the sea 

wall. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not 

significant. 

Recreation 

11.7.60 There would be no effects during the operation phase. Excavations undertaken 

during the construction phase would be reinstated and drilling works would be 

complete, therefore impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard to the 

EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. 

11.7.61 There would be no potential effects upon beach users during the operation 

phase as excavations for pipeline laying undertaken during the construction 

phase would have been reinstated at this point and therefore no disruption is 

anticipated. 

11.7.62 There would be no effects with regard to access for recreational anglers as the 

brine discharge pipeline would be buried and operational. A safety buoy would 

mark the outfall which would reduce risks to small craft fishing in the area. 

However, the operation of the brine discharge pipeline has the potential to affect 

fishing activity indirectly (through impacts on fish stocks or on water movement 

in the area). The potential effect of the brine discharge on fish stocks is 

considered in Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation and the potential 

effect of the outfall on water movement is considered in Chapter 17: Water 

Environment. 

11.7.63 There would be no potential effects on Sustrans routes during the operation 

phase. 


11.7.64 It is considered that there would be no effects during the operation phase, 

impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 



11.7.65 It is anticipated that the cavern washing process would be undertaken 

intermittently over the 40 year operational phase, therefore this process has the 

potential to effect fishing activity indirectly (through impacts on fish stocks or on 

water movement in the area). The potential effect of the brine discharge on fish 

stocks is considered in Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation. The 

potential effect of the outfall on water movement is considered in Chapter 17: 

Water Environment. 

423

11.7.66 Impacts to commercial fisheries are as per those at the construction and 



11.7.67 The brine discharge pipe in the Irish Sea would remain in place during this 

phase and a marker / buoy located at the outfall for navigation / safety reasons. 

As the brine discharge pipe and diffuser would be buried within the shallows 

away from shipping lanes and channel markings impacts are considered to be 



11.7.68 The caverns would be filled with brine every 10-15 years to allow mechanical 

testing of their integrity. Therefore the water washing infrastructure would 

remain in place for the duration of the Project and periodically be used. As 

surveys would be undertaken at the dock prior to abstraction commencing and 

the Applicant would bear any costs of additional dredging if the dock were to silt 

up impacts are predicted to be minor negative. With regard to the EIA 




11.7.69 Effects on agricultural land during the decommissioning phase are uncertain as 

effects would depend on the future use of the Project and whether structures 

would be removed and land restored to its former condition. However, it is 

assumed that the worst case scenario in this context would be to permanently 

lose the agricultural land affected and therefore impacts would be no more 

significant than to those described for the construction phase. 

Demography 

11.7.70 There would be no significant change to the local demography during the 

decommissioning phase (including population numbers and age structure or 

provision of community facilities) this is because the Project would employ 

approximately 20 temporary members of staff. Impacts therefore would be 




11.7.71 As stated above the Project would employ approximately 20 temporary 

members of staff during the decommissioning phase (years 40+). Other than 

specialised personnel the Project would also require demolition contract staff 

and duty of care staff. Due to this small number of jobs that would be created 

effects are likely to be negligible. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these 


424

Tourism 

11.7.72 There are no impacts predicted on the tourism economy during the 

decommissioning phase, impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard to 

the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. 


11.7.73 Effects on the PRoW network during the decommissioning phase are uncertain, 

as effects would depend on the future use of the Project. It is not expected that 

the effect would be any more significant than described for the other phases 

and would be relatively short term. 

Recreation 

11.7.74 Effects on recreation during the decommissioning phase are uncertain, as 

effects would depend on the future use of the Project. It is not expected that the 

effect would be any more significant than described for the other phases and 

would be relatively short term. 


11.7.75 It is considered that there would be no significant effects during the 

decommissioning phase as any existing contaminated land would have been 

remediated during the construction phase and effective site management during 

the various phases of the project should ensure there are no residual 

contaminated land issues at the end of the Project lifetime. 


11.7.76 Assuming the brine discharge pipe remains in-situ, there would be no impacts 

on shrimp fishing. Impacts therefore would be negligible. With regard to the 

EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. However, 

if the pipeline was removed, then the potential effects would be similar to those 

outlined with regard to the installation of the pipeline during the construction 

phase. 


11.7.77 In terms of temporary disruption to shipping navigation in the Irish Sea during 

decommissioning, it is considered unlikely that there would be any potential 

significant effects, as the brine discharge pipe and diffuser are located in the 

shallows away from shipping lanes (particularly the Lune Deep) and channel 

markings. Effects are therefore likely to be negligible if infrastructure were to 

remain in place or removed following operation. With regard to the EIA 


11.7.78 During decommissioning it is uncertain as to whether pipelines crossing the 

Wyre Estuary would remain in place and operational or be removed. 

11.7.79 It is uncertain as to whether the decommissioning phase would lead to impacts 

on Fleetwood Fish Dock. If the cavern washing infrastructure were to remain insitu 

and periodically utilised decommissioning impacts would be minor 

425

negative as the washing process may lead to the Fish Dock to become silted 

up and additional dredging would be required. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. If the 

infrastructure were to be removed completely during decommissioning, effects 

would be similar to those predicted during construction. 




Construction 

11.8.2 The Applicant would engage with local suppliers and businesses to maximise 

opportunities to use local labour and local suppliers once permission has been 

granted. In addition the Applicant would seek to develop links with local 

apprenticeships to maximise opportunities for local employment and training. 

11.8.3 The Applicant would liaise with key consultees and third parties to determine 

potential wider community benefits that could be delivered as part of the 

Project’s development. 

11.8.4 Construction activity would be programmed to minimise disturbance to local 

roads, footpaths and to minimise adverse effects on amenity which could affect 

the attractiveness of the area for tourists. The preparation of a Construction 

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will assist this aspect of the 

mitigation along with the implementation of the Landscape and Ecological 

Management Strategy Plan (LEMSPPlan. 

11.8.5 The Applicant would engage with Lancashire County Council to consider 

opportunities to develop enhancement opportunities for the PRoW affected by 

the Project that complement the RoWIP. Access would be maintained at all 

times at footpaths where diversions are not required but would be temporarily 

affected by construction activity. 

11.8.6 The Applicant would ensure clear diversion signs are provided on all public 

rights of way affected by construction works including FP12 and the United 

Utilities bridleway. A temporary crossing point would be provided over the haul 

road during the two month construction period over the Wyre Way where it is 

anticipated that the disruption will occur. 

11.8.7 Best practice methods for protecting the integrity and quality of soil resources 

during the construction phase would be developed from the Construction Code 

of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (Defra, 2009) 

and Defra’s ‘Good practice Guide for handling Soils’. 

11.8.8 Access roads that are required would be of the minimum dimension possible. 

11.8.9 The Applicant would comply with the conditions outlined within the Consent to 

Discharge (refer to Appendix 2.1 of Volume 1B) and the Deemed Marine 

Consent (refer to DCO Application Document Reference 4.2). 

426

11.8.10 Statutory compensation would be paid in respect of any valid claims in relation 

to any land take. 


11.8.11 Mitigation measures for the construction phase would be applicable to the 

construction and operation combined phase. 

Operation 

11.8.12 It is not anticipated that any further mitigation measures would be required 

during the operational phase. 


11.8.13 Further consideration would be given by the Applicant to the potential legacy 

benefits that could be delivered by the Project for the local community both 

socially and economically. Mitigation measures for the construction phase 

would be applicable to this phase. 





Construction 

11.9.2 There would remain a temporary and permanent loss of Grades 2 and 3 

agricultural land to the footprint of the above-ground elements of the Project. 

Temporary and permanent agricultural land take effects would be moderate 

adverse and therefore significant with regards to the EIA Regulations. 

11.9.3 Moderate positive residual effects on the local economy are anticipated as a 

result of the direct and indirect temporary employment created by the Project. 

With regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be considered 

significant. 

11.9.4 Residual minor negative impacts would remain during the construction period 

for the Lancashire Coastal Way and FP12, the proposed United Utilities 

Bridleway, the Wyre Way and FP42 and FP43. In addition residual moderate 

negative impacts are anticipated for FP61 during the construction phase. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be considered 

significant. 

11.9.5 Uses of the beach, King George’s Memorial Field, Sustrans route National 

Route 62, the local Sustrans route and recreational anglers would experience 

temporary disruption during the construction phase resulting in minor negative 

effects. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these effects would be considered 


427

11.9.6 Minor negative residual effects are anticipated on shrimp fishing within the Irish 

Sea along with minor negative residual effects upon the Fleetwood Fish Dock 

if the water washing process leads to the dock becoming silted up. With regard 

to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be considered not 

significant. 


11.9.7 There would remain a temporary and permanent loss of Grades 2 and 3 

agricultural land although the majority of land affected during the construction 

phase would have been reinstated. Temporary and permanent agricultural land 

take effects would be moderate adverse and therefore significant with regards 

to the EIA Regulations. 

11.9.8 Minor positive residual effects on the local economy are anticipated for this 

phase as a result of the direct and indirect temporary and permanent 

employment created by the Project. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these 

residual effects would be considered significant. 

11.9.9 There would be permanent minor positive residual effects for users of the 


wall. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be 


11.9.10 Abstraction may increase sand accretion within the dock and cause the dock to 

silt up resulting in minor negative impacts. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 

these effects would be considered not significant. As per the construction 

phase the dock would be surveyed prior to abstraction commencing. If 

abstracting does silt up the dock the Applicant would bear the cost of additional 

dredging. 

Operation 

11.9.11 There would remain a permanent loss of Grades 2 and 3 agricultural land. 

Temporary and permanent agricultural land take effects would be moderate 

adverse and therefore significant with regards to the EIA Regulations. 

11.9.12 Minor positive residual effects on the local economy are anticipated as a result 

of the direct and indirect temporary employment created by the Project. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be considered 

significant. 

11.9.13 There would be moderate positive residual effects for the regional and national 

economy as a result of enhanced security of gas supply infrastructure. National 

objectives relating to security of supply cannot be achieved without new 

infrastructure. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would 


11.9.14 There would be permanent minor positive residual effects for users of the 


wall. With regard to the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be 


428

11.9.15 The Fleetwood Fish Dock would experience Minor negative residual effects if 

the water washing process leads to the dock becoming silted up. With regard to 

the EIA Regulations, these residual effects would be considered not 

significant. 


11.9.16 Effects on agricultural land during the decommissioning phase are uncertain as 

effects would depend on the future use of the Project and whether structures 

would be removed and land restored to its former condition. However, it is 

assumed that the worst case scenario in this context would be to permanently 

lose the agricultural land affected and therefore impacts would be no more 

significant than to those described for the construction phase. 

11.9.17 Effects on the PRoW network during the decommissioning phase are uncertain, 

as effects would depend on the future use of the Project. It is not expected that 

the effect would be any more significant than described for the other phases 

and would be relatively short term. 

11.9.18 Effects on recreation during the decommissioning phase are uncertain, as 

effects would depend on the future use of the Project. It is not expected that the 

effect would be any more significant than described for the other phases and 

would be relatively short term. 

11.9.19 It is considered that there would be no significant effects during the 

decommissioning phase as any existing contaminated land would have been 

remediated during the construction phase and effective site management during 

the various phases of the project should ensure there are no residual 

contaminated land issues at the end of the Project lifetime. 

11.9.20 During decommissioning it is uncertain as to whether pipelines crossing the 

Wyre Estuary would remain in place and operational or be removed. 

11.9.21 It is uncertain as to whether the decommissioning phase would lead to impacts 

on Fleetwood Fish Dock. If the cavern washing infrastructure were to remain insitu 

and periodically utilised decommissioning impacts would be minor 

negative as the washing process may lead to the Fish Dock to become silted 

up and additional dredging would be required. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, these effects would be considered not significant. If the 

infrastructure were to be removed completely during decommissioning, effects 

would be similar to those predicted during construction. 


11.10.1 No significant difficulties have been encountered in compiling this Chapter. 

11.11 Summary 

11.11.1 Grades 1, 2 and Grade 3a land are classed as best and most versatile 

agricultural land. The Project would require Grade 2 and 3 land for the 

permanent Project buildings. Land which is not permanently taken would be 

reinstated. 

429

11.11.2 Positive effects on the local economy are anticipated during the construction 

phase, the construction and operation combined phase, and the operation 

phase, through the creation of direct and indirect employment and increased 

spending within local retail outlets. In addition, there would be opportunities for 

improving local workforce skills as a result of training and apprenticeships 

(especially during construction). There would be positive effects for the regional 

and national economy as a result of enhanced security of gas supply 

infrastructure. National objectives relating to security of supply cannot be 

achieved without new infrastructure. Effects on the tourism economy are likely 

to be negligible. 

11.11.3 Two recreational routes (the Wyre Way and Lancashire Coastal Way), 2 

footpaths and 1 bridleway are likely to be temporarily affected by the Project 

during the construction phase, after which, these routes would be reinstated. 

Clear diversion signs would be provided on all routes potentially affected. In the 

long-term, pedestrians and other path users are likely to experience benefits as 

a result of the proposed viewing platform at the seawall at Rossall. 

11.11.4 The Project is unlikely to generate any long-term residual effects on beach and 

marine activities. However, users of the beach, King George’s Memorial Field 

and cycle routes, together with recreational anglers using the Irish Sea, would 

experience temporary disruption during the construction phase. Construction 

disturbance would be minimised by adherence to the CEMP and best practice 

methods. 

11.11.5 In addition, water abstraction required in Fleetwood Fish Dock may increase 

sand accretion within the dock and cause the dock to silt up, during the 

construction, construction and operation combined phases. This could 

generate adverse impacts upon the Fleetwood Fish Dock. If water abstraction 

does generate such silting, the Applicant would bear the cost of additional 

dredging. Conditions outlined in the Deemed Marine Licence would be 

complied with. 

11.11.6 During the construction phase there would be a 300 metre safety exclusion 

zone enforced around the proposed brine discharge pipe (while the pipe is 

buried), which would overlap with shrimping areas leading to temporary adverse 

effects. However, during the construction and operation combined, operation 

and decommissioning phases there would be no effects on shrimp fishing as 

the proposed brine discharge would be buried. 


Admiralty Charts and Publications (2010) Morecambe Bay and Approaches 

Admiralty Chart 1:50000 

Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (2009) Construction Code 

of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011a) Overarching National 

Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

430

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011b) National Policy Statement 




HMSO (2000) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 




Report 

Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council, Blackburn with Darwen Borough 

Council (2005) Rights of Way Improvement Plan 

MARIO (Maps and Related Information Online – http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk) 

Ordnance Survey (2000) Explorer Sheet 296: Lancaster, Morecambe & 

Fleetwood 

Wyre Borough Council (1999) The Wyre Borough Saved Local Plan 

www.magic.gov.uk 


www.statistics.gov.uk 

http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/office_of_the_chief_executive/lancashireprofile/ 

431

432

12 NOISE AND VIBRATION 


12.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Noise and Vibration assessment, 

undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited and AcousticAir Limited. It 

identifies the methodology used to assess effects, existing and future baseline 









the ES. 

12.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendices 12-1, 12-2 and 12-3 

of Volume 1B and Figures 12-1, 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4 of Volume 2B. 




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Noise and 

Vibration in the context of this assessment. 

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

12.2.2 National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-1 ‘Overarching National Policy Statement 

for Energy’ (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011) sets out national 

policy for the energy infrastructure. It has effect on the decisions by the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on applications for energy 

developments that fall within the scope of the NPSs. 

12.2.3 EN-1 contains policy and guidance on generic impacts in Part 5, including noise 

and vibration, where Section 5.11 sets out the factors that the noise and 

vibration assessment should consider. 

Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply 

Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) 

12.2.4 The National Policy Statement (NPS), ‘Revised Draft National Policy Statement 

for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4)’ (Department of 

Energy and Climate Change, 2011), taken together with the ‘Overarching 

National Policy Statement for Energy’ (EN-1), provides the primary basis for 

decisions by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on applications it 

receives for gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines. 

433

12.2.5 Applicants should ensure that their applications, and any accompanying 

supporting documents and information, are consistent with the instructions and 

guidance given to applicants in this NPS, EN-1 and any other NPSs that are 

relevant to the application in question. 

12.2.6 Part 2 (Assessment and Technology Specific Information) sets out the criteria 

for assessing noise and vibration impacts for both natural underground gas 

storage and for gas reception facilities. 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 

12.2.7 Once the Project is completed, any noise and vibration from the Project’s 

operations will be subject to statutory nuisance laws. Part 3 of the 

Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Noise and Statutory 

Nuisance Act 1993, contains the main legislation on statutory nuisance and 

enables local authorities and individuals to take action to secure the abatement 

of a statutory nuisance. In terms of noise, a statutory nuisance is defined as 

‘noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance’. 

Care must be taken to ensure that noise and vibration from the development 

does not cause a statutory nuisance. 

Control of Pollution Act 1974 

12.2.8 Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 cover noise and 

vibration from construction sites. Section 72 of the Act also empowers the 

Secretary of State to approve statutory Codes of Practice for the control of 

specific noise types, which local authorities and contractors can be expected to 

take into account. 

12.2.9 Section 60 of the Act allows local authorities to serve notices restricting the 

hours of operation and the plant that can be used on a construction site, and to 

set noise level limits for noise emitted from a construction site. Section 61 of the 

Act allows contractors to apply to a local authority for prior approval of 

construction works based on a description of the works and the measures that 

would be put in place to control noise and vibration impacts. 

BS 5228:2009 'Noise control on construction and open sites' 

12.2.10 There are no fixed national noise criteria for limiting or assessing noise from 

construction sites. Statutory guidance on assessing and controlling noise from 

construction sites can be found in British Standard BS 5228:2009: ‘Noise and 

vibration control on construction and open sites’. Additionally the Control of 

Pollution Act 1974 specifically requires that the advice within this Code of 

Practice, which is approved by the Secretary of State, is considered when 

dealing with noise and vibration from construction activities. 

12.2.11 BS 5228 provides procedures for predicting noise from construction activities 

and also recommends procedures to control and mitigate noise from 

construction sites. 

434

BS 8233:1999 ‘Noise insulation and noise reduction for buildings’ 

12.2.12 General guidance on acceptable noise levels within buildings is provided in BS 

8233 ‘Noise insulation and noise reduction for buildings’. This Code of Practice 

suggests good and reasonable levels of noise for different types of internal 

spaces. 

BS 4142:1997 ‘Method for the rating of industrial noise affecting 

mixed residential and industrial areas’ 

12.2.13 BS4142 provides a method for determining the industrial noise level and 

background noise level outside of a building and assessing whether the 

industrial noise is likely to give rise to complaints from residents. The industrial 

noise level is required to be corrected with any acoustic features to give a rating 

level. 

World Health Organisation 

12.2.14 The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ 

(2000) discusses the issue of community noise and provides health-based 

noise guidelines, among others specifically for external noise levels in amenity 

areas such as gardens. 

Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) 

12.2.15 The ‘Noise Policy Statement for England’ (Defra, 2010) sets out the long term 

vision of Government noise policy, which is to promote good health and a good 

quality of life through the management of noise within the context of 

Government policy on sustainable development. 

Regional Policy 

12.2.16 The North West of England Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 identifies 

eight key principles, including promoting sustainable economic development 

and promoting environmental quality. 

12.2.17 Policy EM1 deals with the integrated enhancement and protection of the regions 

environmental assets and the regions environmental assets should be 

identified, protected, enhanced and managed. 

Local Planning Policy 

12.2.18 The Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2006 was originally adopted in 

December 2001. Policy 2 of the Plan seeks to ensure the full consideration of 

environmental impacts and states that proposals for minerals and wastes 

developments will only be permitted if it is satisfactorily demonstrated that all 

material impacts, including noise, that may lead to a loss of or damage to 

amenity that would adversely affect people, can be eliminated or reduced to 

acceptable levels. 

435


12.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Noise and 

Vibration chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). 

12.3.2 The assessment considers potential noise and vibration impacts emanating 

from the Project and their effects on sensitive receptor locations and people 

who are likely to be exposed to changes in such levels arising from the 

construction and operation of the Project. 

12.3.3 The assessment has been carried with due consideration of the provisions in 

Horizontal Guidance Note H3 for Noise, Part 1 and Part 2, as required in 

Guidance for the Gasification, Liquefaction and Refining Sector Guidance Note 

IPPC S1.02 (Environment Agency, 2005). 

Construction Noise 

12.3.4 Construction noise impacts were assessed in accordance with BS 5228: 2009 

(Code of practice for noise and vibration control on open and construction 

sites). BS 5228-1 gives recommendations for basic methods of noise control 

relating to construction and open sites. It applies to work activities and 

operations that generate significant noise levels. It also includes industryspecific 

guidance. 

12.3.5 BS 5228-2 deals with vibration control on construction and open sites. BS5228 

also provides guidance concerning methods of predicting and measuring noise 

and assessing its impact on those exposed to it. 

12.3.6 The activity L Aeq has been corrected for source-receiver distance. For the 

purposes of this assessment, noise propagation over hard ground has been 

assumed, which presents a possible worst-case scenario. The propagation of 

noise over hard ground to receptor locations has been predicted using the 

following formula, as described in BS5228: 

k h = 20 x LOG (R/r) 

Where: 

k h = the correction for propagation across hard ground 

R = the distance to the receptor location 

r = the distance of 10 m at which the SPL has been measured 

Construction Traffic 

12.3.7 Noise calculations were predicted using the technical memorandum issued by 

the Department of Transport and Welsh Office Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 

(CRTN). CRTN was produced in 1975 and updated in 1988 and it is still the 

standard method for calculating noise from a road in the UK. In the UK the 

standard index used for traffic noise is the L A10,18-hour level, which is quoted in 

decibels. 

436

12.3.8 Construction traffic noise impacts were calculated as a L A10, 18-hour as well as an 

hourly average to present a worst case during peak traffic flows. 

Operational Plant Noise 

12.3.9 Noise from any plant to be installed on the application site can be assessed in 

accordance with British Standard BS 4142:1997 ‘Method for rating of industrial 

noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’. The guidance provided 

within BS 4142 provides a method whereby the likelihood of complaints due to 

noise from industrial sources can be assessed. 

12.3.10 The standard advises that the existing background noise levels outside noise 

sensitive premises are compared with the rating noise levels from any nearby 

industrial activities. The rating noise level should include corrections for any 

acoustic character to the noise that makes it more readily discernible to a 

listener (e.g. whines, crashes, bangs etc). 

12.3.11 The background noise level (L A90 ) is the noise level that is exceeded for 90% of 

the monitoring period at the assessment location. For BS 4142 it is usual to 

measure the background noise level at the nearest noise sensitive receptor to 

the industrial noise source but in the absence of noise from the industrial 

source. The specific noise level is the L Aeq produced by the noise source under 

investigation, measured as close as possible to the source, over a given 

reference time interval. 

12.3.12 The rating noise level is the specific noise level plus any adjustments for the 

acoustic characteristics of the noise as specified in clause 8.2 of BS4142. An 

adjustment of +5dB is applied when the specific noise has a discrete 

distinguishable tone or distinct impulsive characteristic. 

12.3.13 The greater the difference between the background noise level and the rating 

level, the greater the likelihood of complaints. 

 

 

 

A difference of around +10 dB or more indicates that complaints are likely 

A difference of around + 5 dB is of marginal significance 

If the rating level is more than 10 dB below the measured background 

noise level then this is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely 

12.3.14 BS 4142 states that this method is not suitable for assessing the noise 

measured inside buildings or when the background and rating noise levels are 

both very low. The standard considers background noise levels below about 30 

dB and rating levels below about 35 dB to be very low. 

12.3.15 Where it is deemed that BS 4142 is not a suitable method of assessment, an 

alternative method such as BS 8233 may be used. BS8233 sets out noise level 

targets for spaces within buildings. BS8233 also includes information on sound 

insulation within buildings and sound insulation properties of building materials 

and forms of construction. 

12.3.16 This guidance sets out recommended internal noise levels for acceptable living 

and working conditions, set out in Table 12-1. 

437

Table 12-1 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Design Range for Acceptable 

Indoor Noise Levels (BS 8233) 

Criterion Typical Situations Design range L Aeq,T , dB 

Good 

Reasonable 

Reasonable 

conditions for study 

and work requiring 

concentration 

Library, cellular office, 

museum 

Staff room 

Meeting room, executive 

office 

40 

35 

35 

50 

45 

40 

Reasonable listening 

conditions 

Classroom 

Church, lecture theatre, 

cinema 

35 

30 

40 

35 

Reasonable 

resting/sleeping 

conditions 

Living rooms 

Bedrooms 

30 

30 

40 

35 

Note: For reasonable conditions at night BS 8233 advises that the L Amax noise 

level from individual noise events should not exceed 45 dB in bedrooms 

12.3.17 In addition, the guidance suggests that a desirable noise level in gardens and 

balconies is 50 dB L Aeq,T and 55 dB L Aeq,T should be regarded as the upper limit. 

Operational Traffic Noise 

12.3.18 The assessment of operational impacts from road traffic noise has been 

undertaken in accordance with DMRB Volume 11, Part 7, Section 3 – Noise and 

Vibration. 

12.3.19 Noise calculations were predicted using the technical memorandum issued by 

the Department of Transport and Welsh Office Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 

(CRTN). CRTN was produced in 1975 and updated in 1988 and it is still the 

standard method for calculating noise from a road in the UK. In the UK the 

standard index used for traffic noise is the L A10,18-hour level, which is quoted in 

decibels. 

12.3.20 CRTN calculates the L A10, 18-hour using the following traffic composition 

 

 

 

18 Hour annual average weekday traffic flow 

Percentage of heavy goods vehicles 

Average speed 

12.3.21 To determine which road links would be affected within the study area traffic 

volumes on the existing roads which would increase by at least 25% or 

decrease by 20% when the project is completed would normally be selected. 

This change in traffic volume is equivalent to a 1 dB(A) change in noise level, 

which is the minimum change that can be detected by the human ear in the 

short term. Calculations were undertaken at existing sensitive receptors within 

600m of these affected routes as recommended in DMRB. 

438

12.3.22 A noise model was created using acoustic modelling software known as “IMMI” 

to calculate the noise level in terms of dB L A10 18 hour at each sensitive receptor at 

a default height of 1.5m. Noise levels were calculated for receptors locations for 

2024. 




 

 







 

 

British Standard (BS) 5228: 2009 Code of practice for noise and 

vibration control on open and construction sites Part 1 – Noise and 

Part 2 – Vibration (BSI, 2009) 

BS 4142: 1997 Method for rating of industrial noise affecting mixed 

residential and industrial areas (BSI, 1997) 

Undertaking site visits (surveys, monitoring etc) within the agreed study 

area(s) 

Study Area(s) 

12.3.24 The construction noise assessment has considered noise impacts from the 

various construction activities in distance bands up to 200 m from source. 

Management of construction noise impacts to meet limits at the closest 

receptors would ensure that significant construction noise impacts do not 

extend beyond 200 m from source. For noise impacts from works on the brine 

discharge and diffuser installation predictions were made in distance bands up 

to 300 m considering the distance from the works to the closest onshore 

receptor. 

12.3.25 The assessment of noise and vibration from operational plant has considered 

the impacts at the closest receptors to the application boundary. By ensuring 

that noise impacts are at acceptable levels at the closest receptor locations, 

noise levels would be acceptable at receptor locations further afield. 

Representative receptor locations were selected through consultation with Neil 

Martin, EHO for Wyre Borough Council (WBC), and baseline noise surveys 

were carried out at these locations. 

12.3.26 The traffic noise assessment has considered receptor locations within 600 m of 

affected links, in accordance with the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ 

DMRB Volume 11 Section 3, Part 7’ (HA 213/11) 

439


12.3.27 During consultation with WBC it was indicated that previous baseline noise data 

collected in 2007 would not be valid and a new noise baseline needed to be 

established with due consideration of the nearest noise sensitive properties 

along the NTS Interconnector Pipeline and around the Gas Storage Facility. 

12.3.28 WBC recommended that the caravan park at Stanah, the new residential 

development at Fleetwood Docks, and the caravan parks on the B5268 be 

included, in addition to any residential or sensitive use properties in the vicinity. 

12.3.29 NHS Foundation Trust raised concerns regarding construction and operational 

noise and vibration impacts at Rossall Hospital on the Fleetwood sea front. . 

12.3.30 In agreement with the EHO for WBC, baseline noise monitoring was undertaken 

between 20 and 25 January 2011 at the locations listed in Table 12-2 and 

presented on Figure 12-1 of Volume 2B. The long-term monitoring locations 

are allocated the prefix LTN before the location number, and the short-term 

locations are allocated the prefix STN before the location number. 

12.3.31 The long-term monitoring locations were selected to provide a baseline against 

which to assess construction and operational noise impacts and covered both 

typical weekday and weekend to consider times when background noise levels 

would be at their lowest. The short-term measurement locations were selected 

to consider construction noise impacts only, and relate to the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline only, as no operational noise impacts are expected from 

this part of the Project. 

Table 12-2 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Baseline Noise Monitoring 

Locations 

Number Location 

Rationale 

LTN 1 Rossall Hospital Potential noise impacts from construction 

works at the seawall and laying of the 

brine discharge pipe 

LTN 2 

LTN 3 

LTN 4 

Broadwater Caravan 

Park 

Harbour Village 

residential development 

at the Fish Dock 

Stanah House Caravan 

Park 

Potential noise impacts during 

construction and from the vent on the 

brine discharge pipe 

New residential development with site 

boundary likely to be approximately 50 m 

from the Seawater Pumping Station 

Noise impacts from the southern sea 

crossing. This site is situated away from 

busy roads and is representative of 

quieter noise levels at the various 

caravan parks in the area 

LTN 5 Cote Walls Farm Closest receptor location to the Gas 

Compressor Compound and the Booster 

Pump Station 

440

Number Location 

LTN 6 

The Heads Caravan 

Park 

Rationale 

Representative location for the 

Sportsman’s Caravan Park 

LTN 7 Carter’s Farm Potentially exposed to construction and 

operational noise impacts 

LTN 8 Little Height o' th’ Hill* Elevated receptor location potentially 

exposed to operational and construction 

noise. 

STN 1 

STN 2 

Fernacre, Cemetery 

Lane 

Elm Farm, Station 

Road, Nateby 

Potentially exposed to noise during 

construction of the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline 

This location would potentially be 

exposed to noise during construction of 

the Interconnector Metering Station on 

the NTS Interconnector Pipeline route 

* During consultation with landowners to agree access to the monitoring 

locations, access to Little Height o’ the' Hill and Height o’ the' Hill was refused. 

As a result, it has subsequently been agreed with the EHO from Wyre BC that 

monitoring does not need to be undertaken at this location 

12.3.32 It was agreed with the EHO for WBC that baseline noise monitoring at receptor 

locations would be carried out on a typical weekday and a weekend to account 

for times of the week when noise levels may vary due to a change in traffic 

volumes or other activities that contribute to the local noise profile. 

12.3.33 Through consultation with Natural England and the Royal Society for the 

Protection of Birds (RSBP), it was also agreed to carry out noise monitoring at 

The Heads and Arm Hill. It was proposed that a 24 hour monitoring survey be 

undertaken at both locations in January 2011. During the monitoring, site 

observations were made during daylight hours (approximately 08:00 – 16:30) to 

record the source of any ‘stand alone’ noise incidents that occurred and to 

record any such noise instances at low, neap or high tides. 

12.3.34 The Heads monitoring location is indicated on Figure 12-1 of Volume 2B as 24H 

1 and Arm Hill is indicated as 24H 2. 

Consultation 




consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Noise and 

Vibration assessment. Table 12-3 summarises the post-scoping consultation 

undertaken, including responses received to the Preliminary Environmental 

Information (PEI) Report. 

441

Table 12-3 

Noise and Vibration Assessment – Post-Scoping Consultation 

Consulted Date of Consultation Summary of Consultation 

Wyre 

Borough 

Council 

24 May 2011 E-mail to Neil Martin (EHO) WBC regarding 

agreement on assessment criteria of 

operational plant noise and operational traffic. 

Failed to receive response. Further enquiries 

revealed that Neil Martin was no longer 

employed by WBC. The matter was referred to 

Neil Greenwood 

14 June 2011 E-mail to Neil Greenwood (EHO) WBC 

regarding agreement on assessment criteria of 

operational plant noise and operational traffic. 

19 July 2011 Responsibility for noise assessment handed 

over to David McArthur at WBC (as per e-mail 

from Neil Greenwood at WBC dated 

05/07/2011). Telephone discussion with David 

McArthur to discuss operational plant noise 

criteria. David McArthur indicated that he would 

agree noise limits for each operational area 

based on the existing ambient noise levels, the 

nature of the operations to be carried out and 

the proximity of receptor locations. It was 

agreed to carry out preliminary modelling of the 

plant noise impacts and to submit these to 

David McArthur for consideration. E-mail sent to 

David McArthur to confirm discussions. 

26 August 2011 E-mail to David McArthur presenting existing 

ambient noise levels and predicted noise 

impacts at receptor locations indicated in Table 

12-8 so that operational noise limits could be 

agreed. 

6 September 2011 Follow up telephone call and e-mail to David 

McArthur, who had been on leave. 

9 September 2011 Follow up telephone call and e-mail to David 

McArthur to discuss noise limits for operational 

plant. No response received as yet. 





Consideration of best practice / guidance outlined in Section 12.2 

 

 




442

esponses to the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report and 



details 









12.3.38 Where appropriate, the potential impact at nearby receptors in all the 

assessments outlined below would be judged against relevant criteria outlined 

by the World Health Organisation. 


General Construction Noise 

12.3.39 There are no national noise criteria for limiting or assessing noise from 

construction sites. BS 5228 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on 

Construction and Open Sites’ – Part 1 2009 Annex E gives different methods of 

guidance on significance of noise effects from construction, and recommends 

the ABC method to establish construction noise limits. 

12.3.40 The ABC method involves rounding the existing ambient noise levels to the 

nearest 5dB for the appropriate time period (night, evening/weekends or day) 

and then comparing these levels to the total noise level, including construction 

noise. If the total noise level exceeds the existing rounded value, then a 

significant effect is deemed to have occurred. This can be seen more clearly in 

Table 12-4. 

Table 12-4 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Threshold of Significant Effect at 

Dwellings from Construction Noise 

Assessment Category and Threshold 

Value Period 

Threshold Value, in decibels 

(dB) 

Category 

A 

Category 

B 

Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) 45 50 55 

Evenings and weekends 55 60 65 

Daytime (07:00 – 19:00) and Saturdays 

(07:00 – 13:00) 

65 70 75 

Category 

C 

443

Category A is the threshold values to use when ambient noise levels 

(when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than these values 

Category B is the threshold values to use when ambient noise levels 

(when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as Category A values 

Category C is the threshold values to use when ambient noise levels 

(when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than Category A values 

12.3.41 If the existing ambient noise levels are higher than the threshold values 

presented in Table 12-4, then a significant effect is deemed to have occurred if 

the total L ea noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to 

construction activity. The ABC method should only apply to residential 

receptors. 

Likelihood of Vibration Causing Structural Damage to Buildings 

12.3.42 There is a major difference between the sensitivity of occupants of buildings 

when feeling vibration and the onset of levels vibration which are likely to cause 

damage to the building structure. Levels of vibration at which adverse comment 

is likely are below levels of vibration at which damage to the building is likely. 

12.3.43 BS 7385 ‘Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings’ - Part 1 1990 

and Part 2 1993, sets guideline values for building vibrations based on the 

lowest vibration above which damage has been credibly demonstrated. The 

response of a building to ground-borne vibration is affected by various features 

of a building such as, the type of foundation, underlying ground conditions, type 

of building construction, the state of repair, etc. The response also depends 

upon whether the vibration is continuous or transient/intermittent. 

12.3.44 It is generally accepted that the level of vibration varies at various points on the 

building. Consequently, this standard recommends that measurement should be 

taken at the base of the building on the side facing the source of vibration. The 

measurement should record the peak particle velocity (pap), which has been 

found to be the best descriptor for correlating with vibration induced damage. 

12.3.45 In accordance with this standard, limits for transient vibration above which 

cosmetic damage could occur to a light framed structure or a residential building 

is 15 mm/s pap at 4 Hz increasing to 20 mm/s at 15 Hz, outlined below in Table 

12-5. These guideline values are reduced by 50% for continuous vibration. The 

standard also considers that there is little probability of fatigue damage 

occurring in residential buildings due to construction activities or vibration 

generated by road traffic. 

444

Table 12-5 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Transient Vibration Guide Values 

for Cosmetic Change 

Type of Building 

Reinforced or framed structures 

industrial and heavy commercial 

buildings 

Peak component particle velocity in 

frequency range of predominant 

pulse 

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above 

50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above 

Unreinforced or light framed structures. 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 

Residential or light commercial type increasing to 20 mm 

buildings 

at 15 Hz 

20 mm/s at 15 Hz 

increasing to 50 

mm/s at 40 Hz 

and above 

Human Perception to Vibration in Buildings 

12.3.46 BS 6472 ‘Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings’ – 

Part 1 2008, provides guidance on predicting human response to vibration in 

buildings. It uses measured vibration levels to estimate the probability of 

adverse comment which might be expected from people experiencing vibration 

in buildings. However, BS 5228 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration 

Control on Construction and Open Sites’ – Part 2 2009, suggests different 

parameters that are considered more appropriate for the construction phase. 

These are outlined in Table 12-6. 

Table 12-6 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Guidance on Effects of Vibration 

Levels 

Vibration Level 

Effect 

0.14 mm.s -1 Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations 

for most vibration frequencies associated with construction. At 

lower frequencies, people are less sensitive to vibration. 

0.3 mm.s -1 Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments. 

1.0 mm.s -1 It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments 

will cause complaint, but can be tolerated if prior warning and 

explanation has been given to residents. 

10 mm.s -1 Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief 

exposure to this level. 


12.3.47 Attempts have been made to agree significance criteria with the EHO for WBC. 

To date no response has been received from WBC to agree significance 

criteria. 

445

12.3.48 In the absence of agreed significance criteria with Wyre Borough Council, a 

40dB night-time noise limit has been proposed, which is recommended in the 

‘Night Noise Guidelines for Europe’ (WHO, 2009). By complying with quieter 

night-time noise limits, daytime operations would not impact on nearby receptor 

locations. 


Change in Traffic-Induced Noise Levels 

12.3.49 ‘DMRB Volume 11 Section 3, Part 7’ (HA 213/08) only provides a classification 

of the magnitude of change. These are outlined in Table 12-7. 

Table 12-7 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Classification of Magnitude of 

Change in Traffic-Induced Noise Levels during Operation 

Noise Change, L A10, 18 hour Magnitude of 

Change 

0 No change 

0.1 – 0.9 Negligible 

1 – 2.9 Minor 

3 – 4.9 Moderate 

5+ Major 

Likelihood of Complaint due to Industrial Noise 

12.3.50 BS 4142 ‘Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and 

industrial areas’ - 1997 is used to determine the impacts of noise upon 

residential dwellings. The guidance provided within BS 4142 provides a method 

whereby the likelihood of complaints due to noise from industrial sources can be 

assessed. 

12.3.51 The greater the difference between rating level and background noise level, the 

greater the likelihood of complaints. 

 

 

A difference of around +10 dB or more indicates that complaints are likely. 

A difference of around + 5 dB is of marginal significance. 

12.3.52 If the rating level is more than 10 dB below the measured background noise 

level then this is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely. 

Likelihood of Vibration Causing Structural Damage to Buildings 

12.3.53 As outlined above for the construction phase. 

Human Perception to Vibration in Buildings 

12.3.54 As outlined above for the construction phase. 

446

Decommissioning Phase 

12.3.55 The above criteria outlined for the construction phase has also been applied for 




studies; site visits (surveys) and consultation. 

12.4.2 The long-term baseline noise monitoring results are presented in Table 12-8. 

Table 12-8 Noise and Vibration Assessment – Long-term Baseline Noise Survey 

Data 

Location (refer to Figure 

12-1) 

Date Time L Amax LAeq,T L A90 

Ross all Hospital (LTN 1) 20/01/2011 to 21/01/11 2300-0700 76.2 42.6 39.3 

Broad water Caravan Park 

(LTN 2) 

Harbour Village residential 

development at the Fish 

Dock (LTN 3) 

21/01/2011 0700-2300 80.4 50.4 46.4 

21/01/2011 to 22/01/11 2300-0700 67.3 43.3 39.2 

22/01/2011 0700-2300 81.8 49.9 45.6 

22/01/2011 to 23/01/11 2300-0700 66.0 41.4 37.9 

23/01/2011 0700-2300 67.9 47.6 41.7 

23/01/2011 to 24/01/11 2300-0700 65.2 42.4 37.4 

24/01/2011 0700-2300 72.3 48.0 41.8 

24/01/2011 to 25/01/11 2300-0700 70.1 43.3 38.4 

20/01/2011 to 21/01/11 2300-0700 65.1 43.0 37.4 

21/01/2011 0700-2300 75.8 51.1 48.3 

21/01/2011 to 22/01/11 2300-0700 58.3 41.1 34.1 

22/01/2011 0700-2300 73.4 51.4 48.3 

22/01/2011 to 23/01/11 2300-0700 70.8 45.4 37.3 

23/01/2011 0700-2300 77.6 51.3 47.7 

23/01/2011 to 24/01/11 2300-0700 60.8 43.7 37.9 

24/01/2011 0700-2300 85.9 54.8 52.1 

24/01/2011 to 25/01/11 2300-0700 64.8 47.8 43.8 

30/06/2011 to 

01/07/2011 2300-0700 56.7 41.4 37.3 

01/07/2011 0700-2300 67.2 55.3 44.8 

01/07/2011 to 

02/07/2011 2300-0700 55.1 40.6 32.2 

447


12-1) 


Park (LTN 4) 


02/07/2011 0700-2300 66.1 47.7 36.7 

02/07/2011 to 03/07/11 2300-0700 54.9 39.4 34.1 

03/07/2011 0700-2300 61.6 44.8 35.6 

03/07/2011 to 04/07/11 2300-0700 54.7 39.7 33.6 

04/07/2011 0700-2300 66.0 56.2 41.5 

04/07/2011 to 05/07/11 2300-0700 52.1 38.7 33.8 

20/01/2011 to 21/01/11 2300-0700 47.1 36.5 35.5 

21/01/2011 0700-2300 65.3 44.7 40.5 

21/01/2011 to 22/01/11 2300-0700 52.6 40.6 39.2 

22/01/2011 0700-2300 77.6 41.0 37.4 

22/01/2011 to 23/01/11 2300-0700 58.4 35.3 33.2 

23/01/2011 0700-2300 76.2 44.8 36.9 

23/01/2011 to 24/01/11 2300-0700 51.8 38.0 35.9 

24/01/2011 0700-2300 65.2 44.1 42.0 

24/01/2011 to 25/01/11 2300-0700 55.9 42.3 40.6 

Cote Walls Farm (LTN 5) 20/01/2011 to 21/01/11 2300-0700 70.5 33.4 24.8 

The Heads Caravan Park 

(LTN 6) 

21/01/2011 0700-2300 88.9 49.5 33.3 

21/01/2011 to 22/01/11 2300-0700 84.4 40.9 28.4 

22/01/2011 0700-2300 68.9 46.8 32.7 

22/01/2011 to 23/01/11 2300-0700 67.6 32.6 25.1 

23/01/2011 0700-2300 85.3 49.9 32.2 

23/01/2011 to 24/01/11 2300-0700 62.8 34.7 28.7 

24/01/2011 0700-2300 86.5 46.8 40.1 

24/01/2011 to 25/01/11 2300-0700 91.6 45.8 40.8 

20/01/2011 to 21/01/11 2300-0700 57.3 31.9 29.8 

21/01/2011 0700-2300 88.6 47.4 34.8 

21/01/2011 to 22/01/11 2300-0700 68.9 34.0 31.8 

22/01/2011 0700-2300 77.1 40.8 36.1 

22/01/2011 to 23/01/11 2300-0700 60.7 37.4 34.6 

23/01/2011 0700-2300 77.1 46.7 35.0 

23/01/2011 to 24/01/11 2300-0700 63.7 35.0 33.0 

24/01/2011 0700-2300 79.5 44.8 40.3 

448


12-1) 


24/01/2011 to 25/01/11 2300-0700 71.3 41.3 39.1 

Carter’s Farm (LTN 7) 20/01/2011 to 21/01/11 2300-0700 53.2 32.6 29.5 

21/01/2011 0700-2300 91.6 47.9 35.6 

21/01/2011 to 22/01/11 2300-0700 54.1 35.3 32.4 

22/01/2011 0700-2300 77.3 43.7 34.9 

22/01/2011 to 23/01/11 2300-0700 57.1 34.4 31.6 

23/01/2011 0700-2300 79.3 45.4 35.5 

23/01/2011 to 24/01/11 2300-0700 56.7 33.7 31.1 

24/01/2011 0700-2300 72.9 45.9 39.8 

24/01/2011 to 25/01/11 2300-0700 53.7 42.9 40.6 

12.4.3 The results of the short-term baseline noise baseline are presented in Table 12- 

9. 

Table 12-9 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Short-term Baseline Noise Survey 

Data 

Number Location (refer to Figure 12-1) L Amax L Aeq,T L A90 

STN 1 Fernacre, Cemetery Lane 86.2 54.7 42.3 

STN 2 Elm Farm, Station Street, Naseby 79.4 44.0 38.6 

12.4.4 The results of the noise survey at The Heads and Arm Hill are presented in 

Table 12-10. 

Table 12-10 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Noise Survey Data for the Heads 

and Arm Hill 

Number 

Location (refer to 

Figure 12-1) Period L Amax L Aeq,T L A90 

24H 1 The Heads (24H 1) Day (0700-2300) 78 47.7 42.5 

Night (2300-0700) 69.9 41.4 38.6 

24H 2 Arm Hill (24H 2) Day (0700-2300) 77.8 44.1 40.7 

Night (2300-0700) 66.7 39.2 37.1 

12.4.5 During the noise survey at Arm Hill and the Heads it was observed that noise 

from Fleetwood was prominent, particularly from the ICI plant and the landfill 

site. At night, noise from the ICI plant was the prominent noise source. 

449

12.4.6 The baseline noise measurements recorded at Arm Hill and The Heads and the 

observed influence of noise events on bird behaviour have been discussed in 

Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation. 



through the desk studies, site visits (surveys) and consultation. Residential 

receptors, places of education and health care facilities are regarded as 

particularly sensitive to noise and therefore their value would be considered to 

be high. The location / extent of receptors is presented on Figure 12-2 of 

Volume 2B. 

Table 12-11 

Noise and Vibration Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 

Receptor (refer to Figure 12-2) 

Black Head Lane 

Blackpool and The Fylde College 

Bone Hill Farm 

Bridge Farm 

Broadwater Caravan Park (B5268) 

Carter’s Farm 

Clocky Cottages 

Corcas Farm 


Fernacre 


Ivy Cottages 

Little Height o’ th’ Hill 

Park Farm/ Park Cottage 

Harbour Village residential development at the 

Fish Dock 


Rossall Hospital 

Rossall Promenade 

Rossall School 

South Strand 

Value 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

450

Receptor (refer to Figure 12-2) 

Sportsman Cottage and Caravan Park 

Stanah House Caravan Park 

The Elms 

The Grange 


Properties on West Way 

Value 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 


12.5.1 The future baseline is likely to be influenced by increase in road traffic volumes. 

In order to consider future increase in road traffic, the baseline (2011) traffic 

flows recorded at the 11 ATC sites throughout Preesall and Fleetwood have 

been growthed up to 2014 (anticipated year of maximum construction activity) 

levels using the DfT’s National Trip End Model (NTEM) growth forecasts for all 

vehicle types. A traffic growth factor of 3.6% has been applied in order to 

forecast background traffic volumes on the assessed highway links in 2014 from 

the baseline (2011) traffic data. 


12.6.1 A sensitive receptor is defined as any location which may be affected by 

changes in noise and vibration as a result of a development. Those receptors 

considered to be potentially affected by the Project are defined in Table 12-12. 

The nature of effects (in the absence of mitigation and enhancement measures) 

have been considered for the construction (Years 1-3), construction and 


phases. 

Table 12-12 

Noise and Vibration Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 

Receptor Type Specific Receptor Nature of Potential Effect 

Residential 

properties 

Impacts on residential receptors 

are presented up to 200m from 

the various construction areas. 

Elm Farm (Nateby) 

Fernacre 

Bridge Farm (Hall Gate Lane) 

Bone Hill Farm 

Clocky Cottages 

Black Head Lane 

Elm Farm 

Cumulative construction noise 

impacts on representative 

Increase in noise and vibration levels 

during the construction phase 


during the construction of the NTS 

Interconnector Pipeline. 


during the construction phase where 

451


residential properties 

New residential development 

at Fleetwood Docks 

Broadwater Caravan Park 


Carter’s Farm 



The Sportsman’s Caravan 

Park/ Heads Caravan Park 

The Stanah House Caravan 

Park on River Road 

Ivy Cottages 

Park Farm/ Cottage Farm 


construction programmes overlap 


Ivy Cottages 


Corcas Farm 

Sportsman Cottage and 

Caravan Park/ Riverside 

Cottage 

The Grange 




Carters Farm 

Elm Farm (Nateby) 

Blackpool & Fylde College 

Stanah House Caravan park 

Broad water Caravan Park 

(B5268) 

Properties on West Way & 

South Strand 


Ivy Cottages 


Corcas Farm 

Sportsman Cottage and 

Caravan Park/ Riverside 

Cottage 

Height o’ th’ Hill and Little 


during the construction and operation 

combined phase. 


during the operational phase 

452



The Grange 


Carters Farm 

Elm Farm 

Blackpool & Fylde College 

Stanah House Caravan park 


(B5268) 

Properties on West Way & 

South Strand 

Hospitals Rossall Hospital Increase in noise and vibration levels 

during the construction phase and 

the operation phase. 

Places of 

education 

Rossall School on Rossall Lane 

and Blackpool and The Fylde 

College 



Beach users Rossall Promenade Increase in noise and vibration levels 

during the construction phase 

Users of public 

footpaths 

Ecological 

species 

Discussed in Chapter 14: Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and 


Discussed in Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation 


12.7.1 The following section assesses the potential effects on receptors indentified in 

Table 12-12, in the absence of mitigation or enhancement measures. Measures 

that have been incorporated into the design of the Project to minimise and 

potentially significant effects are outlined in Chapter 5 and have been 

considered in this section. 

12.7.2 The assessment has presented construction impacts from works at the brine 

pipeline diffuser and sea wall extension, progressing in an easterly direction 

with the transient construction on the brine pipeline up to the Seawater Pumping 

Station. 

12.7.3 The assessment then considers the impacts from the North River Crossing and 

further transient works on the Electrical Infrastructure (including the South River 

Crossing) and Gas Infrastructure. 

12.7.4 The assessment then presents the construction noise impacts associated with 

fixed infrastructure at the Seawater Pumping Station, Booster Pump Station, 

Gas Compressor Compound, Higher Lickow Farm and the access roads, and 

the wellhead compounds 

453

12.7.5 Construction noise impacts have been presented in distance bands from 

source, particularly for transient works such as the brine pipeline, NTS gas 

interconnector and electrical infrastructure. In addition cumulative construction 

noise impacts have been considered at specific receptor locations set out in 

Table 12-12. 

12.7.6 Potential noise effects during the construction and operation combined phase 

and the operational phase have been assessed at the receptors listed in Table 

12-12. 

Construction 

Potential Noise Effects 

12.7.7 The construction noise assessment has considered the impacts associated with 

the construction of the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creation of up to 19 caverns. 

Seven multiple wellhead locations to create the underground salt caverns. 


Seawater Pumping Station compound 

Booster Pump Station compound comprising the Booster Pump Station 

building; 

Refurbishment of Higher Lickow Farm 

Gas manifold and distribution infrastructure, including a gas interconnector 

pipeline to Nateby 

Seawater pipeline from the Fleetwood Fish Dock to the Preesall site 

Brine discharge pipeline from the Preesall site to a point approximately 

2.3km offshore to a two port diffuser 

Four power, communication, control pipelines from the Fleetwood Dock to 

the Preesall site 

Electricity cables from the United Utilities Switchgear at the Stanah 

Switchyard to the new electrical sub-station 

Temporary drilling compounds at the Fleetwood Fish Dock and at the 

Stanah Switchyard 

Extension to sea wall at West Way to accommodate brine outfall and new 

observation platform 

Pipeline link to interconnector 

Comprehensive landscape scheme 


roads within the site. 

12.7.8 Generally construction hours would be between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 hrs, 

Monday to Friday. 

454

12.7.9 There would, however, be exceptions to these general hours to facilitate nighttime 

working for those operations that are continuous. This includes the drilling 

of boreholes and the washing of caverns. Nevertheless such works undertake 

outside of normal hours would be subject to appropriate noise limits to be 

agreed with the EHO. 

12.7.10 The construction noise impacts have been assessed using a construction 

programme provided by the Applicant to consider the temporal criteria 

associated with the various construction activities and consider cumulative 

noise impacts where activities overlap. 

12.7.11 The construction noise impacts have been predicted using the L Aeq method as 

set out in BS5228-1:2009. 

12.7.12 A list of plant expected to be used for the various construction activities is listed 

in Table 12-13, with the percentage on-time that has been used in the 

assessment and the sound pressure level (Lp) expressed as a L Aeq at 10m for 

each item of plant. Most of the sound pressure levels have been sourced from 

BS 5228-1: 2009, with some data accessed from manufacturers of plant 

expected to be used. 

Table 12-13 Noise and Vibration Assessment - List of Plant to be used during 

Construction and Associated Noise Levels at 10 m 

Plant BS5228 Reference Number Lp % on 

Time 

Sea Outfall 

TOTAL 

LP 

Barge Table C.7 No.2 1 82 75 80.8 

Backacter Dredger Manufacturer 1 95 75 93.8 

Crane Table C.4 No.49 1 77 75 75.8 

Cutter Suction Dredger Manufacturer 1 88 75 86.8 

Seawall 

Dumpers Table C.4 No. 9 1 77 70 75.5 

Tracked Excavator Table C.5 No. 18 1 79 70 77.5 

Circular Saw Table C.4 No. 71 1 84 25 78.0 

Angle Grinder Table C.4 No.93 1 80 25 74.0 

Telescopic Handler Table C.4 No.54 1 79 70 77.5 

Lorry Table C.2 No.35 1 77 60 74.8 

Front End Loader Table C.2 No.26 1 79 60 76.8 

Roller Compactor Table C.5 No.29 1 76 60 73.8 

Concrete Pump & Concrete 

mixer truck discharging 

Table C.4 No. 28 

1 79 75 77.8 

Poker Vibrator Table C.4 No. 33 1 78 60 75.8 


455


Time 

TOTAL 

LP 

Piling Rig Table C.3 No.3 1 88 70 86.5 

Thrust Borer Manufacturer 1 86 70 84.5 

Excavators Table C.5 No.34 1 75 75 73.8 

Brine Pipeline 

Excavator Table C.5 No.34 2 79 80 81.0 

30T Dumper Table C.4 No. 9 2 79 80 81.0 

Bulldozer Table C.5 No. 12 1 80 80 79.0 



Thrust borer Manufacturer 1 86 70 84.5 





Sheet Pile Driver 1 88 70 86.5 


mixer truck discharging 

Table C.4 No. 28 

1 79 75 77.8 

Tracked Crane Table C.4 No.52 1 77 60 74.8 

Vibratory Roller (22T) Table C.5 No. 28 1 77 70 75 











mixer truck discharging Table C.4 No. 28 1 79 75 77.8 


Hand Tools Table C.4 No. 69 3 83 30 82.5 

Concrete saw Table C.4 No. 71 1 84 30 78.8 

Paver Table C.5 No. 33 1 75 60 72.8 

456


Time 

Haul Roads 

TOTAL 

LP 

Road Planer Table C.5 No.7 1 82 70 80.5 


Dozer (Spreading fill) Table C.5 No. 12 1 77 60 74.8 


Vibratory Roller (22T) Table C.5 No. 28 1 77 60 74.8 

River Crossings 

Writh 250 ton HDD Manufacturer 1 81 100 81.0 

Ellis & Williams Mud Pumps Manufacturer 1 90 75 88.8 

Electrical Installation 


Diesel Generator Table C.4 No. 84 1 72 100 72.0 






30T Dumper Table C4 No. 9 2 79 80 81.0 

Tracked Crane Table C4 No.52 1 77 60 74.8 



Vibratory Roller (22T) Table C5 No. 28 1 77 70 75 





Hand Tools Table C.4 N0. 69 3 83 30 82.5 

Wellheads 



Vibratory Roller (22T) Table C.5 No. 28 1 77 60 74.8 

Drilling rig Measurements 1 82 75 80.8 

Welfare Unit Measurements 1 60 80 59.0 

457


Time 

TOTAL 

LP 

Lighting Towers Measurements 2 66 60 66.8 

Piling Rig Table C.3 No.3 1 88 70 86.5 



Dewatering of Wells 

Centrifugal pump Manufacturer 2 76 100 79.0 










NTS Interconnector 

Excavator Table C.5 No.34 2 79 80 81.0 



Telescopic Handler Table C4 No.54 1 79 70 77.5 


Front End Loader Table C.2 No.26 2 79 60 79.8 

Roller Compactor Table C.5 No.29 1 77 75 75.8 










458

Brine Discharge Pipeline and Diffuser off Rossall Promenade 

12.7.13 The brine discharge pipeline runs between the Seawater Pumping Station and 

the brine outfall. Starting at the western end of the pipeline, the two port single 

diffuser would be located on the sea bed in accordance with the requirements of 

the Discharge Consent. 

12.7.14 This section of the brine pipeline is a pressure pipeline laid in a backfilled trench 

beneath the sea bed from a seagoing vessel. The noise impacts associated 

with the construction of the pipeline will vary with distance from source, with 

works closer to the foreshore likely to be more noticeable than works further 

from the shoreline 

12.7.15 At the foreshore the angle of view and the screening offered by the seawall is 

likely to provide some noise attenuation. However, for the purposes of this 

assessment, a free field for propagation of noise has been assumed. Water is 

acoustically hard and therefore propagation of noise has been predicted using 

the formula for propagation across hard surfaces set out in BS 5228 

12.7.16 The noise impacts have been predicted with distance from source at intervals of 

100 m, 200 m and 300 m, as indicated in Table 12-14. 

Table 12-14 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Unmitigated Noise 

Levels during the Construction of the Brine Pipeline and Diffuser off 

Rossall Promenade 

Activity Start Finish Plant Lp at 

100 m 

Lp at 

200 m 

Lp at 

300 m 

Float Pipe Week 1 Week 1 Barge 69.8 63.8 57.7 

Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 71.0 64.9 58.9 

Foreshore 

Section of 

Brine 

Outfall 

Week 1 Week 14 Dumpers 64.5 58.5 52.4 

Tracked Excavator 66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Total Lp 69.8 63.8 57.8 

Outfall 

Installation 

Week 14 Week 32 Backacter Dredger 82.8 76.8 70.7 

Cutter Suction dredger 75.8 69.8 63.7 

Total Lp 83.6 77.5 71.5 

Diffuser 

Installation 

Week 32 Week 36 Barge 69.8 63.8 57.7 

Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 71.0 64.9 58.9 

459

12.7.17 The residential receptors on West Way are approximately 85m from the 

seawall, which in turn would provide some screening from noise generated by 

works carried out at the foreshore. 

12.7.18 The diffuser installation would take place approximately 2.3 km offshore and 

therefore noise from works at the diffuser installation is unlikely to impact on the 

closest residential receptors. 

12.7.19 The installation of the pipeline in a covered trench on the seabed would involve 

the use of dredging equipment on a barge. At 200m from the construction 

works, , the noise impact at receptors on West Way is predicted at 77.5 dB. 

This does not however include any screening and assumes a free visual field 

between receptor and the barge, which is unlikely as the seawall prevents direct 

line of sight between the works and the residential receptors on West Way. 

12.7.20 Impacts would be significant within 200 m of construction works. Construction 

noise is likely to temporarily impact on the amenity of beach users, although 

there are no set criteria for assessing amenity. Noise impacts on amenity are 

discussed in Chapter 11: Land Use and Socio-Economics. 

Seawall 

12.7.21 The pressure pipeline would be laid in trench beneath the promenade and 

affixed to the existing modified sea wall to descend to and beneath the 

foreshore. In order to cross the seawall, it is proposed that the pipe would be 

laid beneath the concrete access ramp from West Way. The pipe would then 

pass through the existing gap in the existing splash wall, trenched across the 

top of the seawall, and down the face of the seawall on to the foreshore. 

12.7.22 This would involve removal of the existing promenade surfacing, access ramps 

and retaining walls from the landward and seaward sides of the promenade. 

There would be modifications and breaking through the sea wall to allow the 

passage of the pipeline beneath the promenade to the foreshore. Modifications 

to the promenade rear flood wall would include the provision of flood gates. An 

observation platform or shelter, including new steps, retaining walls and 

revetments to access the foreshore would be constructed. After the construction 

of the new flood wall, all areas of the sea wall and promenade affected by the 

works would be made good. 

12.7.23 The predicted construction noise impacts associated with this work are 

indicated in Table 12-15. 


Levels during the Construction of the Seawall 


50m 

Seawall Crossing Week 1 Week 28 

Demolish 

Existing 

Concrete 

Week 10 Week 11 Pulveriser on 

excavator 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

63.8 57.8 51.7 

Concrete breaker 77.5 71.5 65.4 

460


50m 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Circular Saw 67.0 61.0 55.0 

Angle Grinder 63.0 57.0 51.0 

Dumper 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Total LP 78.3 72.3 66.3 

Excavate and 

Prep Pipe 

Installation 

Week 11 Week 12 Dumpers 64.5 58.5 52.4 

Tracked Excavator 66.5 60.5 54.4 

Circular Saw 67.0 61.0 55.0 


Total LP 71.5 65.5 59.5 

Install Pipe 

Under Sea Wall 

Week 13 Week 14 Circular Saw 67.0 61.0 55.0 


Telescopic Handler 66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Total LP 71.4 65.4 59.4 

Backfill Week 14 Week 15 Dumper 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Front End Loader 65.8 59.8 53.8 

Roller Compactor 62.8 56.8 50.8 

Total LP 69.1 63.1 57.0 

Build New Sea 

Defence with 

Observation 

Deck 

Week 15 Week 28 Concrete Pump & 

Concrete mixer 

truck discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 

Poker Vibrator 64.8 58.8 52.8 

Crane 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Sheet Pile Driver 75.5 69.5 63.4 

Thrust borer 73.5 67.5 61.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

Total LP 78.4 72.4 66.4 

12.7.24 The residential receptors at West Way are located approximately 85 m from the 

Seawall. The demolition of the concrete Seawall and the piling during the 

building of the new Seawall and observation deck would present the highest 

noise impact from the activities listed in Table 12-15. The predicted noise 

impact at the facade of these properties is 73.8 dB. 

12.7.25 Rossall Hospital is located approximately 130 m from the Seawall and is 

partially screened by other properties. Demolition works and construction of the 

new sea defence and observation deck are likely to generate the highest noise 

461

levels, with free-field levels at below 75 dB(A) predicted at 100 m. 

screening the noise levels at Rossall Hospital are likely to be lower. 

With 

12.7.26 Within 200 m of construction work the noise impacts without mitigation would be 

significant. Construction noise is likely to impact on the amenity of beach users, 

although there are no set criteria for assessing amenity. Noise impacts on 

amenity are discussed in Chapter 14: Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and 

Visual Amenity and Chapter 11: Land Use and Socio-Economics. 

Brine Discharge Pipeline from the Seawall at Rossall Promenade to the 


12.7.27 The pressure pipeline would be laid generally in trench with certain highway or 

other crossings inserted by trenchless methods. 

12.7.28 From the Seawall to The Strand/Broadway junction, the pipeline runs through 

an area of open land. In this area, the pipeline would be sited in an excavated 

trench. A working width of 33 m is proposed to allow for the construction of a 

temporary haul road, the excavation of the trench and the storage of spoil. The 

working width would be fenced and access provided from the existing gates to 

West Way. The pipes would be delivered to the site by lorry in 12 metre lengths; 

welded together on-site and lowered into the excavated trench. The trench 

would then be backfilled and marker posts erected at the field boundaries. 

12.7.29 The noise impacts associated with the trenching and thrust boring of the 

pressure pipeline are shown in Table 12-16. 


Levels during the construction of the Brine Discharge Pipeline from the 

Seawall to the Seawater Pumping Station 


50m 

Discharge Pipeline Week 14 Week 45 

Direct Bury 

Pipeline 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Week 14 Week 40 Excavator 70.1 64.0 58.0 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Telescopic 

Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 75.6 69.5 63.5 

Auger Boring Week 14 Week 40 Thrust borer 73.5 67.5 61.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 74.6 68.6 62.6 

462

12.7.30 At the Strand the pipeline would be thrust bored under The Strand/Broadway 

junction to avoid disruption to traffic and utilities. A drive pit of approximately 8 

metres by 4 metres would be constructed on the west side of the junction and 

the pipeline would be driven under the junction approximately 3.5 metres deep 

to a reception pit on the east side of the junction. The reception pit would be 

approximately 8 metres by 8 metres. 

12.7.31 The limit of works on the pipeline is approximately 70 m from Rossall Hospital at 

its closest point, indicating the possibility of noise impacts around 75 dB(A). 

Works opposite Rossall Hospital are expected to last approximately 3 months. 

These are worst case noise levels, assuming free-field and do not consider any 

mitigation that might be implemented. 

12.7.32 The closest houses along West Way to the drive pit would be approximately 55 

m away, indicating that noise impacts would be in the region of 74 to 75 dB(A) 

(Table 12-16 above). These are free-field predictions and do not include any 

screening. The walls of the drive pit are expected to provide some screening. 

12.7.33 A further drive pit would be constructed to the south of the former railway and 

the pipe would be thrust bored to the reception pit at The Strand/Broadway 

junction referred to above. The rear of the properties on South Strand border 

on these works, with a separation distance of approximately 15 to 20 m. Noise 

impacts therefore have the potential to be above 75 dB at the properties from 

both direct bury and auger boring. 

12.7.34 The pipeline works are transient, with the highest noise impacts indicated in 

Table 12-16 only being experienced while works are at their closest to the 

receptors. 

12.7.35 The pipeline would continue south eastwards and then eastwards to 

Amounderness Way. The pipeline would be thrust bored under Amounderness 

Way from a drive pit on the west side of the road. A temporary access for 

construction would be required from Rossall Lane. 

12.7.36 The drive pit at Amounderness Way would be approximately 180 m from 

Blackpool and Fylde College and the free-field noise levels at the facade of the 

closest building would be expected to be about 64 dB. 

12.7.37 The reception pit on the east side of Amounderness Way would be in a 

compound that would also accommodate a drive pit to allow the pipeline to be 

thrust bored under Fleetwood Road. The closest receptor, Farmer Parr’s 

Animal World is located approximately 110m away, indicating noise levels of 

68.6 dB(A) during thrust boring. 

12.7.38 A reception pit would be provided adjacent to Jameson Road from which it 

would be routed eastwards in an excavated trench. The reception pit would be 

located approximately 40 m from the Broadway Caravan Park sites and has the 

potential to generate unmitigated noise levels in excess of 75 dB. 

12.7.39 The pit would cross the former Fleetwood-Poulton railway by way of a pipe 

bridge before turning north to run parallel with the route of the former railway. 

The pipe would be located in an excavated trench with access from Jameson 

Road. The trench work for the pipeline that runs parallel to the former railway 

463

would have a separation distance of approximately 75 m from the Broadwater 

Caravan Park, indicating that free-field noise impacts would be between 69 

dB(a) and 76 db(A) at the perimeter of the caravan site. 

12.7.40 Work would be carried out on the Jameson Road Bridge and a temporary work 

compound would be created between Jameson Road and the Broadwater 

Caravan Park. The works on the Jameson Road Bridge would take place 

approximately 75 m from the caravan park. Noise impacts from works on the 

bridge can be expected to be at between 70 dB(A) and 76 dB(A) at the caravan 

sites closest to the bridge, as indicated in Table 12-17. 


Levels during the Construction of Jameson Road Bridge 


50m 

Jameson Road 

Bridge 

Construction 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Week 14 Week 23 Poker Vibrator 64.8 58.8 52.8 

Tower Crane 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Sheet Pile 

Driver 

75.5 69.5 63.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

Concrete Pump 

& Concrete 

mixer truck 

discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 

Total Lp 76.8 70.7 64.7 

12.7.41 The pipe runs adjacent to the Waste Water Treatment Works prior to following 

the southern boundary of the Harbour Village residential development that is 

currently under construction. Sleeves under the new roads within the Harbour 

Village residential development have already been provided and these would be 

used to accommodate the pipeline. A construction access would be provided 

through the Harbour Village residential development to allow for the pipes to be 

bought to the site. 

464

Photograph: View from the Fleetwood Marsh Nature 

Reserve car park north to Harbour Village 

12.7.42 The pipeline corridor has a separation distance of approximately 50 m from the 

Harbour Village residential development. It is not known whether the closest 

properties in the Harbour Village residential development would be occupied at 

the time of the construction works. 

12.7.43 As the pipeline approaches the west bank of the River Wyre, it would be laid on 

the ground and covered. Halite has agreed a Licence with ABP to directional 

drill from a compound on the west bank of the River Wyre under the estuary to 

the Preesall part of the site. 

12.7.44 Noise impacts within 200 m of the construction works are indicated to be 

significant in terms of the criteria in Table E.1 in Annex E of BS 5228 without 

mitigation. 

North Wyre Crossing 

12.7.45 A temporary drilling compound would be required at the Fleetwood Fish Dock to 

allow for directional drilling under the River Wyre. The northern river crossing 

would consist of four directionally drilled boreholes: one for the seawater 

passing from the seawater pumping station; one for the returning brine; one for 

power, communications, controls and ancillary uses leaving one in reserve. 

12.7.46 The drilling compound is likely to be within 50 m from the sites for houses on 

the Harbour Village residential development. The noise levels for establishing 

the compound are indicated in Table 12-18. Considering the proximity of the 

Harbour Village residential development noise impacts are likely to be high 

(above 78 dB) and appropriate mitigation measures would need to be 

implemented. 

12.7.47 The directional drilling of the pipeline route would exit at a reception pit close to 

the site of the proposed Booster Pump Station. The brine pipe, along with the 

other pipe routes, would be continuously ‘pulled’ through the directional drilled 

borehole from the east bank to the west bank. The brine pipeline would be 

connected to the Booster Pump Station through an excavated trench. 

465

12.7.48 The noise impacts associated with the directional drilling under the River Wyre 

are shown in Table 12-18. 


Levels during the Construction of the North Wyre Crossing 


50m 

Build 

Compounds / 

East and West 

Week 10 Week 14 Telescopic 

Handler 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Tracked Crane 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 74.8 68.8 62.7 

Directional Drill 

for 14" Conduit 

Week 15 Week 17 Writh 250 ton 

HDD 

Ellis & Williams 

Mud Pumps 

70.0 64.0 58.0 

77.8 71.8 65.7 

Total Lp 78.4 72.4 66.4 

Pull 14" Conduit Week 17 Week 17 Writh 250 ton 

HDD 

70.0 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 70.0 64.0 58.0 

Direction Drill 

for First HDPE 

Crossing 


HDD 


Mud Pumps 

70.0 64.0 58.0 

77.8 71.8 65.7 

Total Lp 78.4 72.4 66.4 

Pull First HDPE 

Pipe 


HDD 

70.0 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 70.0 64.0 58.0 

Directional Drill 

for Second 

HDPE Crossing 


HDD 


Mud pumps 

70.0 64.0 58.0 

77.8 71.8 65.7 

Total Lp 78.4 72.4 66.4 

Pull Second 

HDPE Crossing 


HDD 

70.0 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 70.0 64.0 58.0 

466


50m 

Demobilize Week 26 Week 28 Telescopic 

Handler 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 


Total Lp 70.7 64.6 58.6 

Reinstate 

Compounds 

Week 28 Week 30 Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Vibratory Roller 

(22T) 

64.5 58.5 52.4 

Total Lp 72.9 66.8 60.8 

12.7.49 Directional drilling works would be continuous over a period of approximately 

four weeks and noise impacts, particularly at night are expected to be high. The 

predicted noise levels in Table 12-18 indicate the need for implementing 

appropriate levels of mitigation to achieve acceptable noise levels, particularly 

at night. During directional drilling noise levels, without mitigation, are predicted 

to exceed the daytime and noise limits in Table E.2 of BS 5228, exceeding the 

daytime limit of 75 dB and the night-time limit of 55 dB. 

Electrical Infrastructure 

12.7.50 The Project would require a robust high integrity electricity supply. The 

installation would be supplied from the connection point at the Stanah 

Switchyard via 100% dual circuits, so that, if one supply is not available, the 

load can be supplied by the other circuit. Additional switchgear would be 

required at Stanah and this would be included within the existing Sub Station 

building. No changes are required to the layout and external appearance of the 

existing building. 

12.7.51 Cables would be laid underground from UU switchgear in the Stanah 

Switchyard, beneath the Wyre Estuary and north through to the Sub Station at 

the GCC. The noise impacts associated with the installation of the electrical 

infrastructure are shown in Table 12-19. 

467


Levels during the Construction of the Electrical Infrastructure 


50m 

Route 

Cables - 

Electrical 

Infrastructure 

Week 32 Week 67 Tracked 

Excavator 

Diesel 

Generator 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

61.0 55.0 49.0 

Dumpers 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Telescopic 

Handler 

66.8 60.8 54.7 

Total Lp 71.1 65.1 59.1 

12.7.52 The works on the electrical infrastructure would take place approximately 50 m 

from Little Height o’ th’ Hill (indicating a highest noise impact of 71 dB(A)) and 

approximately 110 m from Carter’s Farm. The noise impacts would be transient 

as construction proceeds along the construction corridor. 

South Wyre Crossing 

12.7.53 Cable ducts and ultimately the electricity cabling would be drawn from the 

Preesall side across to the Stanah Switchyard. This would entail cable ducting 

being laid out across the field on the Preesall side so that a continuous pull can 

be achieved. The cables would be delivered on cable spools which would feed 

the cable out as the pull progresses. 


Levels during the Construction of the South Wyre Crossing 


50m 

Construction Week 10 Week 29 

Build 

Compounds / 

East and West 


Handler 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 74.8 68.8 62.7 

Drill and Push 

13-3/8" 

Week 15 Week 19 Herrenknecht 

250 ton HDD 

69.0 63.0 57.0 

468


50m 

Casingno.1 

Ellis & 

Williams Mud 

pumps 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

77.8 71.8 65.7 

Total Lp 78.3 72.3 66.3 

Drill and Push 

13-3/8" Casing 

no.2 

Week 19 Week 23 Herrenknecht 

250 ton HDD 

Ellis & 

Williams Mud 

pumps 

69.0 63.0 57.0 

77.8 71.8 65.7 

Total Lp 78.3 72.3 66.3 

Pull Cable Week 24 Week 25 Herrenknecht 

250 ton HDD 

69.0 63.0 57.0 

Total Lp 69.0 63.0 57.0 

Demobilize Week 25 Week 27 Telescopic 

Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 


Total Lp 70.7 64.6 58.6 

Reinstate 

Compounds 


30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Vibratory 

Roller (22T) 

64.5 58.5 52.4 

Total Lp 72.9 66.8 60.8 

12.7.54 Crossing of the Wyre Estuary would be achieved by directionally drilling two 

pipes for two circuits. The pipes would be a minimum of 8 metres below the 

bed of the River to ensure that the existing silt, sediments and flood defences 

are not disturbed 

12.7.55 The drilling rig would be located approximately 100m from Carter’s Farm, 

indicating that noise levels would be high at night (in excess of 70 dB(A)) from 

continuous drilling. Appropriate mitigation measures would need to be 

implemented to reduce drilling noise impacts to acceptable levels. 


12.7.56 The Seawater Pumping Station Compound would be situated adjacent to an 

existing seawater culvert within the Fleetwood Fish Dock, off Herring Arm Road. 

The Compound would contain the Pump Station itself, a transformer compound, 

access road and car parking area. 

469

12.7.57 The Pump Station building would be single storey (6.5 metres to the top of the 

ridge) with a floorspace of approximately 430 sq metres gross. The Pump 

Station would contain the pump hall, electrical drive units, switchgear and 

control desk. It is designed to abstract seawater from the Fish Dock making 

use of an existing culvert originally built to supply cooling water to the former 

Fleetwood Power Station. 

12.7.58 The construction noise impacts associated with the Seawater Pumping Station 



Levels during the Construction of the Seawater Pumping Station 


50m 

Build 

Compounds, 

Access Roads, 

Temporary 

Offices and 

Utilities 


Handler 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Vibratory 

Roller (22T) 

64.5 58.5 52.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 75.8 69.7 63.7 

Install 

Dewatering 

System 

Form, 

Reinforce, and 

Place Pit Walls 

Week 6 Week 7 

Week 7 Week 9 Tracked Crane 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete 

Pump & 


truck 

discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 


Total Lp 71.8 65.7 59.7 

Excavate, Form, 


Place 

Foundation 

Week 9 Week 11 Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

470


50m 

Concrete 

Pump & 


truck 

discharging 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.8 60.8 54.7 


Total Lp 73.0 66.9 60.9 

Erect Steel 

Structure 


Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 


Hand Tools 71.6 65.5 59.5 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 74.1 68.1 62.1 

Install Roof Week 14 Week 17 Tracked Crane 63.8 57.8 51.8 

Hand Tools 71.6 65.5 59.5 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 73.3 67.3 61.3 

External 

finishes, 

Building Fit Out 

& Installing 

Plant 


Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 


Hand Tools 71.6 65.5 59.5 

Total Lp 74.1 68.1 62.1 

Final Grading 

and Paving 


Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete saw 67.8 61.8 55.8 

Paver 61.8 55.8 49.8 

Total Lp 72.7 66.7 60.7 

Install Perimeter 

Fence 


Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Hand Tools 69.8 63.8 57.8 

Total Lp 72.7 66.7 60.7 

471


50m 

Install 

Landscaping 

Week 53 09/01/2014 

Week 54 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 73.3 67.3 61.2 

12.7.59 The perimeter of the Seawater Pumping Station is located approximately 40m 

from the closest house in the Harbour Village residential development, while the 

Seawater Pumping Station Building is located approximately 96 m from the 

closest house. 

12.7.60 Landscaping and installing the perimeter fence would therefore be expected to 

produce noise levels of approximately 74 dB when carried out at the closest 

point to the nearest house, while work on the Seawater Pumping Station 

building are likely to result in noise levels below 70 dB(A). 

12.7.61 The noise predictions in Table 12-21 indicate that the unmitigated noise impacts 

would be significant, in terms of criteria in Table E.1 of Annex E of BS 5228, 

within 200 m of any construction works. 


12.7.62 The Booster Pump Station Compound would be located adjacent to the Preesall 

Wastewater Treatment Works. Access to the Compound would be provided 

from the track that extends from Monk’s Lane. The Compound would contain 

the Booster Pump Station, De-brine Facility and nitrogen tank compound. 

12.7.63 The noise impacts associated with the construction of the Booster Pump Station 

compound are shown in Table 12-22. 


Levels during the Construction of the Booster Pump Station 


50m 


Build 

Construction 

Compound, 

Temp Offices 

and Utilities 


Handler 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Vibratory Roller 64.5 58.5 52.4 

472


50m 

(22T) 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 75.8 69.7 63.7 

Excavate Pit Week 31 Week 33 Excavators 67.5 61.5 55.5 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 72.0 66.0 60.0 

Form, 


Place Pond 

Bottom/ Pond 

Bottom 


Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete Pump 

& Concrete 

mixer truck 

discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 


Total Lp 71.8 65.7 59.7 

Form, 


Place Pond 

Walls 


Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete Pump 

& Concrete 

mixer truck 

discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 


Total Lp 71.8 65.7 59.7 

Excavate, 

Form, 


Place Building 

Foundations 


30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete Pump 

& Concrete 

mixer truck 

discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 


Total Lp 74.5 68.5 62.5 

Erect Steel 

Structure 


Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 


473


50m 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Hand Tools 71.6 65.5 59.5 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 74.1 68.1 62.1 

External 

finishes, 

Building Fit Out 

& Installing 

Plant 


Hand Tools 71.6 65.5 59.5 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 73.3 67.3 61.3 

Final Grading 

and Paving 


Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete saw 67.8 61.8 55.8 

Paver 61.8 55.8 49.8 

Total Lp 72.7 66.7 60.7 

Install 

Perimeter 

Fence 


Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Hand Tools 69.8 63.8 57.8 

Total Lp 72.7 66.7 60.7 

Install 

Landscaping 


Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 73.3 67.3 61.2 

12.7.64 Cote Walls Farm is the closest receptor to the Booster Pump Station, situated 

approximately 420 m away. Noise levels at this distance are predicted to be 

between 52 dB and 57 dB and would therefore not be significant in terms of a 

daytime construction limit of 70 dB. Construction noise would however be 

audible as ambient daytime noise levels at Cote Walls Farm ranged between 46 

dB(A) and 49.9 dB(A) L Aeq,16h during the baseline noise assessment (Table 12- 

8). 


12.7.65 The Gas Compressor Compound would be located approximately 500 metres to 

the northwest of the unoccupied Higher Lickow Farm and approximately 320 m 

from Cote Walls Farm. Access to the Compound would be provided from the 

474

new access road to the A588. The principal buildings are the Compressor 

Station Building and the Electrical Equipment and Utilities Building, which are 

similar in design and comprise single storey buildings approximately 8.5 metres 

high, each with a gross floor area of approximately 360 sq metres. 

12.7.66 The noise impacts associated with the construction of the Gas Compressor 

Compound are shown in Table 12-23. 


Levels during the Construction of the Gas Compressor Compound 


50m 

Construction & 

Commission 

Enabling 

Works & Early 

Civils Work 

Week 66 Week 77 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 


30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Vibratory 

Roller (22T) 

64.5 58.5 52.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Telescopic 

Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Total Lp 75.8 69.7 63.7 

Hot Water 

Boiler Package 

Installation 

Week 80 Week 93 Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 68.9 62.9 56.9 

Mopico LP & 

HP 

Compressors 

Installation 


Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 68.9 62.9 56.9 

Other 

Equipment 

Installation 


Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 68.9 62.9 56.9 

Dehydration 

Package 

Installation 


Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

475


50m 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Total Lp 68.9 62.9 56.9 

Pipework 

Installation 


Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total 68.9 62.9 56.9 

Electrical, 

Instrumentation 

& Controls 

Installation 


Crane 64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 68.9 62.9 56.9 

12.7.67 At Cote Walls Farm, at a distance of 320 m, noise levels during construction are 

predicted to be between 52 dB(A) and 60 db(A) and would be well below a 

construction noise limit of 70 dB. Construction noise may however be audible 

as ambient noise levels (L Aeq, 16h ) in the area range between 46.0 dB(A) and 

49.9 dB(A). 

12.7.68 In the absence of mitigation, construction noise impacts are likely to be 

significant in terms of Table E.1 in Annex E, BS 5228 within 200 m of 

construction works at the Gas Compressor Compound. 

Security and Support Facility at Higher Lickow Farm 

12.7.69 Works at Higher Lickow Farm would include provision of staff facilities and a 

maintenance workshop on the built area of the existing barn, an administration, 

health and safety and training facility sited within the existing farmhouse, which 

is to be refurbished, and a single storey security gatehouse to control inbound 

and outbound vehicular movements to the compressor compound and wider 

wellhead area. 

12.7.70 The noise impacts associated with the construction activities at Higher Lickow 

Farm are shown in Table 12-24. 


Levels during the Construction of the Security and Support Facility at 



50m 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Building Week 10 Week 32 Excavators 62.8 56.8 50.7 

Control System Week 32 Week 63 30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

476


50m 

Concrete Pump & 


truck discharging 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

66.8 60.8 54.7 

Hand Tools 71.6 65.5 59.5 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 76.5 70.5 64.5 

12.7.71 Higher Lickow Farm is located approximately 260 m west of residential 

properties (Park Cottage and Park Cottage Farm) on Back Lane. The predicted 

noise levels in Table 12-24 indicate that noise levels would be below 64 dB at 

the closest facade at these receptors. 

12.7.72 In the absence of mitigation, construction noise impacts are likely to be high 

within 200 m of works at the Higher Lickow Farm. 

New Access Road Extending from the A588 up to and Including the 

Security and Support Facility at Higher Lickow 

12.7.73 A new access road would be constructed between the A588 Hall Gate Lane and 

the Security and Support Facility at Higher Lickow Farm. 

12.7.74 The crossing of Grange Pool (Designated Main River) would be via a culvert or 

bridge. Crossing of or modifications to other minor watercourses would be by 

piped culverts or realigned ditches. Grass mounding and landscaping would be 

incorporated as screening where appropriate as would replacement or 

improvements to existing hedges. The crossing of Back Lane is to be provided 

with appropriate junctions. 

12.7.75 The noise impacts associated with construction of the new access road and 

haul road are shown in Table 12-25. 


Levels during the Construction of the Access Road and Haul Road 


50m 

Haul 

Road 

and 

Entrance 

Preconstruction 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Week 1 Road Planer 69.5 63.5 57.4 

Tracked 

Excavator 

Dozer (Spreading 

fill) 

67.5 61.5 55.4 

63.8 57.8 51.8 

Dumpers 66.8 60.8 54.8 


(22T) 

63.8 57.8 51.8 

477


50m 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Total Lp 73.8 67.8 61.8 

Access 

Roads to 

North 

Booster, 

River 

Exit and 

Wells 

Week 1 Week 10 Road Planer 69.5 63.5 57.4 

Tracked 

Excavator 

Dozer (Spreading 

fill) 

67.5 61.5 55.4 

63.8 57.8 51.8 

Dumpers 66.8 60.8 54.8 


(22T) 

63.8 57.8 51.8 

Total Lp 73.8 67.8 61.8 

12.7.76 Work on the access road would take place approximately 50 m from Park 

Cottage on Back Lane, indicating noise levels of approximately 74 dB(A) at the 

closest point to the works. The noise levels would however fluctuate as works 

on the access road would be transient. 

12.7.77 Construction works would pass approximately 100 m behind Fernacre on 

Cemetery Lane, indicating noise levels below 70 dB(A) at the facade of this 

receptor. 

12.7.78 In terms of Table E.1 in Annex E of BS 5228, construction noise impacts are 

likely to be significant within 200 m of works. 


12.7.79 During the drilling of the boreholes, 7 multiple wellhead compounds, 

incorporating 19 dual wellheads in total, are proposed to accommodate the 

drilling rig. The areas identified for the wellheads would be cleared and graded. 

The spoil would be used to provide landscaped bunds around the wellhead. 

The wellhead area would be built up with stone chippings to provide a platform 

for the drilling rig. Around the outside of each platform a catchment area would 

be excavated for the storage of drilling muds. 

12.7.80 Once drilling is complete, a 4 metre by 6 metre pit would be excavated to house 

each wellhead. The pit would be approximately 3 metres deep and each 

wellhead would be sunk incorporating a thrust block. A sheet pile coffer dam 

would be created around the well cap to allow for excavation. The arising from 

the excavations would be relocated to the landscaped bunds as shown on the 

application drawings. 

12.7.81 The wellhead compounds would be constructed on a phased basis as the 

drilling of boreholes across the site progresses. The wellhead compounds 

would be large enough to accommodate the drilling rig, pipework and ancillary 

infrastructure. Following the drilling of the boreholes, the water washing 

infrastructure would be connected to wash the caverns and once these are 

478

created the gas manifolds would be connected to allow for the import and 

export of gas 

12.7.82 The noise impacts associated with the construction of the wellhead compounds 



Levels during the Construction of the Wellhead Compounds 


50m 


Manifold from 

Booster Pump 

to Well Pads 

Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 


30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Total Lp 72.0 66.0 60.0 

Well Pad Week 10 Week 18 Excavators30 

Ton 

67.5 61.5 55.5 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


(22T) 

63.8 57.8 51.8 

Total Lp 72.6 66.6 60.6 

Drilling Well Pad 

5 Well 1 and 

Manifold 

Connection 

Week 36 Week 45 Drilling rig 69.8 63.8 57.7 

Welfare Unit 48.1 42.0 36.0 

Lighting Towers 55.8 49.8 43.8 

Total Lp 70.0 63.9 57.9 

Pit/ Coffer Dam 

Excavators30 

Ton 

Sheet Pile 

Driver 

Concrete Pump 

& Concrete 

mixer truck 

discharging 

67.5 61.5 55.5 

75.5 69.5 63.4 

66.8 60.8 54.7 

Total Lp 76.6 70.6 64.6 

12.7.83 The noise impacts would fluctuate as works move from wellhead to wellhead. 

The closest wellhead to Cotes Wall Farm is 150 m away, indicating a noise 

impact between 60 dB(A) and 67 db(A) for the various phases of work. 

12.7.84 Construction noise impacts are indicated to be significant, in terms of the criteria 

in Table E.1 of Annex E of BS 5228, within 200 m of work on the wellheads. 

479

Gas Infrastructure 

12.7.85 The gas infrastructure for the Project consists of a Gas Compressor Compound 

(GCC), the gas distribution pipelines and manifolds connecting the wellheads to 

the GCC and an interconnector pipeline which links the GCC to the NTS near 

Nateby, approximately 12 km away. 

12.7.86 The GCC is used to condition and import/export gas from/to the NTS and the 

underground caverns. Each cavern wellhead is linked to the GCC by 

underground gas manifolds. 

12.7.87 A connection is proposed to National Grid Gas pipelines (No.21 and No 15 

Feeder) to ensure maximum flow rate and availability. At the connection point 

there would be a shut-down valve under National Grid Gas control. A gas 

metering station is proposed, adjacent to National Grid Gas’s existing valve 

installation on Feeder 21. 

12.7.88 A cleared area approximately 37m wide would be required to install the pipeline. 

This area is commonly referred to as the pipeline working width. The width 

would decrease in confined or sensitive areas. 

12.7.89 Typically the standard construction method for a gas pipeline would be as 

follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearing: The 37m working width would be cleared of vegetation. 

Grading: The working width would be levelled to the required gradient 

using graders, backhoes and bulldozers. 

Trenching: Either a wheel trencher or an excavator would be used to dig 

the trench in which the pipe would lie, depending on the terrain. A wheel 

trencher can only be used on level ground. 

Stringing: The pipeline would be transported to the site on trucks in 18m 

joints and off loaded using side boom tractors. The pipe would be strung 

adjacent to the trench and held off the ground on skids, which protects the 

pipe coating from damage. [Need to identify access points for delivery and 

any works to the highway] 

Bending: Generally, changes in pipeline direction for smaller diameter 

pipes can be catered for within the inherent flexibility of the pipe. However, 

in most cases the pipeline would have to be “cold bent”. The pipe would 

be cold bent using a hydraulic bending machine. 

Line-up and welding: Pipes would be welded in several layers. Initially, 

individual pipes would be held by a pneumatic line-up clamp and welded. 

Radiography: Each weld would be 100% radiographed to test for 

compliance to specifications. 

Joint Coating: The pipe would be coated during manufacturing and prior to 

stringing and each length would be checked for holes, abrasions or minor 

defects. 

Lowering in and backfilling: Soil and padding from borrow pits would be 

replaced in the bottom of the trench where required. 

480

Fabrications: Pipe fabrications include fittings, valves and connections, 

which would be welded to the pipe. Where possible, these installations 

would be prefabricated and then installed after the main construction crew 

has moved through an area. 

12.7.90 Of the works on the NTS interconnector pipeline, trenching and backfilling 

would generate the highest noise levels and the predicted noise impacts are 

indicated in Table 12-27. 


Levels during the Construction of the NTS Interconnector Pipeline 


50m 


Lp at 

100m 

Lp at 

200m 

Trenching Excavator 70.1 64.0 58.0 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 

Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Telescopic 

Handler 

66.5 60.5 54.4 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Total Lp 75.6 69.5 63.5 

Backfilling 

Front End 

Loader 

68.8 62.8 56.8 

Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Roller 

Compactor 

64.8 58.8 52.7 

Total Lp 72.3 66.3 60.3 

Metering 

Station 

Week 76 Week 133 Excavator 62.8 56.8 50.7 

30T Dumper 70.1 64.0 58.0 


Bulldozer 68.1 62.0 56.0 

Lorry 66.8 60.8 54.8 

Concrete Pump 

& Concrete 

mixer truck 

discharging 

66.8 60.8 54.7 


Total Lp 75.2 69.2 63.2 

12.7.91 Construction noise impacts would be highest at receptors that are closest to the 

trenching and backfilling works. The closest selected receptors along the NTS 

481

Interconnector route and the predicted noise impacts are indicated in Table 12- 

28. 


Levels at Selected Receptors during the Construction of the NTS 


Receptor Distance (m) Predicted 

Noise Impact 

(L Aeq ) dB 

Park Cottage Farm 65 73 

Fernacre 110 68.4 

Bridge Farm (Hall Gate Lane) 48 75.6 

Bone Hill Farm 80 71.2 

Clocky Cottages 75 71.7 

Black Head Lane 112 68.2 

12.7.92 Appropriate mitigation measures would need to be considered for works at Park 

Cottage Farm and Bridge Farm. 

Cumulative Noise Effects 

12.7.93 Cumulative construction noise impacts are likely where construction activities 

carried out near specific receptors overlap. These predictions are based on an 

indicative construction programme provided by the Applicant. Once a more 

definitive construction programme has been developed, more precise 

cumulative noise predictions can be made considering the exact phasing of 

various construction activities. 

12.7.94 Cumulative construction noise impacts are likely at Rossall Hospital from works 

on the brine outfall and diffuser installation, the seawall crossing and the direct 

bury of the brine pipeline. 

12.7.95 At the new Harbour Village residential development, cumulative impacts are 

likely during the first and second quarter of 2013 from works on the Seawater 

Pumping Station and the north Wyre crossing. 

12.7.96 At Carter’s Farm there is a potential for cumulative noise impacts from works on 

installing the electrical infrastructure and the directional drilling works at the 

south Wyre crossing. 

12.7.97 At Cote Walls Farm works on the Gas Compressor Compound, the Booster 

Pump Station, construction of the washing manifolds and drill pads and drilling 

at the wellhead compounds are likely to overlap at various times, resulting in a 

cumulative noise impact. 

12.7.98 Based on the daytime L Aeq levels recorded during the noise survey (Table 12-8) 

and the ABC method in BS 5228, suggested noise limits have been included in 

Table 12-30 below. Night-time noise limits have been suggested at the closest 

482

eceptor locations to the directional drilling compounds for the north and south 

Wyre crossings. 

12.7.99 The estimated cumulative noise impacts, from construction works only, at the 

representative receptor locations are shown in Table 12-29. 

Table 12-29 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Cumulative Unmitigated Noise 

Levels during the Construction Phase at Selected Receptors 

Receptor Start End Noise 

Impact 

(L Aeq ) in dB 


Brine Outfall & Diffuser Week 1 Week 36 68.0 

Seawall Crossing Week 10 Week 28 70.1 

Brine Pipeline Bury Week 14 Week 45 72.9 

Suggested 

Construction 

Noise Limit 

Total 75.6 70 N/A 

Harbour Village Residential Development 

Seawater Pumping Station Week 2 Week 54 70.1 

North River Crossing Week 2 Week 30 78.4 

Total 79.0 75 55 


Jameson Road Bridge Week 14 Week 23 74.1 

Brine Pipeline week 14 Week 40 72.9 

Total 76.6 75 N/A 

Cote Walls Farm (2013-2014) 

Drill Pads & Washing 

Manifolds 

Week 10 Week 45 63.5 

Booster Pump Station Week 28 Week 70 56.0 

Drilling & Wellheads Week 36 Week 207 68.3 

Total 69.7 70 N/A 

Cote Walls Farm (2014-2015) 


Dewatering week 70 Week 85 57.9 

Gas Compressor Station week 66 Week 129 59.6 

Total 69.2 70 N/A 

Carters Farm 

South River Crossing Week 10 Week 29 72.3 

Day 

Night 

483


Impact 


Electrical Infrastructure Week 32 Week 67 64.2 

Suggested 

Construction 

Noise Limit 

Total 72.9 70 50 

Little Height o' th' Hill 


Total 71.1 70 N/A 


Drill Pads & Washing 

Manifolds 

Week 10 Week 45 48.2 



Total 55.6 70 N/A 

Stanah House Caravan Park 

South River Crossing Week 10 Week 29 64.4 


Total 67.3 70 50 

Ivy Cottages 


NTS gas Interconnector Week 76 week 129 68.7 

Higher Lickow Week 10 Week 63 58.6 

Total 75.8 70 NA 

Corcas Farm 


NTS gas Interconnector Week 76 Week 129 68.7 






NTS Gas Interconnector Week 76 week 129 75.6 



Drill Pads & Washing Week 10 Week 45 48.2 

Day 

Night 

484


Impact 


Manifolds 



Suggested 

Construction 

Noise Limit 


Elm Farm Nateby 

NTS Gas Interconnector Week 76 Week 129 67.9 

Metering Station Week 76 Week 129 62.1 


Day 

Night 

12.7.100 The cumulative noise assessment in Table 12-29 above indicate that noise 

impacts would be significant where work on the gas interconnector and 

electrical infrastructure passes close to receptor locations. This is indicated by 

the high predicted noise levels at Corcas Farm, Park Farm/ Park Cottage, Ivy 

Cottages, Little Height o’ th’ Hill and Carter’s Farm Works on the brine pipeline 

would also produce similarly high noise levels at receptors within close 

proximity to works, as can be seen from the predicted noise levels at Rossall 

Hospital. These works would however be transient and would be relatively short 

duration. 

12.7.101 Directional drilling works on the river crossings are of concern, particularly at 

night, where it is indicated that predicted noise levels at the Harbour Village 

residential development and Carter’s Farm would be well above the suggested 

night-time noise limits. At the Harbour Village residential development, in the 

absence of mitigation, noise levels from the drilling works on the North River 

crossing are predicted at 78.4 dB, which is well above the suggested night-time 

noise limit of 55 dB. 

Potential Vibration Effects 

12.7.102 Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, 

depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction 

equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and 

diminish in strength with distance. 

12.7.103 There are no accepted formulae for predicting the passage of vibration through 

ground due to the non-uniform effects of different ground conditions, although 

some empirical formulae have been proposed for known ground conditions 

based on previously measured data. 

12.7.104 Vibration can both be a source of nuisance to occupiers of affected properties 

and a source of building damage. The significance of vibration levels generated 

during Scheme construction is assessed by comparison of the predicted 

485

vibration levels with guideline levels for annoyance impacts and the onset of 

building damage. 

12.7.105 BS 5228 (2009) ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction 

and open sites – Part 2: Vibration’ refers to the need for the protection against 

noise and vibration of persons living and working in the vicinity of, and those 

working on, construction and open sites. It recommends procedures for noise 

and vibration control in respect of construction. 

12.7.106 BS 5228 -2 refers to the guidance provided in BS 6472 ‘Guide to evaluation of 

human exposure to vibration in buildings – Part 1:2008’ and BS 7385 

‘Evaluation and measurement of vibration in buildings’. 

12.7.107 Buildings are reasonably resilient to ground-borne vibration and vibrationinduced 

damage is rare. BS 5228-2 recommends that a conservative threshold 

for minor or cosmetic damage should be taken as a ppv of 10mms-1 for 

intermittent vibration and 5mms-1 for continuous vibration to determine whether 

there is any risk of building damage, particularly from construction works 

involving piling. 

12.7.108 Surface plant such as cranes, compressors and generators are not recognised 

as sources of high levels of environmental vibration and reference to Figure 1 of 

‘Control of Vibration and Noise during Piling’ (British Steel. 1998) confirms that 

even at a closest distance of 10m, peak particle velocities (ppv) significantly 

less than 5mms-1 are generated by such plant. For example, the indication is 

that a bulldozer would generate a ppv of approximately 0.6mms-1 and a ‘heavy 

lorry on poor road surface’ a ppv of less than 0.1mms-1 at 10m. These values 

are well below limits at which even cosmetic building damage becomes likely 

(5mms-1). 

12.7.109 The construction of the brine pipeline may potentially exceed the vibration 

criteria at the surrounding residential receivers. The majority of construction 

activities along the pipeline would not produce perceptible levels of vibration 

due to the distance from the receivers. However, some activities such as piling 

at the drilling compounds and rolling and compacting may produce levels of 

vibration that are perceptible and potentially intrusive when construction 

activities are located within 50 m of residences. 

12.7.110 The information available at this stage of the assessment of the construction 

would not be sufficient to predict vibration impacts or to define specific 

construction vibration mitigation measures. In this instance it would therefore be 

appropriate to commit to developing a mitigation plan that would be developed 

and implemented during the final design and construction phases of the Project. 


12.7.111 Contours indicating the combined construction and operational noise impacts 

are indicated on Figure 12-3. 

486


12.7.112 This section considers the noise impacts from plant noise and construction 

works that would continue after commissioning of the Gas Compressor 

Compound and Booster Pump Station. 

12.7.113 Table 12-30 presents the predicted noise levels during the construction and 

operation combined phase at Cote Walls Farm. The contribution of construction 

noise level is based upon a worst case scenario from Week 151 to Week 169 

during the drilling of well head 14 and 15 and the washing of wells 7 to 12. 

Traffic noise levels are not predicted to have an effect at Cote Walls Farm as 

the property is situated more than 600 m away from any affected traffic route. 

12.7.114 The noise levels presented in Table 12-30 indicate that the worst affected 

façade at Cote Walls Farm are the southern and eastern facades during the 

night-time. Noise levels at these facades are predicted to be 9.3 dB higher at 

the southern façade and 9.9 dB higher at the eastern façade. 

12.7.115 Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (World Health Organization, 2009) suggests 

a night time noise level limit of 40dB at the external façade of any dwelling. This 

level is based upon the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of night 

time noise with 40dB being considered to be a ‘health-based limit value for night 

time necessary to protect the public, including most of the vulnerable groups 

such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly, from the adverse health 

effects of night noise.’ 

Table 12-30 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Cote 

Walls Farm during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 

Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

North Facade 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise 

Level 

31.8 31.8 32.2 24.8 -0.4 7.0 

East Facade 

34.7 34.7 32.2 24.8 2.5 9.9 

South Facade 

34.1 34.1 32.2 24.8 1.9 9.3 

West Facade 

33.0 33.0 32.2 24.8 0.8 8.2 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& 

Predicted 

Noise 

Level 

12.7.116 Using the eastern façade as the worst case scenario, predicted noise levels 

from the combined operation and construction of the Project during the night 

487

time period are predicted to be 34.7dB which would be 5.3dB below the 40dB 

limit set out in WHO Night Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise reduction 

for an open window internal noise levels would be 24.7dB which would be 

5.3dB below WHO guideline internal levels for the prevention of sleep 

disturbance. 

12.7.117 Although changes in noise level during the night time period may be 

perceptible, predicted levels would be low and would not have any adverse 

health effects or cause sleep disturbance. With reasoned judgement the impact 

upon night time noise levels at Cote Walls Farm would be considered not 

significant. 

12.7.118 Daytime noise levels are predicted to be below existing daytime background 

noise levels and would not result in a significant change of more than 3dB which 

in terms of environmental noise is considered the minimum perceptible change 

in level and would be considered not significant. 

Ivy Cottages 

12.7.119 Table 12-31 below presents the predicted operation and construction noise 

levels and existing noise level at Ivy Cottages. The contribution of construction 


during the drilling of well head 16 to 19 and the washing of wells 7 to 12. 

Operational traffic noise levels along Back Lane have also been included for the 

time period of 7 am until 8 am. 

Table 12-31 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Ivy 

Cottages during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 

Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

36.1 28.3 32.2 24.8 3.9 3.5 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& Predicted 

Noise Level 

12.7.120 The noise levels presented in Table 12-31 indicate that predicted daytime noise 

levels would be 3.9dB above existing background noise levels and night time 

levels would be 3.5dB above existing background levels. 

12.7.121 Predicted noise levels from operation and construction of the Project during the 

night time period are predicted to be 28.3dB which would be 11.7dB below the 

40dB limit set out in WHO Night Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise 

reduction for an open window internal noise levels would be 18.3dB which 

would be 11.7dB below WHO guideline internal levels for the prevention of 

sleep disturbance. 



488


upon night time noise levels would be considered not significant. 

12.7.123 Daytime noise levels are predicted to have a perceptible change in noise levels 

of 3.0 dB which in terms of environmental noise is considered the minimum 

perceptible. Although the change in level would be perceptible the resultant 

noise level would be comparatively low and would not have any adverse health 

impacts upon any residents at Ivy Cottages. Considering the low levels 

predicted the noise impacts from operation and construction would be not 

significant. 

Park Farm/Park Cottage 


levels and existing noise level at Park Farm. The contribution of construction 






levels would be 0.1dB below existing background noise levels and night time 


Table 12-32 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Park 

Farm / Park Cottage during the Construction and Operation Combined 

Phase 

Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

32.1 29.6 32.2 24.8 -0.1 4.8 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& Predicted 

Noise Level 



40dB limit set out in the WHO Night Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise 










489



Corcas Farm 


levels and existing noise level at Corcas Farm. The contribution of construction 


during the drilling of well heads 16 to 19 and the washing of wells 7 to 12. 



Table 12-33 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Corcas 

Farm during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 

Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

28.7 28.2 32.2 24.8 -3.5 3.4 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& Predicted 

Noise Level 


















Riverside Cottage and Sportsman Cottage and Caravan Park 


levels and existing noise level at Riverside Cottage and Sportsman Cottage and 

Caravan Park. The contribution of construction noise level is based upon a 

worst case scenario from Week 169 to Week 202 during the drilling of well 

heads 16 to 19 and the washing of wells 7 to 12. Operational traffic noise levels 

490

are not predicted to have an effect at Riverside Cottage as it is situated more 

than 600 m away from any affected traffic route. 

Table 12-34 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at 

Riverside Cottage and Sportsman’s Cottage and Caravan Park during the 


Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

26.5 26.5 34.8 29.8 -8.3 -3.3 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& Predicted 

Noise Level 



levels would be 3.3dB below existing background levels. 







12.7.137 Daytime and night time noise levels are predicted to be below existing 

background noise levels and would not result in a significant change of more 

than 3dB which in terms of environmental noise is considered the minimum 

perceptible change in level and would be considered not significant. 

Height o’ th’ Hill and Little Height o’ th’ Hill 


levels and existing noise level at Height o’ th’ Hill, as representative of both 

Little Height o’ th' Hill as well. The contribution of construction noise level is 

based upon a worst case scenario from Week 169 to Week 202 during the 

drilling of well heads 16 to 19 and the washing of wells 7 to 12. Construction 

traffic noise levels along Back Lane have also been included for the time period 

of 7 am until 8 am. 

491

Table 12-35 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Height 

o’ th’ Hill and Little Height o’ th’ Hill during the Construction and 

Operation Combined Phase 

Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

26.2 25.8 34.9 29.5 -8.7 -3.7 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& Predicted 

Noise Level 



levels would be 3.7dB below existing background levels. 







12.7.141 Daytime and night time noise levels are predicted to be below existing 

background noise levels and would not result in a significant change of more 

than 3dB which in terms of environmental noise is considered the minimum 

perceptible change in level and would be considered not significant. 

The Grange 


levels and existing noise level at The Grange. The contribution of construction 



Construction traffic noise levels along Back Lane have also been included for 

the time period of 7 am until 8 am. 

Table 12-36 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at The 

Grange during the Construction and Operation Combined Phase 

Predicted 

Daytime 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Predicted 

Night time 

Operation & 

Construction 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

26.4 25.9 32.2 24.8 -5.8 1.1 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time 

& Predicted 

Noise Level 

492


levels would be 5.8 dB below existing background noise levels and night time 

levels would be 1.1 dB above existing background levels. 







12.7.145 Daytime noise levels are predicted to be below existing background noise 

levels. There would be an increase of 1.1 dB at night, which would not result in 

a significant change of more than 3dB which in terms of environmental noise is 

considered the minimum perceptible change in level and would be considered 


Operation 


12.7.146 Table 12-37 below presents the predicted operational noise levels and existing 

noise level at Cote Walls Farm. The main sources of operational noise at this 

receptor are from the Gas Compressor Compound which is situated towards the 

south east of the receptor. Operational traffic noise levels are not predicted to 

have an effect at Cote Walls Farm as it is situated more than 600 m away from 

any affected traffic route. 

12.7.147 The noise levels presented in Table 12-37 indicate that the worst affected 

façade at Cote Walls Farm are the southern and eastern facades during the 

night time. Noise levels at these facades are predicted to be 6.0dB higher at the 

southern façade and 7.3dB higher at the eastern façade. 

12.7.148 Although the results from the BS4142 assessment (see Appendix 12-1 of 

Volume 1B) indicate that during the night time there is a high likelihood of 

complaint the predicted low rating level and background level during the night 

time period would be beyond the scope of BS 4142 and it would be best to 

consider noise levels in terms of absolute noise level. 

Table 12-37 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Cote 

Walls Farm during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level for 

Daytime Period 

L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

North Facade 

21.8 32.2 24.8 -10.4 -3 

East Facade 

493

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level for 

Daytime Period 

L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

32.2 32.2 24.8 0 7.4 

South Facade 

30.0 32.2 24.8 -2.2 5.2 

West Facade 

29.1 32.2 24.8 -3.1 4.3 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

12.7.149 The Night Noise Guidelines for Europe suggests a night time noise level limit of 

40dB at the external façade of any dwelling. This level is based upon the lowest 

observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of night time noise with 40dB being 

considered to be a ‘health-based limit value for night time necessary to protect 

the public, including most of the vulnerable groups such as children, the 

chronically ill and the elderly, from the adverse health effects of night noise.’ 

12.7.150 Using the eastern façade as the worst case scenario, predicted noise levels 

from the operation of the Project during the night time period are predicted to be 

32.2dB which would be 7.8dB below the 40dB limit set out in the WHO Night 

Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise reduction for an open window 

internal noise levels would be 22.2dB which would be 7.8dB below WHO 

guideline internal levels for the prevention of sleep disturbance. 









12.7.153 Operational levels of vibration (see Appendix 12-2 of Volume 1B) are 

considered not significant as the vibration levels required from operation to be 

perceptible would more than likely result in mechanical failure of equipment and 

plant associated with the Project. 

Ivy Cottages 


noise level at Ivy Cottage. The main sources of operational noise at this 


north of the receptor. Operational traffic noise levels are not predicted to have 

an effect as traffic flows are not predicted to change along Back Lane for the 

operational year of 2024. 

494

Table 12-38 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Ivy 

Cottages during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Night-time 

Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

27.3 32.2 24.8 -4.9 2.5 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 




12.7.156 Although the results from the BS4142 assessment (see Appendix 12.1 of 

Volume 1B) indicate that during the night time there is a higher than marginal 

likelihood of complaint the predicted low rating and background levels during 

the night time period would be beyond the scope of BS 4142 and it would be 

best to consider noise levels in terms of absolute noise level. 

12.7.157 Predicted noise levels from the operation of the Project during the night time 

period are predicted to be 27.3dB which would be 12.7dB below the 40dB limit 

set out in the WHO Night Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise reduction 



disturbance. 









12.7.160 Operational levels of vibration(see Appendix 12-2 of Volume 1B) are considered 

not significant as the vibration levels required from operation to be perceptible 

would more than likely result in mechanical failure of equipment and plant 

associated with the Project. 

Park Farm / Park Cottage 


noise level at Park Cottage. The main sources of operational noise at this 


west of the receptor. Operational traffic noise levels are not predicted to have 

an effect as traffic flows are not predicted to change along Back Lane for the 

operational year of 2024. 

495

Table 12-39 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Park 

Farm / Park Cottage during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

28.9 32.2 24.8 -3.3 4.1 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 











disturbance. 









Corcas Farm 


noise level at Corcas Farm. The main sources of operational noise at this 


north west of the receptor. Operational traffic noise levels are not predicted to 

have an effect as traffic flows are not predicted to change along Back Lane for 

the operational year of 2024. 






496

Table 12-40 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Corcas 

Farm during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

27.2 32.2 24.8 -5.0 2.4 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 






disturbance. 













The Grange 


noise level at The Grange. The main sources of operational noise at this 


north west of the receptor. Operational traffic noise levels are not predicted to 

have an effect as traffic flows are not predicted to change along Back Lane for 

the operational year of 2024. 

497

Table 12-41 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at The 

Grange during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

23.2 32.2 24.8 -9.0 -1.6 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 


Volume 1B) indicate that during the night time there is a less than marginal 









disturbance. 

12.7.175 Changes in noise level during the night time period are predicted to be below 

existing background noise levels and would not have any adverse health effects 

or cause sleep disturbance. With reasoned judgement the impact upon night 

time noise levels would be considered not significant. 





Height o’ th’ Hill and Little Height o’ th’ Hill 


noise level at Height o’ th’ Hill, as representative of Little Height o’ th' Hill. The 

main sources of operational noise at these receptors are from the compressor 

compound which is situated towards the north of the receptor. Operational 

traffic noise levels are not predicted to have an effect as traffic flows are not 

predicted to change along Back Lane for the operational year of 2024. 

498

Table 12-42 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Height 

o’ th’ Hill and Little Height o’ th’ Hill during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

23.3 32.2 24.8 -8.9 -1.5 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 








set out in WHO Night Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise reduction for 

an open window internal noise levels would be 13.1dB which would be 16.9dB 

below WHO guideline internal levels for the prevention of sleep disturbance. 













Riverside Cottage and Sportsman Cottage and Caravan Park 


noise level at Riverside Cottage and Sportsman’s Cottage and Caravan Park. 

The main sources of operational noise at this receptor are from the compressor 

compound which is situated towards the north east of the receptor. Operational 

traffic noise levels are not predicted to have an effect as the receptors are 

situated more than 600 m away from any effected traffic route. 

499

Table 12-43 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at 

Riverside Cottage and Sportsman Cottage and Caravan Park during the 


Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

24.5 34.8 29.8 -10.3 -5.3 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 











disturbance. 









Harbour Village Residential Development at the Fish Dock 


noise level at the new Harbour Village residential development at the Fish Dock. 

The main sources of operational noise at this receptor are from the Seawater 

Pumping Station which is situated towards the east of the nearest residential 

dwelling. Operational traffic noise levels are not predicted to have an effect as 

traffic noise levels are not predicted to change in the year 2024 (see Appendix 

12-3 of Volume 1B). 

500

Table 12-44 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at the 

Harbour Village Residential Development at the Fish Dock during the 


Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

26.6 35.6 32.2 -9.0 -5.6 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 


Volume 1B) indicate that during the night time there is a low likelihood of 

complaint the predicted low rating and background levels during the night time 

period would be beyond the scope of BS 4142 and it would be best to consider 

noise levels in terms of absolute noise level. 






disturbance. 















noise level at the new residential development at Fleetwood Dock. The main 

sources of operational noise at this receptor are from the sea wall which is 

situated towards the west of the receptor. Operational traffic noise levels are not 

predicted to have an effect as traffic noise levels are predicted to have a 

negligible change in the year 2024 (see Appendix 12-3 of Volume 1B). 

501

Table 12-45 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Rossall 

Hospital during the Operational Phase 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 


Period L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

28.7 41.7 37.4 -13.0 -8.7 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 


Volume 1B) indicate that during the night time there is a low likelihood of 

complaint the predicted low rating level during the night time period would be 

beyond the scope of BS 4142 and it would be best to consider noise levels in 

terms of absolute noise level. 


period are predicted to be 28.7 dB which would be 11.3 dB below the 40dB limit 

set out in the Night Noise Guidelines. Assuming a 10dB noise reduction for an 

open window internal noise levels would be 18.7 dB which would be 11.3 dB 

below WHO guideline internal levels for the prevention of sleep disturbance. 









Other Residential Receptors within the Study Area 


noise level for other identified sensitive receptors. All of the receptors 

considered in Table 12-11 are predicted to have operational noise levels of less 

than 20dB which would be lower than the lowest night time level measured 

during the baseline noise survey. Operational traffic noise levels are not 

predicted to have an effect as traffic noise levels are predicted to have a 

negligible change in the year 2024 (see Appendix 12-3 of Volume 1B). 

502

Table 12-46 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Predicted Noise Effects at Other 

Sensitive Residential Receptors during the Operational Phase 

Receptor 

Name 

Predicted 

Operational 

Level L Aeq,T 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Daytime 

Period L A90 

Existing 

Background 

Noise Level 

for Nighttime 

Period 

L A90 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Daytime & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

Carter’s Farm 15.9 34.9 29.5 -19.0 -13.6 

Elm Farm 12.5 38.6 N/A* -26.1 N/A* 

Rossall 

School 17.8 41.7 37.4 -23.9 -19.6 

Blackpool 

and The 

Fylde College 13.1 41.7 37.4 -28.6 -24.3 

Stanah 

House 

Caravan Park 9.6 36.9 33.2 -27.3 -23.6 

Broadwater 

Caravan Park 13.9 47.7 34.1 -33.8 -20.2 

Residential 

Dwellings 

Along West 

Way 18.8 36.9 33.2 -18.1 -14.4 

Residential 

Dwellings 

Along South 

Strand 13.6 35.6 32.2 -22.0 -18.6 

* Night time noise survey not undertaken. 

Difference 

between 

Existing 

Night-time & 

Predicted 

Noise Level 

12.7.200 Changes in noise level during the night time period are predicted to be a 

minimum of 13dB below existing background noise levels and 26dB below 

WHO night time noise levels and would not have any adverse health effects or 

cause sleep disturbance at any of the receptors presented in Table 12-46. With 

reasoned judgement the impact upon night time noise levels would be 


12.7.201 Daytime noise levels are predicted to be a minimum of 19dB below existing 

daytime background noise levels and would not result in a significant change of 

more than 3dB which in terms of environmental noise is considered the 

minimum perceptible change in level and would be considered not significant. 





503


12.7.203 During the decommissioning phase for each topic area, it has been assumed 

that a majority of the Project infrastructure (both above ground and belowground) 

would remain in-situ if required for alternative uses. Given the 

uncertainty associated with the decommissioning phase, it is difficult to 

determine the nature and quantum of decommissioning effects at this stage. It 

is however important that the outline and detailed design of the Project takes 

into account possible future uses (e.g. ensuring that buildings can be easily 

deconstructed and materials can be recycled). 

12.7.204 Noise and vibration impacts associated with the decommissioning phase are 

not envisaged to be any greater than those reported for other phases (i.e. the 

construction phase, the construction and operation combined phase, and the 

operational phase). 

Summary 

12.7.205 The assessment of the construction noise impacts, combined construction and 

operational noise impacts and operational noise impacts described above 

indicates that significant noise impacts will only occur during the construction 

phase of the Development. The significant noise impacts are summarised in 

Table 12-47. In Table 24-7 significance has been determined in relation to the 

maximum permissible construction noise limit at these receptor locations. 

12.7.206 As stated previously, specific measures to mitigate against construction noise 

impacts can only be identified once a detailed construction programme and 

method statement has been developed. For the purposes of this assessment it 

has been assumed that screening will be provided at all construction works and 

a 10 dB reduction due to this screening has been considered in Table 12-47. It 

must however be noted that in some instances screening will achieve higher 

levels of attenuation, while in other cases screening may not be the most 

suitable option and alternative mitigation such as change in construction 

method, use of quieter plant or use of purpose designed acoustic enclosures 

may need to be considered. 

Table 12-47 Noise and Vibration Assessment - Summary of Significant Noise 

Impacts With and Without Mitigation 

Receptor 

Unmitigated 

Noise 

Impact 


Mitigated 

Noise 

Impact 


Suggested 

Construction 

Noise Limit 

Day 

Night 

Rossall Hospital 75.6 65.6 70 N/A 

Harbour Village Residential 

Development 

79.0 69.0 75 55 

Broadwater Caravan Park 76.6 66.6 75 N/A 

Cote Walls Farm 69.7 59.7 70 N/A 

504

Receptor 

Unmitigated 

Noise 

Impact 


Mitigated 

Noise 

Impact 


Suggested 

Construction 

Noise Limit 

Day 

Night 

Carters Farm 72.9 62.7 70 50 

Little Height o' th' Hill 71.1 61.1 70 N/A 


Park 

67.3 57.3 70 50 

Ivy Cottages 75.8 65.8 70 NA 

Corcas Farm 73.4 63.4 70 NA 

Park Farm/ Park Cottage 78.3 68.3 70 NA 

Elm Farm Nateby 68.9 58.9 70 NA 




Construction 

12.8.2 The construction noise impacts predicted above are based on the current 

construction programme and assumptions regarding the construction plant to be 

used. 

12.8.3 Recommendations regarding mitigation measures described below are 

therefore based on our present understanding of the construction programme 

and plant to be used. It is however likely that the plant to be used would only be 

finalised once contractors have been appointed to carry out the various 

construction activities. 

12.8.4 The construction noise predictions indicate that certain activities such as the 

demolition works at the Seawall, directional drilling for the river crossings and 

piling works are likely to generate high noise levels. The noise impacts would 

depend on the proximity of receptor locations to these works. 

12.8.5 Rossall Hospital would be a sensitive receptor of particular concern considering 

the potential for cumulative noise impacts from work on the sea outfall, the 

seawall crossing and the burying of the brine pipeline. Where possible the use 

of acoustic screens would be used to reduce noise impacts at this receptor 

location. 

12.8.6 The compound for the directional drilling on the north Wyre crossing is located 

very close to the new Harbour Village residential development. The directional 

drilling would be continuous and is likely to result in high noise impacts, 

particularly at night. Appropriate mitigation measures would need to be 

considered, such as acoustic screening of the drilling rig and mud pumps and 

erecting site hoardings around the construction compound. It is likely that the 

505

drilling rig would be located within a trench. Depending on the depth of the 

trench in relation to the height of the rig, the walls of the trench may provide 

some acoustic screening. 

12.8.7 A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) would be developed for 

the Project and would include general measures to minimise noise impacts from 

the construction phase, including: 

 

 

Best Practicable Means’ (BPM) (as outlined in Section 72 of the Control of 

Pollution Act 1974) would be employed in order to minimise noise and 

vibration levels throughout the period of the works. 

Recommendations and good practice as shown in British Standard (BS) 

5228: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction 

and Open Sites: 2009 would be adopted. 

12.8.8 Generic measures for the mitigation of construction noise at all work locations 

would be included in the CEMP. The measures set out in BS 5228 would 

include the following as appropriate; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction works would be confined to the normal working hours where 

possible. It is however recognised that directional drilling for the north and 

south crossings on the River Wyre, drilling at the wellheads and washing 

of the wellheads would by necessity be continuous processes. 

Careful selection of plant, construction methods and programming would 

ensure that quieter plant is selected. Where possible only plant 

conforming to relevant national or international standards, directives and 

recommendations on noise and vibration emissions would be used. 

Construction plant would be located, as far as is reasonably practicable, 

away from adjacent occupied buildings or as close as possible to noise 

barriers or site hoardings where these are located between the plant and 

the buildings. Construction plant would however need to be located at the 

limits of work and there may be little scope for increasing the separation 

distance between plant and receptor locations. 

Static and semi-static plant/equipment would be fitted with suitable 

enclosures where practicable. 

Personnel would be instructed on BPM to reduce noise and vibration as 

part of their induction training and as required prior to specific work 

activities. 

When plant is not being used, it would be shut down and not left to idle 

Vehicles would not wait with engines running 

Where practicable, all audible warning systems and alarms would be 

designed to minimise noise. Broadband reverse alarms would be fitted to 

all vehicles. 

Local residents would be consulted in advance of the works commencing 

Localised mobile screening would be used where reasonably practicable 

to reduce the noise levels from handheld tools such as concrete saws. 

506

12.8.9 Where necessary, applications for "prior consent" under Section 61 of the 

Control of Pollution Act 1974 would be prepared for any noisy activities, and 

agreed with Wyre Borough Council in advance of works taking place. 


12.8.10 The combined phase of construction and operation at receptors in the area of 

the well heads are not predicted to generate noise levels in excess of the 

LOAEL of 40dB. Predicted levels being below this level provides a positive 

indication that the construction and operation of the Project would not have any 

adverse health impacts or disturb sleep during the night time period and would 

not require mitigation. 

Operation 

12.8.11 Unmitigated operational noise levels are not predicted to have a major impact 

upon existing noise levels within the local area with operational noise levels 

from the Project predicted to be below the LOAEL of 40dB. The predicted 

operational noise levels would not have any adverse health impacts or disturb 

sleep patterns, therefore further mitigation other than that included in the 

Projects design would not be required. 


12.8.12 Noise impacts during decommissioning are expected to be similar or less than 

those for construction of the above surface infrastructure and therefore 

mitigation would be similar to what is proposed for construction. 

12.8.13 Specific mitigation measures would need to be developed once the exact 

methods and plant to be used during decommissioning are known. 





Construction 

12.9.2 At this stage it is not possible to decide on specific mitigation measures and 

therefore the residual impacts after implementation of mitigation cannot be 

accurately predicted. Appropriate mitigation measures would be developed at 

detailed design stage and would be implemented through the CEMP to ensure 

that construction noise limits are met. 

12.9.3 The construction noise predictions in Section 12-7 therefore present a possible 

worst case with no mitigation in place, which means that the residual impact 

would be the worst case noise levels. In reality mitigation would be possible 

through screening methods, acoustic enclosures, change of construction 

method or use of quieter plant. 

507

Table 12-48 indicates the likely residual noise impacts assuming the use of 

screening at all construction activities. For the purposes of this assessment a 

reduction of 10 dB has been considered for the use of acoustic screens. This 

will however vary from site to site, depending on the height of the acoustic 

screen, the design of the screen and the position of the screen in relation to the 

noise source and the receptor location. 


12.9.4 As no form of mitigation is required the residual impacts would be the same as 

discussed in section 12.7. 

Operation 

12.9.5 As no form of mitigation is required the residual impacts would be the same as 

discussed in section 12.7. 


12.9.6 During decommissioning noise and vibration impacts would occur for the 

duration of the decommissioning works and there would not be any residual 

impacts on completion of the works. 


12.10.1 The construction and operational noise and vibration assessment has been 

carried out considering the Project information available at this stage. Detailed 

design has not been finalised and in certain instances assumptions have been 

made to indicate noise and vibration impacts. 

12.10.2 A detailed assessment of the construction noise and vibration impacts requires 

a detailed construction plan and inventory of plant to be used. At this stage it is 

not possible to provide the level of detail required and an indicative construction 

programme has been used. A possible worst case has been presented by 

assuming a high percentage on-time for construction plant and a free-field for 

the propagation of noise across hard ground. 

12.10.3 Once the detailed construction programme has been finalised more definitive 

predictions for both noise and vibration can be made and specific mitigation 

measures can be recommended. 

12.10.4 The operational noise assessment has considered information detailed in 

current Scheme descriptions and design drawings. The detailed design would 

however still need to be refined and finer detail regarding pump types and other 

plant to be installed, final layout, details of doors, acoustic louvres and other 

elements of the building construction would need to be finalised. The prediction 

of operational noise in the absence of more detailed mitigation measures that 

could be implemented presents a possible worst case. 

12.10.5 Initially consultation with Wyre Borough Council regarding the assessment 

methodology and permissible noise limits was done with Neil Martin (EHO). Neil 

Martin left WBC and for a time there was no point of contact resulting in a break 

508

in consultation. David McArthur was subsequently assigned responsibility to 

deal with the noise assessment on behalf of WBC and needed time to build up 

a full understanding of the Project. At the time of producing this report, WBC 

has not responded to suggested operational noise limits. 

12.11 Summary 

12.11.1 Existing noise measurements were taken at various sensitive receptors in the 

vicinity of the Project as agreed with Wyre Borough Council. 

12.11.2 The construction of the pipeline between the Irish Sea and Wyre Estuary would 

involve a combination of open cut excavation and thrust boring. The types of 

plant used for these operations are noisy, and in some places would be within 

20 metres of the nearest residential properties. However, each piece of plant 

would only be used intermittently depending on the phase of construction, and 

the potential impact would be minimised through limiting working hours to the 

daytime only, and ensuring a short time is spent at each location during 

excavation and construction of the pipeline as it is being laid. 

12.11.3 The directional drilling also has potential to be a noisy operation, and would be 

carried out at night close to the new Harbour Village Development at Fleetwood. 

However, impacts would be minimised by ensuring noise levels meet 

acceptable noise level standards, particularly at night. 

12.11.4 The construction of the Booster Pump Stations and Gas Compressor 

Compound would occur in excess of 100 metres from the nearest sensitive 

receptors. Mitigation measures implemented during the construction phase 

would ensure that noise effects at the receptors are not significant. 

12.11.5 Combined noise impacts from operation and construction works on the 

wellheads are not anticipated to result in any significant noise effects at nearby 

receptors. 

12.11.6 During operation of the Project, the pipelines and air vents are not anticipated to 

be audible, and the Seawater Pumping Station, Booster Pump Station and Gas 

Compressor Compound are not anticipated to create a significant noise effect. 

12.11.7 Construction of the Project would result in increases in traffic on the road 

network. Although it has been calculated that traffic related noise levels would 

slightly increase along some of the road links, they are not considered to be 

significant according to relevant guidance. Additional traffic due to people 

travelling to and from work is considered to be insignificant. 

12.11.8 Construction noise and vibration effects would occur and be managed through 

the Construction Environmental Management Plan and through other measures 

to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Measures would be taken 

through detailed design to limit operational noise from plant including specifying 

quiet plant, providing appropriate enclosure (e.g. through building design) and 

screening (e.g. through earth mounding). 

509

Table 12-48 

Noise and Vibration Assessment – Summary of Residual Effects 

Receptor 

Rossall 

Hospital 

Stanah 

Caravan 

Park 

Redrow 

Residential 

Development 

Receptor 

Value 

Without Mitigation and/or Enhancement Measures With Mitigation and/or Enhancement 

Measures 

Description 

of Potential 

Effect 

Phase 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Potential 

Effect 

Significance 

Mitigation 

and/or 

Enhancement 

Measures 

High Noise Construction 27 dB Significant Specific 

mitigation to 

be decided 

High Noise Construction 24 dB day 

30 dB 

night 

High 

Night-time 

noise during 

drilling 

Construction 27 dB day 

39 dB 

night 

Significant 

Significant 

Specific 

mitigation to 

be decided 

Specific 

mitigation to 

be decided 

Description 

of Residual 

Effect 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Residual 

Effect 

Significance 

17 dB Moderate 

significance 

14 dB day 

and 20 dB 

night 

17 dB day 

and 29 dB 

night 

Significant at 

night 

Significant at 

night 

510

Receptor 

Broadwater 

Caravan 

Park 

Cote Walls 

Farm 

The Heads 

Caravan 

Park 

Receptor 

Value 


Measures 

Description 

of Potential 

Effect 

Phase 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Potential 

Effect 

Significance 

Mitigation 

and/or 

Enhancement 

Measures 


mitigation to 

be decided 


mitigation to 

be decided 

High Noise Construction 10 dB Moderate 

Significance 

Specific 

mitigation to 

be decided 

Description 

of Residual 

Effect 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Residual 

Effect 

Significance 


significance 


significance 

0 dB No impact 

511

Receptor 

Carter’s 

Farm 

Fernacre, 

Cemetery 

Lane 

Elm Farm, 

Nateby Road 

Receptor 

Value 


Measures 

Description 

of Potential 

Effect 

Phase 

Magnitude 

of Change 

High Noise Construction 26 dB day 

37 dB 

night 

Potential 

Effect 

Significance 

Significant 

Mitigation 

and/or 

Enhancement 

Measures 

Specific 

mitigation to 

be decided 


mitigation to 

be decided 


mitigation to 

Description 

of Residual 

Effect 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

Dependent 

on mitigation 

Magnitude 

of Change 

16 dB day 

and 27 dB 

night 

Residual 

Effect 

Significance 

Significant, 

particularly 

at night 

2 dB Not 

significant 

4 dB Not 

significant 

512


Measures 

Receptor 

Receptor 

Value 

Description 

of Potential 

Effect 

Phase 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Potential 

Effect 

Significance 

Mitigation 

and/or 

Enhancement 

Measures 

Description 

of Residual 

Effect 

Magnitude 

of Change 

Residual 

Effect 

Significance 

be decided 

implemented. 

Assumed 

use of 

acoustic 

screens and 

reduction of 

10dB 

513


British Standards Institute (1990) Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in 

Buildings (BS 7385-1) 

British Standards Institute (1997) Method for Rating of Industrial Noise Affecting 

Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas (BS4142) 

British Standards Institute (1999) Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for 

Buildings – Code of Practice (BS 8233) 

British Standard Institute (2008) Guide to Human Exposure to Vibration in 

buildings; Vibration sources other than blasting (BS 6472) 

British Standards Institute (2009) Noise and Vibration Control on Construction 

and Open Sites Part 1-Noise (BS5228) 

British Standards Institute (2009) Noise and Vibration Control on Construction 

and Open Sites Part 2 – Vibration (BS5228) 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010) Revised Draft National 

Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN- 

4) Planning for new energy infrastructure Presented to Parliament pursuant to 

section 9(2) of the Planning Act 2008. October 2010 London: The Stationery 

Office 


Statement for Energy (EN-1) Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5(9) 

of the Planning Act 2008 July 2011 London: The Stationery Office 

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2010) ‘Noise Policy 

Statement for England’ (Defra, March 2010) 

Department for Communities and Local Government (1994) Policy Planning 

Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise (PPG 24) 

Department of Transport and Welsh Office (1988) Calculation of Road Traffic 

Noise (CRTN) 

Environment Agency (2002) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) 

Horizontal Guidance for Noise Part 1 – Noise Assessment and Control 

Environment Agency (2002) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) 

Horizontal Guidance for Noise Part 2 – Noise Assessment and Control 

Environment Agency (2006) Guidance for the Gasification, Liquefaction and 

Refining Sector (IPPC S1.02) 

Environment Agency (2009) How to comply with your environmental permit: 

Additional guidance for: Gasification, Liquefaction and Refining Installations 

(EPR 1.02) 

514

Highways Agency (2008) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 

Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (HA 213/11) 




Report 

Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment / Institute of Acoustics 

(2002) Noise Impact Assessment Guidelines 

World Health Organisation (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise, Geneva, 

1999 

WHO (2009) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, Copenhagen, 2009 

515

516

13 SAFETY 


13.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Safety assessment for the proposed 

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility, undertaken by Mott MacDonald 

Group Ltd and Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. It identifies the methodology 










the ES. 

13.1.3 The focus of the assessment is on risks from Major Accident Hazards, as 

defined within the COMAH Regulations, and in particular on potential risks to 

the public from the storage of gas. Other smaller scale health and safety risks 

associated with construction and subsequent routine operations are not 

addressed. 

13.1.4 The Project involves using solution mining to produce caverns in which to store 

natural gas. The facility will have both gas storage and transportation abilities, 

enabling the storage of gas during times of excessive availability and its release 

to the National Transmission System upon high demand. A Gas Compressor 

Compound (GCC) will ensure that the gas enters the caverns at the appropriate 

temperature and pressure and will also dry and compress the gas on its return 

to the National Transmission system. DCO Application Document 9.3.1 Risk 

Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2011) presents an examination of the risks to 

the public from operation of the proposed main UGS facility. 

13.1.5 Natural gas is extremely flammable and an asphyxiant at high concentrations. 

Therefore, fire and explosion due to sudden gas release is the major potential 

hazard. Asphyxiation from slow continual gas release is feasible but with an 

extremely low likelihood given the low toxicity of natural gas, hence this forms a 

minor potential hazard. 

13.1.6 The risk assessment considers the risks to members of the public as a result of 

a gas release from: 

 

 

 

Sub-surface (caverns, deep underground pipework) 

Surface (wellheads, GCC etc 

Pipelines and manifolds 

13.1.7 The assessment is undertaken in the context of the requirements of UK health 

and safety legislation, in particular the Health and Safety at Work (etc) Act 1974 

517

and associated regulations, as described in further detail in Section 13.2 below. 

The approach adopted is in accordance with established practices for the 

assessment of safety for facilities of this type and necessarily differs to some 

extent from the standard three stage approach employed elsewhere in the ES 

for the assessment of environmental impacts. 

13.1.8 The approach is nevertheless generally consistent that three stage approach, 

having regard to the following: 

 

 

 

The environmental ‘receptors’ for the purposes of this assessment are 

people, whether on or off-site, all of whom are assumed to be of 

essentially equivalent value; 

The potential impact is measured in terms of a single level of harm 

(fatality), whilst also having regard to the potential scale in terms of the 

likely number of fatalities associated with potential accidents; 

The significance of the potential impacts is evaluated by reference to 

criteria established by the UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE), as 

described further in paragraphs 13.3.36 – 13.3.40, having regard to the 

likelihood of occurrence of accidents that may lead to fatalities and the 

numbers of fatalities likely to arise. 

13.1.9 Work activities inevitably give rise to hazards which may present risks to 

workers and the public. UK health and safety legislation requires that those 

responsible for such activities manage the risks so as to be ‘as low as 

reasonably practicable’ (ALARP). Some risks may have to be accepted in 

return for the benefits of these activities but, in accordance with HSE guidance, 

they can be accepted only where all reasonably practicable measures have 

been taken to minimise them and where any residual risk can be shown to be 

within defined tolerable limits. The assessment presented in this chapter 

provides a description of the residual risks of the facility within that regulatory 

context. 




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Safety in the 

context of this assessment. 

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 

13.2.2 Under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 a site wishing to 

hold stocks of hazardous substances above a threshold limit must apply to the 

Hazardous Substances Authority (HSA) for consent. In this case the Applicant 

has applied to the IPC for a deemed hazardous substances consent (DCO 

Application Document Reference 4.1). The Planning (Hazardous Substances) 

Regulations apply to all sites that will become COMAH sites. 

13.2.3 After gaining consent the HSE would perform a detailed assessment of the risks 

and/or hazards of the installation and define a consultation distance around the 

site. The consultation distance is divided into three zones: inner, middle and 

518

outer. The inner zone is the area where the risks from the major hazard are 

greatest and hence development restrictions are severe. The Local Planning 

Authority (LPA) must by law consult the HSE on any future applications for 

planning permission for specified developments within the consultation zone. 

Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) (SI 

1999 743) 

13.2.4 Natural gas is extremely flammable and as such its storage is subject to strict 

regulations. The safety of the Project would be regulated by the COMAH 

regulations, under which the facility would be classified as an upper tier site, 

due to its storage capacity. As such, the future licensing of the operation of the 

facility will require that a safety report is produced for the site which is entirely 

separate from the safety assessment that is presented here in respect of the 

planning process. That safety report will have to demonstrate that the risks from 

the facility are tolerable and as low as reasonably achievable, and that all 

measures necessary have been taken to reduce risks. The safety report will 

need to address in detail the management of the risks described here. It will be 

a live document and must include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A safety policy on how to prevent major accidents 

A management system for implementing that policy 

A description of possible major accidents, how likely these are and their 

potential consequences 

Measures (such as safe plant and safe operating procedures) to properly 

prevent major accidents 

Information on the safety precautions built into the plant and equipment 

when it was designed and constructed 

Details of measures (such as fire fighting, relief systems and filters) to limit 

the consequences of any major accidents that may occur; and 

Information about the emergency plan for the site, which is also used by 

the local authority in drawing up an off-site emergency plan. 

Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/825) 

13.2.5 The Pipeline Safety Regulations will apply to the approximate 12 km 42 " 

pipeline between the Project and the points of entry to the National 

Transmission System near Nateby. The regulations allow the HSE to ensure 

that the pipeline is properly designed, constructed and maintained and also that 

the appropriate safety systems are in place and that there are adequate 

arrangements in place to deal with incidents and emergencies. 

13.2.6 Pipelines such as those between the Project and the National Gas 

Transmission system may pose a major hazard. A major accident prevention 

document will therefore be required before the pipeline could be brought into 

service. 

519

Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2038) 

13.2.7 These regulations apply to the drilling of a borehole to extract minerals. The 

HSE requires notice of the commencement and abandoning of drilling. A health 

and safety document indicating the design, use and maintenance of the 

borehole is required before work begins. 

Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 

2002 (DSEAR) (SI 2002/2776) 

13.2.8 These regulations apply to sites which handle flammable and combustible 

materials. They are enforced by the HSE, with some input from the Fire 

Authority. They are supported by a set of approved codes of practise and 

guidance material. 


13.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Safety chapter 

of the Environmental Statement (ES). The public is potentially at risk from gas 

releases from: 

 

 

 

Sub-surface 

Surface 

Pipelines and manifolds 

13.3.2 The methodologies for each of these cases differ somewhat and are therefore 

considered separately. 

Sub-surface Release Methodology 

13.3.3 Sub-surface risks raised by the Project include gas release from the subsurface 

facility infrastructure (excluding shallow pipelines) migrating to receptors 

at surface, and the potential for ground instability due to sub-surface mined 

caverns. The latter scenario is addressed within Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability and the DCO Application Document 9.2.2 Geology 

Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2011) and is not considered further here. A 

literature review of material of the following documents preceded the subsurface 

risk assessment: 

 

 

 

 

An Appraisal of Underground Gas Storage Technologies and Incidents for 

the Development of Risk Assessment Methodology, British Geological 

Society, 1997. 

HSE RR605 – An appraisal of underground gas storage technologies for 

the development of risk assessment methodology, Evans, 2008. 

HSE RR606 – Scoping calculations for release from potential UK 

underground gas storage facilities, Watson et al 2008. 

HSE RR671 – Failure rates for ground gas storage – significance for 

planning applications, Keeley, 2008. 

520

BSEN 1918-3 - Gas supply systems. Underground gas storage. Functional 

recommendations for storage in solution-mined salt cavities, 1998. 

National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas & Oil 

Pipelines. Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011. 

13.3.4 A review of the geological and hydrogeological conditions and the issues 

relating to cavern stability has been undertaken, based on the findings 

presented in DCO Application Document 9.2.2 Geology Summary Report (Mott 

MacDonald, 2011) and DCO Application Document 9.3.1 Risk Assessment 

(Mott MacDonald, 2011). The former presents the findings of a rigorous and 

project specific literature review of the many disparate geological reports 

produced for this and predecessor schemes, and provides a detailed review of 

all available new and background data for the Project, including intrusive and 

non-intrusive investigations, and specialist technical reports in relation to 

seismic risk and subsidence risk. A 3-D geological and hydrogeological model, 

geotechnical material and mass properties, and sub-surface hazards are 

identified for the main Project site. The latter presents an examination of the risk 

to the public posed by the construction and the operation of the main UGS 

facility for the Project. 

13.3.5 The standard approach in the UK for assessing risks to built development from 

gases in the ground is BS8485 (2007). This requires an assessment of risks 

based on a conceptual model which considers gas sources, pathway 

efficiencies and receptor sensitivities. Guidance for assessment is provided in 

the HSE Research Report (RR606) on scoping calculations for releases from 

potential UK underground gas storage facilities. 

13.3.6 A Source – Pathway – Receptor model based upon scenarios and calculations 

outlined in HSE documentation (see paragraph 13.3.3) is used to estimate the 

relative ranking for each scenario. The scenarios considered have been 

determined through review of the proposed gas cavern placement zones in 

relation to the scheme specific geological model and existing and proposed land 

use. The following source, pathway and receptors were identified (Tables 13-1 

to 13-3), leading to 31 potential sub-surface gas release scenarios, as identified 

in Table 3.6 of DCO Application Document 9.3.1 Risk Assessment (Mott 

MacDonald, 2011). 

Table 13-1 

Safety Assessment - Identified Sources of a Gas Release 

Source 

Leak directly from cavern 

Fracture in the pipeline at the fault 

Fracture in the pipeline within rock 

Fracture in the pipeline within soil materials 

Label 

S1 

S2 

S3 

S4 

521

Table 13-2 

Safety Assessment - Identified Pathways for Released Gas 

Pathway 

Continuous more permeable interbeds 

within salt formation 

An abandoned exploratory hole 

The production pipeline surround annulus 

A continuous permanent fault plane 

Permeable superficial material 

Old brine caverns/wells/mines 

Collapsed strata 

Through mudstone strata 

Label 

P1 

P2 

P3 

P4 

P5 

P6 

P7 

P8 

Table 13-3 

Safety Assessment - Identified Receptors 

Receptors 

Residential development adjacent to the 

scheme area 

Proposed industrial development (Halite) 

and Cote Walls Farm 

Random individuals 

Label 

R1 

R2 

R3 

13.3.7 For each scenario the risk to the receptor is determined by looking at the leak 

probability and the pathway efficiency. The pathway efficiency is determined by 

considering the pathway transmissivity, pathway length and pathway dispersion. 

An efficient pathway will comprise of a high permeability and low dispersion 

dimension. 

Surface Release Methodology 

13.3.8 A Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study was held on 16 November 2010 to 

identify the potential major accident hazards that could occur during the 

operation of the Project. The “HAZOP” is a well-established method for the 

identification of hazards that may arise from industrial activities and is used 

extensively in the process and oil and gas industries. It is used to identify 

hazards so that measures to prevent, control and mitigate them can be 

identified and implemented and to characterise any residual risks that cannot be 

eliminated. The findings of the HAZOP were used to identify the hazard 

scenarios to be considered in the risk assessment. The meeting was attended 

by representatives of Halite, Costains, Mott MacDonald and Baker Hughes. 

The attendees were chosen to ensure appropriate coverage of the relevant 

technical issues associated with the Project, in accordance with normal HAZOP 

study practice. DCO Application Document 9.2.5 ‘Review of the Proposed 

Drilling and Completion Programmes for the Preesall Underground Gas Storage 

Project Report’ (Baker Hughes, 2011) summarises the findings of the HAZOP. 

522

The study considered risks to the public from surface accidents at the Project 

and from external events that have the potential to initiate hazards at the site. 

13.3.9 The following external events with the potential to initiate hazard were identified; 

aircraft strike, seismic event, vandalism, vehicle collision, terrorism, flooding and 

off-site fire or explosion. 

Consequence Modelling 

13.3.10 The well recognised accident consequence modelling software PHAST 

(http://www.dnv.com/services/software/products/safeti/safetiqra/phast.asp) has 

been used to model the consequences of releases at the Project. Computer 

modelling of accident consequences considers the progress of a potential 

incident from the initial release of hazardous substances through to dispersion 

into the environment and ultimately to potential fire and explosion impacts. By 

reference to relevant physico-chemical parameters describing the released 

substance and the environment into which it may escape, the models predict 

the likely consequences, for example in terms of the force of an explosion or the 

intensity of a fire. In turn, these physical consequences may be related to the 

likelihood of harm to people to provide estimates of the risk of fatality or serious 

injury. 

13.3.11 The following accidents as a result of a natural gas release have been 

considered: 

 

 

 

 

Jet fire – ignited gas released under pressure from a hole causing a jet 

that entrains and mixes with the ambient air. The fire would continue to 

burn for the duration of gas release. 

Flash fire – a gas release forming a vapour cloud that is ignited before it is 

diluted before its lower flammable limit (LFL). A flash fire may burn back 

to the release point, resulting in a jet fire but is unlikely to generate 

damaging overpressures (explode) when unconfined. 

Vapour cloud explosion – a gas release forming a vapour cloud in a 

congested/confined area resulting in damaging overpressures and 

explosion. 

Fireball – ignited short duration gas release associated with sudden loss of 

containment resulting in high radiation intensity. 

13.3.12 In addition to natural gas there will be a small quantity of methanol, injected into 

the cavern to prevent the formation of methane hydrate, present on the 

application site. If this flammable liquid is released from a storage tank or 

pipeline forming a pool, the vapour evaporated may ignite and travel back to the 

spill, resulting in a pool fire. 

13.3.13 Scenarios for dispersion of a surface gas release are modelled under the 

weather conditions given in Table 13-4 (recommended by DNV (PHAST 

Modelling Code Supplier)). The dispersion modelling is based on the relative 

density of natural gas as opposed to air. As natural gas is lighter than air, the 

predominant dispersion trend will be to rise upwards, hence creeping low level 

gas pockets will not occur. 

523

Table 13-4 Safety Assessment - Weather Conditions used for Consequence 

Modelling 

Wind speed (m/s) 

Pasquil (Atmospheric) 

Stability Category 

Definition 

5 D Neutral 

1.5 D Neutral 

1.5 F Stable 

Thermal Radiation 

13.3.14 The risk to persons in the vicinity of a pool, jet fire or fireball is a function of the 

thermal radiation (intensity of the fire) and the duration to which they are 

exposed to the fire. The fatality rate of a person exposed to thermal radiation 

over a given period of time is determined using a probit function, which is 

integrated into the PHAST model. The end points for the modelling are 

therefore presented as the risk of fatality (the ‘lethality’), this being a function of 

the intensity and duration of exposure associated with the failure. The criteria 

used are presented in Table 13-5. 

Table 13-5 

Safety Assessment - Thermal Radiation Criteria 

Risk of 

Fatality 

Exposure 

75 seconds 60 seconds 20 seconds 

1% 6.8 kW 7.98 kW 18.32 kW 

10% 9.23 kW 10.85 kW 24.87 kW 

50% 13.4 kW 15.8 kW 36.11 kW 

13.3.15 Gas release from below ground has been modelled as vertical. Buried wellheads 

forming the sub-surface to surface interface for cavern casing strings 

vary from vertical to 15˚ to the horizontal inclination. Gas release has therefore 

been modelled for both vertical release, assuming blow-off of the wellhead 

concrete encasement, and inclined release orientated along the casing string 

alignment. For above ground release a conservative approach has been used 

with both vertical and horizontal release across open land adopted. The 

horizontal release discounts potential protection offered by buildings and 

infrastructure. 

Flash Fires 

13.3.16 Flash fires are intense short duration events which do not generate significant 

overpressure. It is conservatively assumed that where personnel are caught 

outdoors in a flash fire this would cause fatalities. Personnel within buildings 

would normally survive. Flash fires are modelled as potentially occurring to 

50% of the LFL of the gas (Evans and Hough, 2008). 

13.3.17 Flash fires resulting from vertical releases, from both the wellheads and 

manifolds, are not considered a credible risk to the public because the minimum 

524

height at which the flash fire could occur is 50 m. However horizontal, or near 

horizontal, gas releases could lead to flash fires that pose a credible risk to 

either the public or personnel at the site. 

Vapour Cloud Explosion 

13.3.18 Vapour Cloud Explosions (VCEs) were modelled using the TNT Explosion 

model method in the PHAST package, which calculates the mass of TNT that is 

equivalent to the effective flammable mass in the cloud for a given material (in 

this case Natural Gas). For outdoor VCEs the maximum flammable mass in the 

drifting cloud following release was used, noting that this is pessimistic since 

modelling demonstrated that at this point the cloud had drifted well beyond the 

site boundary (and hence beyond areas in which a VCE could potentially 

occur). An alternative method, based on the more complex Phast TNO Multi- 

Energy model for confined explosions, was also considered noting that the 

more pessimistic TNT model was used for the assessment. 

13.3.19 The overpressure criteria, based on HSA guidance, are given in Table 13-6. 

Table 13-6 

Safety Assessment - Overpressure Criteria for VCEs 

Risk of 

Fatality 

Overpressure 

(Indoors) 

Overpressure 

(Outdoors) 

1% 50 mbar 168 mbar 

10% 150 mbar 365 mbar 

50% 300 mbar 942 mbar 

Modelling Assumptions 

13.3.20 The consequence modelling was based on assumptions concerning relevant 

physical parameters describing the facility. These assumptions were identified 

by consideration of the engineering design of the facility, having regard to the 

perceived worst case failure scenarios considered to be reasonably foreseeable 

and are summarised in Table 13-7. 

Table 13-7 Safety Assessment - Modelling Assumptions used for the 

Consequence Analysis 

Parameter 

Cavern pressure 

Flow rate 

Manifold length 

Value 

95 bar 

5.5 MSm 3 /day (51 kg/s) 

1 km 

Manifold diameter 36 ” 

Non vertical wellheads 

Emergency Shut Down 

Valve (ESDV) closure 

rate 

Valve closure time 60 s Note 1 

Release at 15 o to the horizontal 

1 ”/sec (approx 30 s) 

525

Note 1: Allows a factor of 2 to account for detection, initiation and closure of the 

valves and depressurisation of the line. 

Event Frequency Analysis 

13.3.21 A frequency analysis is performed to determine the likelihood of events arising. 

Release events from both pipelines and wellheads have been considered. 

13.3.22 The pipeline failure rates presented in Table 13-8 are taken from the UK HSE 

Failure Rate and Event data for use within Land Use Planning Risk 

Assessments. 

Table 13-8 

Safety Assessment - Pipeline Failure Rate Data 

Release 

Hole Size 

(mm) 

Failure Frequency (per metre year) for Pipe Dia (mm) 

the boundaries between the unacceptable, tolerable or broadly acceptable 

regions of risk. 

13.3.26 For the purposes of the RA it has been assumed that the Project will be 

designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate standards and 

practices. Specifically, the following assumptions have been made: 

 

 

The Project will be designed, constructed, tested and maintained to meet 

all the regulatory requirements in Section 13.2 and other current 

regulations. 

In terms of security, the main plant will be located within locked buildings 

with suitable intruder alarms and CCTV. The wellheads will be within 

locked enclosures and will have CCTV and intruder alarms. The CCTV 

and alarms will be monitored at the security entrance, which will be 

manned 24 hours a day. 

The pipelines and headers will be constructed to meet PD 8010-1:2004, 

the Code of Practice for Pipelines Part 1: Steel Pipelines on Land and 

IGEM/TD/1, Steel pipelines and associated installations for high pressure 

gas transmission. The pipelines will be buried to a minimum depth of 1.2m 

and will be covered by a disturbance monitoring system. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The plant will be fully instrumented including pressure monitoring of the 

caverns and headers. This will be used to provide a leak detection 

system. 

There will be Emergency Shutdown Valves in appropriate locations on the 

headers and within the GCC. The valves will be fail closed (code 

requirement) and respond automatically to shut within 30 seconds in the 

event of a major leak. 

Two 9 x 5/8” risers per cavern. 

The wellheads will incorporate a ‘down-hole’ automatic shut-off valve and 

independent isolation valves on the surface. 

3 x 36” manifolds supply the caverns. 

Site and wellhead layout. 

Subsurface caverns will be located and designed in accordance with the 

Rokahr recommendations for safe design of salt caverns for gas storage, 

as detailed within DCO Application Document 9.2.2 Geology Summary 

Report (Mott MacDonald, 2011). 

Pipeline and Manifold Methodology 

13.3.27 PD 8010-1:2004, the Code of Practice for Pipelines Part 1: Steel Pipelines on 

Land, provides recommendations for, among other functions, routing of new 

pipelines that may be used to carry gas and other substances that are 

hazardous by nature of being explosive, flammable, toxic, reactive or likely to 

cause harm to persons of the environment. 

13.3.28 The pipelines and manifold risk assessment can be divided into pipelines onsite 

and the pipeline to the National Transmission System (NTS) at Nateby. 

527

Onsite Pipelines 

13.3.29 The area surrounding the pipeline has a population density that does not 

exceed 2.5 persons per hectare, and is therefore classed as a rural area. Table 

13-10 presents the Code requirements for the pipeline. 

Table 13-10 

Safety Assessment - Onsite Pipeline Standards 

Area 

Rural 

Minimum design factor 0.72 

Maximum design factor if route crosses 

roads 

0.3 

Pipeline wall thickness (major roads) (mm) 11.91 

Pipeline wall thickness (minor roads) (mm) 9.52 

13.3.30 Given that the pipeline will cross roads on site the maximum design factor of 0.3 

will be used; and as such, the minimum Building Proximity Distance (BPD) is 94 

m. In relation to the critical pipeline risk hazard, the 36” pipeline, the nearest 

occupied building to the site is Cote Walls Farm, which is 320 m away. 

Therefore, it is considered that there are no occupied buildings close enough to 

the site to necessitate a more detailed risk assessment. If a conservative 

population density classification of Suburban (S) is adopted, equating to an area 

with an intermediate population density or potential for future development, the 

pipeline protection requirements increase, but the BPD reduces to 12.5m. 

Pipelines to the NTS at Nateby 

13.3.31 The pipeline that links the GCC to the NTS near Nateby will be 12 km in length 

with a diameter of 42 ” (note this may be reduced to 36 ”) and a maximum 

operating pressure of 75 bar(g). It is assumed that the pipeline route will be 

through both rural and suburban areas (classifications R and S). Table 13-11 

presents the Code requirements for the pipeline. 

Table 13-11 

Safety Assessment - Pipeline Standards 

Rural (R) 

Minimum design factor 0.72 0.5 

Maximum design factor if 

route crosses roads 

0.3 0.3 

Pipeline wall thickness (mm) 19.1 19.1 

Suburban (S) 

13.3.32 For pipelines in S type areas the minimum BPD is 3 m. 

13.3.33 If the pipeline complies with Code guidelines for S type areas and there are no 

occupied buildings within 3 m of the pipeline a more detailed risk assessment is 

not required 

528

Consultation 




consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Safety 

assessment. Table 13-12 summarises the post-scoping consultation 



Table 13-12 

Safety Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 


Fleetwood 

Town Council 

25 May 2011 Would liked to have seen evidence of rigorous 

consultation with all emergency services to ensure (in 

worst case scenario) all residents would be safely 

evacuated (refer to DCO Application Document 

Reference 3.1 ‘Consultation Report’ for further 

information). 

Would like to have seen confirmation whether 

emergency services would cease operation to secure 

their own safety given a worst case scenario, and for 

each of the services, what point this would be at. This 

needs to be made available to the public so they know 

exact risks. 

Would like to see detailed plans as to how emergency 

services could get into Fleetwood Peninsula, and how 

100,000 residents could be safely / quickly evacuated 

in a worst case scenario (with only 2 main routes 

in/out of town). 

Not convinced enough has been done to identify exact 

location / depth of fault lines, and therefore proximity 

to proposed caverns. As the area is known to 

experience tremors, need as much evidence as 

possible to reassure that the caverns would withstand 

greater tremors (than those experienced to date). 

Refer to DCO Application Document 9.2.2 Geology 

Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2011), Chapter 

10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability and Chapter 

18: Cumulative Effects for further information. 

With fault lines and earth tremors in area, and 

proximity to Heysham Nuclear Power Station, Council 

would like reassurance that in the worst case scenario 

gas escape / explosion would not lead to a nuclear 

incident. 

As mentioned at meeting, would like to see more 

detailed evaluation of the problems notified to Halite 

regarding brine wells. 

529


Hambleton 

Parish 

Council 

Preesall 

Town Council 

Stalminewith-Staynall 

Parish 

Council 

Environment 

Agency 

Lancashire 

Resilience 

Forum 

24 May 2011 Shard Bridge is a main route and often grid-locked at 

the slightest accident, thereby cutting off community 

for long periods. 

Has thought been given to possible evacuation of 

thousands of people (particularly as Shard Bridge is 

only main route, and with elderly population)? If there 

was a major gas escape and wind was from north, 

escape routes would be compromised as all go south. 

Is this procedure documented? 

Has any thought been given to an anti-terrorist plan? 

Would the site be manned 24/7, and if so by how 

many staff? Would the site be policed? 

Proposed gas pipeline from the site at Preesall to 

Nateby would run along unstable roads that are in 

continuous repair. The safety of the pipeline is 

therefore questionable. 

16 May 2011 Concern over safety of area following earth tremors in 

April 2009 in Ulverston area of Cumbria (shock waves 

felt in Preesall and Fleetwood areas), and also recent 

earthquake in Poulton le Fylde. What seismic tests 

have been carried out, and have they been fully 

investigated? Refer to Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability and Chapter 18: 

Cumulative Effects for further information. 

Zone 3 flood risk area. Evacuation of residents in 

explosion, emergency plans? 

An application for Hazardous Substances was 

rejected by Council on grounds of dangerous 

substances. 

Safety of dense population to the west of the river. 

25 May 2011 Emergency planning is superficial. Only 1 road 

providing access to site, therefore emergency vehicles 

may be hampered (if road is in downwind flume of any 

discharge). The Parish Council would like to see 

more evidence of risk assessments and emergency 

plans, following an all hazards approach, with LCC 

emergency planners. 

16 June 2011 The site will be regulated under COMAH 1999, and 

will be classified as a top tier site under that 

legislation. It will be required to produce a safety 

report. 

12 July 2011 Main issue arising were comments by the Lancashire 

Fire and Rescue Service (supported by other 

agencies) relating to the need to ensure that adequate 

secondary emergency routes are made available 

530


National Grid 

Email (in 

response to 

initial enquiry 

by Halite on 

25/05/2011) 

Health and 

Safety 

Executive 

United 

Utilities Water 

27 May 2011 In the event of proposed works going ahead, unless 

appropriate precautions are taken, they may adversely 

impact the safety and integrity of NG’s apparatus and 

place you / employers / public at risk. (Apparatus 

owned by other operators may be present in this area. 

It is Halite’s responsibility to make contact with them). 

Halite need to contact Plant Protection 10 days prior 

to works, quoting the enquiry reference number. Work 

should not be carried out until further consultation has 

taken place. 

23 May 2011 It is clear from the proposal documentation that the 

site would need to obtain consent from the HSA in 

accordance with the Planning (Hazardous 

Substances) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 

2009. In this particular case, we assume that the HSA 

would be the IPC. 

There is a duty under COMAH on the operator of a 

proposed major hazard site such as this, to submit to 

the joint COMAH Competent Authority (CA) (HSE and 

EA), a safety document called a ‘COMAH preconstruction 

safety report’. In the document the 

operator is required to adequately demonstrate how 

safety and reliability in design, including compliance 

with relevant good practice has been incorporated into 

the proposed site including the storage cavities. The 

CA in turn assesses the report, determines whether 

the demonstration has been made or not, and 

communicates its conclusions to the operator. The 

COMAH operator is legally not allowed to start 

construction of the facility until the CA has 

communicated its conclusions to the operator. 

24 June 2011 The leakage of gas through the fissured ground may 

have a significant impact on the UUW wastewater 

assets, particularly UUW’s wastewater treatment 

works (WwTW) in the vicinity of the gas storage 

caverns. These are: 

Preesall WwTW: Located to the east bank of the 

Wyre Estuary it would appear the storage of gas 

would surround this particular works serving 

approximate population of 26,000 in Knott End and 


Fleetwood WwTW: Located on the west of the Wyre 

Estuary, this works is less than 2 miles away from the 

gas storage caverns and is a very significant works 

serving the whole of the Blackpool and Fleetwood 

area (population of up to 426,000 during peak 

season). Significant investment over £60 million has 

been spent on the works over the last 4 years, 

531


Lancashire 

County 

Council 

meeting an expectation of improved treatment, sludge 

management and odour. 

A key concern of the proposed development would be 

to ensure that these assets remained well protected 

from any gas leakage which would occur through the 

fissured ground strata that is believed to exist 

underneath the Wyre Estuary. The developer would 

have to satisfy UUW that sufficient boreholes / ground 

investigation had been done to understand / assure 

UUW that the development would not increase the risk 

of future explosions of gas impacting upon the 

treatment facilities or sewers draining to these works. 

This would also apply to the Fylde Coast Interceptor 

Tunnel which is located at a depth of 26m below the 

inlet of the treatment works. This tunnel is potentially 

at a depth not dissimilar to the salt caverns. The 

tunnel runs the whole length of the Fylde Coast from 

the Manchester Square headland at the southern end 

of the Golden Mile, along the front up to Rossall 

School, prior to turning in the direction of the treatment 

works. The risk of gas escaping the caverns and 

entering the tunnel provides a clear route for passage 

of leaked gas all the way along the front to south 

Blackpool. 

Hence the development potentially puts at risk both 

UUW assets and properties / hotels in close proximity 

to the tunnel and the coastline. 

16 August 2011 Council states the outlined Hazard exclusion zones 

appear satisfactory. However, the integrity of the 

salt/mudstone interface should be monitored at 

specific cavern locations. 

The relevance of the generic risk assessment 

literature review to specific situations is questioned. 

The risk assessment of proposal needs to be more 

specific than the approach in the literature review. 

Principally on the use of hazard inclusion zones, the 

current proposals incur negligible risk of fatality, injury 

or significant property damage. However, the council 

has questions as to whether calculations in 

preliminary risk assessment are realistic and if they 

have any practical value. This is a question of the 

numerics rather than the overall assessment of risk. 

One of the Council’s main concerns is over the 

quantification of pathways and numerical values 

assigned. The assumptions used in calculations mean 

feasible changes in values would completely alter 

532


Wyre 

Borough 

Council 

importance of the scenarios considered. Council finds 

it hard to understand what the comparative analysis 

achieves. 

The conclusion that failure rates for pipe systems are 

similar to failure rates of geological caverns is 

questioned. It is pointed out that the failure rate for 

caverns is almost unknown. 

Gas migration pathways in the preliminary risk 

assessment do not include near surface man-made 

features such as utility runs (pipe beds could 

potentially provide pathways into properties) or over 

pressured fractured rock. These are less significant 

than the pathways considered but should be included 

in future assessments. 

Clarification on some pathways is requested (namely 

P9). 

Review of risk failures should ensure the number and 

extent of recorded loss of gas incidents are 

comprehensively recorded. 

An assessment of the impact of seismic activity on the 

caverns and above and below ground infrastructure 

should be undertaken. This is in light of recent seismic 

activity in the area. 

Council states Preliminary QRA concludes no risk of 

gas leaking from caverns to necessitate evacuation. 

However , such risk should be provided for in an 

emergency plan 

Council invites Halite to agree to a plan for monitoring 

and emergency action re instability of cavern of 

wellhead/cavern/brine failure 

15 August 2011 The council require the safety of the development to 

be demonstrated, with particular attention to the 

suitability of the geology, 

Assessing Significance of Potential Effects 

13.3.35 The potential effects of the Project are characterised in terms of adverse 

impacts on human health, in particular fatality. The HSE has identified general 

quantitative criteria for the assessment of the significance of risk to the public 

from industrial facilities (HSE, 2001). These criteria take account of both the 

likelihood or probability of an accident causing a fatality and the number of 

fatalities resulting from a single accident. 

13.3.36 With regards to the risk to any individual, HSE regards a probability of fatality of 

1 in a million per annum as the upper limit of risk that may be considered to be 

533

“broadly acceptable”. Risks at or below this level may therefore be considered 

to be not significant. With regards to the risk of multiple fatalities, HSE 

proposes that the risk of an accident causing the death of 50 or more people or 

more would be regarded as intolerable if the frequency is estimated to be more 

than 1 in five thousand per annum. For a risk to be not significant it must 

evidently be considerably lower than that value. HSE does not identify specific 

criteria for the levels of risk that would be considered to be not significant in the 

context of the location of a potentially hazardous facility in the vicinity of existing 

development. However, HSE does identify quantitative risk criteria for land-use 

planning (HSE, 2011) that control new development near existing major hazard 

facilities. These criteria, described further below, are employed here as a basis 

for assessing the significance of the estimated risks. 

13.3.37 The planning consent criteria (HSE, 2011) for surface risk around an area in 

which there are major hazards with the potential to harm the public are based 

on the HSE assessment of the risk of fatality to a person in a fixed location 

relative to the hazard. The HSE considers land use within three concentric 

zones around the proposed establishment. The zone boundaries are defined 

by risk contours based on the risk of an individual sustaining a specified level of 

harm. The three contours represent levels of individual risk of 10 chances per 

million (10 -5 ) per year, 1 chance per million (10 -6 ) per year and 0.3 chances per 

million (3 x 10 -7 ) per year of receiving a dangerous dose or defined level of 

harm (HSE, http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/lupcurrent.pdf). 

13.3.38 The HSE approach to land use planning near major hazards assesses new 

development proposals by reference to sensitivity levels according to the users 

of the development. The sensitivity levels are based on a clear rationale to 

allow progressively more severe restrictions to be imposed as the sensitivity of 

the proposed development increases. There are four sensitivity levels: 

 

 

 

 

Level 1 – Based on normal working population. 

Level 2 – Based on the general public – at home and involved in normal 

activities. 

Level 3 – Based on vulnerable members of the public (children, those with 

mobility difficulties or those unable to recognise physical danger). 

Level 4 – Large examples of Level 3 and very large outdoor examples of 

Level 2. 

13.3.39 The following development types are used as a direct indicator of the 

sensitivity level of the population at a proposed development which in turn 

reflects the level of restriction applicable to it: 

 

 

 

 

1 – People at work, parking 

2 – Developments for use by the general public. (e.g. residential 

development) 

3 – Developments for use by vulnerable people. (e.g. primary schools, 

elderly care homes) 

4 – Very large and sensitive developments (football grounds, large 

hospitals) 

534

13.3.40 .Once the zones and developments have been identified, a decision matrix is 

used to give a clear ‘Advise Against’ (AA) or ‘Don’t Advise Against’ (DAA) 

response. This is shown in Table 13-13. Where HSE issues a DAA response, 

the risks to the new development are considered to be acceptable. For the 

purposes of this assessment, impacts from the Project on existing 

developments that would meet the DAA criterion are judged to be not 

significant. For example, the exposure of houses, at sensitivity level 2, to a 

“middle zone” risk of 1 x 10 -6 (1 in a million) per annum would be considered not 

significant. 

Table 13-13 Safety Assessment - Decision Matrix used for Land Use Planning 

Developments 

Level of 

sensitivity 

Development 

in inner zone 

Development in 

middle zone 

1 DAA DAA DAA 

2 AA DAA DAA 

3 AA AA DAA 

4 AA AA AA 

Development 

in outer zone 


13.4.1 A map of the area surrounding the application site is shown in Figure A below, 

with a distance of 1km from the wellheads marked. In addition to the proposed 

buildings within the application site, housing on the periphery of Preesall village 

and the isolated Park Cottage Farm, Hackensall Farm, Cote Walls Farm, 

Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works and the Wyre Way footpath are within 

the 1km zone. Cote Walls Farm is located at a distance of approximately 300m 

from the Gas Compressor Compound. Other properties in Preesall and those in 

nearby Stalmine, Knott End and Fleetwood have also been included but they 

are significantly more remote from the Gas Compressor Compound. 

13.4.2 Existing ground conditions are discussed in detail within the DCO Application 

Document 9.2.2 Geology Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2011) and within 

Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability. Associated hazards are 

identified and discussed within the Geology Summary Report and detailed on 

Drawing MMD-277663-G-DR-00-XX-0002 within that report, including faults, 

existing mine workings, existing brine cavities, areas of brecciation due to ‘wet 

rockhead’ and existing boreholes. These all present potential gas release 

pathways. The evaluation and discussion of safety issues associated with 

ground instability is addressed in Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and 

Stability. Seismic risk is evaluated and discussed in Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability and Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects. 

535

Figure A: Map of the Area Surrounding the Application Site 

536


13.5.1 In the context of public safety the relevant future baseline relates to the existing 

development, as described in Section 13.4 above, and any proposed new 

development within the hazard range of relevant accident scenarios. Potentially 

relevant new development is identified in Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects. Post 

construction, any future development proposals would be assessed against the 

HSE land use planning criteria described in Sections 13.3.6 – 13.3.38 which 

would prevent further change in the future baseline that might introduce an 

unacceptable level of risk. As noted earlier, this chapter focuses on the major 

hazard aspects of the risks associated with the development and does not 

directly address seismic risks and risks associated with ground instability which 

are evaluated in Chapter 10: Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability and Chapter 

18: Cumulative Effects. 


13.6.1 A receptor is a person(s) at a location where a gas release has the potential to 

cause harm. The population in the surrounding area have been divided into 

three receptor groups: 

 

 

 

R1 – Preesall (Existing developments) 

R2 – Proposed development site plus immediately adjacent Cote Walls 

Farm 

R3 – Random individuals. People on public rights of way and open land. 


13.7.1 This section presents the results of the risk assessments for subsurface and 

surface gas releases and those from pipelines and manifolds. The potential 

effects considered here relate to the operational phase of the project only. 

13.7.2 The risk to receptors from a sub-surface gas release is divided into three 

components: 

 

 

 

Leak probability 

Travel period of the gas 

Gas dispersion likelihood for each pathway 

13.7.3 The assessment provides an estimation of the scenario frequency and a means 

to rank the scenarios relative to each other. 

13.7.4 From the analysis it was concluded that the highest relative subsurface risk 

would be to a random individual at the surface from an undetected borehole or 

a borehole drilled illegally on site, connecting a cavern directly to the surface 

(Scenario 29, Figure B). The probability of a fatality due to such a risk is 

calculated to be less than 1 in 120 million per annum. The highest relative risk 

to residential property was concluded to be from a fracture in the pipeline within 

537

the superficial soils (Scenario 12). The relative safety for each scenario is 

shown in Figure B. 

Figure B: The Relative Safety for the Identified Scenarios 

13.7.5 The Relative Safety numbers shown above represent the percentage for an 

individual scenario occurring compared to the total score for all scenarios added 

together, giving a range of values which enables the relative importance of each 

scenario to be compared to each other. Further information is provided within 

DCO Application Document 9.3.1 Risk Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2011). 

Surface Risk Assessment 

13.7.6 Table 13-14 outlines the major hazards at the Project that were identified as 

potential contributors to a risk to the public. External events that have the 

potential to initiate hazards at the Project were also considered. These are 

outlined in Table 13-15. 

Table 13-14 Safety Assessment - Major Hazard Scenarios at the Project as 

Identified in the HAZOP 

Incident 

Gas Release at a 

Wellhead 

Gas Release from Onsite 

Pipeline 

Gas Release at GCC 

Gas Release from Vent 

Stack 

Gas release into brine 

system 

Source 

Failure of a wellhead or connecting pipework 

Failure of the gas manifolds or pipelines to the 

individual wellheads 

Failure of the equipment e.g. vessels, pipeworks or 

compressors 

Small quantities of gas are occasionally deliberately 

released via the vent stack, when equipment is 

vented to allow maintenance. The vent stack is 

positioned so that the gas can be safety released to 

the atmosphere away from sources of ignition. 

During brine system operations there is the potential 

for a bubble of gas to enter the brine system and then 

538

Incident 

Methanol Fire or 

Explosion 

Release of other 

Hazardous Materials 

Source 

be released into the atmosphere via the de-brining 

chamber. 

Quantities of methanol well below the COMAH lower 

tier limit is stored in a double skinned tank with leak 

detection. It is distributed to the wellheads for 

injection into the gas storage caverns. The quantities 

involved are so small that a methanol fire or explosion 

would not pose a risk to the public outside the site. 

There is very limited hazardous material apart from 

natural gas and small quantities of methanol on site. 

Release of glycol may pose a minor threat to the local 

environment but does not pose a risk to the public 

outside the site. 

Table 13-15 Safety Assessment - External Events with the Potential to Initiate 

Hazards at the Project 

External Event Potential Hazard Comment 

Aircraft impact 

Seismic event 

Vandalism 

Damage to GCC, 

wellheads and associated 

pipework and possibly 

buried pipework. 

Damage to caverns or 

above ground facilities. 

Damage to small bore 

piping and instrument 

connections. 

Aircraft impact, direct or 

otherwise, could potentially 

damage the GCC, wellheads 

and associated pipework and 

possibly the buried pipework. 

As such, a risk assessment is 

required. The frequency of 

aircraft crash onto any 

wellhead compound or the 

GCC has been calculated to 

be 1.85 x 10 -5 /year (crash 

probability of 1 in 50,000 

years) although it is noted in 

the Risk Assessment (Mott 

MacDonald, 2011) that this 

evaluation is conservative. 

The Preesall area is of low 

seismic activity, therefore, the 

likelihood of causing damage 

is extremely low, in 

accordance with the evaluation 

presented in Chapter 10: 

Geology, Hydrogeology and 

Stability and Chapter 18: 

Cumulative Effects. 

It is credible that vandals could 

damage small bore piping an 

instrument connections 

leading to a minor release and 

539


potentially local fires, which 

would be subject to remote 

isolation. 

Vandalism Damage to main plant Damage to the main plant is 

not considered credible. The 

main plant will be within locked 

buildings with the appropriate 

alarms and CCTV. Wellheads 

and pipelines are substantial 

infrastructures and would not 

be easily breached. 

Vehicle collision 

Damage to surface 

infrastructure resulting in 

failure. 

Access to wellheads is via the 

wellhead compounds and is 

controlled and pipework in 

open areas is buried. 

Therefore, a vehicle collision 

resulting in damage is not 

considered credible. 

Terrorism Damage to facility. Terrorist activity is not covered 

due to the sensitive nature and 

specialist knowledge involved. 

The Applicant will respond to 

any reasonable requests for 

security features. 

Flooding 

Off site fire explosion 

Damage to GCC, the 

Seawater Pumping 

Station, the Booster Pump 

Station and wellheads. 

Damage to proposed 

facility resulting in gas 

release and subsequent 

fire/explosion. 

Some wellheads are in areas 

at risk from flooding but are 

protected to at least the 200 

year standard by flood 

defences. Other areas are at 

low risk from flooding. 

Therefore, none of application 

site will be at an unacceptable 

risk of flooding as defined by 

Planning Policy Statement 25: 

Development and Flood Risk 

(refer to the Flood Risk 

Assessment presented within 

Appendix 17.1 of Volume 1B). 

The principle features of the 

facility will not be close to any 

significant industry, and so will 

not be affected by the domino 

effects of fires/explosions from 

adjacent sites. Fires in fields 

around the wellheads will not 

pose a threat because the fires 

will be of low intensity and the 

540


isolation valves and other 

safety systems will be 

designed to the oil and gas 

industry standard and will be 

capable of withstanding these 

fires. 

13.7.7 On the basis of the above considerations the Mott MacDonald analysis 

concluded that, due to the relatively low frequency of the initiating events, the 

external hazards would make no more than a minor contribution to the overall 

risks. In that case, the overall risks would be adequately characterised by the 

assessment of the other hazard types that make the dominant contribution. The 

analysis therefore did not consider the external hazards in further detail. 

Jet Fires 

13.7.8 Jet fire event frequencies for the Project were estimated on the basis of 

established generic failure rate data, as provided by the HSE in its guidance on 

failure rate and event data for use within land use planning risk assessments, 

together with data on the Project design. The frequency of major hazard 

accidents resulting in jet fires at the facility is estimated to be very low, as 

shown by the incident rates summarised in Table 13-16. 

Table 13-16 

Safety Assessment - Frequency of Jet Fires 

Gas Release Scenarios 

Fire at wellhead compound 

Vertical fire in manifold 

Fire in above ground section of the 

manifold 

Frequency (/yr) 

1 x 10 -7 (per wellhead) 

(1 in 10 million years) 

1.6 x 10 -6 (per manifold) 

(

C. The different contours relate to the likelihood of fatality in the event of a 

defined period of exposure, as shown earlier in Table 13-5, and are as follows: 

 

 

 

Blue: 1% chance of fatality for a 60 second exposure; 

Green: 10% chance of fatality for a 60 second exposure; 

Yellow: 50% chance of fatality for a 60 second exposure; 

It is anticipated that the gas supply will typically be isolated within 60 seconds of 

a release event. Taking account of that mitigating effect and noting also the 

potential opportunities of any individual exposed to the jet fire to flee the scene, 

it can be expected that the probability of fatality for individuals located beyond 

the blue contour will be very low. In general, it can be seen from Figure C that 

the potentially significant consequences of a jet fire, in terms of fatalities, are 

essentially limited to areas local to the facility and within the overall footprint of 

the site, with little effect on adjacent sites. 

542

Figure C: Combined Thermal Radiation Contours for Jet Fires 

543

Flash Fires 

13.7.11 The frequency of major hazard accidents resulting in flash fires have been 

estimated using the general approach outlined earlier in section 13.7.8. These 

event frequencies are found to be very low, as shown in Table 13-17. 

Table 13-17 

Safety Assessment - Frequency of Flash Fires 

Gas Release 

Scenarios 

Fire at wellhead 

compound 

Frequency (/yr) 

6 x 10 -8 (per wellhead) 

(>1 in 20 million years) 

Fire in above 

ground section of 

the manifold 

4.8 x 10 -8 (per manifold) 

(

Figure D: Flash Fire Distances to LFL and 1/2 LFL for all Failures 

545

Vapour Cloud Explosion Outdoors 

13.7.14 The frequency of VCE at the GCC from a release in the above ground section 

of the manifold has been estimated using the general approach outlined earlier. 

The estimated frequency is 6 x 10 -8 / year per manifold, which equates to ~1 

occurrence in 17 million years. 

13.7.15 The assessment identified the GCC to be the only potential receptor at which 

conditions existed with the potential for a VCE to occur, following failure at the 

wellhead compounds or of the pipelines downstream of the GCC. VCEs are 

possible only where the natural gas is partially confined by equipment and 

buildings. Where a facility is located in open fields the potential for VCE will be 

limited to its footprint and to specific elements where partial confinement can 

occur. As part of the modelling therefore, the maximum flammable mass of gas 

following failure was assumed to ignite within the boundary of the GCC. 

13.7.16 The results of the modelling, in terms of the contours associated with the 

overpressure are presented for both persons outdoors (Figure E) and persons 

indoors (Figure F). 

13.7.17 The results demonstrate that the risk to persons outdoors is confined to areas in 

the immediate vicinity of the GCC, in which there are no potential receptors 

other than site access roads etc. For persons indoors the risk contours are 

based on lower overpressures, and it can be seen that the only potential 

receptor (i.e. occupied building) affected by such an accident is Cote Walls 

Farm, which lies within the outer zone. 

Vapour Cloud Explosion Indoors 

13.7.18 A failure within the Compressor House leading to a gas release could form a 

gas cloud within the confines of the building. This scenario has been modelled, 

based on an effective volume within the Compressor Building (i.e. factored to 

include plant and equipment within the enclosure) of 2,100m 3 . The results are 

presented in Figure G. 

13.7.19 The results demonstrate that the accident carries little risk to persons outside 

the building, with almost the entirety of the effect zones confined within the 

perimeters of the GCC. 

546

Figure E: Overpressure Contours for Persons Outdoors Based on VCEs within the 

GCC Boundary 

547

Figure F: Overpressure Contours for Persons Indoors based on VCEs within the 

GCC Boundary 

548

Figure G: Overpressures Based on VCEs within the Compressor Building 

549

Releases from Vent Stack 

13.7.20 Although it has been assessed as being extremely unlikely to have the potential 

to cause a major accident hazard, typical releases from the vent stack have 

been modelled with a view to ensuring that the vent stack and sterile area can 

be adequately sized. 

13.7.21 As part of this preliminary study, a vent stack height of 16 m has been 

assumed, with a diameter of 550 mm and a sterile area of radius 50 m. A 

discharge rate of 50 kg/s has been assumed, this representing the 

depressurisation of a single process unit. 

13.7.22 The modelling has not highlighted any issues to date. A typical release is 

illustrated in Figure H, in which it can be seen that the LFL and 0.5 LFL 

contours for the resultant cloud dispersion do not present a risk to persons at 

ground level. 

Figure H: Discharge Concentration from the Vent System 

Gas in the De-brining Chamber 

13.7.23 Gas entering the brine system, released via the de-brining chamber and 

subsequently ignited has not been specifically modelled as part of the 

assessment. This scenario was discounted on the basis of insignificant risk 

because protection systems would be installed and the fact that the accident 

would be bounded by other gas releases. 

Quantified Risk Assessment 

13.7.24 Based on the frequency analysis carried out, the total risks of fatality for the 

public at specified locations have been estimated as shown in Table 13-18. 

550

Table 13-18 Safety Assessment - Total Risk of Fatality for a Person in a Specified 

Location 

Location 


(occupied building) 

Total Risk (/yr) 

Sewage works Note 1 8.4 x 10 -7 

1.2 x 10 -8 

(~1 in 100 million years chance 

of fatality) 

(~1 in a million years chance of 

fatality) 

Roads or Wyre Way 1.1 x 10 -6 

footpath Note 2 (~1 in a million years chance of 

fatality) 

Knott End Golf Club 1.8 x 10 -7 

Land Notes 2 & 3 (~1 in 5 million years chance of 

fatality) 

Angling Ponds Note 2 4.8 x 10 -9 

(~1 in 200 million years chance 

of fatality) 

Note 1: The above assessment assumes conservative full time occupation of 

the site. Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works are only staffed on a part-time 

basis. If this equated to 2hrs per day during the working week, this would 

reduce actual risk to 1 in 17 million. 

Note 2: The above assessment assumes conservative full time occupation of 

the various sites. In reality this will significantly be reduced, and as a lowerbound 

the risks for the golf club land and angling ponds may be anticipated to 

be 1 order of magnitude lower. The risks in relation to the Wyre Way by contrast 

are likely to be as a minimum, 10 orders of magnitudes lower. 

Note 3: This relates to the element of Golf Club owned land which is nearest to 

the Project. The risk to the Club-House is negligible. 

13.7.25 To gauge the magnitude of these risks, the risks to which the public are 

exposed on a daily basis are given in Table 13-19. It can be seen that the risk 

of fatality due to a gas release at the application site is very low. The risks can 

also be seen to be low when compared with the HSE land use planning criteria 

(HSE, 2011) described earlier in Sections 13.3.36 – 13.3.38 and more general 

risk criteria (HSE, 2001) which indicate a risk of 1 in a million chance per annum 

of fatality or below not to be significant for these types of receptors. 

Accordingly, these risk levels can be seen to be not significant. 

551

Table 13-19 

Safety Assessment - Risk of Fatality Associated with Various Causes 

Cause of Fatality 

Injury and poisoning 3 x 10 -4 

All forms of road accident 6 x 10 -5 

Lung cancer caused by naturally 

occurring Radon in dwellings 

Domestic gas incident (fire, 

explosion, CO poisoning) 

Risk (per year) 

Caused by electric current 4.6 x 10 -7 

Lightening 5 x 10 -8 

(~1 in 3 thousand years chance of 

fatality) 


fatality) 

3.5 x 10 -5 


fatality) 

7 x 10 -7 

(1 in 1.5 million years chance of fatality) 

(1 in 2 million years chance of fatality) 

(1 in 20 million years chance of fatality) 

Pipeline and Manifolds Risk Assessment 

13.7.26 The pipelines will be designed to the appropriate standards (see paragraphs 

13.3.30-13.3.31). The acceptability of these types of facilities is determined by 

reference to Building Proximity Distance criteria. As there are no occupied 

buildings within the BPD these facilities are considered acceptable and a 

detailed risk assessment has not been undertaken. 


13.8.1 The subsurface risk assessment has been undertaken considering the 

proposed cavern placement areas and modelling actual gas release pathways 

to existing hazards. Definition of the areas for cavern construction is detailed 

within the Geology Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2011). However it has 

been governed by internationally recognised conservative design 

recommendations for the safe construction of gas storage caverns in salt. To 

this end, all ground hazards have been mapped and proposed storage cavern 

areas are situated outside of hazard buffer zones. 

13.8.2 At this early stage of the Project, some aspects of the design have yet to be 

detailed and finalised. Further opportunities for risk reduction would be identified 

and considered as the Project develops. In particular, the following mitigation 

and enhancement measures would be taken into consideration at the 

appropriate point in the detailed design stage of the Project prior to the 

submission of the COMAH Pre-Construction Safety Report. These largely 

relate to optimising the mitigation and enhancement measures already 

proposed. 

552

The number and location of the ESDVs will be developed to optimise 

effectiveness 

Fire suppression systems will be developed for the GCC 

A building safety assessment will be carried out and additional features 

such as shatter proof glass and blow out panels incorporated where 

appropriate 

It may be possible to reduce the size of pipe work e.g. the gas manifolds to 

reduce the size of accidents 

Choice of materials of construction and flow rates will be made to minimise 

corrosion and erosion problems 

The leak detection system will be optimised 

Emergency planning both on-site and off-site will be carried out. This will 

probably include the provision of an additional access for emergency 

vehicles if required 

Detailed hazard identification and assessment will be carried out 


13.9.1 The additional mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in Section 13.8, 

whilst of benefit, are unlikely to have a significant effect on the risk posed to 

members of the public as assessed by the Risk Assessment (Mott Macdonald, 

2011). Therefore, the residual effects of the Project are considered to be 

essentially identical to the potential effects discussed in Section 13.7. The 

potential risk to members of the public from a major hazard event has been 

assessed as low in the RA, at less than 1 x 10 -6 per year (refer to Table 13-18 

and occupancy factor correction in accordance with Note 2). This is marginally 

above the lower limit of the middle risk (“tolerable”) zone as defined by the HSE, 

even before taking into account individual occupancy levels. At these risk levels, 

the proposed design based on industry standards and adopting the relevant 

mitigation measures could be considered sufficient to demonstrate that the risks 

have been reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). 


13.10.1 The Project is in the early design stages and as such the risk assessments 

performed are preliminary with assumptions necessarily being made. Mott 

MacDonald notes that the assumptions have been conservative. 

13.11 Summary 

13.11.1 This document outlines the risk assessment for the Project, with a view to 

demonstrating that the potential risks posed to the general public are within 

tolerable limits. The risk assessment considers gas releases from: 

 

 

 

Below the surface 

The surface 

Pipelines and Manifolds 

553

13.11.2 The people to which a gas release might potentially cause harm have been 

divided into three receptor groups: 

 

 

 

R1 – Preesall (Existing developments) 

R2 – Proposed development site plus immediately adjacent Cote Walls 

Farm. 

R3 - Random individuals. People on public rights of way and open land. 

Sub-surface Risk Assessment 

13.11.3 The assessment of risks is based on a conceptual model, which considers the 

source-pathway-receptor linkage to determine the relevant scenarios. Thirty 

one scenarios have been identified from combinations of four sources, eight 

pathways and the three receptors outlined above. The risk is assessed and 

each scenario ranked based on the: 

 

 

 

Leak probability 

Time for gas to travel along the pathway from source to receptor 

Dispersion likelihood for each pathway 

13.11.4 The risk to members of the public from a sub-surface gas release is very low. 

The results of the assessment show that the highest relative risk is to random 

individuals located near to a gas release from an abandoned borehole. This 

risk has been estimated to be 1 in 120 million per annum. 

Surface Risk Assessment 

13.11.5 The preliminary probabilistic risk assessment determined that the risk should be 

well within the acceptable levels as defined by the HSE guidelines on Land Use 

Planning. 

13.11.6 The potential major accident hazards that could occur during the operation of 

the Project, including those external to the site, have been identified during a 

HAZOP study. The consequences have been modelled using the PHAST 

software and a preliminary quantified risk assessment performed. 

13.11.7 The results from the Risk Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2011) show that a 

major hazard event is considered to be highly unlikely. The most probable event 

is a gas release causing a vertical fire in the manifold area. This occurs with a 

frequency of 1.6 x 10 -6 /year, which equates to less than two accidents in a 

million years. The highest risk of fatality is for a person located on the ‘worst 

case’ section of the Wyre Way, with a risk of 1.1 x 10 -6 /year, which equates to 

one fatality in a million years and should be considered to be acceptable by the 

HSE. That risk is estimated for a hypothetical individual permanently present at 

that location. Taking account of the proportion of time spent by any one 

individual on this section of the Wyre Way the risk of fatality to any member of 

the public will be much less than the above quantitative estimate. 

13.11.8 A risk of 1.8 x 10 -7 /year is estimated for members of the public at the Knott End 

Golf Course near to the wellheads. Again this risk is estimated for a 

hypothetical individual permanently present at that location. Taking account of 

554

the proportion of time spent by any one individual at that location on the course 

the risk of fatality will be much less than the identified value. The highest risk of 

fatality encountered at occupied buildings near the site is 3.1 x 10 -8 /year at 

Cote Walls Farm. As described in Sections 13.3.36 – 13.3.38 HSE would not 

advise against any development beyond the boundary of the outer zone where 

the chance of receiving a dangerous dose is 3 x 10 -7 chances per year. Against 

that criterion, these risks to occupied buildings can be seen to be very small 

indeed and to be not significant. 

13.11.9 The following conclusions have been drawn from the consequence modelling: 

 

 

 

 

Jet fires – Consequences generally limited to the areas local to the Project 

and within the overall footprint of the site, with little effect on adjacent sites. 

Potentially affected areas within the inner effect zone include: sections of 

the Wyre Way, Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works and Cote Walls 

Farm. 

Flash fires – Consequences arising from failures at the wellhead 

compounds are fairly localised. Small parts of both the Preesall 

Wastewater Treatment Works and the Wyre Way lie within the inner effect 

zone with Cote Walls Farm lying outside the effect zones. For GCC 

failures the Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works, parts of the Wyre Way 

and Cote Walls Farm lie within the inner effect zone. 

Vapour Cloud Explosions (Outdoors) - risk to persons outdoors is confined 

to areas in the immediate vicinity of the GCC, in which there are no 

potential receptors other than site access roads etc. For persons indoors 

only potential receptor affected by such an accident is Cote Walls Farm, 

which lies within the outer effect zone. 

Vapour Cloud Explosions (Indoors) – A failure within the Compressor 

House causing a VCE carries little risk to persons outside the building, 

with almost the entirety of the effect zones confined within the perimeters 

of the GCC. 

Pipelines and Manifolds Risk Assessment 

13.11.10 A preliminary pipeline and manifold risk assessment has been performed using 

the relevant Codes of Practice and guidelines. Given that the pipelines will be 

designed to the appropriate standards and as there are no occupied buildings 

within the Building Proximity Distance a more detailed risk assessment has not 

been performed. 

Summary of Impacts, Affected Receptors and Significance 

13.11.11 The overall findings of the safety assessment, as set out in paragraphs 13.11.1 

to 13.11.10 may be summarised in terms of the following impacts: 

 

 

Receptor 3 (random individuals) subject to a very low probability of fatality 

(1 in 120 million per annum) from subsurface release scenarios. 

Receptor 1 (existing development) subject to a very low probability of 

fatality (maximum risk at any site of ~1 in 5 million years estimated for 

Knott End Golf Club) from surface release scenarios. 

555

When assessed against HSE land use planning criteria (HSE, 2011) and 

more general risk criteria (HSE, 2001) which indicate a risk of 1 in a million 

chance per annum of fatality or below not to be significant for these types 

of receptors, these risk levels can be seen to be not significant. 


Baker Hughes (2011) Review of the Proposed Drilling and Completion 

Programme for Preesall Underground Gas Storage Project 




Report 

Mott MacDonald (2011) Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Risk 

Assessment 

Mott MacDonald (2011) Preesall Gas Storage Project: Geology Summary 

Report 

283641/MEC/BTF/01/A (2010) Preesall Gas Storage Project HAZOP 1 Report 

PHAST software, 

http://www.dnv.com/services/software/products/safeti/safetiqra/phast.asp (DNV) 

Evans and Hough (2008) CR/08/149, Review of BGS Work for Canatxx in 

support of a revised planning application at Preesall 

HSE (2001) Reducing Risk Protecting People 

HSE (2011) PADHI: HSE’s land use planning methodology 

HSE (website document - undated) Methods of approximation and 

determination of human vulnerability for offshore major accident hazard 

assessment 

556

14 SEASCAPE, LANDSCAPE, TOWNSCAPE 

AND VISUAL AMENITY 


14.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Seascape, Landscape, Townscape 

and Visual Amenity assessment, undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. 

It identifies the methodology used to assess effects, existing and future baseline 









the ES. 

14.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Figures 14-1 to 14-10 of 

Volume 2B. 


14.2.1 This assessment has made reference to current legislation, national, regional 

and local plans and policies. Appendix 14-1 of Volume 1B identifies those 

elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Seascape, 

Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity in the context of this assessment, 

including: 

The European Landscape Convention, Florence 2000 

 

 

 

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy, 2011 (EN-1) 


pipelines, 2011 (EN-4) 

Planning Policy Statement 21: sustainable development in the 

Countryside (2010) 


(Government Office for the Northwest, 2008), specifically Policy RDF3 

‘The Coast’ and Policy EM1 ‘Integrated Enhancement and Protection of 

the Region’s Environmental Assets’. 

 

Landscape and Heritage Supplementary Planning Guidance (Lancashire 

County Council, 2006) 

14.2.2 It should be noted that the Department for Communities and Local Government 

has recently published a consultation draft of the National Planning Policy 

Framework which is intended to bring together Planning Policy Statements and 

Policy Guidance Notes and some circulars into a single consolidated document. 

557


14.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Seascape, 

Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity chapter of the Environmental 

Statement (ES). 




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 







Guideline for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape 

Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 

2002) 

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland 

(Natural England (Countryside Agency), Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002) 

Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment (Countryside Council for 

Wales (CCW) jointly with Brady Shipman Martin and University College 

Dublin, 2001) 

Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment 

(Highways Agency, 2010) 

Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and 

Sensitivity (Natural England / Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006) 

Advice Note 01/11: Photography and photomontage in landscape and 

visual impact assessment (Landscape Institute, 2011) 




14.3.3 It should be noted that the author is aware of a new seascape methodology 

specifically for offshore windfarms which is presently being prepared. It is 

understood that this is due to be published in autumn 2011. However, the 

author has been unable to obtain a copy of the draft methodology and in 

agreement with Lancashire County Council the older seascape assessment 

methodology referred to above shall apply for this assessment. 

Study Area(s) 

14.3.4 The study area boundary forms the limit to which both landscape and visual 

impacts arising from the Project may occur. This boundary is defined by the 

Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) and extends across the application site. The 

558

extent of the ZVI would vary between the construction and operation phases as 

a result of the relatively widespread temporary or short term construction 

activities associated with the Projects underground elements (see Figure 14-6 

of Volume 2B) compared with the relatively more localised nature of the 

permanent above ground operational elements (see Figure 14-7 of Volume 2B). 

14.3.5 It is anticipated, based on the findings of the assessment, that most effects 

(where they occur) would be within approximately 2 km of the above-ground 

permanent features during their construction, construction and operation 

combined, operation and decommissioning phases and within 1 km for the 

underground features during their construction phase and construction and 

operation combined phase. In discussion with both Lancashire CC and Wyre 

BC it was agreed that a distant elevated viewpoint within the Forest of Bowland 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which was identified by the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission in their responses received to the 

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, would not be necessary as 

it was considered any impact on this receptor, because of distance and the 

nature of the view, would not be significant. Other matters regarding the study 

area and which were discussed with the consultees are summarised in Table 

14-1. 

Desk Studies 

14.3.6 The desk study has comprised a review of numerous documents relating to the 

landscape, including existing landscape character assessments for the area. 

The desk study has also taken account of other published work relating to 

ecology and Historic Landscape Character as well as historical and cultural 

associations of the area, together with relevant landscape planning policies and 

designations. All these source of information are important in understanding the 

layers which contribute to landscape character. 


Character Map of England (Natural England (Countryside Agency), 1999) 

North West Landscape Character Framework (Natural England), 2009 

 

Landscape and Heritage Supplementary Planning Guidance (Lancashire 

County Council, 2006) 


(Government Office for the Northwest, 2008) 

Wyre Local Plan (Wyre Borough Council, 1999) 

 

Mapping Tranquillity, Defining and Assessing a Valuable Resource 

(Campaign to Protect Rural England, 2005) 

Intrusion Map North West (Campaign to Protect Rural England, 2007) 

Tranquillity Map: Lancashire (Campaign to Protect Rural England, 2007) 

 

Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution (Institute of Lighting 

Engineers, 2000 revised 05/03) 

559


14.3.8 A winter landscape survey was undertaken in December 2010 followed by 

summer surveys in July and August 2011 to verify the desk study data as well 

as to record site information such as agricultural practices, the condition and 

management of the landscape features, their visual amenity, how they relate to 

each other and where similarities in the landscape occur. The survey also 

identified potential visual receptors which may have a view to the Project. 

Consultation 




consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Seascape, 

Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity assessment. Table 14-1 

summarises the post-scoping consultation undertaken, including responses 

received to the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report. 

Table 14-1 Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment - 

Post-Scoping Consultation 


Lancashire 

County 

Council 

(LCC) 

16th June 2011 

5th August 2011 

13th September 2011 

LCC’s response to PEI report, dated 16 th August 

2011 are covered in their Appendix ‘A’ and includes 

the following comments; 

An explanation of why the methodology in 

IAN135/10 was deemed suitable 

Recommends the use of Natural England’s 

document: Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria 

for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity 

Clarification of the Zone of Visual Influence and 

what it represents 

The omission of LCC document: Historic 

Designed Landscapes of Lancashire Research 

Study, Phase 1, November 1998, (English 

Heritage and Lancashire County Council). 

The need to expand on the assessment on the 

likely landscape and visual impacts of the 

proposals against the key tests of landscape 

planning policy and in particular against the 

principal test of RSS Policy EM1, no net loss of 

resources 

Include reference to Natural England's document: 

North West Landscape Character Framework 

Recommends the need to refer to finer grain 

tranquillity mapping of the study area produced by 

CPRE 

Provide a more robust approach in identifying finer 

grained localised landscape character areas that 

560


Wyre 

Borough 

Council 

(WBC) 



E-mail 28 September 

2011 

nest within the landscape character types/areas 

classified/described and mapped by LCC. 

Subsequent to LCCs response there has been a site 

visit and several meeting to agree the matters raised 

above. These include; 

Site visit to agree viewpoint locations for 

photomontages. 

Meeting to review viewpoints, methodology, 

significance criteria, extent of study area, relevant 

baseline planning documents, 

Meeting to discuss the project design and other 

mitigation measures covered by the Draft Ecology 

and Landscape Management Plan. At the meeting 

LCC made a general comment regarding the screen 

mounds to the gas compressor compound and 

suggested that lower height mounds would be more 

preferable to higher mounds which would result in a 

greater proportion of the taller elements within the 

compound being visible but overtime the overall 

extent would be reduced as the associated mound 

planting establishes. LCC were also particularly 

keen to understand how the Project design, 

mitigation and enhancement measures would deliver 

a no net loss in landscape elements as 

recommended by RSS Policy EM1 (A) 

WBC’s response to the PEI report, dated 15 August 

2011, includes the following; 

WBC indicated that LCC would address detail 

matters such as landscape assessment. 

Subsequent to WBCs response there has been 

several meetings (held jointly with LCC) to; 

agree the matters raised by LCC, which include a 

review of viewpoints, methodology, significance 

criteria, extent of study area, relevant baseline 

planning documents, 

Meeting to discuss the project design and other 

mitigation measures covered by the Draft Ecology 

and Landscape Management Plan. 

Subsequent to the meeting dated 13 September 

WBC in an e-mail dated 28 September 2011 made 

further comments regarding the proposed screen 

mounding to the gas compressor compound. WBC 

were concerned about the scale of the proposed 

mounding and the need to provide gentler slopes of 

between 1v to 5h and 1v to 10h and more extensive 

belts of tree planting. 

Natural 15th July 2011 NE’s e-mail response to the PEI Report dated 15-07- 

561


England (NE) 26th August 2011 


2011 made reference to the following 

Expect the methodology of consideration of 

landscape impacts to reflect the approach set out 

in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment (The Landscape Institute, 2002), the 

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for 

England and Scotland (Scottish Natural Heritage 

and The Countryside Agency, 2002) and good 

practice 

In addition NE also made the following comments 

NE has been tasked with, and is leading on, the 

implementation of the European Landscape 

Convention in England on behalf of Government. 

NE refers to the European Landscape Convention 

definition of a landscape as ‘an area, as perceived 

by people, whose character is the result of the 

action and interaction of natural and/human 

factors’ 

Recommends taking all aspects of landscape, 

including landscape character and quality and 

townscape, into consideration when preparing the 

submission 

NE’s position on landscape states that landscapes 

are key resources for the nation 

All EIA include a Landscape & Visual Impact 

Assessment (LVIA) 

Identify the site does not fall within a designated 

landscape, nor does one lie adjacent to the site 

Identifies the Forest of Bowland AONB lies within 

5km of the NTS Feeder near Garstang, and the 

impact of the installation in respect of the AONB 

should be fully examined 

NE is satisfied with the scope of the report so far, 

and considers that with careful planning, design 

and mitigation, the project could be 

accommodated within the landscape 

NE would rely on the Local Planning Authority with 

their particular local knowledge and expertise, to 

advise on precise details in accordance with their 

own policies and the Lancashire Landscape 

Character Assessment 

NE however does have concerns about 

displacement of SPA birds from foraging and 

roosting areas, through additional mounding and 

planting that is planned as part of the proposal, 

and would like to discuss this in more detail along 

with landscape colleagues and the RSPB 

562


Royal Society 

for the 

Protection of 

Birds (RSPB) 



E-mail dated 14 th 

October 2011 

Subsequent to NE’s responses several meetings 

have been held to discuss the project design and 

other mitigation measures covered by the Draft 

Ecology and Landscape Management Plan. 

The RSPB made no specific response to the PEI 

report regarding landscape matters, although they 

raised a matter in their response to discussing 

additional screen mounding. 

Various meetings were held to discuss the project 

design and other mitigation measures covered by the 

Draft Ecology and Landscape Management Plan. 

Follow up site meeting to discuss extent of perimeter 

screen mounds around gas compressor compound. 

In particular the need to minimise land take on the 

arable field to the south of it. 

E-mail dated 14-10-2011 to confirm satisfaction 

regarding the final design of the perimeter screen 

mounds to the Gas Compressor Compound. 






 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Consideration of the future baseline information obtained to take account 

of potential changes in the character of an area or the appearance of new 

elements overtime as a result of external factors which would occur 

without the Project. 

Consideration of background noise levels to provide an understanding of 

the baseline tranquillity associated with the study area 


details 






563




Seascape Character Assessment 

Sensitivity and Capacity 

14.3.12 With reference to Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity 

and Sensitivity (Natural England / Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006), this 

document makes specific reference to the terms sensitivity and capacity of the 

landscape resource. The paper suggests that the terms sensitivity and capacity 

are different in that the sensitivity of the resource can be inherently sensitive 

(overall sensitivity) as well as be sensitive to a specific external pressure 

(sensitive to a specific type of change). It also suggests that the term capacity 

is used to describe the ability of the resource to accommodate different 

amounts of change or development of a specific type. 

14.3.13 For the purposes of this assessment the term sensitivity is used in relation to a 

specific type of development i.e. the project being assessed. The assessment 

also refers to capacity in terms of the capability of the seascape resource to 

accommodate the type of development proposed. 

14.3.14 The 3-point scale presented in Table 14-2 has been adopted to assess the 

sensitivity and capacity of the existing seascape character. The criteria 

descriptions in Table 14-2 are not meant to be exhaustive and are provided 

here to give a broad indication of the categories of sensitivity. Table 14-2 

should be read in conjunction with Appendix 14.2 of Volume 1B. 

Table 14-2 Seascape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining 

Sensitivity 

Sensitivity 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Description 

Simple coastline with an elevated hinterland and many panoramic 

views and forms the setting to a nationally designated hinterland. The 

coastline may also have other designations to reflect its historic or 

ecological value. Likely to have no or few intrusive features and the 

lowest / low capacity for change 

Varied coastline which may have designations to reflect its historic or 

ecological value with open views. Likely to have some intrusive 

features and some capacity for change. 

Complex coastline with a level flat or plateau hinterland and few 

views. Likely to be influenced by intrusive features and a high 

capacity for change 



magnitude of change on the existing seascape character. 

564

Table 14-3 Seascape Character Assessment - Criteria for Determining 


Magnitude of 

Change 

Description 

Major Negative: Where the Project would cause long term / 

permanent loss or extensive damage to the integrity of the 

resource and its elements which are important to the character 

of the resource and its recognised value. 

Positive: Where the Project would provide permanent large 

scale improvement to the integrity of the resource and its 

elements. 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No Change 

Negative: Where the Project would cause a short to medium 

term loss of key elements which are important to the character 

of the resource, but where its integrity is not compromised. 

Positive: Where the Project would provide permanent 

enhancement and the introduction of new or additional 

elements which combine to bring about measurable benefit to 

the character of the resource. 

Negative: Where the Project would cause a short term loss of 

key elements which are important to the character of the 

resource but overall its integrity is unaffected. 

Positive: Where the Project would introduce some permanent 

new or additional elements which are of local benefit to the 

character of the resource. 

Negative: Where the Project would cause a temporary loss of 

key elements which are important to the character of the 

resource but overall its integrity is unaffected. 

Positive: Where the Project would introduce isolated new or 

additional elements which are of a localised nature. 

Where the Project may bring about temporary change but 

does not result in the loss of key elements or affect the 

integrity of the resource. 

14.3.16 The magnitude of change on seascape character has also been described in 

terms of the nature of the change i.e. whether it would be negative (adverse) or 

positive (beneficial) and the duration of the change i.e. temporary (up to a 

period of 1 year), short term (between 1 year and 5 years), medium term 

(between 5 years and 10 years), long term (between 10 years and 15 years) or 

permanent (over 15 years). 


14.3.17 In determining the significance of effect on seascape character, the sensitivity of 

each seascape character area has been compared with the potential magnitude 

of change the Project would have on it. The criteria for assessing the 

significance of potential effects on seascape character are presented in Table 

14-4. Where there is a choice of significance scores i.e. large / moderate, the 

assessor is required to select one based on their professional judgement. 

565

Table 14-4 Seascape Character Assessment – Criteria for Determining 

Significance of Effects 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Seascape Character Sensitivity 

High Moderate Low 

Major Large / Very Large Large / Moderate Slight / Moderate 

Moderate Large / Moderate Moderate Slight 

Minor Slight / Moderate Slight Neutral / Slight 

Negligible Slight Neutral / Slight Neutral / Slight 

No Change Neutral Neutral Neutral 

14.3.18 The judgements made on the significance of effects, based on sensitivity and 

magnitude of change has then been discussed in terms of the value of the area 

in question. The GLVIA states; ‘Landscapes with a high value and sensitivity to 

the type of change proposed are likely to be more seriously affected by 

development than those areas with lower sensitivity.’ 



Seascape Visual Assessment 

Sensitivity 


sensitivity of the visual receptor. The criteria descriptions in Table 14-5 are not 

meant to be exhaustive and are provided here to give a broad indication of the 

categories of sensitivity. Table 14-5 should be read in conjunction with 


Table 14-5 

Seascape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Sensitivity 

Sensitivity Description 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Local residents and the public following outdoor recreational 

pursuits e.g. walkers, horse riders, beach users, road users (leisure) 

Recreational pursuits, educational facilities and outdoor employment 

which are site or activity focussed e.g. shooting, golf, water based 

activities 

Travellers (non leisure), indoor employment and indoor recreational 


14.3.21 The magnitude of the change to an existing view has been determined by a 

number of interrelated factors. These include: 

 

The distance from the Project to the receptor 

566

The proportion of the Project visible as well as the absolute visibility of the 

Project 

The height of the Project relative to the receptor with reference also to the 

scale of other features in the view 

The number and character of elements which would be lost from or added 

to the view 


magnitude of change. 

Table 14-6 Seascape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of 

Change 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

Description 

Likely to be experienced in near distance open views. 

Negative: Here the Project would cause short to long term / permanent or 

temporary change to the view composition as a result of loss of key 

elements which are integral to the view and or where contrasting new 

elements become the focus of the view. 

Positive: Here the Project would provide new elements which can be 

integrated into the view composition and contribute to the wider scale 

enhancement of the areas visual amenity. 

Likely to be experienced in mid distance open views and near partial 

views. 

Negative: Here the Project would cause short to long term permanent or 

temporary change in the view composition as a result of loss of some 

elements which contribute to the view and or where some contrasting 

new elements are seen as part of a number of elements in the view. 

Positive: Here the Project would provide new elements which can be 

integrated into the view composition and contribute to the wider scale 

enhancement of the areas visual amenity. 

Likely to occur in distant open views and near to mid distance partial 

views. This change may also occur where a receptor is exposed to the 

Development as a result of a sequential series of near glimpses. 

Negative: Here the Project would cause short to long term permanent or 

temporary loss of some elements and or create contrasting new elements 

which are visible but has minimal change on the integrity of the view 

composition. 

Positive: Here the Project would be integrated and its new elements 

provide local scale enhancement. 

Likely to occur in elevated panoramic distant open views, mid distant 

partial views or from a sequential series of near to mid distance glimpses. 

Negative: Here the Project would create a contrasting new element which 

is visible but leaves the integrity of the view composition unaffected. 

Positive: Not used. It is unlikely this degree of positive change would be 

perceptible. 

567

Magnitude of 

Change 

No Change 

Description 

Where the Project maybe visible but it is considered to fit the view 

composition without causing change to it. 

14.3.23 The magnitude of change on views has also been described in terms of the 

nature of the change i.e. whether it would be negative (adverse) or positive 

(beneficial) and the duration of the change i.e. temporary (up to a period of 1 

year), short term (between 1 year and 5 years), medium term (between 5 years 

and 10 years), long term (between 10 years and 15 years) or permanent (over 

15 years). 


14.3.24 The effect on visual receptors has been assessed to take account of the 

seasonal variation in views in both winter and summer. However in many 

situations, due to the open nature of the seascape and landscape of the study 

area there would be very little difference as a result of seasonal changes and as 

such the assessment findings assumes a worst case scenario regardless of the 

season. However, where appropriate the assessment is based on the following 

three scenarios: 

 

 

 

During the daytime in winter / summer for each year of the Project’s 

construction and construction and operation combined phases and the first 

year of operation. 

During the daytime in summer at year 15 of the Project operation to take 

account of the proposed landscape planting mitigation as well as the 

screening potential of any intervening existing vegetation. 

During the daytime in winter at year 15 of the Project operation to take 

account of seasonal changes in planting. 

14.3.25 An assessment of the Project lighting has also been considered on night-time 

views. 

14.3.26 In determining the significance of effect on views, the sensitivity of each 

individual or group of receptors has been compared with the potential 

magnitude of change the Project would have on the quality of the view. The 

criteria for assessing the significance of potential effects on visual receptors are 

provided in Table 14-7. Where there is a choice of significance scores i.e. large 

/ moderate, the assessor is required to select one based on their professional 

judgement. 



568

Table 14-7 Seascape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining Significance 

of Effects 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Visual Receptor Sensitivity 







Landscape / Townscape Character Assessment 

Sensitivity and Capacity 

14.3.28 With reference to Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity 

and Sensitivity (Natural England / Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006), this 

document makes reference to the terms sensitivity and capacity of the 

landscape resource. The paper suggests that the terms sensitivity and capacity 

are different in that the sensitivity of the resource can be inherently sensitive 

(overall sensitivity) as well as be sensitive to a specific external pressure 

(sensitive to a specific type of change). It also suggests that the term capacity 

is used to describe the ability of the resource to accommodate different 

amounts of change or development of a specific type. 

14.3.29 For the purposes of this assessment the term sensitivity is used in relation to a 

specific type of development i.e. the project being assessed. The assessment 

also refers to capacity in terms of the capability of the landscape / townscape 

resource to accommodate the type of development proposed. 


sensitivity and capacity of the existing landscape / townscape character. The 

criteria descriptions in Table 14-9 are not meant to be exhaustive and are 

provided here to give a broad indication of the categories of sensitivity. Table 

14-9 should be read in conjunction with Appendix 14.2 of Volume 1B. 

Table 14-8 Landscape / Townscape Character Assessment - Criteria for 

Determining Sensitivity and Capacity 


High 

Moderate 

Rare and important landscape / townscape with intact, coherent and 

balanced elements, strong characteristics, many attractive views, a unique 

distinctive character and an overwhelming sense of place which is within or 

forms the setting to nationally designated areas and may also have other 

designations to reflect its ecological , historical or cultural value. Likely to 

have no or limited intrusive features and no capacity for change 

Landscape or townscape which contains common place elements and 

characteristics and some of which are coherent and balanced and may 

569


Low 

also be individually rare or unique and contribute to give the area a sense 

of place in comparison to its surroundings. The importance of the elements 

or characteristics may be designated or recognised for their aesthetic 

quality, ecological or historic / cultural value. Likely to have some attractive 

views but influenced by intrusive elements and has some capacity for 

change. 

Landscape or townscape with frequently occurring or repeating common 

place elements and characteristics and some of which may be 

incongruous. Area may contain isolated or individual unique elements 

which are designated or recognised for their aesthetic quality, ecological or 

historic / cultural value. There is the potential for the area to have the 

occasional attractive view, but likely to be influenced by intrusive elements 

and a high capacity for change 



magnitude of change on the existing landscape / townscape character. 


Determining Magnitude of Change 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

Description 

Negative: Where the Project would cause long term / permanent loss 

or extensive damage to the integrity of the landscape or townscape 

and its elements which are important to landscape character and its 

recognised value. 

Positive: Where the Project would provide permanent large scale 

improvement to the integrity of the landscape / townscape and its 

elements. 

Negative: Where the Project would cause a short to medium term loss 

of key elements which are important to landscape character, but 

where landscape integrity is not compromised. 

Positive: Where the Project would provide permanent enhancement 

and the introduction of new or additional elements which combine to 

bring about measurable benefit to landscape / townscape character. 

Negative: Where the Project would cause a short term loss of key 

elements which are important to landscape character but overall 

landscape integrity is unaffected. 

Positive: Where the Project would introduce some permanent new or 

additional elements which are of local benefit to landscape / 

townscape character. 

Negative: Where the Project would cause a temporary loss of key 

elements which are important to landscape / townscape character but 

overall landscape integrity is unaffected. 

570

Magnitude of 

Change 

No Change 

Description 

Positive: Where the Project would introduce isolated new or additional 

elements which are of a localised nature. 

Where the Project may bring about temporary change but does not 

result in the loss of key elements or affect landscape / townscape 

integrity. 

14.3.32 The magnitude of change on landscape and townscape character has also 

been described in terms of the nature of the change i.e. whether it would be 

negative (adverse) or positive (beneficial) and the duration of the change i.e. 

temporary (up to a period of 1 year), short term (between 1 year and 5 years), 

medium term (between 5 years and 10 years), long term (between 10 years and 

15 years) or permanent (over 15 years). 


14.3.33 In determining the significance of effect on landscape / townscape character, 

the sensitivity of each landscape / townscape character area has been 

compared with the potential magnitude of change the Project would have on it. 

The criteria for assessing the significance of potential effects on landscape and 

townscape character are provided in Table 14-10. Where there is a choice of 

significance scores i.e. large / moderate, the assessor is required to select one 

based on their professional judgement. 



Magnitude of 

Change 

Landscape / Townscape Character Sensitivity 


Major Large / Very Large Large / Moderate Moderate / Slight 





14.3.34 The judgements made on the significance of effects, based on sensitivity / 

capacity and magnitude of change have then been discussed in terms of the 

value of the area in question. The GLVIA states; ‘Landscapes with a high value 

and sensitivity to the type of change proposed are likely to be more seriously 

affected by development than those areas with lower sensitivity.’ 



571

Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment 

Sensitivity 


sensitivity of the visual receptor. The criteria descriptions in Table 14-11 are not 

meant to be exhaustive and are provided here to give a broad indication of the 

categories of sensitivity. Table 14-11 should be read in conjunction with 


Table 14-11 Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining 

Sensitivity 


High 

Moderate 

Low 

Local residents and the public following outdoor recreational 

pursuits e.g. walkers, horse riders, beach users, road users (leisure) 

Recreational pursuits, educational facilities and outdoor employment 

which are site or activity focussed e.g. shooting, golf, water based 

activities 

Travellers (non leisure), indoor employment and indoor recreational 


14.3.37 The magnitude of the change to an existing view has been determined by a 

number of interrelated factors. These are: 

 

 

 

 

The distance from the Project to the receptor 

The proportion of the Project visible as well as the absolute visibility of the 

Project 

The height of the Project relative to the receptor with reference also to the 

scale of other features in the view 

The number and character of elements which would be lost from or added 

to the view 


magnitude of change. 

Table 14-12 Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment - Criteria for Determining 


Magnitude of 

Change 

Major 

Description 

Likely to be experienced in near distance open views. 

Negative: Here the Project would cause short to long term / 

permanent or temporary change to the view composition as a result 

of loss of key elements which are integral to the view and or where 

contrasting new elements become the focus of the view. 

Positive: Here the Project would provide new elements which can 

572

Magnitude of 

Change 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

No Change 

Description 

be integrated into the view composition and contribute to the wider 

scale enhancement of the areas visual amenity. 

Likely to be experienced in mid distance open views and near 

partial views. 

Negative: Here the Project would cause short to long term 

permanent or temporary change in the view composition as a result 

of loss of some elements which contribute to the view and or where 

some contrasting new elements are seen as part of a number of 

elements in the view. 

Positive: Here the Project would provide new elements which can 

be integrated into the view composition and contribute to the wider 

scale enhancement of the areas visual amenity. 

Likely to occur in distant open views and near to mid distance 

partial views. This change may also occur where a receptor is 

exposed to the Project as a result of a sequential series of near 

glimpses. 

Negative: Here the Project would cause short to long term 

permanent or temporary loss of some elements and or create 

contrasting new elements which are visible but has minimal change 

on the integrity of the view composition. 

Positive: Here the Project would be integrated and its new elements 

provide local scale enhancement. 

Likely to occur in elevated panoramic distant open views, mid 

distant partial views or from a sequential series of near to mid 

distance glimpses. 

Negative: Here the Project would create a contrasting new element 

which is visible but leaves the integrity of the view composition 

unaffected. 

Positive: Not used. It is unlikely this degree of positive change 

would be perceptible. 

Where the Project maybe visible but it is considered to fit the view 

composition without causing change to it. 

14.3.39 The magnitude of change on views has also been described in terms of the 

nature of the change i.e. whether it would be negative (adverse) or positive 

(beneficial) and the duration of the change i.e. temporary (up to a period of 1 

year), short term (between 1 year and 5 years), medium term (between 5 years 

and 10 years), long term (between 10 years and 15 years) or permanent (over 

15 years). 


14.3.40 The effect on visual receptors has been assessed to take account of the 

seasonal variation in views in both winter and summer. However in many 

situations, due to the open nature of the seascape and landscape of the study 

area there would be very little difference as a result of seasonal changes and as 

573

such the assessment findings assume a worst case scenario regardless of the 

season. However, where appropriate the assessment is based on the following 

three scenarios: 

 

 

 

During the daytime in winter / summer for each year of the Project’s 

construction and construction and operation combined phases and the first 

year of the operation phase. 

During the daytime in summer at year 15 of the Project operation to take 

account of the proposed landscape planting mitigation as well as the 

screening potential of any intervening existing vegetation. 

During the daytime in winter at year 15 of the Project operation to take 

account of seasonal changes in planting. 

14.3.41 An assessment of the Project lighting has also been considered on night-time 

views. 

14.3.42 In determining the significance of effect on views, the sensitivity of each 

individual or group of receptors has been compared with the potential 

magnitude of change as a result of the Project would have on the quality of the 

view. The criteria for assessing the significance of potential effects on visual 

receptors are provided in Table 14-13. Where there is a choice of significance 

scores i.e. large / moderate, the assessor is required to select one based on 

their professional judgement. 

14.3.43 Based on professional judgement, a ‘significant’ effect with regard to the 


Table 14-13 Landscape / Townscape Visual Assessment – Criteria for 


Magnitude of 

Change 

Visual Receptor Sensitivity 







Assessment of Cumulative Effects 

14.3.44 Cumulative effects are those which may arise as a result of additional changes 

to the landscape and / or its visual amenity caused by the Project in conjunction 

with other developments. This assessment includes an assessment of potential 

cumulative effects on visual receptors in relation to other developments in close 

proximity to the Project and which under the worst case scenario could be 

constructed and operated within a similar timescale to the Project. Further 

574

information on undertaking this aspect of the assessment is provided in Chapter 

18: Cumulative Effects. 




14.4.2 The seascape, landscape and townscape of the study area has been 

characterised in to areas of distinctive character and includes the identification 

of character types and character areas. These types and areas are based on 

previously published landscape characterisation work carried out by Natural 

England at a national and regional level and by Lancashire County Council at 

the local level. From this desk based study and from field survey work project 

specific character types and character areas have been identified. The 

landscape character type is generic in that they may occur in different areas but 

share broadly similar elements such as topography, geology, drainage pattern, 

vegetation, historical, land use and settlement pattern. Landscape character 

areas are single unique areas of a particular character type. The mapping of 

the Project specific character types and areas is shown on Figure 14-1 of 

Volume 2B. A summary of the Project’s 10 specific character types and 35 

specific character areas are presented in Table 14-14. A more detailed 

description of these character types and areas along with the higher level 

characterisation work and other baseline research material is provided in 

Appendix 14-3 of Volume 1B. 



Project Specific 

Character Type 

(refer to Figure 

14.1 of Volume 2B) 

Seascape Type 

SCT-1: Intertidal 


LCT-2: Coastal 

Lowland 


LCT-3: Recreational 

Estuary Edge 


LCT-4: Lowland 

Estuary Edge 

Project Specific Character Area 

Character Area SCA-1a: Rossall Promenade and Beach 

Character Area SCA-1b: Wyre Estuary 

Character Area LCA-2a: South Fleetwood Farmed Urban Fringe 

Character Area LCA-2b: Rossall School 

Character Area LCA-2c: A585 Corridor Farmed Urban Fringe 

Character Area LCA-3a: Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park 

Character Area LCA-3b: Jameson Road Land Reclamation Site 

Character Area LCA-3c: ICI Hillhouse Industrial Edge 

Character Area LCA-3d: Wyre Estuary Country Park 

Character Area LCA-4a: Knott End Golf Course 

Character Area LCA-4b: Hackensall Farmland Lowland 

Character Area LCA-4c: Agglebys Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-4d: Clods Carr Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-4e: Preesall Fishing Lakes 

575



(refer to Figure 



LCT-5: Rural 

Settlement Fringe 


LCT-6: Farmed 

Mosslands 


LCT-7 Farmed 

Lowland 


TCT-8: Suburban 

Coastal 


TCT-9: Urban / 

Industrial Estuary 

Edge 


TCT-10: Rural 

Lowland Settlement 

Project Specific Character Area 

Character Area LCA-4f: The Heads 

Character Area LCA-4g: The Grange Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-4h: High Gate Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-4i: Staynall Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-5a: Preesall Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-5b: Preesall Park Farmed Mosses 

Character Area LCA-5c: Staynall Farmed Lowland 

Character Area LCA-5d: Garstang Farmland Lowland 

Character Area LCA-6a: Pilling Farmed Mosses 

Character Area LCA-6b: Winmarleigh Farmed Mosses 

Character Area LCA-7a: Nateby Farmed Lowland 

Character Area TCA-8a: South Fleetwood Edge 

Character Area TCA-8b: Fleetwood Road Holiday Parks 

Character Area TCA-8c: Kneps Farm Holiday Park 

Character Area TCA-9a: A585 Corridor 

Character Area TCA-9b: Fleetwood Dock 

Character Area TCA-9c: Fleetwood Harbour Village 

Character Area TCA-9d: Fleetwood Port 

Character Area TCA-10a: Preesall 

Character Area TCA-10b: Preesall Park 

Character Area TCA-10c: Stalmine 


14.4.3 Table 14-15 summarises the values assigned to each of the Project specific 

character areas identified through the desk study, site visits (surveys) and 

consultation. Values have been assigned in terms of the sensitivity of the 

seascape, landscape and townscape to the type of change proposed and the 

capacity of these areas to accommodate the change without causing harm to it. 

A more detailed description of the various designations, features and Project 

elements on which these judgements are based can be found in Appendix 14.2 

of Volume 1B. 

576

Table 14-15 Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment – 



Character Type / Area 

(refer to Figure 14.1 of 

Volume 2B) 

SCT-1: Intertidal 

SCA-1a: Rossall 

Promenade and Beach 

SCA-1b: Wyre Estuary 

LCT-2: Coastal Lowland 

LCA-2a: South 

Fleetwood Farmed 

Urban Fringe 

LCA-2b: Rossall School 

LCA-2c: A585 Corridor 

Farmed Urban Fringe 

LCT-3: Recreational Estuary Edge 

LCA-3a: Fleetwood 

Marsh Nature Park 

LCA-3b: Jameson Road 

Land Reclamation Site 

LCA-3c: ICI Hillhouse 

Industrial Edge 

LCA-3d: Wyre Estuary 

County Park 

LCT- 4: Lowland Estuary Edge 

LCA-4a: Knott End Golf 

Course 

LCA-4b: Hackensall 

Farmed Lowland 

LCA-4c: Agglebys 


LCA-4d: Clods Carr 


LCA-4e: Preesall Fishing 

Lakes 

LCA-4f: The Heads 

Character Area Sensitivity and Capacity 

Low seascape sensitivity with high capacity to accommodate 

the Project 

High seascape sensitivity with moderate capacity to 

accommodate the Project. 

Low landscape sensitivity with high capacity to accommodate 

the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 

Moderate landscape sensitivity with moderate capacity to 

accommodate the Project 

High landscape sensitivity with low capacity to accommodate 

the Project 

High landscape sensitivity with low capacity to accommodate 

the Project 

High landscape sensitivity with moderate capacity to 



the Project 


the Project 

577




Volume 2B) 

LCA-4g: The Grange 


LCA-4h: High Gate 


LCA-4i: Staynall Farmed 

Lowland 

LCT-5: Rural Settlement Fringe 

LCA-5a: Preesall 


LCA-5b: Preesall Park 

Farmed Mossland 

LCA-5c: Staynall 


LCA-5d: Garstang 


LCT-6: Farmed Mosslands 

LCA-6a: Pilling Farmed 

Mosses 

LCA-6b: Winmarleigh 

Farmed Mosses 

LCT-7: Farmed Lowland 

LCA-7a: Nateby Farmed 

Lowland 

TCT-8: Suburban Coastal 

TCA-8a: South 

Fleetwood Suburban 

Edge 

TCA-8b: Fleetwood 

Road Holiday Parks 

TCA-8c: Kneps Farm 

Holiday Park 

TCT-9: Urban / Industrial Estuary Edge 

TCA-9a: A585 Corridor 

TCA-9b: Fleetwood 

Dock 

TCA-9c: Fleetwood 



the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 


the Project 

Low townscape sensitivity with high capacity to 











578




Volume 2B) 


TCA-9d: Fleetwood Port 

TCT-10: Rural Lowland Settlement 

TCA-10a: Preesall 

TCA-10b: Preesall Park 

TCA-10c: Stalmine 













Project. The hinterland to the west side of the Wyre estuary (SCA-1b) is 

presently undergoing change. It is anticipated the land reclamation site (LCA- 

3b) adjacent to Jameson Road, when completed will become a recreational 

open space. The land to the south which is presently occupied by the NPL 

lagoons will become a nature park with the future REMADE Wyre Way crossing 

this area, providing a link from the existing section of the Wyre Way, Footpath 

FP8 (LCA-3c) to Jameson Road (LCA-3b). This would then link up with the 

proposed United Utilities bridleway, which would run from Jameson Road along 

the disused railway (TCA-9a) to the Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park (LCA-3a). 

The area to the north of the park is presently being redeveloped for housing 

(TCA-9c) and to the north west, the former fish dock (TCA-9b) is to be 

regenerated as a mixed use retail, leisure and residential area. Other future 

development on the west side of the estuary includes a gas fired power station 

at Thornton, outside the study area and the Riverside Waste Transfer and 

Recycling Centre on Jameson Road (TCA-9a). In addition a wind farm 

development has been consented at Orchard End Farm, located immediately 

adjacent to LCA-6a and LCA-7a, near Nateby 

14.5.2 With reference to Geological Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2010) on the 

east side of the estuary within the rural hinterland (LCA-4c) three existing brine 

wells show evidence of on-going migration through roof collapse namely BW44, 

BW50 and BW64. Potentially their collapse could eventually create new fenced 

off areas of circular water bodies and associated scrub of similar appearance to 

the existing collapsed brine wells, which are a distinctive feature of the 

landscape. 


14.6.1 Those receptors considered to be potentially affected by the Project are 

described in Table 14-16. The nature of effects (in the absence of mitigation 

579

and enhancement measures) have been considered for the construction (Years 

1-3), construction and operation combined (Years 4-8), operation (Years 9-40) 


580

Table 14-16 Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity – Character Areas and Visual Receptors Potentially 

Affected 


(refer to Figures 

14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

Character Area and Visual Receptors 

Potential Nature of Effect 

SCT-1: Intertidal SCA-1a: Rossall Promenade and Beach Seascape Character 

It is anticipated there may be potentially localised 

temporary adverse effects on the character of this area 

during the construction phase (Year 1) and localised 

permanent beneficial effects thereafter 

LCT-2: Coastal 

Lowland 

SCA-1b: Wyre Estuary 

Visual Receptor VR1.1: Beach users 

Visual Receptor VR1.2: Lancashire Coastal Way (runs 

concurrently with Footpaths FP12 and FP10) 

Visual Receptor VR1.3: Boat users - Wyre estuary main 

channel 

LCA-2a: South Fleetwood Urban Fringe 

LCA-2c: A585 Corridor Farmed Urban Fringe 

Seascape Character 

It is anticipated there would be potentially localised 

permanent adverse effects on the character of this area 

during the construction (Year 1 to Year 3), construction 

and operation combined phase (Year 4 to Year 8) and the 

operational phase (Year 9 to Year 40) 


It is anticipated there may be potentially temporary 

adverse effects on visual amenity during the construction 

phase (Year 1) and localised beneficial effects thereafter 


It is anticipated there may be potentially localised short 

term adverse effect on this receptor during the 

construction phase (Year 1 to Year 3) 

Landscape Character 

It is anticipated there may be potentially localised 

temporary adverse effects on the character of these areas 

during the construction phase (Year 1) 

581



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

LCT-3: 

Recreational 

Estuary Edge 


LCA-2b: Rossall School 

Visual Receptor VR2.1: Wyre Way (Sandy Lane to the north 

of Rossall School) 

Visual Receptor VR2.2: Rossall School and residential 

properties 

Visual Receptor VR2.3: Fleetwood to Blackpool Tramway 

Visual Receptor VR2.4: Cardinal Allen and St Edmunds 

Schools 

Visual Receptor VR2.5: Fleetwood Farm 

Visual Receptor VR2.6a: Wyre Way, Rossall Lane (B5409) 

Visual receptor VR2.6b: Wyre Way, Rossall Lane 

Visual Receptor VR2.7: Farmer Parrs Animal World, 

Wyrefield Farm, Rossall Lane 

Visual Receptor VR2.8: Blackpool & The Fylde College, 


LCA-3a: Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park 



It is anticipated there may be no effect on the character of 

this area due to its remoteness to the Project and the 

intervening nature of the school buildings. This receptor 

has therefore not been taken forward for assessment 



adverse effects on these visual receptor during the 

construction phase (Year 1) 


It is anticipated there may be a potentially temporary 

adverse effect on the character of this area during the 

construction phase (Year 1) and thereafter a permanent 

beneficial effect during the construction phase (Year 2 to 

Year 3), the construction and operation combined phase 

(Year 4 to Year 8) and the operational phase (Year 9 to 

582



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 


LCA-3b: Jameson Road Land Reclamation Site 

LCA-3c: ICI Hillhouse Industrial Edge 

LCA-3d: Wyre Estuary Country Park 

Visual Receptor VR3.1: Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park users 

Visual Receptor VR3.2: Landfill site - Future recreational users 

Visual Receptor VR3.3: Future users of the REMADE Wyre 

Way (east) 

Visual Receptor VR3.4: Future users of the REMADE Wyre 

Way (west) 

Visual Receptor VR3.5a: Wyre Way - North, (runs 

concurrently with Footpath FP13) 

Visual Receptor VR3.5b: Wyre Way - South, (runs 



Year 40). 


It is anticipated there is likely to be no effect on the 

character of these areas due to their remoteness to the 

Project and the overriding influencing nature of the 

intervening Wyre estuary. These receptors have 

therefore not been taken forward for assessment 


It is anticipated there maybe be a potentially temporary 

adverse effect on visual amenity during the construction 

phase (Year 1) and thereafter a permanent beneficial 

effect (Year 2 to Year 40) 


It is anticipated there is likely to be no effect on the future 

visual amenity due to its remoteness to the Project and the 

overriding influencing nature of the intervening Wyre 

Estuary. This receptor has therefore not been taken 

forward for assessment 


It is anticipated there maybe be potentially temporary 


phase (Year 1) 

583



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

LCT-4: Lowland 

Estuary Edge 


Visual Receptor VR3.6: Wyre Way (runs concurrently with 

Bridleway BW14 & Country Park car park) 

LCA-4a: Knott End Golf Course 

LCA-4b: Hackensall Farmed Lowland 

LCA-4c: Agglebys Farmed Lowland 

LCA-4d: Clods Carr Farmed Lowland 

LCA-4g: The Grange Farmed Lowland 

LCA-4i: Staynall Farmed Lowland 

LCA-4f: The Heads 

LCA-4e: Preesall Fishing Lakes 

LCA-4h: High Gate Farmed Lowland 

Visual Receptor VR4.1: Knott End golf course user 

Visual Receptor VR4.14: New Heys Farm, off Whinney Lane 



It is anticipated there may be a potentially localised short 

term adverse effect on the character of this area during the 

construction phase (Year 1 to Year 3) and the construction 

and operation combined phase (Year 4) 


It is anticipated there may be potentially permanent 

adverse effects on the character of these areas during the 

construction phase (Year 1 to Year 3), the construction 


operational phase (Year 9 to Year 40) 



adverse effects on the character of these areas during the 

construction phase (Year 1) 



character of these areas due to their relative remoteness 

to the Project and the overriding influencing nature of the 

intervening Wyre Estuary. These receptors have 



It is anticipated there may be potentially short term 

584



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 


Visual Receptor VR4.2a: Wyre Way – north (runs 


Visual Receptor VR4.2b: Wyre Way – south (runs 


Visual Receptor VR4.3: Footpath FP61 

Visual Receptor VR4.4a: Wyre Way – north (runs 

concurrently with Footpaths FP42, FP41 and FP16) 

Visual Receptor VR4.4b: Wyre Way – south (runs 


Visual Receptor VR4.5a: Footpath FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.5b: Footpath FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.8: Ivy Cottages, Back Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.9 Footpath FP61 

Visual Receptor VR4.6: Bridleway BW2a (Corcas Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.10a: Footpath FP45 (Clods Carr Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.10b: Footpath FP45 (Clods Carr Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.12: Footpath FP46 (Acres Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.13 Curwens Hill Farm, Acres Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.16: Bridleway BW2 

Visual Receptor VR4.17: East Property, Grange Farm, 

Grange Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.18: West Property, Grange Farm, 



phase (Year 1 to Year 3) and construction and operation 

combined phase (Year 4 to Year 5) 




phase (Year 1 to Year 3), the construction and operation 

combined phase (Year 4 to Year 8) and the operational 

phase (Year 9 to Year 40) 


It is anticipated there may be potentially long term to 

permanent adverse effects on visual amenity during the 

construction phase (Year 1 to Year 3), the construction 


operational phase (Year 9) 

585



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

LCT-5: Rural 

Settlement Fringe 


Grange Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.7: Corcas Farm, Corcas Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.11: Coat Walls Farm 

Visual Receptor VR4.15: Riverside Cottage, off Browns 

Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.19: The Grange, Grange Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.20: Height o’ th’ Hill, High Gate Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.21: Little Height o’ th’ Hill, High Gate 

Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.22: High Gate Farm, High Gate Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.23: Caravan Park, off High Gate Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.26: Properties on Staynall Lane 


Visual Receptor VR4.28: Wyre Way, Burrows Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.24: The Willows, High Gate Lane 


LCA-5a: Preesall Farmed Lowland 



It is anticipated there may be potentially either temporary 

or short term adverse effects on visual amenity during the 

construction phase (Year 1 to Year 3) 


It is anticipated there is likely to be no effect on the visual 

amenity of these receptors due to their remoteness to the 

Project. These receptors have therefore not been 

taken forward for assessment 


It is anticipated there may be a potentially localised 

medium term adverse effect on the character of this area 

during the construction phase (Year 1 to Year 3) and 

construction and operation combined phase (Year 4 to 

Year 7) 

586



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 


LCA-5b: Preesall Farmed Mosses 

LCA-5d: Garstang Farmed Lowland 

LCA-5c: Staynall Farmed Lowland 

Visual Receptor VR5.1: Park Cottage, Cemetery Lane 

Visual Receptor VR5.2: Residential Properties, Cemetery 

Lane 

Visual Receptor VR5.3: Woodside Park Caravan Park, Moss 

House Lane 

Visual Receptor VR5.4; Beech House & Moss House, Moss 

House Lane 

Visual Receptor VR5.5: Lancaster Canal 

Visual Receptor VR5.6: Residential properties, Long Moor 

Lane 


LCT-6: Farmed LCA-6a: Pilling Farmed Mosses Landscape Character 



temporary adverse effect on the character of this area 

during the construction phase (Year 2 only) 



character of this area due to the nature of its inherent 

characteristics, its lack of public access and the low key or 

temporary nature of the Project in views out of the area. 

This receptor has therefore not been taken forward for 

assessment 


It is anticipated there maybe be potentially permanent 


phase (Year 1 to Year 3), operation and combined phase 


Year 40) 





587



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

Mosslands 


LCA-6b: Winmarleigh Farmed Mosses 


Visual Receptor VR6.2: Springfield House Farm, A588 

Burned House Lane 


Visual Receptor VR6.4a: Carter’s Farm, Wellhouse Farm, 

West View, Old Tom’s Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.4b: Bridleway BW15 & Footpath FP6a, 

Old Tom’s Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.5: Ashleigh Farm, Squires Gate Farm 

& Southlands Farm, A588 Head Dyke Lane 


Visual Receptor VR6.7: Head Dyke Farm, Head Dyke 

House, Moss Cottage Farm off A588 Head Dyke Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.8: West Boundary Farm, Pear Tree 

Cottage & Head Dyke Farm 

Visual Receptor VR6.9a: Moss Nook, Greenacres & Barn 

Hill Farm 




during the construction phase (Year 2) 



character of this area due to its relative remoteness from 

the Project and lack of views out to it. This receptor has 






588



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

LCT-7: Farmed 

Lowland 


Visual Receptor VR6.9b: Footpath 35 

Visual Receptor VR6.10: Bankfield, Lancaster Road 

Visual Receptor VR6.11: Willow Dene, Lancaster Road 

Visual Receptor VR6.12: New Hall Farm, Lancaster Road, 

Scronkey 

Visual Receptor VR6.13: Willow Farm, Bradshaw Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.14: Bradshaw Lane Farm & Bradshaw 

Lane Cottages, Bradshaw Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.15: Stafford’s Farm, Rosa Villa, Glen 

Carr off Garstang Road 

Visual Receptor VR6.16: North View, Bone Hill Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.17: Footpath 39 

Visual Receptor VR6.18 Bone Hill Farm, Bone Hill Lane 


Visual Receptor VR6.20: Rushy Slack Farm, Bone Hill Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.21 Black Hill Farm 


Visual Receptor VR6.23: Footpath FP15a 

Visual Receptor VR6.24: Kentucky Farm off Bone Hill Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.25: Cogie Hill Farm, Crookabreast 

Farm, Gibstick Cottages, Gibstick Hall, Island Lane 

LCA-7a: Nateby Farmed Lowland 





during the construction phase (Year 1 and Year 2). 

589



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

TCT-8: Suburban 

Coastal 


Visual Receptor VR7.1a: Black Lane Head (north property), 

Black Lane 


Visual Receptor VR7.6: Residential properties, Elm Farm, 

Station Lane 

Visual receptor VR7.7: Residential properties and business, 

Station Lane 

Visual Receptor VR7.8: Alderwood, Cartmell Lane 

Visual receptor VR7.9: Island Farm, Cartmell Bank, & 

Business, Cartmell Lane 

Visual Receptor VR7.10: Hoole Farm, Kilcrash Lane 

Visual Receptor VR7.11: Residential properties, Longmoor 

Lane, Nateby 


Visual Receptor VR7.13: Bowers Hotel, Bowers Lane 


Visual Receptor VR7.1b: Black Lane Head (east property) 

Black Lane 

Visual Receptor VR7.2: Footpath 

Visual Receptor VR7.3: Converted barn & Island Farm off 

Island Lane 


TCA-8a: South Fleetwood Edge 

TCA-8b: Fleetwood Road Holiday Parks 







It is anticipated there maybe be potentially long term 


phase (Years 2 to 3), the construction and operation 

combined phase (Year 4 to Year 8) and operation phase 

(Year 9 to Year 18) 

Townscape Character 

It is recognised that these areas would be directly affected 

by the construction phase but it is anticipated the overall 

590



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 


TCA-8c: Kneps Farm Holiday Park 

Visual receptor VR8.1: Residential properties , Fishermans 

Way 

Visual Receptor V8.2: Rossall Hospital & Residential 

Properties, West Way 

Visual Receptor VR8.3: Residential properties (in the vicinity 

of the junction of West Way and The Strand) 

Visual Receptor VR8.4: Residential properties on the west 

side of A587 Broadway (north of The Strand) 

Visual Receptor VR8.5a: Residential properties on east side 

of A587, Broadway (immediately adjacent to the junction 

with South Strand) 

Visual Receptor VR8.5b: Residential properties on east side 

of A587, Broadway (south of the junction with South Strand) 

Visual Receptor VR8.7b: Residential properties on east side 

of South Strand, (east of tramway crossing) 

Visual Receptor VR8.8: Visitors to Broadwater Caravan Park 

Visual Receptor VR8.9 Visitors to Kneps Farm Holiday Park 

Visual Receptor VR8.6 Residential properties on east side of 

A587, Broadway (North of junction with South Strand) 

Visual Receptor VR8.7a: Residential properties on east side 

of South Strand, (west of tramway crossing) 


effects would be limited by the screening nature of the 

adjacent built form / caravans and by the temporary 

duration of low key activities and as such would not 

warrant further assessment. These receptors have 







It is anticipated there maybe be potentially long term 



591



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

TCT-9: Urban / 

Industrial Estuary 

Edge 


TCA-9a: A585 Corridor 

TCA-9c: Fleetwood Harbour Village 

TCA-9d: Fleetwood Port 

TCA-9b: Fleetwood Dock 

Visual Receptor VR9.1: Future users of United Utilities 

Bridleway 

Visual receptor VR9.2: Marina and quay side retail area 


and construction combined phase (Year 4 to Year 8) and 

the operational phase (Year 9 to Year 18) 


It is recognised that these areas would be directly affected 

by the construction phase but it is anticipated the overall 

effects would be limited by the screening nature of the 

adjacent built form and by the temporary duration of low 

key activities and as such would not warrant further 

assessment. These receptors have therefore not been 

taken forward for assessment 



character of this area due to its relative remoteness from 

the Project and lack of views out to it. This receptor has 





during the construction phase (Year 1) and thereafter a 

beneficial effect during the construction phase (Year 2 to 

Year 3), the construction and operation combined phase 


Year 40) 




592



14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 

TCT-10: Rural 

Lowland 

Settlement 


Visual Receptor VR9.3a: Harbour Village Development 

(Residential properties along south edge of area –west side) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3b: Harbour Village Development 

(Residential properties under construction along south edge 

of area –east side) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3c: Harbour Village Development 

(Residential properties at south west corner of area) 

TCA-10a: Preesall 

TCA-10b: Preesall Park 

TCA-10c: Stalmine 

Visual Receptor VR10.1: Elevated residential properties on 

the west side of Preesall either side of B3377 

Visual Receptor VR10.2: Properties on A588 


phase (Year 1) and either neutral or permanent beneficial 

effects, during the construction phase (Year 2 and Year 3), 

the construction and operation combined phase (Year 4 to 

Year 8) and the operational phase (Year 9 to Year 40) 



character of these area due to their relative remoteness 

from the Project. These receptors have therefore not 

been taken forward for assessment 





combined phase (Year 4 to Year 8) and the operational 

phase (Year 9 to Year 40) 

593


14.7.1 The following section summarises the potential effects of the Project on the 

seascape, landscape and townscape character areas and on the various visual 

receptors in them and which are identified in Section 14.4. The actual 

assessment is contained in Appendix 14-4 of Volume 1B. The effects 

summarised in the following tables are in the absence of mitigation or 

enhancement measures. However, measures that have been incorporated into 

the design of the Project to minimise and potentially significant effects are 

outlined in Chapter 5 of this ES and have been considered. 

14.7.2 Please note where measurements are given in the following text they are 

provided as an indication of distance and are not to be taken as an exact 

measurement. 

Construction 

14.7.3 It is anticipated the Project’s construction activity would have an impact on the 

character areas and or visual receptors within all ten character types of the 

study area. The potential construction effects of the Project are summarised in 

Table 14-17. 

594

Table 14-17 Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity Assessment - Summary of Potential Effects during the 


Character Type / Character Area 

/ Visual Receptor (refer to 

Figures 14.1 and 14.6 of Volume 

2B) 

Seascape Character Type SCT-1: Intertidal 

Seascape Character Area SCA-1a: 

Rossall Promenade and Beach 

Visual Receptor VR1.1: Beach 

users 

Visual Receptor VR1.2: Lancashire 

Coastal Way (runs concurrently 

with Footpaths FP12 and FP10) 

Seascape Character Area SCA-1b: 

Wyre Estuary 

Sensitivity Magnitude of Change 

Low Minor negative (Year 1) 

Negligible positive (Year 2/Year 3) 

High Minor to Moderate negative (Year 1) 

Minor beneficial (Year 2/Year 3) 

High Minor, Moderate to Major negative (Year 1) 


High Moderate negative (Year 1/Year 2) 

Minor negative (Year 3) 


Neutral 

Visual Receptor VR1.3: Boat users Moderate Minor negative Slight adverse 

Landscape Character Type LCT-2: Coastal Lowland 

Landscape Character Area LCA- 

2a: South Fleetwood Farmed 

Urban Fringe 

Visual Receptor VR2.1: Wyre Way 

(Sandy Lane to Lancashire Coastal 

Way) 

Visual Receptor VR2.2: Residential 

properties, Sandy Lane 


No Change (Year 2/Year 3) 

High Minor negative (Year 1) 




Moderate adverse to Slight adverse 

(Year 1) 

Slight beneficial (Year 2/Year 3) 

Large adverse, Moderate adverse to 

Slight adverse (Year 1) 


Moderate adverse (Year 1/Year 2) 



Neutral (Year 2/Year 3) 





595




2B) 


2c: A585 Corridor Farmed Urban 

Fringe 

Visual Receptor VR2.3: Fleetwood 

to Blackpool Tramway 

Visual Receptor VR2.4: Cardinal 

Allen and St Edmunds Schools 


Farm 

Visual Receptor VR2.6a: Wyre 

Way (B5409, Rossall Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR2.6b: Wyre 

Way, Rossall Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR2.7: Farmer 

Parrs Animal World, Wyrefield 

Farm 

Visual Receptor VR2.8: Blackpool 

& The Fylde College, Fleetwood 

Road 






Moderate Minor negative (Year 1) 


High Negligible negative (Year 1) 






High Moderate negative (Year 1) 




Landscape Character Type LCT-3: Recreational Estuary Edge 


3a: Fleetwood Marsh Nature 

Reserve 


Minor positive (Year 2/Year 3) 














Moderate adverse (Year 1) 






596




2B) 


Marsh Nature Park users 

Visual Receptor VR3.3: REMADE 

Wyre Way, Jameson Road: 

Visual Receptor VR3.4: REMADE 

Wyre Way, estuary 


Way (runs concurrently with 

Footpath FP13) 



Bridleway BW14) 

Visual Receptor VR3.6: Wyre Way 

(runs concurrently with Bridleway 

BW14 and Country Park car park) 


Landscape Character Type LCT-4: Lowland Estuary Edge 


4a: Knott End Golf Course 

Visual Receptor: VR4.1: Golf 

Course users 

Visual Receptor: VR4.2c: Diverted 

Wyre Way (runs concurrently with 






High No Change Neutral 







Moderate Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) 

Moderate negative (Year 3) 

Moderate Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) 













High Negligible negative Slight adverse 

Slight adverse (Year 1/Year 2) 




597




2B) 


4b: Hackensall Farmed Lowland 


4c: Agglebys Farmed Lowland 



Footpaths FP42 and FP41) 




Visual Receptor VR4.5a: Footpath 

FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.6: Bridleway 

BW2a (Corcas Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.7: Corcas 

Farm, Corcas Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.8: Ivy 

Cottages, Back Lane 


4d: Clods Carr Farmed Lowland: 


High Major negative (Year 1/Year 2) 




High 

High 

Major negative to Moderate negative (Year 

1/Year 2) 


Moderate negative to Minor negative (Year 

1/Year 2) 


High Major negative (Year 1) 


Major negative (Year 3) 








Moderate negative (Year 2/Year 3) 


Large adverse 

Large adverse (Year 1to Year 3) 

Large adverse 


Large adverse 







Large adverse (Year 2) 


598




2B) 

Visual Receptor: VR4.2d: Diverted 

Wyre Way (runs concurrently with 


Visual Receptor VR4.5b: Footpath 

FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.10a: 

Footpath FP45 (Clods Carr Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.10b: 


Visual Receptor VR4.11: Cote 

Walls Farmhouse 


FP46 (Acres Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR4.13: Curwens 

Hill Farmhouse, Acres Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.14: New 

Heys Farm, off Whinney Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4:15: Riverside 

Cottage, off Browns Lane 




High No Change (Year 1) 




Major negative (Year 2) 






Large adverse 

Neutral (Year 1) 







Minor negative (Year 2/Year 3) 




Negligible negative (Year 2/Year 3) 










High No Change (Year 1) Neutral (Year 1) 

599




2B) 


4g: The Grange Farmed Lowland 


BW2 

Visual Receptor VR4.17: East 

Property, Grange Farm, Grange 

Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.18: West 


Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.19: The 

Grange, Grange Lane. 

Visual Receptor VR4.20: Height o’ 

th’ Hill, High Gate Lane, 

Visual Receptor VR4.21: Little 

Height o’ th’ Hill, High Gate Lane, 

Visual Receptor VR4.22: High 

Gate Farm, High Gate Lane 


Negligible negative (Year 2) 

No Change (Year 3) 



























Visual Receptor VR4.23: Caravan High No Change Neutral 









600




2B) 

Park, off High Gate Lane 

Landscape Character Area LCA-4i: 

Staynall Farmed Lowland 

Visual Receptor VR4.26: 

Properties on Staynall Lane, 

Staynall 


BW1 

Visual Receptor VR4.28: Wyre 

Way, Burrows Lane 






















Landscape Character Type LCT-5: Rural Settlement Fringe 


5a: Preesall Farmed Lowland 

Visual Receptor VR5.1: Park 

Cottage, Cemetery Lane 


properties, Cemetery Lane 


5b: Preesall Park Farmed Mosses 

Moderate Moderate negative (Year 1/Year 2) 








Low No Change (Year 1) 












601




2B) 

Visual Receptor VR5.3: Woodside 

Park Caravan Park 

Visual Receptor VR5.4: Beech 

House & Moss House 


5d: Garstang Farmed Lowland 

Visual Receptor VR5.5: Lancaster 

Canal 


Properties, Longmoor Lane 

Landscape Character Type LCT-6: Farmed Mosslands 


6a: Pilling Farmed Mosses 


FP31 (A588 to Moss Lane) 



No Change (Year 3) Neutral (Year 3) 







Low No Change (Year 1) 









Neutral 





Low Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) 


High Minor to Moderate negative (Year 1/Year 2) 







Slight to Moderate adverse (Year 1/Year 

2) 


Visual Receptor VR6.2: Springfield High Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) Slight to Moderate adverse (Year 1/Year 

602




2B) 

House Farm and adjacent 

properties, A588 Burned House 

Lane 


BW29 

Visual Receptor VR6.4a: Carter’s 

Farm, Wellhouse Farm, West View 

& Stackfield, Old Toms Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.4b: Bridleway 

BW15 & Footpath FP6a (Old 

Tom’s Lane) 

Visual Receptor VR6.5: Ashleigh 

Farm, Squires Gate Farm & 

Southlands Farm, A588 Head 

Dyke Lane 


FP34 

Visual Receptor VR6.7: Head Dyke 

Farm, Head Dyke House & Moss 

Cottage Farm off A588 Head Dyke 

Lane 


Boundary Farm, Pear Tree Grove 


High 


No Change (Year 3) 2) 


Negligible, Minor to Moderate negative (Year 

1/Year 2) 


High Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) 





High 

Negligible, Minor to Moderate negative (Year 

1/Year 2) 







2) 







2) 






603




2B) 

& Head Dyke Farm 

Visual Receptor VR6.9a: Moss 

Nook, Greenacres & Barn Hill 

Farm off Lancaster Road, 

Visual Receptor VR6.9b: Footpath 

35 

Visual Receptor VR6.10: Bankfield, 

Lancaster Road 

Visual Receptor VR6.11: Willow 

Dene, Lancaster Road 

Visual Receptor VR6.12: New Hall 

Farm, Lancaster Road, Scronkey 

Visual Receptor VR6.13: Willow 

Farm, Bradshaw Lane 


Bradshaw Lane Farm & Bradshaw 

Lane Cottages, Bradshaw Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.15: Stafford’s 

Farm, Rosa Villa & Glen Carr, off 

Garstang Road 

Visual Receptor VR6.16: North 

View, Bone Hill Lane 












High Negligible negative (Year 1/Year 2) 



























Visual Receptor VR6.17: Footpath High Negligible, Minor to Moderate negative (Year Slight to Moderate adverse (Year 1/Year 

604




2B) 


39 1/Year 2) 



2) 


Visual Receptor VR 6.18: Bone Hill 

Farm, Bone Hill Lane 


FP43 


Properties at Rushy Slack Farm, 

Bone Hill Lane 

Visual Receptor VR6.21: Black Hill 

Farm 


FP44 

Visual Receptor VR6.23: Kentucky 

Farm off Bone Hill Lane 


FP15a 

Visual Receptor VR6.25: Cogie Hill 

Farm, Crookabreast Farm & 

Gibstick Cottages, Island Lane 









High Negligible to Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) 























Landscape Character Type LCT-7: Farmed Lowland 

Landscape character Area LCA- Low Minor negative (Year 1/Year 2) Slight adverse (Year 1/Year 2) 

605




2B) 



7a: Nateby Farmed Lowland Negligible negative (Year 3) Neutral (Year 3) 

Visual Receptor VR7.1a: Black 

Lane Head (north property), Black 

Lane. 

Visual Receptor VR7.1b: Black 

Lane Head (south property) Black 

Lane 











Visual Receptor VR7.2: Footpath High Moderate negative (Year 1/Year 2) 


Moderate adverse (Year1/Year 2) 



Converted Barn 

Visual Receptor VR7.3b: Island 

Farm 


BW1 


FP3 


















properties at Elm Farm, Station 

Lane 

High Negligible negative (Year 1 to Year 3) Slight adverse (Year 1 to Year 3) 


properties and business, Station 

Lane 





606




2B) 


Alderwood, Cartmell Lane, 

Visual Receptor VR7.9 Island 

Farm, Cartmell Bank, Business, 

Cartmell Lane 

Visual Receptor VR7.10: Hoole 

Farm, Kilcrash Lane 


Residential properties, Long moor 

Lane, Nateby 


FP4 

Visual Receptor VR7.13: Bowers 

Hotel, Bowers Lane 


FP2 

Townscape Character Type TCT-8: Suburban Coastal 


Properties Fishermans Way 

Visual Receptor VR8.2: Rossall 

Hospital & Residential Properties 


























Neutral adverse (Year 3) 




2) 





2) 






607




2B) 

along West Way 


Residential Properties in the 

vicinity of the junction of the West 

Way & The Strand 


properties on the west side of 

A587 Broadway (north of the 

junction with The Strand) 


Residential Properties along the 

A587, Broadway (south of the 

junction with South Strand) 


Residential Properties along the 

east side of A587, Broadway 

(south of the junction with South 

Strand) 


Property on east side of A587, 

Broadway (North of the junction 

with South Strand) 


Residential Properties, east side of 

South Strand (west of tram 

crossing) 



























608




2B) 


Residential Property, east side of 

South Strand (east of tramway 

crossing 


Broadwater Caravan Park users 

Visual Receptor VR8.9: Kneps 

Farm Holiday Park users 








Townscape Character Type TCT-9: Urban / Industrial Estuary Edge 

Visual Receptor VR9.1: United 

Utilities Bridleway 

Townscape Character Area TCA- 

9b: Fleetwood Dock 

Visual Receptor VR9.2: Marina 

and quay side retail area 

Visual Receptor VR9.3a: Harbour 

Village Development: Residential 

properties along south edge of 

area (west) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3b: Harbour 

Village Development: Residential 

properties under construction 

along south edge of area (east) 

High Moderate adverse (Year 1) 


Low Negligible negative (Year 1) 

























609




2B) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3c: Harbour 

Village Development : Residential 

properties at south west corner of 

area 




Townscape Character Type TCT-10: Rural Lowland Settlement 

Visual Receptor VR10.1: Elevated 

residential properties on the west 

side of Preesall, B5337 


Commercial Properties along the 

A588 


Residential Properties along 

Cemetery Lane 




Low Negligible negative (Year 1) 










Neutral 


610


14.7.4 It is anticipated there would be a potential reduction (compared with those 

assessed for the construction phase) in the Project’s impacts on the character 

and or visual amenity resulting from the combined construction and operational 

activity and embedded landscape design proposals for character areas and or 

visual receptors within three character types (SCT-1, LCT-4 and LCT-5). All 

other character areas and visual receptors during this phase would potentially 

experience similar impacts to those assessed at the end of the construction 

phase. The potential construction and operation combined effects of the Project 

are summarised in Table 14-18 and the actual assessment is contained in 

Appendix 14-4 of Volume 1B. 

611



Character Type / Character 

Area / Visual Receptor (refer to 

Figures 14.1 and 14.6 of 

Volume 2B) 


Seascape Character Area SCA- 

1b: Wyre estuary 

Visual Receptor VR1.3: Boat 

users (main Channel) 

Sensitivity Magnitude of change 



4a: Knott End Golf Course 

Visual Receptor: VR4.1: Golf 

Course users 



Visual Receptor: VR4.2a: Reinstated 

(Year 4) Wyre Way (runs 


Visual Receptor: VR4.2b: Reinstated 

(Year 4) Wyre Way (runs 


Visual Receptor VR4.3: Reopened 

(Year 4) Footpath FP61 


Negligible negative (Year 6 to Year 8) 



Moderate No Change Neutral 






Neutral (Year 5 to Year 8) 



High Moderate negative Moderate adverse 

High Moderate negative to Minor negative Large adverse to Moderate adverse (Year 

4/Year 5) 

Moderate adverse to Slight adverse (Year 6 to 

Year 8) 

High Moderate negative Large adverse (Year 4/ Year 5) 

Moderate adverse (Year 6 to Year 8) 

High Moderate negative Large adverse (Year 4/ Year 5) 


612




Volume 2B) 










Footpath FP43 






4c: Clods Carr Farmed Lowland 


Footpath FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.9 Reopened 

(Year 4) Footpath FP61 






High Moderate to Minor negative Moderate adverse 

High Minor negative (Year 4 to Year 6) 

Minor negative to Negligible negative 

(Year 7/Year 8) 


Minor negative (Year 6 to Year 8) 



Moderate adverse to Slight adverse (Year 4 to 

Year 6) 
















Slight adverse (Year 6 to Year 8) 



613




Volume 2B) 



Visual Receptor VR4.11: Cote 

Walls Farmhouse 


Footpath FP46 (Acres Lane) 


Curwens Hill Farmhouse, Acres 

Lane 

Visual Receptor VR4.14: New 

Heys Farm, off Whinney Lane 



Lane 





No Change (Years 5 to 8) 



5a: Preesall Farmed Lowland 

Visual Receptor VR5.1: Park 

Cottage, Cemetery Lane 


Properties on Cemetery Lane 







Neutral (Years 5 to 8) 




No Change (Year 6 to Year 8) 



High Negligible negative (Years 4 to 7) 





Slight adverse (Years 4 to 7) 




614

Operation 

14.7.5 Overall, it is anticipated there would be a potential reduction (compared with 

those previously assessed for the preceding phases) the Projects impacts on 

the character and or visual amenity resulting from the operational activity and 

embedded landscape design proposals for character areas and or visual 

receptors within five character types (LCT-4, LCT-6 LCT-7, TCT-8 and TCT-10). 

All other character areas and visual receptors during this phase would 

potentially experience similar impacts to those assessed at either the end of the 

construction phase or combined construction and operation phase. The 

potential operation effects of the Project are summarised in Table 14-19 and the 

actual assessment is contained in Appendix 14-4 of Volume 1B. 

615






Volume 2B) 





Visual Receptor: VR4.2a: Reinstated 

Wyre Way (runs 


Visual Receptor: VR4.2b: Reinstated 




FP61 







Way which runs concurrently with 

Footpath FP16 


Footpath FP43 



High Moderate negative to Minor negative Moderate adverse to Slight adverse 





High Moderate negative to Minor negative (Year 9) 

Minor negative to Negligible negative (Year 

10 to Year 40) 

High Minor negative to Negligible negative Slight adverse 

High Minor negative Slight adverse 






616




Volume 2B) 






4d: Clods Carr Farmed Lowland 


Footpath FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.9 Footpath 

FP61 






Footpath FP46 (Acres Lane) 


Curwens Hill Farmhouse, Acres 

Lane 



Visual Receptor VR6.25: Cogie 

Hall Farm, Crookabreast Farm, 

Gibstick Cottages, Gibstick Hall, 

























High Negligible negative (Year 9 to Year 18) 

No change (Year 19 to Year 40) 







617




Volume 2B) 

Island Lane 




Visual Receptor VR7.2: Footpath High Negligible negative (Year 9 to Year 18) 






Visual Receptor VR7.3b: Island 

Farm 


BW 1 


Residential properties, Elm Farm, 

Station Lane 

















Townscape Character Type TCT-8: Suburban Coastal 


Residential properties on east 

side A587, Broadway (North of 



Residential properties on east 

side of South Strand 









Townscape Character Type TCT-10: Rural Lowland Settlement 

Visual Receptor VR10.1: Elevated High Negligible negative (Year 9 to Year 18) Slight adverse (Year 9 to Year 18) 

618




Volume 2B) 

residential properties on the east 

side of Preesall 



No change (Year 19 to Year 40) No change (Year 19 to Year 40) 

619


14.7.6 The Project may or may not be decommissioned and as such the 

decommissioning phase would have no greater impacts than those previously 

identified for either the construction, construction and operation combined or the 

operation phases i.e. it has been assessed as a ‘worst’ case’ scenario. 


14.8.1 A Landscape and Ecology Management Strategy Plan (see Figure 14.10 of 

Volume 2B) has been prepared as part of the Project which brings together the 

various embedded ecological and landscape design proposals, mitigation and 

enhancement measures. This section outlines the landscape mitigation 

measures which would be additional to the Project’s embedded landscape 

proposals identified in Chapter 2: Project Description and which as a result of 

an iterative design process, have been introduced to further minimise the 

potential effects identified in Section 14.7. 

14.8.2 In addition to the mitigation measures are a number of other measures which 

are aimed at providing enhancement within LCT-4 and in particular the 

landscape character area LCA-4c which contains the majority of the functionally 

linked land to the adjacent SSSI. It is anticipated these mitigation and 

enhancement measures would be phased in during the construction and 

construction and operation combined phases. For the purposes of the 

assessment it is assumed these measures would start to take effect during the 

operation phase. 

Construction 

14.8.3 There would be no specific mitigation or enhancement measures provided as 

part of the construction phase. 



part of the construction and operation combined phase. 

Operation 

14.8.5 The mitigation and enhancement measures proposed as part of the Landscape 

and Ecological Management Strategy Plan (see Appendix 14.11 of Volume 1B 

and Figure 14.10 of Volume 2B) are summarised in Table 14-20 and Table 14- 

21. The measures have been split in to those which identify specific landscape 

mitigation i.e. potentially resulting in additional visual screening and landscape 

integration over and above the embedded landscape design proposals (see 

Table 14-20) and those which would be considered as predominantly ecological 

enhancement (see Table 14-21). The latter has been provided for information 

only as the measures identified within it have not been considered as part of the 

assessment of residual effects as they would not provide any measurable 

landscape mitigation. However in carrying out the assessment the assessor 

620

has considered that these enhancement measures would result in the creation 

of appropriate landscape elements. 


Schedule of Mitigation Measures during the Operational Phase 

Landscape Mitigation 

Measure 

Native species 

hedgerows planting 

Supplementary native 

species planting to 

existing hedgerows 

Native species scrub 

planting 

Native species wet 

woodland planting 

Function and Description 

(For field ref see Figure 14.10 of Volume 2B) 

For visual screening and landscape integration 

Native species hedgerow planted in winter Year 2/Year 3 along east 

side of Wyre Way within field ref: 4-A (LCA-4d) to provide a link 

between the existing hedge along north side of Footpath FP61 and the 

existing truncated hedge south of the Wyre Way and west of mature 

woodland copse. 

This hedge overtime would help to filter views to well head compound 3 

from the Wyre Way (receptor VR4.2b) within LCA-4b. 

Native species hedgerow planted in winter Year 3/Year 4 on west edge 

of field ref: 4-A. 

Native species hedgerow planted in winter year 2/Year 3 along north 

side of permanent access road to south of property (Visual receptor 

VR5.2) on Cemetery Lane (Field ref: 30-I). 

This Hedgerow overtime would help to integrate a section of the access 

road and filter views to vehicles on it from Visual receptor VR5.2). 

For visual screening and landscape integration 

Supplementary planting (winter Year 1/Year 2 to strengthen existing 

hedgerows with individual trees in the vicinity of Higher Lickow / Monks 

Lane and along west and east boundaries of field ref: 24-I (LCA-5a). 

This planting would overtime help to reinforce the intimate and enclosed 

character of the locality and help to filter / screen views to the office, 

workshop and external spaces. 

Supplementary planting (winter Year 1/Year 2) to strengthen existing 

hedgerows with individual trees along the north side of field ref 9-I 

(LCA-4d). 

This planting would overtime help to reinforce a noticeable, but gappy 

and overgrown hedgerow and retain an existing element which is 

characteristic of this landscape. 

For visual screening and landscape integration. 

Scrub planting on small or isolated pockets of former arable field ref: 2- 

A within LCA-4b which would help to integrate the Booster Pump 

Station building in to the landscape and provide increasingly filtered, 

screened view to it. 

Scrub planting within field ref: 16-I on the east side of the electric substation 

to north east of the Gas Compressor Compound would overtime 

provide a greater degree of filtering in northerly views from LCA-4g to it. 

For visual screening and landscape integration. 

Willow/alder woodland copses planted in winter Year 3/Year 4 in low 

lying areas of left over pasture fields to east of gas compressor 

621

Landscape Mitigation 

Measure 

2.0 m high mound and 

native species scrub 

planting 

Function and Description 


compound (LCA-4c) in south west corner of field ref: 16-I and east 

corner of field ref: 19-I. 

This planting would overtime provide increasingly filtered northerly 

views from LCA-4g to the Gas Compressor Compound / vent stack. 

Willow alder woodland copse planted in winter Year 1/Year 2 in low 

lying area of scrub to the south of Agglebys Road and north east of 

collapsed cavern (LCA-4c). 

This planting would overtime provide increasingly filtered northerly 

views from LCA-4g to the gas compressor compound / vent stack. 

Visual screening and landscape integration. 

Carry out reinforcement planting on purpose built 2.0 m high earth 

mound along the full length of the west side of arable field ref: 13-A 

within LCA-4c. The section of the mound to the south of the 

construction compound could be installed during Year 1 and planted up 

with native scrub species plants in winter Year 1/Year 2. The 

remainder of the mound would then be installed on removal of the site 

compound in Year 3 and planted in winter Year 3/Year 4. 

This planting would overtime help to reinforce the existing scrub line to 

the west of the gas compressor compound and achieve an overall 

screen height of 5.0 m above existing ground by Year 10. 

Table 14-21 Schedule of Enhancement Measures during the Operational Phase 

(For information only) 

Enhancement Measure Function and Description 


Improvements to ditches For ecological enhancement to encourage bird life. 

Widened field boundary ditches to the south east of the Gas 

Compressor Compound up to Agglebys Road within LCA-4c (Field ref: 

12-A, 15-A, 20-MG, 21-MG and 22-1) to create a minimum 3 m wide 

wetland strip of reeds and open water. 

Widened banks to watercourse to west of Cote Walls Farm within LCA- 

4d (Field ref: 4-A, 5-A and 6-A) to create a wetland strip of reeds and 

open water. 

Reed Bed 

Improvements to marl 

pit ponds 

Arable field margins 

For ecological enhancement to encourage bird life. 

Excavate out low lying ground within LCA-4c (Field ref: 19-I) to the 

south of the vent stack perimeter fence to create wet area for reed bed 

establishment. 

For ecological enhancement to encourage wetland habitat biodiversity. 

Carry out some scrub clearance to existing field ponds within LCA-4b 

(Field ref: 2-A), LCA-4c (Field ref: 10-A and 12-A), LCA-4d (Field ref: 4- 

A, 7-A and 9-I) and LCA-4i (Field ref: 26-A) and establish a perimeter 

low density arable field margin where pond lies within arable field. 

For ecological enhancement to encourage arable farmland habitat 

622

Enhancement Measure Function and Description 


biodiversity. 

Establish a low density arable field margin to encourage arable weeds. 

This would predominantly run along the west sides of LCA-4b, LCA-4c 

and LCA-4i where they lie adjacent to the Wyre estuary (SCA-1b). 

Other margins would be established along the field boundary ditches 

between the gas compressor compound and Agglebys Road within 

LCA-4c. 

Pasture field scraps 

For ecological enhancement to encourage birdlife. 

Create shallow scrapes within the low lying flat parts of the pasture 

fields along the boundary between LCA-4c and LCA-5a between the 

gas compressor compound and Agglebys Road to encourage bird life. 

This process would allow the field to continue as pasture. 

Design, Maintenance and Monitoring 

14.8.6 The detailed design of the Project’s embedded landscape proposals, in addition 

to the landscape mitigation and enhancement measures identified above, would 

be undertaken by a suitably qualified landscape architect who would work in 

close collaboration with the ecologist, other design disciplines and all 

stakeholders such as Natural England, Lancashire County Council, Wyre 

Borough Council and RSPB and tenant farmers. The Project detail design 

would develop the proposals identified in the Landscape and Ecological 

Management Strategy Plan and include the preparation of an existing 

vegetation design which would include a detailed vegetation survey undertaken 

in accordance with BS5837: Trees in relation to construction - 

Recommendations and which would identifying vegetation to be protected and 

the methodology for its protection during the construction and construction and 

operation combined phase. The extent and content of the existing vegetation 

and landscape design packages would be agreed with the local planning 

authority prior to implementation. The detail design would include drawings at a 

suitable scale to clearly show each individual or block of vegetation to be 

retained and each tree and shrub planting plot and grass areas, planting 

schedules to identify the planting and grass seeding mixes and a specification 

to identify the necessary measures needed to implement the proposals. The 

detail design drawings would include all necessary information as agreed with 

the Project stakeholders, including phasing, operation requirements such as 

vehicle sightlines, drainage and service corridors. 

14.8.7 A competent landscape contractor would be employed to implement the 

Project’s landscape proposals, mitigation and enhancement works. The quality 

of the products and the workmanship would be monitored and reported on by a 

suitably qualified landscape architect. The landscape architect would continue 

to work closely with the ecologist and other disciplines during the construction 

phase to ensure the smooth implementation of the Project proposals. 

14.8.8 An establishment specification would also be prepared for all planting and grass 

seeding areas. This would identify all the necessary work required to ensure 

the Project landscape proposals, mitigation and enhancement measures 

623

establish in accordance with the objectives set out in the Landscape and 

Ecological Management Strategy Plan. An establishment period would be 

phased in for a five year period and from the date of the completion of the 

landscape proposals. A competent landscape contractor would be employed to 

undertake the establishment works, with the products and workmanship 

monitored and reported on by a suitably qualified landscape architect. This 

would include an annual inspection during September / October to identify 

defective material, which would be replaced the following planting season. 



part of the decommissioning phase. 



receptors indentified in Section 14.4, with the provision of the mitigation 

measures identified in Table 14-20. The residual effects for the mitigation 

proposals identified in Table 14-20 are assessed for the operation phase only 

as they would result from landscape planting which would take time to become 

effective i.e. up to 15 years from the date of planting. 

Construction 

14.9.2 No mitigation is proposed and as such the residual effects during the 

construction phase would be no greater than the potential effects previously 

identified for the construction phase. 


14.9.3 No mitigation is proposed and as such the residual effects during the 

construction and operation combined phase would be no greater impacts than 

the potential effects previously identified for either the construction and 


Operation 

14.9.4 It is anticipated there would be a potential reduction in the Project’s impacts on 

the character and or visual amenity resulting from the landscape mitigation 

identified in Table 14-20 during the early part of the operation phase for 

character areas and visual receptors within two character types (SCT-1and 

LCT-4). The potential residual effects of the Project are summarised in Table 

14-22 and the actual assessment is contained in Appendix 14-5 of Volume 1B. 

624


Summary of Residual Effects during the Operational Phase 

Character Type / 

Character Area / Visual 

Receptor (refer to 


Volume 2B) 

Sensitivity 

Seascape Character Type SCT-1:Intertidal 


Area SCA-1b: Wyre 

Estuary 

High 

Magnitude of 

Change 

No Change (Year 




Area LCA-4b: Hackensall 


Visual Receptor: VR4.2a: 


concurrently with 


Visual Receptor: VR4.2b: 





Footpath FP61 




Footpaths FP42 and 

FP41) 


VR4.10b: Footpath FP45 

(Clods Carr Lane) 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Minor negative 

(Year 19 to Year 

40) 



40) 



40) 



40 



40) 

No change (Year 



Residual Effect 

Neutral (Year 19 to 

2040) 

Slight adverse (Year 









19 to year 40) 


Year 40) 


14.9.5 It is anticipated the residual effects during the decommissioning phase would be 

no greater impacts than the potential effects previously identified for the 

decommissioning phase i.e. it has been assessed as a ‘worst’ case’ scenario. 

14.10 Cumulative Effects 

14.10.1 It is anticipated cumulative effects may potentially arise as a result of two other 

developments (a planning application for the erection of 2 wind turbines at 

Orchard End Farm, Eagland Hill, Pilling, and a planning application for a 

625

proposed Riverside Waste Transfer and Recycling Centre, Jameson Road, 

Fleetwood) which would lie within or immediately adjacent to the study area. 

Construction 

14.10.2 The worst case scenario assumes both developments would be built during the 

Project’s construction phase. The potential construction cumulative effects are 

summarised in Table 14-23 and the main assessment is provided in Appendix 

14-4 of Volume 1B). 


Summary of Potential Construction Cumulative Effects. 



Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Landscape Character Type LCT-3:Intertidal 


Area LCA-3a: Fleetwood 

Marsh Nature Park 


Fleetwood Marsh Nature 

Park users 

Low 

High 

Landscape Character Type LCT-6:Farmed Mosslands 


Area LCA-6: Pilling 

Farmed Mosses 


Stafford’s Farm, Rosa 

Villa & Glen Carr, off 

Garstang Road 


North View, Bone Hill 

Lane 


Footpath 39 

Visual Receptor VR 6.18: 

Bone Hill Farm, Bone Hill 

Lane 

Low 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Moderate negative 

(Year 1) 

Minor beneficial 



(Year 1) 

Minor beneficial 


Moderate Negative 



3) 




3) 




3) 

Moderate to Major, 

negative (Year 

1/Year 2) 


3) 





Cumulative Effect 


1) 

Slight positive 



(Year 1) 




1/Year 2) 



1/Year 2) 



1 /Year 2) 


Slight to Moderate 

adverse (Year 1/Year 

2) 



1/Year 2) 

626



Receptor 


Footpath FP43 


Properties at Rushy 

Slack Farm, Bone Hill 

Lane 


Black Hill Farm 


Footpath FP44 


Kentucky Farm off Bone 

Hill Lane 


Footpath FP15a 


Cogie Hill Farm, 

Crookabreast Farm & 

Gibstick Cottages, Island 

Lane 

Sensitivity 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 



Area LCA-7a: Nateby 



Footpath 



Low 

High 

High 

Magnitude of 

Change 



3) Neutral (Year 3) 


(Year1/Year 2) 


3) 




3) 




3) 




3) 




3) 




3) 



Moderate 

(Year 3) 



Negligible negative 

(Year 3) 



Moderate (Year 3) 























Significant (Year 3) 


1/Year 2) 

Not significant (Year 

3) 






627



Receptor 


Island Farm 


Bridleway BW1 


Footpath FP3 


Footpath FP4 

Sensitivity 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Magnitude of 

Change 



Moderate (Year 3) Significant (Year 3) 

Moderate, 


1/Year 2) 


(Year 3) 

Moderate, 


1/Year 2) 

Minor (Year 3) 




3) 

Moderate, 


1/Year 2) 


3) 

Townscape Character Type LCT-9: Lowland Estuary Edge 

Visual Receptor VR9.3a High High 

Moderate, 

negative (Year 1) 

Minor positive 

(Year 2 & Year 3) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3b High High 


(Year 1) 


2 & Year 3) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3c High High 


(Year 1), 









3) 


(Year 2) 





Large adverse (Year 

1) 

Slight beneficial 



1) 

Neutral (Year 2 & 

Year 3) 


1) 

Slight beneficial 


Operation 

14.10.3 The worst case scenario assumes both developments would be in operation 

during the Project’s operation phase. The potential operation cumulative effects 

628

are summarised in Table 14-24 and the main assessment is provided in 

Appendix 14-4 of Volume 1B). 


Summary of Potential Operation Cumulative Effects. 



Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Landscape Character Type LCT-6:Farmed Mosslands 





Lane 

Moderate (Year 9 

to Year 18) 





Footpath 




Island Farm 


Residential properties at 

Elm Farm, Station Lane 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Magnitude of 

Change 




year 40) 

High 




High 




High 

Moderate, 


1/Year 2) 


(Year 3) 







Significant (Year 9 to 

Year 18) 


Year 40) 


Year 18) 


Year 40) 


Year 18) 


Year 40) 


Year 18) 


Year 40) 


9 to Year 18) 


year 40) 


14.11.1 In undertaking this assessment the Author encountered several difficulties. 

Firstly, the seascape assessment was carried out in the knowledge that the 

methodology used could be superseded by the time the ES is published. 

Secondly, the assessment has attempted to identify the potential combined 

visual and noise intrusion of the Project on the characteristic of tranquillity. The 

Author is aware of recent research carried out by the CPRE as well as their 

published national mapping of tranquillity to which the Author refers in this 

assessment. Although there is much published methodology in assessing noise 

629

impacts on residential properties, the Author is not aware of any similar 

published methodology on assessing noise impacts on tranquillity i.e. the 

external environment. In this respect the Author has made judgements, in 

discussion with the noise specialist, as to whether or not the predicted noise 

levels arising from the Project in comparison with measured background noise 

levels would potentially have an impact on tranquillity. In undertaking this 

assessment the Author is aware that this is a subjective matter and one in 

which there is the potential for variable ambient conditions that may result in a 

different perception day to day. Thirdly, the Author, in discussion with the 

Applicant’s designer has made a judgement in the main assessment in 

Appendix 14-4 of Volume 1B, on the potential visible effects of a plume from the 

vent stack and gas heater at the gas compressor compound without recourse to 

any modelling. 

14.11.2 In carrying out the assessment of potential cumulative effects it has not been 

possibly to identify precisely the resulting significance of the cumulative effect. 

With regard to the waste transfer development within TCT-9a the assumptions 

have been based on only a description of the project and no drawings. In 

respect of the wind farm development at Orchard End the assessment does not 

guarantee it has covered in particular all visual receptors which would have a 

potential view to both the Project’s construction and the erection of the wind 

turbines. In addition when assessing the operation significance of effect for 

wind farm scheme’s, they are assessed in terms of whether or not the operation 

of the development would be significant or not, but does not necessarily identify 

whether those effects are adverse or positive i.e. the outcome is very much in 

the eye of the beholder. On this basis it is not possible to assess the operation 

cumulative effects in terms of the assessment criteria used for this Project. 

14.12 Summary 

14.12.1 Table 14-25 presents a summary of the residual effects which are considered to 

be significant with regard to the EIA Regulations. Those effects that are not 

considered to be significant are discussed in Sections 14.7 and 14.9. An 

explanation for the timescale (duration) of the effect is provided in paragraph 

14.3.16, 14.3.23, 14.3.32 and 14.3.39. A summary description is provided in 

Appendix 14-6 of Volume 1B). 


Summary of Significant Residual Effects 




Figures 14.1, 14.6 and 







beach users 

Year 

Moderate adverse Year 1 

Duration 

Temporary 

Visual Receptor VR1.2: Large to Year 1 Temporary 

630






Lancashire Coastal Way 

(runs concurrently with 


FP10 


Area SCA-1b: Wyre 

Estuary 




Year 

Moderate adverse Year 1 to Year 2 

Landscape Character Type LCT-2: Farmed Coastal Lowland 


Farmer Parrs Animal 

World, Wyrefield Farm 






Bridleway BW14) 


Landscape Character Type LCT-4: Farmed Estuary Edge 


Area LCA-4a: Knott End 

Golf Course 





Area LCA-4c: Agglebys 






FP41) 






Footpath FP43 


Bridleway BW2a (Corcas 


Duration 

Short term 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Large adverse Year 1 to Year 3 Long term 

Large adverse Year 1 to Year 3 Medium term 

Large adverse Year 1 to Year 3 Medium term 


Medium term 

Large adverse Year 1 to Year 3 Short / Medium term 

Moderate adverse Year 1/Year 2 

Short term 

631








Year 

Duration 

Lane) 


Ivy Cottages, Back Lane 


Short term 


Area LCA-4d: Clods Carr 


Large adverse to 


Year 2/Year 3 

Short / Medium term 

Visual Receptor: VR4.2d 

Re-aligned Wyre Way 

(runs concurrently with 


Large adverse Year 1 to Year 3 Short / Medium term 


Footpath FP43 


Short term 


VR4.10a: Footpath FP45 




Year 2/Year 3 






Footpath FP46 (Acres 

Lane) 


Curwens Hill Farmhouse, 

Acres Lane 




Short term 

Short term 

Temporary 



Area LCA-5a: Preesall 



Properties on Cemetery 

Lane 


Woodside Park Caravan 

Park 


Beech House & Moss 

House 





Short term 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 


Visual Receptor VR6.2: Moderate adverse Year 1/Year 2 Temporary 

632






Springfield House Farm 

and adjacent properties 


Footpath FP34 


Footpath FP39 





Year 






Footpath 




Island Farm 


Bridleway BW1 


Residential Properties 

and business, Station 

Lane 


Footpath FP4 


Footpath FP2 








Townscape Character Area TCT-8: Suburban Coastal 



Fishermans Way 


Residential Properties in 

the vicinity of the junction 

of the West Way & The 

Strand 


Residential properties on 

the west side of A587 

Broadway (north of the 

Duration 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Large adverse Year 1 Temporary 



Temporary 

Temporary 

633








Year 

Duration 




along the A587, 

Broadway (south of the 

junction with South 

Strand) 


Temporary 


Residential Property on 

east side of A587, 

Broadway (North of the 

junction with South 

Strand) 


Residential Properties, 

east side of South Strand 

(west of tram crossing) 




Caravan Park users 


Temporary 

Townscape Character Type TCT-9: Urban / Industrial Edge 


United Utilities Bridleway 



Development: 


along south edge of area 

(west) 



Development: 


under construction along 

south edge of area (east) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3c: 


Development : 


south west corner of area 






634








Year 














Footpath FP61 








FP41) 


Footpath FP43 


Area LCA-4d: Clods Carr 



Footpath FP43 

Visual Receptor VR4.9 

Footpath FP61 


VR4.10a: Footpath FP45 





Operation Phase 








Year 4 to Year 8 












Duration 

Long term 

Long term 

Long term 

Long term 

Medium term 

Medium term 



Short term 

Short term 


Short term 

635


















Footpath FP61 








FP41) 



Year 







Duration 

Long term 

Long term 

Long term 

Long term 

Medium term 

Long term 

14.12.2 Table 14-26 presents a summary of the potential cumulative effects which are 

considered to be significant with regard to the EIA Regulations. Those effects 

that are not considered to be significant are discussed in Section 14.10. A 

summary description is provided in Appendix 14-6 of Volume 1B). 


Summary of Significant Cumulative Effects 



Receptor 


Cumulative 

Effect 

Year 



Fleetwood Marsh Nature 

Park 




Stafford’s Farm, Rosa 

Villa & Glen Carr, off 


Duration 

Temporary 

Temporary 

636



Receptor 


Cumulative 

Effect 

Year 

Duration 

Garstang Road 


North View, Bone Hill 

Lane 


Footpath 39 

Visual Receptor VR 6.18: 

Bone Hill Farm, Bone Hill 

Lane 


Footpath FP43 


Properties at Rushy 

Slack Farm, Bone Hill 

Lane 


Black Hill Farm 


Footpath FP44 


Kentucky Farm off Bone 

Hill Lane 







Moderate adverse Year /Year 2 





Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 

Temporary 





Lane 


Significant 

Year1/Year 2 

Year 3 

Long term 



Footpath 


Significant 

Year 1/ Year 2 

Year 3 

Long term 




Significant 

Year 1/Year 2 

Year 3 

Long term 


Island Farm 


Significant 

Year 1/Year 2 

Year 3 

Long term 


Bridleway BW1 


Significant 

Year 1/Year 2 

Year 3 

Long term 

Visual Receptor VR7.5: Moderate adverse Year 1/Year 2 Temporary 

637



Receptor 


Cumulative 

Effect 

Year 

Duration 

Footpath FP3 


Footpath FP4 


Temporary 

Townscape Character Type TCT-9: Urban / Industrial Edge 



Development: 


along south edge of area 

(west) 



Development: 


under construction along 

south edge of area (east) 

Visual Receptor VR9.3c: 


Development : 


south west corner of area 










Lane 

Significant Year 4 to Year 8 Long term 



Footpath 




Island Farm 


Bridleway BW1 







Visual Receptor VR6.25: Significant Year 9 to Year 18 Long term 

638



Receptor 




Lane 


Cumulative 

Effect 

Year 



Footpath 




Island Farm 


Bridleway BW1 

Duration 






Campaign to Protect Rural England (2005) Mapping Tranquillity, Defining and 

Assessing a Valuable Resource 

Campaign to Protect Rural England (2007) Intrusion Map North West 

Countryside Council for Wales jointly with Brady Shipman Martin and University 

College Dublin (2001) Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment 

Government Office for the Northwest of England (2008) North West of England 

Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 

Highways Agency (2010) Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual 

Effects Assessment 




Report 

Institute of Lighting Engineers (2000) Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light 

Pollution revised 05/03 

Lancashire County Council (2000) A Landscape Strategy for Lancashire 

Lancashire County Council (2005) Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy 

Development in Lancashire, 

639

Lancashire County Council (2006) Landscape and Heritage Supplementary 

Planning Guidance 

Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and 

Assessment (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

Landscape Institute (2011) Advice Note 01/11: Photography and photomontage 

in landscape and visual impact assessment 

Natural England (Countryside Agency) (1999) Character Map of England 

Natural England (Countryside Agency), Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) 

Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland 

Natural England (Countryside Agency) / Scottish Natural Heritage (2006) Topic 

Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging capacity and Sensitivity 

Natural England (2009) North West Landscape Character Framework 

Wyre Borough Council (1999) Wyre Local Plan 

640

15 SUSTAINABILITY 


15.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Sustainability assessment, undertaken 

by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. It identifies the methodology used to assess 

effects, existing and future baseline information, receptors potentially affected 

and the nature of those effects in the absence of mitigation and enhancement 

measures (potential effects) and with mitigation and enhancement measures 

(residual effects). 






the ES. 




elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to sustainability in 

the context of this assessment. 

15.2.2 The requirement for sustainable development to be central to the development 

of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) is established in Section 

10 of the Planning Act 2008. This principle is further outlined in the National 

Policy Statements (NPS), specifically The Overarching National Policy 

Statement for Energy (EN-1) (Department of Energy and Climate Change 

(DECC, 2011a) and The National Policy Statement for Gas Supply 

Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) (DECC, 2011b) which provide 

guidance regarding the sustainability considerations that should inform the 

design of a NSIP. 

15.2.3 Section 4.5 of The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

(DECC), 2011a outlines that sustainability should be a central aspect of the 

Project’s design with paragraph 4.5.3 stating: 

‘In the light of the above, and given the importance which the Planning Act 2008 

places on good design and sustainability, the IPC needs to be satisfied that 

energy infrastructure developments are sustainable and, having regard to 

regulatory and other constraints, are as attractive, durable and adaptable 

(including taking account of natural hazards such as flooding) as they can be. In 

so doing, the IPC should satisfy itself that the applicant has taken into account 

both functionality (including fitness for purpose and sustainability) and 

aesthetics (including its contribution to the quality of the area in which it would 

be located) as far as possible. Whilst the applicant may not have any or very 

limited choice in the physical appearance of some energy infrastructure, there 

may be opportunities for the applicant to demonstrate good design in terms of 

siting relative to existing landscape character, landform and vegetation. 

641

Furthermore, the design and sensitive use of materials in any associated 

development such as electricity substations will assist in ensuring that such 

development contributes to the quality of the area.’ 

15.2.4 Other regional and local planning policy documents have been considered 

when preparing this assessment including the North West of England Regional 

Spatial Strategy to 2021 (Government Office for the North West, 2008), the 

relevant documents of the Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local 

Development Framework (Lancashire County Council, 2011) and the Wyre 

Borough Local Plan 1991-2006 (Wyre Borough Council, 1999) (the Wyre Core 

Strategy that will form part of the Local Development Framework is currently in 

preparation). Owing to the holistic nature of the sustainability assessment, 

consideration has been given to many of the policies within these documents. 

Specific consideration has been given to those relating to the working/disposal 

of mineral salt (brine) as this issue was highlighted in the scoping responses as 

needing to be considered in the assessment. 


15.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Sustainability 

chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). There is no specific methodology 

for assessing sustainability effects and no specific guidance is available at the 

individual project level. The approach outlined is consistent with that set out in 

the Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report (Hyder Consulting (UK) 

Limited, 2011a). No comments on the proposed sustainability assessment 

methodology were made by those responding through the consultation exercise 

and therefore it has not been deemed necessary to discuss the methodology 

used with specific organisations. 

15.3.2 To inform the assessment process, Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited’s in house 

sustainability model ‘the Hyder Heartbeat’ (refer to Figure 15-1) has been used, 

as well as the Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) prepared for EN-4 (DECC, 

2011b). 

15.3.3 The ’Hyder Heartbeat’ was used to define the sustainability themes considered 

in the assessment. The model focuses on ten themes, recognising the 

interactions and interrelationships between them, such as the potential to use 

waste as a fuel source. 

15.3.4 The separation into the distinct sustainability themes is necessary to ensure that 

different components of sustainability can be considered and the influence of 

the Project on them assessed. The separation of key sustainability topics is a 

well established method used in strategic level sustainability assessments and 

the methodology has been linked to the topic / objectives used at a national 

level to assess EN-4 (see Table 15-2). The EN-4 objective to minimise the 

detrimental impacts of travel on communities and the environment, whilst 

maximising positive effects links to the ‘Hyder Heartbeat’ transport theme for 

example. 

15.3.5 The relevant themes were developed by Hyder’s in house sustainability team 

and engineers, in association with academia, accreditation organisations and 

other consultancies. The themes capture what may be considered usual 

642

sustainability topics, for example energy and water, together with other 

considerations such as how ICT and communications can be an integral part of 

a scheme’s development and can lead to effective sustainable outcomes e.g. to 

allay public concerns through effective consultation and making best use of 

available technology to safely operate the Project. 

Figure 15-1 

‘Hyder Heartbeat’ Model 

15.3.6 A central objective of the Hyder sustainability model is ensuring that resources 

and effort are focussed upon the most pertinent sustainability issues for that 

particular project. Therefore, an exercise was undertaken at the Project 

commencement to determine to what extent the particular sustainability theme 

could be affected by or would affect the Project and its design. This process 

used a four tier ranking system which is presented in Table 15-1. The results of 

this ranking are presented in Table 15-2 in Section 15.4. 

Table 15-1 

Sustainability Assessment - ‘Hyder Heartbeat’ Weighting System 

Weighting Influence / Significance 

0 Not possible to control. 

1 Not a key issue for this Project – minor opportunity to influence 

as part of this Project. 

2 Potentially significant issue for this Project that should be 

monitored and influenced as the Project develops. 

3 A significant issue for this Project that should be monitored and 

actively managed. 

643

15.3.7 The assessment has also considered the Sustainability Objectives used in the 

Appraisal of Sustainability of the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for 

Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) (DECC, 2010). 

These objectives were used to assess the sustainability performance of the 

contents of the Revised Draft NPS and ultimately informed the NPS that has 

been approved. It is, therefore, appropriate that they are used in this 

Sustainability assessment to determine to what extent infrastructure at the 

project level, being designed in accordance with the NPS requirements, accords 

with those Sustainability Objectives. The Sustainability Objectives have been 

linked to the relevant themes of the ‘Hyder Heartbeat’ Model to provide 

consistency and linkage between the two components of the assessment 

methodology. This linkage is presented in Table 15-2 in Section 15.4. 

15.3.8 The sustainability assessment, therefore, has comprised the following stages: 

 

 

 

 

The identification of how the Project relates to the ten sustainability 

themes and the extent to which they can influence and be influenced by 

the Project. This process has been informed by the baseline data studies 

undertaken for other topic areas to understand the sensitivity and the 

complexity of key topic areas for the Project. 

A review of the potential sustainability effects of the Project in the absence 

of mitigation/enhancement measures based upon the assessments 

prepared for other topics. Using this information an assessment has been 

made of the sustainability performance of the Project against the ten 

sustainability themes. 

The review of mitigation measures for other environmental topic areas and 

the identification of other appropriate mitigation measures to improve the 

sustainability performance of the Project. 

The assessment of the likely sustainability effects of the Project in view of 

the proposed design and mitigation measures and the contribution of the 

Project to the Sustainability Objectives used in the AoS of the NPS EN-4. 

15.3.9 The assessment has been informed by the specific analysis and reporting 

completed for the other environmental topics, and, therefore, there is no one 

study area used in the assessment. The objective of the Sustainability 

assessment has been to maximise, as far as possible, the consideration and 

delivery of enhancements. 

Consultation 


Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report are summarised in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 

1B. Although, further consultation has been undertaken since receipt of the 

scoping opinion, including making the PEI report available to a range of relevant 

consultees, no issues have been raised relating to the sustainability 

assessment methodology, that have required the need for additional post 

scoping consultation. 

15.3.11 The comments provided on the PEI Report for other environmental topic 

assessments have been considered as appropriate during the preparation of 

the Sustainability assessment. These comments have not been presented in 

644

this chapter to prevent repetition. Similarly, comments relating to the need and 

justification for the Project and issues surrounding the use of a mineral resource 

have also been considered. 




assess effects and identify outline mitigation measures: 

 

 

 

 

 

 





responses to the EIA Scoping Report and through post-scoping 

consultation (if appropriate) 


details 







15.3.13 Formal significance criteria do not exist for assessing sustainability effects and, 

therefore, the assessment considers whether the Project is making a positive or 

negative sustainability contribution to each of the sustainability themes defined 

in the ‘Hyder Heartbeat’. A definition of these terms is provided below: 

 

 

 

Positive – there is a positive contribution made to this sustainability theme 

(this may be as a result of the implementation of mitigation or 

enhancement measures or because the Project includes aspects that 

positively contribute to existing sustainability goals and agendas) 

Neutral – Imperceptible impact on a sustainability theme 

Negative – there is a negative contribution to the sustainability theme (this 

situation would occur if an aspect of the Project could result in an adverse 

effect on a particular theme or would actively work against its achievement 

in the long-term) 

15.3.14 The purpose of the Sustainability assessment is to determine to what extent the 

principles of sustainable development have been incorporated into the Project. 

Unlike most other environmental topic assessments, the assessment is not 

made against a clearly defined baseline, rather consideration is given to 

whether the principles of the sustainability theme have been achieved and 

whether wider sustainability goals and agendas have been considered in the 

Project design and ultimately in the final Project through the application of 

645

ecommended mitigation and enhancement measures in the individual 

environmental topic assessments. 

15.3.15 As stated in the PEI report, the identification of potential effects has not been 

sub-divided into the different phases of the Project, as sustainability should 

permeate all phases of a project and in some circumstances, a potential 

sustainability weakness in one aspect of the Project may be necessary to 

achieve long-term sustainability for other components. 

15.3.16 Sustainability is not an ‘environmental topic’ listed in either Annex IV of the EIA 

Directive (85/337/EEC as amended), nor Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 

and, therefore, judgements about the potential significance of the effects in the 

context of the EIA Regulations are not established for this topic. 


15.4.1 Sustainability is an overarching theme that is inherent to all aspects of the 

Project design. There is, therefore, significant overlap between this and all 

other environmental topics presented in this ES. No specific baseline 

information relating to sustainability has been obtained as the information 

collated for other environmental topics is relevant to this holistic assessment. 

15.4.2 Using the baseline data collated for other environmental topics and information 

about the Project’s design and purpose, the methodology described in section 

15.3 has been used to determine the extent to which each of the sustainability 

themes influences and has been influenced by the Project (refer to Table 15-1). 

The results of this exercise are presented in Table 15-2. 

15.4.3 This exercise was undertaken early in the Project’s development to ensure that 

all pertinent sustainability issues were considered in the iterative development 

of the Project. 

Table 15-2 

Sustainability Assessment - Sustainability Themes and the Project 

Hyder Heartbeat 


Theme 

Ecosystem 

Services 

Corresponding Appraisal of 

Sustainability Objective(s) 

Used to Appraise NPS EN-4 

To protect and enhance 

protected habitats, species, 

valuable ecological networks 

and ecosystem functionality 

To protect both human and 

ecological receptors from 

disturbing levels of noise 


landscape quality, townscape 

quality and to enhance visual 

amenity 

Extent to which the Project can 

Influence and can be Influenced by 

the Sustainability Theme (Score – 

Refer to Table 15-1) and Justification 

3 Ecological and landscape 

issues are a central 

consideration for this Project 

owing to the sensitivity of the 

site and the surrounding 

environment. Key ecological 

features that could be 

affected by the Project 

include the Morecambe Bay 

Special Area of Conservation 

(SAC), Special Protection 

Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, 

a number of Biological 

Heritage Sites and a number 

646



Theme 

Transport 

Communications/ 

Information and 

Communication 

Technology (ICT) 

Building Design 




To minimise the detrimental 

impacts of travel on 

communities and the 

environment, whilst 

maximising positive effects 

To protect and enhance the 

physical and mental health of 

the population 

To encourage equality and 

sustainable communities 



quality and to enhance visual 

amenity 

Protect and where 

appropriate enhance the 

historic environment including 

heritage resources, historic 

buildings and archaeological 

features 





of habitats and species. 

There are also a number of 

visual receptors that could be 

affected by the Project 

including residential, 

commercial and industrial 

properties, users of footpaths 

such as the Wyre Way and 

beach and boat users as well 

as the landscape and 

seascape. 

2 The Project includes a new 

access road from the A588, 

as well as new and upgraded 

internal access roads within 

the application site. There 

would also be transport 

movements during all phases 

of the Project’s lifecycle. 

3 Communicating with those 

who may potentially be 

affected by the Project and 

with the wider public is 

fundamental. Implementation 

of appropriate ICT would also 

be fundamental to the 

effective operation of the 

Project and to provide 

reassurance to members of 

the public regarding the 

safety of the Project and its 

design. 

The Project also has the 

potential to affect the health 

of the population. 

2 There is scope through the 

design process to influence 

the final form of the built 

structures to reduce their 

environmental impact. 

647



Theme 

Water 

Materials 

Resource 

Security 




To avoid, reduce and manage 

flood risk (including coastal 

flood risk) from all sources 

and coastal erosion risks by 

locating infrastructure in lower 

risk areas and ensuring that it 

is resilient over its lifetime 

without increasing risks 

elsewhere 


surface (including coastal) 

and groundwater quality 

(including distribution and 

flow) 

To minimise detrimental 

effects on the climate from 

greenhouse gases and ozone 

depleting substances and 

maximise resilience to climate 

change 

To promote the use of 

brownfield land and where 

this is not possible to 

prioritise the protection of 

geologically important sites 

and agriculturally important 

land 

To minimise detrimental 

effects on the climate from 

greenhouse gases and ozone 

depleting substances and 

maximise resilience to climate 

change 

To promote the sustainable 

use of resources and natural 

assets and to deliver secure, 

clean and affordable energy 

To promote a strong and 

stable economy with 

opportunities for all 





3 Water is required principally 

for the Project’s construction. 

There are also flood risk 

issues at the application site 

and appropriate measures 

would be required to protect 

the environment and human 

health. 

There is also scope through 

the Project design to 

minimise greenhouse gas 

emissions and to ensure 

resilience of the Project 

design to the effects of 

climate change. 

3 A variety of materials types 

would be used during the 

construction of the Project 

and there is scope to 

influence their selection 

through the Project design. 

There is scope to select 

materials to reduce future 

maintenance requirements 

and waste generation. 

The processes employed on 

site would also require 

disposal of waste materials 

and appropriate re-use and 

recycling of these waste 

materials should be sought. 

2 The efficient import, storage 

and transmission of natural 

gas is essential to meeting 

national energy needs during 

the transition to a low carbon 

economy. The Project would 

help to manage security of 

supply risks and would 

contribute to meeting national 

648



Theme 

Energy 

Best 

Management 

Practice in 

Construction 




To promote the sustainable 

use of resources and natural 

assets and to deliver secure, 

clean and affordable energy 

To protect both human and 

ecological receptors from 

disturbing levels of noise 


protected habitats, species, 

valuable ecological networks 

and ecosystem functionality 


surface (including coastal) 

and groundwater quality 

(including distribution and 

flow) 

To protect and enhance air 

quality on local, regional, 

national and international 

scale 




To minimise the detrimental 

impacts of travel and 

transport on communities and 

the environment, whilst 

maximising positive effects 



quality and enhance visual 





resource security objectives. 

With the exception of 

ensuring that the Project is 

designed and operated to 

meet all relevant Health and 

Safety legislation, it is not 

considered that resource 

security is a critical issue for 

its design. 

3 The purpose of the Project is 

gas storage and the location 

and design of the Project can 

be modified to reduce energy 

use in the construction, 

construction and operational, 

operational and 


3 This is an important issue for 

any scheme and adhering to 

best practice construction 

guidance is essential to 

ensure that environmental 

impacts are effectively 

managed and to ensure that 

the team acts in a manner 

that respects local 

neighbours and the wider 

community. 

649



Theme 

Business, 

Society and 

Community 




amenity 

To encourage equality and 

sustainable communities 








3 There is a national need for 

additional gas storage in the 

United Kingdom (UK). The 

lack of gas storage facilities is 

affecting the supply and cost 

of UK energy with associated 

effects for population and 

industry. The Project 

presents an opportunity to 

provide a secure supply of 

energy, to provide new 

employment and to improve 

skills levels. 

A number of Public Rights of 

Way (PRoW) have the 

potential to be directly or 

indirectly affected by the 

Project and there is the 

potential for effects on the 

local economy. There are 

also a number of land use 

issues (both terrestrial, 

estuarine and marine) that 

could have implications for 

businesses and communities. 

Effective design to manage 

such issues is important. 

There is a clear need to 

manage concerns and fears 

of the local community. This 

is particularly important in 

view of the number of 

objections and concerns 

raised about previous 

applications. 


15.5.1 The sustainability assessment has used the baseline data collated for other 

environmental topic assessments and, therefore, future baseline information is 

not specifically presented. 

650


15.6.1 For the purposes of the Sustainability assessment, specific receptors and their 

value have not been identified. To inform the assessment, the receptors and 

their values identified in other environmental topics have been referred to as 

appropriate. 


15.7.1 The following section assesses the potential sustainability performance of the 

Project for each of the sustainability themes in the absence of mitigation or 

enhancement measures. Measures that have been incorporated into the design 

of the Project to minimise and potentially significant effects are outlined in 

Chapter 2: Project Description and have been considered in this part of the 

assessment. Table 15-3 presents the assessment score for each sustainability 

theme and accompanying commentary explaining the justification for the score 

assigned. 

15.7.2 The purpose of assigning the assessment scores is to identify to what extent 

the design of the Project has been modified and mechanisms put in place to 

enable the Project to contribute to a sustainability theme. 

651

Table 15-3 

Sustainability Assessment - Potential Effects 



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

Ecosystem Services Positive A number of measures have been included within the Project’s design to reduce effects 

on ecosystem services and to enhance the landscape and ecology of the application site. 

Some key examples taken by the Applicant are summarised below. 

The reduction in the overall footprint of the Project compared to previous application has 

reduced the effect of the Project on ecosystem services. Nineteen caverns are proposed 

for this application, rather than 36 for previous applications. The method for accessing the 

Preesall Saltfield has been designed to protect the saltmarsh of the Wyre Estuary that is 

protected by European legislation. Rather than using conventional techniques that would 

require the creation of drilling sites and access tracks across the saltmarsh, directional 

drilling would be used. 

The decision to source the water needed for the washing of the salt caverns from the 

Fleetwood Fish Dock was also selected to avoid adverse effects on the European 

protected sites of the Wyre Estuary and Morecambe Bay. 

Disposal of the brine waste to Morecambe Bay or the Wyre Estuary was discounted due 

to their environmental designations. Therefore, the proposal to discharge brine to the Irish 

Sea, although substantially more expensive, was deemed the most environmentally 

acceptable solution. Near-field dispersion modelling has informed the selection of the best 

practicable environmental option for the Irish Sea outfall to minimise effects on the marine 

environment. 

The brine discharge and electricity supply pipelines would cross the Wyre Estuary. 

Jetting, open cut and sheet piled methods of construction were considered but discounted 

as they would have significant impacts on the flow regime of the Wyre Estuary. 

Therefore, directional drilling would be used as this would reduce the environmental 

effects. 

The working width of the National Transmission System pipeline would also be reduced in 

sensitive locations and a trenchless construction method would also be used beneath the 

three main rivers (Grange Pool, Rigby Pool and Pilling Water). 

652



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

The sustainability score is positive as there are a number of measures included within the 

Project design to minimise as far as possible effects on ecosystem services. On a 

number of occasions, construction methods have been selected that are significantly more 

expensive but would result in reduced environmental effects. 

Transport Positive A Construction Worker Travel Plan has been prepared that includes a number of 

measures to manage the traffic flows that would be generated by the Project. The Travel 

Plan includes consideration of the accessibility of the application site by walking, cycling, 

bus and rail. An appointed Travel Plan Co-ordinator would monitor performance against 

the objectives and targets of the Travel Plan thereby demonstrating a commitment to 

ensuring that as far as possible, travel movements are as sustainable as possible. There 

is also commitment within the Travel Plan to encouraging members of the supply chain 

during the construction and construction and operational phases to use sustainable 

modes of transport. 

The use of local labour and procurement of local suppliers where possible would also 

reduce travel distances and increase opportunities for the workforce to use public 

transport rather than the private car. 

The sustainability score is positive as there are a number of measures included within the 

Project design to minimise as far as possible the effects of transport assessment with the 

Project. There is a commitment by the Applicant to ensuring that transportation for the 

Project is as sustainable as possible in line with the requirements of NPS EN-4. 

Communications/ICT Positive There has been a positive commitment by the Applicant to ensure effective 

communication during the design of the Project. The approach adopted by the Applicant 

to consultation has been to provide the local community with the opportunity to: have 

access to information; suggest their own ideas and feel confident that the Applicant has a 

process for considering those ideas; have an active role in developing proposals and 

options to maximise the use of local knowledge; to comment on proposals and to get 

feedback and be informed about the process. There has also been a commitment by the 

Applicant to ensure that concerns generated by previous applications have been taken 

into consideration in this Project. All of the above was outlined in the Consultation 

653



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

Strategy and Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC) (Halite Energy Group, April 

2011). 

A website was launched in July 2010 and has been updated by the Applicant on a regular 

basis to enable the public to have access to a range of consultation documents and 

emerging information about the Project. An interactive forum was also established to 

enable members of the public to post questions. Key consultation documents were also 

made available in a wide range of locations including local libraries, Lancashire County 

Council offices, Wyre Borough Council offices, two of the exhibition venues and the 

Applicant’s offices. 

A Community Liaison Coordinator was appointed to act as a key point of contact between 

the local community and the Applicant. Nine drop-in events have been held by the 

Community Liaison Coordinator in local church halls, village halls and other local venues. 

Six public exhibitions were held during May 2011 to provide further information to the 

public about the Project and to seek their feedback and comments. 

A Community Liaison Panel was set up, led by an independent facilitator, to act as a 

platform for discussion between Halite and the local community. Meetings have taken 

place during the preparation of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application and 

would continue throughout the application process. 

A Project documentary was produced to highlight key elements of the Project in a visual 

easy-to-understand format and this was made available on the Project website. 

The Applicant has also attended presentations at Local Area Forum meetings and a 

tenants’ group was been established to enable tenant farmers to be updated on the 

Project. 

During the design of the Project, the feedback received has been taken into consideration 

and the design of the Project modified. Further details about how feedback has been 

taken into account are provided in the Feedback Report (Halite Energy Group, August 

2011) and the Consultation Report which will accompany the Development Consent Order 

application. 

654



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

The Applicant proposes to continue dialogue with local communities during the application 

process and during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project. 

This Hyder Heartbeat sustainability theme also takes into consideration the measures 

taken by the Applicant to ensure safe operation of the Project and also the extent to which 

fears and concerns of the public have been taken into consideration. Quantitative above 

and below ground risk assessments have been undertaken as part of the Project design 

and the results of these assessments are presented in Chapter 13: Safety. The previous 

applications and the Section 48 consultation process have raised a number of concerns 

from the community about safety. These concerns have been taken into consideration by 

the Applicant through the increased level of community engagement that has been 

undertaken and through the production of the risk assessments identified above. 

Once the gas caverns are operational the following data would be continuously recorded: 

pressure; temperature; gas composition; and gas volume and there would be regular 

checks for leaks of all connections within the Project. There would also be mechanical 

testing of the integrity of the caverns every ten to 15 years. 

The NTS Interconnector Pipeline would be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

Using modern communication techniques a controller would observe monitor and control 

the functions of the pipeline. The pipeline would be fitted with ‘smart valves’ which would 

automatically shut-off the flow of gas if a leak were detected. It would also be possible to 

close these valves remotely. 

For the above reasons, the effects on this Hyder Heartbeat sustainability theme are 

assessed as positive. 

Building Design Positive Integral to the Project’s development has been good building design to minimise the 

effects of the infrastructure upon seascape, landscape and visual amenity. Opportunities 

have also been sought to maximise the use of existing structures and to refurbish existing 

buildings where possible. Key examples of this are summarised below. 

The extent of the surface infrastructure required for the Project has been reduced 

compared to previous applications. 

655



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

The Project would include reconstruction of the seawall at Rossall and integration of the 

brine discharge pipeline within the seawall below the surface of the beach. This would 

maintain the integrity of the seawall defences and minimise visual impacts on the beach 

and users of the Wyre Way. 

A seawall observation platform would be constructed with design input from Wyre 

Borough Council that would ensure that the completed works of this part of the Project 

would enhance the coastal environment. 

The Project’s Security and Support Facility would be situated at Higher Lickow Farm. The 

farmhouse and one of the existing barns would be refurbished for use as part of the 

Project. 

The Booster Pump Station would be sited to the east of the Preesall Wastewater 

Treatment Works (WwTW) which would partially screen it from views from the west, 

particularly the Wyre Way. The building has also been designed to reflect the agricultural 

appearance of the surrounding rural area. These measures would help to assimilate the 

building into the landscape and demonstrates the commitment of the Applicant to 

achieving good building design. The reduction in the number of caverns compared to 

previous applications has also enabled the removal of a second Booster Pump Station 

from the Project design. The Control Room would also be included in the Booster Pump 

Station, further avoiding the need for additional built structures. 

The finish of the Seawater Pump Station has been amended as a result of consultation 

comments received during 2011. The polished metal cladding has been removed and a 

modified finish agreed in line with the consultation comments. During the Project design, 

alternative locations for the Gas Compressor Compound have been considered. For 

reasons of safety and visual amenity the final location has been selected to the south of 

Cote Walls Farm in the northern part of the application site. The facility would be 

landscaped to further reduce its visual impact. 

The seven Wellhead Compounds would be surrounded by landscaped bunds to mitigate 

the potential landscape and visual impact. Furthermore, the potential adverse effects 

associated with the presence of large drilling rigs would be reduced as only one drilling rig 

656



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

would be operating at the application site at any one time. The drilling platforms would be 

removed once the Project is operational and the landscaped bunds re-contoured to 

screen the operational wellhead. The location of the Wellhead Compounds has also been 

modified as a result of consultation comments during 2011 which has resulted in the 

relocation of Wellhead 2, 50 m from the Cote Walls Farm property. 

The Project’s design has considered the sensitivity of the existing landscape and the 

sensitivity of visual receptors and has been modified in response to comments received 

as part of the consultation process. Therefore, the effects on this sustainability theme are 

assessed as positive as there have been positive measures taken to improve building 

design and to reduce adverse landscape and visual effects. 

Water Positive To dissolve the salt and create the caverns, a supply of water would be required. A large 

amount of water is required and the design process discounted the use of freshwater as 

this would not be sustainable. As seawater is only 3% sodium chloride, compared to 

saturated brine at 26%, seawater is appropriate for the Project’s operation. Fleetwood 

Fish Dock has, therefore, been selected as a suitable water source. The abstraction of 

water from the Fleetwood Fish Dock would also be controlled to ensure a viable level of 

water is always maintained in the dock. The use of the Fleetwood Fish Dock also avoids 

potential impacts on coastal waters, the Wyre Estuary, Morecambe Bay and groundwater 

sources. 

The Northern River Wyre pipeline crossing would be directionally drilled to avoid adverse 

effects on the flow regime, silt, sediments and flood defences of the river. 

The Project’s electricity infrastructure would require a further crossing of the River Wyre to 

the south to connect the Gas Compressor Compound with the Stanah substation. This 

would also be directionally drilled to reduce effects on the river. 

The sustainability score is positive as the design process has taken into consideration the 

issues identified in EN-4 (DECC, 2011b) regarding impacts on water resources and the 

Applicant has selected the most sustainable approach for the sourcing of large quantities 

of water needed for the cavern washing operations. 

657



Theme 

Materials 


Score 

Negative and 

Positive 

Commentary 

The process used to create the caverns for the storage of gas would generate waste 

brine. Paragraph 2.11.2 of The National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure 

and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) (DECC, 2011b) states ‘The ES should include 

measures to dispose of brine which mitigate its potential adverse environmental effects’ 

and ‘wherever possible, measures should include disposing of the brine for commercial 

use by industry so that mineral resources are used sustainably. Applicants should only 

propose disposing of brine to an underground reservoir (for example, a disused salt mine) 

or to the sea as a last resort where there is no practical option for re-use.’ 

Over the period of the proposed construction of the gas storage caverns, the weight of 

pure salt that would be carried by the brine is estimated to approach 19,000 tonnes/day or 

about 6.8 million tonnes/annum i.e. more than that currently used in the UK on an annual 

basis. Such a large production rate is almost impossible to utilise on a national scale and 

any use of the product would have to be at locations overseas where total demand is 

greater than in the UK. 

The closest and largest user of brine to Preesall is Ineos Chlor situated near Runcorn. 

Ineos Chlor could only use about 50% of the Project’s brine for their market share, leaving 

50% to be used or disposed of elsewhere. In order to make use of the brine it would be 

necessary to lay a pipeline from Preesall to Runcorn which would be a complex and costly 

exercise with associated environmental and sustainability effects. 

None of the major UK producers of brine, salt or other downstream products are presently 

interested in receiving the brine generated by the Project, even if it is at no cost to them. 

This is due to the fact that the leading UK salt companies are developing their own gas 

storage caverns, and the costs of laying connecting pipelines and the operational costs of 

pumping are prohibitive. To use the brine generated by the Project it would need to be 

exported in the form of dried salt or high value products such as chlorine, to increase 

marketability and reduce shipping costs. However, there would be significant 

sustainability costs associated with this process linked to the infrastructure required both 

to convert the brine and to develop port facilities and then to ship the material to markets 

identified overseas. The cost of transporting so much brine to any likely location of 

658



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

beneficial use is, however, impractical, uneconomic and would itself have significant 

sustainability effects. The Preesall salt is, therefore, an under-utilised resource for which 

there is no current use. The Project would make good use of the resource in the shortterm 

for gas storage, for which there is an identified national need. Furthermore, the 

amount of salt at Preesall that would be ‘lost’ to the Project amounts to an extremely low 

proportion of the Preesall salt. 

The waste brine would be discharged to the Irish Sea. A discharge consent for the 

disposal of hypersaline washwater into the Irish Sea was obtained from the Environment 

Agency in May 2007. Modelling has informed the outfall location which maximises 

potential dispersion whilst minimising effects on Morecambe Bay and the coastline. Nearfield 

dispersion modelling has also informed the design of the outfall demonstrating that a 

single diffuser with a double port configuration would result in the smallest total area of 

seabed impact. Therefore, whilst the principle of the loss of salt as a mineral resource is 

not sustainable, it has been demonstrated through the studies undertaken that there is 

currently no practical option for re-use, that the disposal of the waste brine would be 

undertaken in accordance with an environmental permit and that it would not result in 

adverse environmental effects. 

All phases of the Project would generate waste and integral to the Project design has 

been the consideration of opportunities to reduce the Project footprint, to reduce the 

amount of waste generated and to re-use materials where possible. For example, spoil 

from the construction of Project buildings would be used as part of the landscape 

bunding/screening, thereby offering a landscape benefit, a transport benefit as it avoids 

the need to dispose of the materials off-site and a waste management benefit as it avoids 

the need for off-site disposal. A Site Waste Management Plan has been prepared for use 

during the construction and construction and operational phases of the Project that 

provides further details of the measures that would be adopted to ensure the principles of 

the waste hierarchy are achieved for the Project. 

As identified for the ‘Building Design’ sustainability theme, the Project includes the re-use 

of existing infrastructure and buildings e.g. the location of the Security and Support Facility 

659



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

at Higher Lickow Farm which would ensure re-use of an existing building and reduce 

material use. 

Fleetwood Fish Dock would be used to supply seawater. The fish dock, constructed in 

1880, was also used to supply cooling water to an electricity generating station in the 

1950s and some of this infrastructure is still in place. The Project would make maximum 

use of this existing infrastructure, which would further reduce the need for new materials 

associated with the Project’s construction. 

Where possible, the Project infrastructure has been sited on brownfield land e.g. the 

Seawater Pump Station to reduce the loss of greenfield and agricultural land. The 

footprint and extent of the Project has reduced compared to previous applications and this 

also has benefits from a materials and waste perspective. 

At the end of the life of the Project, the caverns may have the potential for alternative uses 

such as ‘carbon capture’ but any alternative uses would have to be considered at that 

time. The remaining infrastructure could remain in place if required for alternative uses. 

Similarly, the seawater pipelines may have particular long term benefits in respect of flood 

control. 

Whilst a number of measures have been considered by the Applicant to reduce materials 

use in the Project and to maximise the re-use of existing infrastructure, sustainability 

effects are assessed as negative owing to the loss of salt as a usable mineral resource. 

Resource Security Positive There is an acknowledged need for underground gas storage facilities in the UK as 

outlined in Section 3.8 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

(DECC, 2011a). The efficient import, storage and transmission of natural gas are essential 

to meeting national energy needs during the transition to a low carbon economy. Without 

investment in new infrastructure, national objectives relating to security of supply cannot 

be achieved. The Project would make a positive contribution to the country’s resource 

security and the achievement of these national objectives and so effects are assessed as 

positive. 

Energy Positive The Project would potentially assist in reducing the effects of climate change. Paragraph 

660



Theme 

Best Management 

Practice in 

Construction 

Business, Society and 

Community 


Score 

Positive 

Positive 

Commentary 

3.6.2 of EN-1 (DECC, 2011a) states ‘Gas will continue to play an important role in the 

electricity sector – providing vital flexibility to support an increasing amount of low-carbon 

generation and to maintain security of supply.’ Paragraph 3.8.12 is particularly relevant 

stating ‘Medium range storage, typically gas stored in caverns in salt strata deep 

underground, has faster withdrawal and refill rates helping gas supply companies to 

respond to changing market conditions from day to day (‘diurnal’) and week to week.’ 

Chapter 2: Project Description, the Project’s location makes it particularly suitable to 

provide a fast and flexible supply in supporting low-carbon generation. 

The future resilience of the Project infrastructure to climate change and flood risk has also 

been considered. The Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Flood Risk 

Assessment (Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited, 2011b) has confirmed that as the Project 

lifetime is relatively short, the UKCP09 climate change projections do not have a 

significant effect on development proposals as infrastructure assets which cannot tolerate 

flooding are generally located on land well above the 1 in 200 year with climate change 

(2056) flood levels. 

For the above reasons and the contribution that the Project would make to moving 

towards a low carbon economy, effects are assessed as positive. 

As reported in Chapters 6 to 17 of this ES, a number of measures have been incorporated 

into the Project design to reduce the construction and construction and operational phase 

effects and a number of additional mitigation measures are outlined to reduce potential 

effects on key receptors. 

The impact of the construction phase upon the local population has been further reduced 

through the design as a result of the reduced Project footprint compared to previous 

applications. For the above reasons, a positive score is assigned to this ‘Hyder 

Heartbeat’ theme. 

The Project would generate approximately 300 jobs during construction, 85 jobs during 

the construction and operational phase, 35 permanent jobs during the operational phase 

and 20 temporary jobs during the decommissioning phase. Throughout these phases of 

661



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

the Project a broad range of employment opportunities would be available including 

project managers, site managers, engineers, technicians, landscapers, hauliers and 

general labourers. There would be benefits to the local jobs market and therefore to the 

community. There would also be opportunities for upskilling of the local workforce through 

apprenticeships and training during the construction phase. 

Whilst there would be temporary disruption to users of footpaths during the construction 

phase, the Project design has sought to minimise this disruption as far as possible. Key 

routes that would experience disruption include the Lancashire Coastal Way and the Wyre 

Way. However, diversions would be provided. On completion of the construction phase 

there would be benefits to users as a result of the completion of the viewing platform at 

the sea wall along the Lancashire Way. 

There are benefits at a national and regional level to the community associated with the 

delivery of this Project as national level objectives relating to the security of energy supply 

cannot be achieved without investment in new energy infrastructure including gas storage 

projects. 

The Applicant through the Project design has sought to reduce effects on existing 

landholdings and agricultural land uses by minimising the extent of the built infrastructure, 

reducing land take and minimising the proposed working widths of key corridors e.g. the 

working width of the NTS pipeline corridor. In advance of all topsoil stripping, liaison 

would occur with landowners to agree methods and storage proposals. 

The routeing of the temporary haul road has taken into consideration concerns of local 

residents and has been re-routed away from existing properties. 

The Applicant has developed a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy that would 

further ensure that it can be a good partner in the community throughout all phases of the 

Project. 

For the above reasons, a positive score is assigned to this ‘Hyder Heartbeat’ theme. 

662


15.8.1 Table 15-4 outlines the mitigation and enhancement measures proposed to 

minimise potential adverse sustainability effects and to maximise potential 

enhancements identified in Section 15.7. 

15.8.2 Whilst this assessment of sustainability effects has not been sub-divided by 

Project phase as outlined in paragraph 15.3.13, some of the mitigation and 

enhancement measures are more appropriate to a specific phase of the Project 

and this has been indicated where possible in Table 15-4. 

15.8.3 The implementation of the mitigation and enhancement measures in Table 15-4 

would further improve the sustainability performance of the Project and would 

help the Project to deliver greater long-term legacy benefits. 

Table 15-4 

Sustainability Assessment - Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 



Theme 

Ecosystem 

Services 

Transport 

Phase 

Construction, 

construction and 

operation combined 

Construction, 




Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 

Ensure that the landscape and ecological 

enhancements outlined in the Ecological and 

Landscape Management Plan are 

implemented. 

To further reduce the effects on local 

communities, Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) 

movements would be scheduled to avoid the 

beginning/end of the school day. 

The Construction Environmental Management 

Plan (CEMP) would also reduce potential 

adverse effects caused by traffic movements 

generated by the Project during the 


Re-use of materials on site, for example using 

excavated material for bunding would reduce 

traffic movements associated with off-site 

disposal. However, such materials re-use 

would need to be undertaken in accordance 

with the relevant environmental permits and 

regulations. 

Whilst it is not currently deemed feasible to 

transport materials to the Project by sea, this 

would be reviewed again prior to construction 

commencing. This would depend upon the 

suppliers selected during the construction 

phase. 

Refer to construction and construction and 

operational phase mitigation and enhancement 

measures. 

663



Theme 

Communications/I 

CT 

Building Design 

Water 

Materials 

Phase 

Construction, 



Construction, 



Construction, 



Construction, 




A community newsletter would be established 

during the construction phase to keep the 

public informed about the works. 

The Applicant would consider opportunities to 

provide educational benefits to the local 

population through the facilitation of school 

trips to the application site during construction 

and operation, as well as the delivery of 

training events to help to deliver local 

upskilling benefits and to leave a positive 

legacy. 

Further consideration would be given by the 

Applicant to the materials that are selected 

during the construction process. The selection 

process would carefully consider the longevity 

of the materials, their 

maintenance/replacement requirements and 

their resilience to climate change. 

Further consideration would be given to the 

use of energy efficient and green technologies 

within the built infrastructure, such as the 

Security and Support Facility, the Booster 

Pump Station and the Gas Compressor 

Compound. 

Buildings would be well insulated and would 

use materials with high thermal properties to 

reduce heating requirements. 

The detailed design of buildings at the 

application site would consider opportunities to 

incorporate grey-water recycling such as the 

re-use of rainwater in toilets and urinals. 

Sustainable drainage system would be 

implemented to reduce run-off. 

The CEMP and other management plans 

developed for the operation of the Project 

would include measures relating to sustainable 

water use and protection of water resources. 

The Ecological and Landscape Management 

Plan would be implemented and opportunities 

to restore ditches and ponds achieved where 

possible. 

When selecting materials during the 

construction phase for new Project 

infrastructure ensure that the longevity of the 

materials, their maintenance/replacement 

664



Theme 

Phase 



requirements and their resilience to climate 

change are considered, as well as their 

potential to be re-used at the end of their life. 

Ensure that the disposal of all waste materials 

on site is undertaken in accordance with the 

SWMP and Environmental Permit. 

As outlined in Section 15.7 there is currently 

no use for the waste brine generated by the 

Project. However, the status of this issue 

would continue to be reviewed by the 

Applicant to ensure that no future markets for 

this waste product are identified. 

When undertaking the construction the 

following Defra guidance documents would be 

adhered to: Safeguarding our Soils: A Strategy 

for England (Defra, 2009a) and Construction 

Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of 

Soils on Construction Sites (Defra, 2009b). 

The disposal/re-use of drilling materials would 

be reviewed in accordance with the ‘Definition 

of waste: development industry code of 

practice’ (Contaminated Land: Applications in 

Real Environments (CL:AIRE), 2011) prior to 

re-use and would require registration with the 

Environment Agency. 

A restoration and management plan would be 

produced to ensure the long-term maintenance 

and safety of the caverns and the site. 

Resource Security Not applicable No specific mitigation or enhancement 

measures are proposed. 

Energy Operation An Energy Management Plan for the 

operational buildings would be developed 

enabling targets for energy use to be 

established and performance against them 

monitored. 

Energy efficient technology would be used 

where possible in the new buildings. 

The use of alternative energy sources e.g. 

using green electricity companies would be 

considered. 


Practice in 

Construction 

Construction, 



The construction site would be registered with 

the Considerate Constructors Scheme. This is 

an initiative that was established in 1997 to 

improve the image of the construction industry. 

665



Theme 

Business, Society 

and Community 

Phase 

Operational 


Construction, 




Sites that are registered with the scheme are 

monitored against a Code of Considerate 

Practice that is designed to encourage best 

practice beyond statutory requirements. The 

main areas monitored fall into the following 

three categories: the environment, the 

workforce and the general public. 

All site operatives would be briefed on the 

contents and importance of the CEMP and 

regular audits undertaken to ensure 

compliance with it. 

Adherence to good practice construction 

guidance such Environmental Good Practice 

on Site Third Edition (Construction Industry 

Research and Information Association (CIRIA), 

2010). 

A Sustainable Construction Plan would be 

developed for the construction phase that 

seeks to integrate ‘other’ considerations into 

the construction of the Project e.g. health, 

maximising opportunities for local employment, 

energy use. 

Environmental Liaison Group meetings would 

be held with statutory bodies to inform them of 

key progress issues and to enable them to ask 

questions about the works. This would help to 

establish clear lines of communication and to 

ensure that all works are undertaken in a 

transparent manner. 

Any contractors working at the application site 

would work to an agreed management plan 

that would demonstrate they have considered 

potential environmental risks of those works 

and how they can be mitigated. 

Develop and adhere to a management plan for 


Clear signage of all footpath diversions. 

Ensure that issues relating to footpath 

divisions and signage are included in the 

CEMP and adhered to. 

Engage with Lancashire County Council to 

discuss potential opportunities for 

enhancements to the existing PRoW network 

that complement the Rights of Way 

Improvement Plan (ROWIP). 

666



Theme 

Phase 

All phases 


Establish links with local training providers to 

maximise opportunities for skills development 

within the local economy. 

The recommendations emerging from the 

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) should be 

implemented. 

During all phases of the Project, the Applicant 

would deliver presentations to local industry 

about key innovations and techniques used in 

the Project to ensure a wide dissemination of 

knowledge about the Project. 

The recommendations of the report ‘Progress 

with Responsibility Halite Energy Group – 

Responsible Business Policy’ would be 

implemented. 


15.9.1 Table 15-5 assesses the potential residual effects on the sustainability themes 

with the provision of the mitigation and enhancement measures identified in 

Section 15.8. 

Table 15-5 Sustainability Assessment - Residual Effects on the Hyder Heartbeat 

Sustainability Themes 



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

Ecosystem Services Positive A number of measures have been included 

within the Project to reduce the effects on 

ecosystems and the landscape/seascape. The 

Project has been designed in a way that is 

consistent with the principles of EN-4 and 

mitigation proposed in the AoS of EN-4. 

Transport Positive A number of measures have been included 

within the Project to reduce the effects on the 

transport network. The Project has been 

designed in a way that is consistent with the 

principles of EN-4 and mitigation proposed in 

the AoS. 

Communications/ICT Positive 

A number of measures have been taken by the 

Applicant to improve communication with third 

parties during the preparation of the DCO 

application. Further continuation of these 

667



Theme 


Score 

Commentary 

measures would ensure positive residual 

effects. 

Building Design Positive As the Project has developed a number of 

measures have been incorporated into the 

design to improve the design of the 

infrastructure to minimise effects on seascape, 

landscape and visual amenity. The 

recommended mitigation measures described 

in Section 15.8 which focus specifically upon 

materials selection would further ensure that 

the built infrastructure constructed is as 

sustainable as possible. 

Water Positive A number of measures have been included 

within the Project to ensure the sustainable use 

of water resources and to minimise the risk of 

adverse effects on water quality. Adherence to 

the mitigation and enhancement measures 

outlined in Section 15.8 would further improve 

the performance of the Project against this 

sustainability theme. 

Materials Negative Whilst there is currently no use for the Preesall 

salt and the amount of salt that would be ‘lost’ 

to the Project amounts to a very low proportion 

of the Preesall salt, the residual effect is 

assessed as negative as the Project would 

result in the permanent loss of this mineral 

resource. Notwithstanding, the Project would 

make valuable use of this resource to 

contribute to national energy needs. 

A number of other aspects of the Project have 

carefully considered materials re-use, seeking 

to minimise the use of materials and to reduce 

waste generation. 

Resource Security Positive The Project positively contributes to national 

resources security objectives. Safety and 

security have also been fundamental to the 

design process. 

Energy Positive The Project would assist in the national 

objectives of moving towards a low carbon 

economy. The implementation of the 

mitigation measures would also improve the 

energy performance of the Project during the 



Practice in 

Positive 

The Project includes a number of measures to 

ensure that the construction and construction 

668



Theme 

Construction 

Business, Society 

and Community 


Score 

Positive 

Commentary 

and operational phases are undertaken in a 

way that ensures the adherence to best 

practice. 

The Project has the potential to benefit local 

businesses and society and would contribute to 

national resources security. The Applicant has 

sought as far as possible through the design 

process to avoid effects on communities 

through the design process and to ensure that 

the application process has been transparent. 


15.10.1 No significant difficulties have been encountered in compiling the sustainability 

assessment of the ES although the nature of the topic area means that the 

quantification of effects and the application of standard EIA significance criteria 

are less well defined for this topic area and so the interpretation of results can 

be less definitive than with other EIA topic areas. It is not considered the 

assessment is in any way deficient because of these factors but it should be 

recognised that the assessment procedure may not be comparable with those 

for other topic areas being focussed more on identifying the measures that have 

been and will continue to be integrated into the Project to ensure that it 

contributes to achieving sustainability objectives rather than determining the 

significance of effects. 

15.11 Summary 

15.11.1 The Sustainability assessment has assessed the performance of the Project 

using Hyder’s sustainability model ’the Hyder Heartbeat’. The performance of 

the Project has been assessed against the ten sustainability themes of the 

model: Ecosystem Services; Transport; Communications/Information and 

Communication Technology (ICT); Building Design; Water; Materials; Resource 

Security; Energy; Best Practice Management in Construction; and Business, 

Society and Community. The purpose of the assessment has been to 

determine to what extent the Project design has been developed to reduce 

potential adverse sustainability effects and to deliver sustainability 

enhancements. 

15.11.2 The assessment identified that the Project performs positively against nine of 

the ten sustainability themes as a result of the following key measures: 

 

Significant changes to the Project design compared to previous 

applications including a reduction in the size of the Project and the amount 

of infrastructure that would be required. 

669

The design of the Project to avoid adverse effects on key ecological sites 

including the Wyre Estuary and Morecambe Bay. 

The selection of construction techniques to minimise adverse 

environmental effects, for example, directional drilling under the Wyre 

Estuary. 

 

 

 

 

 

The integration of measures in the Project design to reduce adverse visual 

effects, for example, the amendment to the finish of key structures so they 

are better integrated into the existing landscape and the use of landscape 

screening. 

Extensive consultation with local communities to understand their 

concerns and comments about the Project and the implementation of 

Project design changes to address some of the concerns raised. 

The re-use of existing infrastructure for the Project, for example, some of 

the infrastructure at the Fleetwood Fish Dock and existing buildings. 

The implementation of a Construction Worker Travel Plan to ensure the 

use of sustainable modes of transport. 

The commitment to re-use construction materials where possible and the 

development of a Site Waste Management Plan to monitor waste 

management for the Project. 

15.11.3 To further improve the sustainability performance of the Project a number of 

mitigation measures have been identified through the assessment process, 

including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development of a CEMP 

Development of a Sustainable Construction Plan 

Implementation of the recommendations in the Health Impact Assessment 

Implementation of the Landscape and Ecological Management Strategy 

Plan 

Continued engagement with the community 

Delivery of a number of community events during the lifetime of the Project 

including training presentations and facilitation of school visits to the site 

Further review of the potential to integrate grey-water recycling into Project 

buildings and to select the most sustainable building materials in the longterm. 

15.11.4 Negative sustainability effects were assessed for the ‘Materials’ theme as the 

Project would result in the discharge of waste brine from the cavern washing 

process to the Irish Sea. The Applicant has investigated the potential re-use of 

this material and it has been concluded at the present time that the Preesall salt 

is an under-utilised resource for which there is no current use. Furthermore, the 

Project would make good use of the resource in the short-term for gas storage 

for which there is a national need. The amount of salt that would be ‘lost’ to the 

Project would be an extremely low proportion of the Preesall salt. 

670


CIRIA (2010) Environmental Good Practice on Site Third Edition 

CL:AIRE (2011) Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice 

Defra (2009a) Safeguarding our Soils: A Strategy for England 

Defra (2009b) Construction code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on 

Construction Sites 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010) Appraisal of Sustainability of 

the Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and 

Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4) 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011a) Overarching National 

Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) 

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011b) National Policy Statement 


Government Office for the North West (2008) North West of England Regional 

Spatial Strategy to 2021 

Halite Energy Group (April 2011) Consultation Strategy and Statement of 

Community Consultation 

Halite Energy Group (October 2011) Consultation Report 

Halite Energy Group (August 2011) Feedback Report 




Report 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd (2011a) Preliminary Environmental Information 

Report 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2011b) Preesall Underground Gas Storage 

Facility Flood Risk Assessment 

Lancashire County Council (2011) Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local 

Development Framework 


2009 

Wyre Borough Council (1999) Wyre Borough Local Plan 1991 - 2006 

671

672

16 TRANSPORT AND ACCESS 


16.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Transport and Access Assessment, 











the ES. 

16.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with the Transport Assessment 

(Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B) and the Construction Worker Travel Plan 

(Appendix 16.2 of Volume 1B). 



national, regional and local plans and policies. A review of the current 

legislation, policy and guidance relevant to transport and access can be found 

in Section 2 of the Transport Assessment (refer to Appendix 16.1 of Volume 

1B). 


16.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Transport and 

Access Chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). 




 

 







Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice and 

Procedures (The Department for Communities and Local Government, 

2006) 

673

Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (Institute of 

Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 1993) 

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments (Institution of Highways and 

Transportation (IHT), 1994) 

Guidance on Transport Assessment (Department for Transport (DfT), 

2007) 

Planning and the Strategic Road Network – Circular 02/2007 (DfT, 2007) 

 

 

 

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Highways Agency, 

1993) 




Study Area(s) 

16.3.3 Using the information from the guidelines stated above, the spatial scope of the 

assessment has been identified and verbally agreed with Lancashire County 

Council (LCC). The study area is shown on Figure 16-1 of this chapter. 

16.3.4 The Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (IEA, 1993) 

suggest a number of rules to delimit the scale and extent of the assessment: 

Include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% 

(or the number of heavy goods vehicles will increase by more than 30%) 

 

 

Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows will 

increase by 10% or more 

Include highway links where HGV flows have increased significantly 

16.3.5 Table 16-1 describes the works to be undertaken at each of the three main 

Project locations, these being Preesall, Fleetwood and Preesall to Nateby. 

Table 16-1 Transport and Access Assessment - Description of Works at 

Preesall, Fleetwood and Preesall to Nateby 

Location 


Fleetwood 

Description of Works 

Construction of the Permanent Access Road, Site Entrance Facilities, Booster 

Pump Station / Control Centre/ De-Brining Facility, Gas Compressor Compound / 

Electrical Sub-Station and related underground cable running from Preesall 

southwards to Staynall. The works at Preesall also include Gravel Tracks, 

Wellhead Compounds and site pipelines (sea-water delivery, brine collection and 

gas distribution systems) together with the exit areas from both the north and 

south Estuary Crossings. 

The construction of the Seawater Pumping Station and the Brine Discharge 

Pipeline (from the west bank of the estuary to the sea wall at Rossall). There is 

also a section of the Sea Water Pipeline and the Brine Discharge Pipeline, 

together with two pipelines for ancillary uses, from the Seawater Pumping Station 

to the west bank of the Estuary together with the entry areas for both the north 

and south estuary Crossings at Fleetwood and Stanah respectively. 

674

Location 

Preesall to 

Nateby 

Description of Works 

The proposed Gas NTS Interconnector Pipeline extends eastwards from the Gas 

Compressor Compound at Preesall to the NTS at Long Wood. The Project also 

includes a Metering Station at Nateby, near Garstang. This is a cross-country 

pipeline having an overall distance of 12.44km. 

Figure 16-1 Transport and Access Assessment - Extents of Highways Considered 

A588 

A585 

A588 

A586 

A585 

A585 


16.3.6 For the construction work in Preesall it has been assumed that traffic will 

approach/depart along the following routes: 

 

 

 

The northeast on the A588 

The southeast on the A588, A585 and A586 (from the direction of 

Catterall) 

From the south on the A588 and A585 

16.3.7 The majority of traffic accessing the Project at Preesall will approach/depart via 

Hall Gate Lane (A588) and the proposed Heavy Haul Route which would be 

constructed as part of the development to provide access. A small amount of 

construction traffic in Preesall would have to access the Project via Back Lane 

675

and Staynall off the A588 south of the intersection with the B5377. This 

construction traffic would only be to construct the underground power lines and 

southern crossing of the River Wyre. 

Fleetwood 

16.3.8 Access to the works at Fleetwood will be via the A585. Traffic to the estuary 

crossing (South – Entry) at Stanah is expected to travel via the B5412 and then 

Stanah Road / River Road. Traffic to the Fish Dock area is expected to access 

the works via Herring Arm Road whilst traffic generated by the Brine Discharge 

Pipeline will access the works off Fleetwood Road / Amounderness Way / South 

Strand and West Way. Traffic to the Sea Wall Crossing will access the works 

via West Way. 


16.3.9 The NTS Interconnector Pipeline will run from Burrow’s Farm (north of Staynall, 

the most western extent) to Longwood (between Nateby and Garstang, the 

most eastern extent). Access for the construction of the proposed pipeline is 

proposed to be via the seven roads which the pipeline crosses along the route 

(RDX 1-7), the Gas Compressor Compound and the Metering Station at 

Nateby. The location of the access points can be seen in Figure 16-2. 

16.3.10 It is anticipated that the pipe sections would be brought to the sites from the M6 

via the A6. It is anticipated that the western third of the route (Gas Compressor 

Compound, RDX1 and RDX2) will be served by the A588 and the mid and 

eastern sections (RDX 3, RDX 4, RDX 5, RDX 6, Metering Station at Nateby 

and RDX 7) of the pipeline route most likely to be served by Garstang Road / 

Black Lane / Cartmel Lane and Longmoor Lane. These routes can be seen in 

Figure 16-2 with further details provided in Sections 11 and 12 of Appendix D of 


16.3.11 It should be noted that in addition to the assessment carried out in this chapter, 

the Transport Assessment (refer to Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B) also examines 

the vehicular impact of the Project at key junctions on the local highway 

network. 

Desk Studies 


 

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Transport Assessment (August 

2011) – Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B 

Estimates of Traffic Volumes at Construction Stage (June 2011) - 

Appendix D of Appendix 16.2 of Volume 1B 

 

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility Construction Worker Travel 

Plan (August 2011) - Appendix 16.2 of Volume 1B 




676

Table 16-2 

Transport and Access Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 

Sources Location(s) 

ATC 

A588 Head Dyke Lane, between its junctions with 

Lambs Lane and Green Dicks Lane 

Period 

16-22 July 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

ATC 

TRADS 

TRADS 

Back Lane, between its junctions with Cemetery Lane 

and Lindel Lane 

A588 Hall Gate Lane, between its junctions with 

Cemetery Lane and Moss House Lane 

High Gate Lane, mid way between its junctions with 

Staynall Lane and Grange Lane 

A588 Shard Road, north of the signalised junction with 

the A585 Mains Lane 

A585 Amounderness Way, mid way between its 

junctions with the B5412 and New Road 

A585 Amounderness Way, between its junctions with 

Copse Road and Herring Arm Road 

West Way, between its junctions with The Strand and 

Rossall Gate 

A585 Mains Lane, between its junctions with A588 

Shard Rd and A585 Garstang New Rd 

A586 Garstang Rd, between its junctions with A585 

Fleetwood Rd and Larbreck Gardens 

A585 Fleetwood Rd, between its junctions with 

Grange Rd and B5269 Mile Road 

Permanent counter located on the A585 Mains Lane 

Carriageway, between its junctions with the A588 

Shard Road and A585 Garstang Road 

Permanent counter located on the A585 

Amounderness Way carriageway, mid way between its 


5-11 July 

7-13 July 

7-13 July 

7-13 July 

6-12 July 

16-22 July 

7-13 July 

5-10 July 

7-13 July 

7-13 July 

1 Jan 2010 to 31 July 

2011 

1 Jan 2010 to 31 July 

2011 


16.3.14 Site visits were undertaken on 10 and 11 May 2011 to assist in identifying the 

character of the highways of the proposed routes and assist in identifying any 

sensitive receptors near the highway which may be affected by an increase in 

traffic associated with the Project. 

16.3.15 Traffic data has been gathered to assess the impact of HGVs and general 

traffic. Traffic data between the proposed working hours of 08:00-18:00 on 

weekdays has been used in the assessment with the data gathered during a 

677

two week period from 5 th to 19 th July 2011. A description of the counters can be 

found in Table 16-3 and the location of the traffic count sites is shown in Figure 

16-3. 

16.3.16 To ensure the validity of the traffic data used, a comparison was undertaken of 

the traffic flows during the survey period and during ‘traffic neutral’ months. The 

comparison can be seen in Section 6.6 of the accompanying Transport 

Assessment in Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B with the results showing that the 

traffic data used in this assessment is reflective of a ‘traffic neutral’ month. 

678

Figure 16-2 NTS Interconnector Pipeline Route and Road Crossing Locations 

679

Table 16-3 

Transport and Access Assessment - Traffic Counter Locations 

Site Location(s) Location of 

Counter 

Collection 

Period 

1 A588 Head Dyke Lane, between its junctions with 


2 Back Lane, between its junctions with Cemetery 

Lane and Lindel Lane 

3 A588 Hall Gate Lane, between its junctions with 


4 High Gate Lane, mid way between its junctions with 

Staynall Lane and Grange Lane 

5 A588 Shard Road, north of the signalised junction 

with the A585 Mains Lane 

6 A585 Amounderness Way, mid way between its 


7 A585 Amounderness Way, between its junctions 

with Copse Road and Herring Arm Road 

8 West Way, between its junctions with The Strand 

and Rossall Gate 

9 A585 Mains Ln, between its junctions with A588 


10 A586 Garstang Rd, between its junctions with A585 

Fleetwood Rd and Larbreck Gardens 

11 A585 Fleetwood Rd, between its junctions with 







Fleetwood 

Fleetwood 

Fleetwood 




16-22 July 

5-11 July 

7-13 July 

7-13 July 

7-13 July 

6-12 July 

16-22 July 

7-13 July 

5-10 July 

7-13 July 

7-13 July 

680

Figure 16-3 Transport and Access Assessment - ATC Location Plan 

Consultation 




consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Transport 

and Access assessment. Table 16-4 summarises the post-scoping consultation 



681

Table 16-4 

Transport and Access Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 

Consultee Date of consultation 

Lancashire 

County 

Council 

WBC 

Highways 

Agency 

Email sent on 15 June 2011 to Mr Stuart Perigo 

regarding traffic study scoping matters. Response 

provided on 01/07/2011 indicting that traffic surveys 

should take place prior to the schools breaking up. It 

was confirmed in the email response dated 

01/07/2011 that further comments would be provided 

as soon as responses are received from Mr Perigo’s 

colleagues. No further email correspondence has 

been obtained from Mr Stuart Perigo. 

Email sent on 28 July 2011 to Christine Entwistle, 

acknowledgement provided by LCC on 02/8/2011 

although no further information obtained. Utilised the 

MARIO system to obtain the information required. 

Email sent on 28 July 2011 to Christine Entwistle, 




Email sent on 28 July 2011 Christine Entwistle, 




Email sent on 11 August 2011 Clive Holt, ‘read 

receipt’ delivery obtained although no further email 

communication received thereafter. 

Email sent on 15 June 2011 to Mr David Thow 

regarding traffic study scoping matters. It was 

confirmed in an email dated 30/06/2011 Wyre 

Council are happy to rely on the advice provided by 

LCC in their capacity as the local highway authority. 

Telephone conversation with Mr Kristian Marsh on 

19 July 2011 regarding the content of the scoping 

note that was also circulated to LCC and WBC. Mr 

Marsh indicated in the discussion that the suggested 

approach was acceptable in principle. 

Summary of consultation 

Correspondence with LCC 

requesting confirmation of 

highway links / junctions 

requiring assessment, 

personal injury accident 

study area, access route 

study, committed/planned 

development and air quality 

considerations. 

Height / weight / width 

restrictions along adopted 

carriageways. 

Issues relating to highways 

used to access the Project. 

Enquiry as to which 

developments would need 

to be considered as part of 

a cumulative impact 

assessment. 

Enquiry as to which 

developments would need 

to be considered as part of 

a cumulative impact 

assessment and clarification 

of any issues relating to 

highways used to access 

the Project. 

Correspondence with WBC 

requesting confirmation of 

highway links / junctions 

requiring assessment, 

personal injury accident 

study area, access route 

study, committed/planned 

development and air quality 

considerations. 

Discussion with a Highways 

Agency officer regarding the 

scope of the traffic-based 

studies. 

682





 

 

 

 

 

 








details 









Sensitivity 

16.3.20 Areas along the highway routes that could be sensitive to changes in 

traffic/HGV volumes have been identified. Sensitive areas are defined by the 

presence of sensitive receptors, such as congested junctions, hospitals, 

community centres, conservation areas, schools, colleges or accident black 

spots. A summary of the items to consider is reported in Table 16-5 below. 

Table 16-5 

Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Transport and Access Assessment - Receptor Sensitivity 

Receptor Type 

Receptors of greatest sensitivity to traffic flow: schools, colleges, 

playgrounds, accident blackspots, retirement homes, urban/residential roads 

without footways that are used by pedestrians. (Paragraph 2.5 IEMA 

Guidelines, 1993) 

Traffic flow sensitive receptors including: congested junctions, doctors’ 

surgeries, hospitals, shopping areas with roadside frontage, roads with 

narrow footways, unsegregated cycleways, community centres, parks, 

recreation facilities 

Receptors with some sensitivity to traffic flow: places of worship, public open 

space, nature conservation areas, listed buildings, tourist attractions and 

residential areas with adequate footway provision 

683

Receptor 

Sensitivity 

Negligible 

Receptor Type 

Receptors with low sensitivity to traffic flows and those sufficiently distant 

from affected roads and junctions 


16.3.21 This assessment has gathered traffic data for 11 locations in the area, as 

outlined in Table 16-3. The expected traffic generations of the Project during the 

four phases (construction, construction and operation combined, operation and 

decommissioning) will be quantified and where appropriate assessed against 

anticipated background traffic flows to outline the anticipated percentage 

increases in total vehicles and HGVs. 

16.3.22 To avoid providing misleading conclusions being drawn from fixed descriptions 

of magnitude (i.e. a 30% increase always equalling a moderate magnitude of 

change) the percentage increase values will be used in this assessment. 


16.3.23 In order to determine the significance of effects, the following parameters have 

been considered: 

 

 

The sensitivity of the receptors along each highway 

The percentage increase in total traffic and/or HGVs as a result of the 

Project along each highway 

16.3.24 A set of generic significance criteria are proposed in the ‘Environmental Impact 

Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures’ (DCLG, 2006) to 

describe the significance of effect. These criteria are outlined in Table 16-6. 

Table 16-6 Transport and Access Assessment – Criteria for Determining 



Effect 

Major 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

Description 

These effects are likely to be important considerations at a 

regional or district scale 

These effects, if adverse, are likely to be important at the 

local scale. However, the cumulative effect of these may 

lead to an overall increase in the impact / effect of traffic 

Generally related to local issues but the effects are relevant 

in the detailed design of the Project 

Effects are generally beneath levels of perception 



However, with regard to the EIA Regulations, consideration has also been 

684

afforded to effects that would be considered to be of minor significance. 

Therefore, where it is concluded that any given receptor would be subject to 

effects of minor significance as a result of the Project, the assessor has 

reviewed the sensitivity and percentage increase of total traffic and/or HGVs as 

a result of the Project and has made a professional judgement as to whether 

these effects would also be considered ‘significant’ with regard to the EIA 

Regulations. 




Existing Road and Access Arrangements 

16.4.2 The existing roads and access arrangements for Preesall and Fleetwood can be 

found in section 5.3 and 6.3 of the Transport Assessment in Appendix 16.1 of 

Volume 1B. The description of the highways leading to the NTS Gas Connector 

can be found below. 

NTS Gas Connector 

A6 Corridor 

16.4.3 The A6 Preston-Lancaster New Road in the vicinity of its junction with 

Longmoor Lane (Garstang) is a single lane carriageway that operates under a 

50mph speed limit. There are a number of junctions with side roads along the 

route which facilitate access to a number of residential areas throughout the 

settlement of Garstang. The route is street lit and is aligned by footways on 

alternating sides of the carriageway. 

Longmoor Lane 

16.4.4 Longmoor Lane converges with the A6 Preston-Lancaster New Road via a 

priority-controlled crossroads. The route operates under the national speed limit 

(60mph) and extends in a west to east alignment between the settlements of 

Garstang and Nateby. The route is largely hedge-lined on both sides, with no 

provision for cyclists or pedestrians at present. The route is not currently streetlit. 

Kilcrash Lane 

16.4.5 Kilcrash Lane is a short section of carriageway that links Longmoor Lane with 

Cartmell Lane. The carriageway operates under the national speed limit 

(60mph) and is largely hedge-lined on both sides. The route is not currently 

street-lit, and there is an absence of pedestrian and cycle facilities. 

Cartmell Lane 

16.4.6 Cartmell Lane is essentially an extension of Kilcrash Lane, and operates under 

the national speed limit (60mph). The route is largely hedge-lined on both sides, 

unlit and does not benefit from walk or cycle infrastructure. 

685

Black Lane 

16.4.7 Black Lane is an extension to Cartmell Lane (at the junction with Station Lane) 

and extends in a north-westerly direction to converge with Garstang Road. The 

carriageway operates under the national speed limit (60mph) and is largely 

hedge-lined on both sides. The route is not currently street-lit, and there is an 

absence of walk and cycle infrastructure. 

Garstang Road 

16.4.8 Garstang Road extends in a north-west direction between its convergence with 

Black Lane and its convergence with the A588 Lancaster Road. The route 

passes through the settlement of Stakepool and, in doing so, reduces from the 

national (60mph) speed limit to a 30 mph speed limit. The route is street-lit and 

whilst there are no dedicated footways, pedestrians were observed to walk on 

the grass verges that align the carriageway. 

Baseline Traffic Assessment 

16.4.9 Given that construction movements associated with the Project will be spread 

throughout the working day and peak traffic movements are typically higher, the 

average 10 hour traffic flows (08:00 – 18:00) have been used in this 

assessment. The baseline (2011) weekday two-way traffic flows along the 

assessed highways can be seen in Table 16-7. 

Table 16-7 

Base Year (2011) Total Two-Way Traffic Flows 

Site Location 10 hour (08:00-18:00) 

1 A588 Head Dyke Lane, between its junctions 

with Lambs Lane and Green Dicks Lane 

Total Flow 

% HGVs 

3739 3.2% 

2 Back Lane, between its junctions with 

Cemetery Lane and Lindel Lane 

3 A588 Hall Gate Lane, between its junctions 

with Cemetery Lane and Moss House Lane 

4 High Gate Lane, mid way between its 

junctions with Staynall Lane and Grange 

Lane 

5 A588 Shard Road, north of the signalised 

junction with the A585 Mains Lane 

6 A585 Amounderness Way, mid way between 

its junctions with the B5412 and New Road 

7 A585 Amounderness Way, between its 

junctions with Copse Road and Herring Arm 

Road 

82 1.7% 

7481 3.4% 

129 2.8% 

11147 3.4% 

18499 4.3% 

13448 2.5% 

686

Site Location 10 hour (08:00-18:00) 

8 West Way, between its junctions with The 

Strand and Rossall Gate 

9 A585 Mains Ln, between its junctions with 

A588 Shard Rd and A585 Garstang New Rd 

Total Flow 

% HGVs 

1395 1.4% 

17236 7.2% 

10 A586 Garstang Rd, between its junctions with 

A585 Fleetwood Rd and Larbreck Gardens 

7670 4.9% 

11 A585 Fleetwood Rd, between its junctions 

with Grange Rd and B5269 Mile Road 

15191 5.3% 

Sensitivity of Receptors 

16.4.10 Table 16-8 presents the sensitivity assigned to the individual receptors for each 

ATC site identified through the desk studies, site visits (surveys) and 

consultation. Sensitivities have been assigned using the criteria presented in 

Table 16-5. 

Table 16-8 

Transport and Access Assessment – Sensitivity of Receptors 

ATC Site Location Road Receptors Sensitivity 

of the 

Receptor 

ATC1. A588 

Head Dyke 

Lane 

ATC 2. Back 

Lane 

ATC3. A588 

Corridor 

Stake Pool 

A588 Head 

Dyke Lane / 

A599 Lancaster 

Road 

Limited residential 

frontage 

Some shops with 

roadside frontage 

St James Church (listed 

building) 

Light industrial units 

Pilling Moss – Head Dyke 

non-statutory designated 

site for nature 

conservation (shown on 

Figure 9.2 of Volume 2B) 

Back Lane Back Lane Limited residential 

frontage 

Stalmine 

A588 Hall Gate 

Lane 


frontage 

Minor 

Moderate 

Minor 

Negligible 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Overall 

Sensitivity 

of the 

Highway 

Minor 

Minor 

Moderate 

687


of the 

Receptor 

(northern site) 

ATC4. High 

Gate Lane 

ATC5. A588 

Corridor 

(southern site) 

ATC 6. A585 

Amounderness 

Way (southern 

site) 

High Gate 

Lane 

Hambleton 

Shard 

Road 

signals 

A585 / 

B5268 

Fleetwood 

Road 

High Gate Lane 

A588 Broadpool 

Lane 

A588 Shard 

Road / A585 

Mains Lane 

signals 

A585 

Amounderness 

Way 

Some shops with 

roadside frontage 

Stalmine Primary School, 

although the premises 

are set back from the 

road 

Stalmine football and 

bowling club 

Properties sufficiently 

distant from affected 

roads 

Light industrial units 


frontage 


frontage 

Parade of shops set back 

from the road 

Properties sufficiently 

distant from affected 

roads 

Limited and set back 

residential frontage 

The signal junction 

represents a 

convergence between 

two principal 

carriageways 

Blackpool and The Fylde 

College, although the 

premises are a sufficient 

distance from affected 

roads 





Figure 6.2 of Appendix 

2B) 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Overall 

Sensitivity 

of the 

Highway 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

ATC 7. A585 A585 / A585 Industrial units Negligible Negligible 

688


of the 

Receptor 

Amounderness 

Way (northern 

site) 

ATC8. West 

Way 

ATC9. A585 

Mains Lane 

ATC 10. A586 

Garstang 

Road 

ATC 11. A585 

Fleetwood 

Road 

Herring 

Arm Road 

Fleetwood 

Little 

Singleton 

A585 / 

A586 

signals 

A586 

Amounderness 

Way 

West 

Way/Rossall 

Lane 

A585 Garstang 

New Road 

A586 Garstang 

Road 

A586 Garstang 

Road 

Greenhalgh A585 Fleetwood 

Road 


frontage 


Rehabilitation Unit 

Fleet Farm 





Figure 6.2 of Appendix 

2B) 






Figure of Appendix 2B) 



Esso petrol filling station 

Koi Pool Water Garden 

Centre 

The signal junction 

represents a 

convergence between 

two principal 

carriageways 

Windy Harbour Holiday 

Park 

Larbeck Gardens 

Caravan Park 



Shell petrol filling station 


frontage 

Minor 

Moderate 

Negligible 

Minor 

Minor 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Minor 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Minor 

Overall 

Sensitivity 

of the 

Highway 

Minor 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

689


16.5.1 The following section examines the expected changes in traffic on the highway 

network and traffic patterns during the construction phase, without the Project. 

General Traffic Growth 

16.5.2 The construction of the Project is expected to take place over 8 years, 

commencing in 2013. However, this assessment has considered an 

assessment year of 2014 which is predicted to be the year when most 

construction traffic trips are generated (N.B. even though maximum construction 

traffic generations are anticipated to begin in Year 1 (assumed to be 2013), 

maximum construction traffic generations are estimated to occur sometime 

during 2014). 

16.5.3 The baseline (2011) traffic flows recorded at the 11 ATC sites throughout 

Preesall and Fleetwood have been growthed up to 2014 (anticipated year of 

maximum construction traffic generation) levels using the DfT’s National Trip 

End Model (NTEM) growth forecasts for all vehicle types. 

16.5.4 A traffic growth factor of 3.6% has been applied in order to forecast background 

traffic volumes on the assessed highway links in 2014 from the baseline (2011) 

traffic data. Indeed, the factor of 3.6% applies to principal roads in the North 

West of England, which reflects the characteristics of the highway network that 

surrounds the development sites at Preesall and Fleetwood. 

16.5.5 The 2014 Construction Year traffic flows (without the Project) are presented in 

Table 16-9. 

Table 16-9 Transport and Access Assessment - Construction Year (2014) Total 

Two-Way Traffic Flows (without Project) – Preesall 

Site Highway 10 hour (08:00-18:00) 

1 A588 Head Dyke Lane, between its junctions with 


2 Back Lane, between its junctions with Cemetery 


3 A588 Hall Gate Lane, between its junctions with 


4 High Gate Lane, mid way between its junctions 

with Staynall Lane and Grange Lane 

5 A588 Shard Road, north of the signalised junction 

with the A585 Mains Lane 

6 A585 Amounderness Way, mid way between its 


Total 

Traffic 

%age 

HGVs 

3874 3.4% 

85 1.7% 

7751 4.2% 

133 5.8% 

11548 4.0% 

19165 4.6% 

690

Site Highway 10 hour (08:00-18:00) 

7 A585 Amounderness Way, between its junctions 

with Copse Road and Herring Arm Road 

8 West Way, between its junctions with The Strand 


9 A585 Mains Ln, between its junctions with A588 


10 A586 Garstang Rd, between its junctions with 

A585 Fleetwood Rd and Larbreck Gardens 

11 A585 Fleetwood Rd, between its junctions with 


Total 

Traffic 

%age 

HGVs 

13932 2.9% 

1445 1.5% 

17856 7.5% 

7947 5.0% 

15737 5.5% 

16.5.6 The Project is also located in close proximity to the proposed Wyre Power 

Station. This is considered in detail in the Transport Assessment in Appendix 

16.1 of Volume 1B, although in summary it is understood that operational traffic 

associated with the Wyre Power Station will be imperceptible on the local 

highway network from 2014 onwards, meaning that traffic generation associated 

with the construction phase of Wyre Power Station is not anticipated to conflict 

with traffic generation associated with the construction of the Project. 







Table 16-10 

Transport and Access Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 

Receptor Receptor Location Nature of Effect 

Site 1. A588 Head 

Dyke Lane 

Site 2. Back Lane 

Site 3. A588 

Corridor (northern 

site) 

Site 4. High Gate 

Lane 

Site 5. A588 

Corridor (southern 

site) 

Stake Pool 

Back Lane 

Stalmine 

High Gate Lane 

A588 Broadpool 

Lane, A588 Shard 

Road / A585 Mains 

Potential increases in traffic volume during 


combined, operation and 


Increased severance of communities 

through which a road section passes, 

caused by additional traffic volumes 

associated with the Project on that road 

section. 

Increased intimidation of pedestrians and 

cyclists using a road section, caused by 

additional traffic volumes associated with 

691

Receptor Receptor Location Nature of Effect 

Site 6. A585 

Amounderness 

Way (southern site) 

Site 7. A585 

Amounderness 

Way (northern site) 

Lane signals 

A585 

Amounderness Way 

A585 

Amounderness Way 

the Project on that road section. 

Delays to non-development-related 

journeys caused by slow-moving vehicles 

associated with the Project, which is likely 

to be the main impact relating to the 


Site 8. West Way 

Site 9. A585 Mains 

Lane 

Site 10. A586 

Garstang Road 

Site 11. A585 


West Way/Rossall 

Lane 

A585 Garstang New 

Road, A586 

Garstang Road 

A586 Garstang 

Road 

A585 Fleetwood 

Road 


16.7.1 The following section assesses the potential traffic impacts of the Project and 

the potential effects on the individual receptors indentified in Section 16.4, in the 

absence of mitigation or enhancement measures. Measures that have been 

incorporated into the design of the Project to minimise any potentially significant 

effects are outlined in Chapter 5 and have been considered in this section. It 

should be noted that the effect of the Construction Worker Travel Plan (refer to 

Appendix 16.2 of Appendix 1B) has been considered at this stage. 

Construction 

16.7.2 For the purpose of this assessment, the construction of the Project is 

anticipated to commence in 2013 and is expected to last 8 years. The majority 

of construction activities would take place during Year 1 when the infrastructure 

associated with creating the caverns and the NTS pipeline would be 

constructed. Whilst the creation of the caverns could take up to 8 years, 

construction within the application site at Fleetwood and that along the route of 

the NTS pipeline would be completed within one year. The Project is likely to 

become partially operational in Year 4, when the washing of the first caverns is 

likely to have been completed. 

Preesall and Fleetwood 

16.7.3 A summary of the HGV movements for each task in the programme can be 

found in Table 16-12. It should be noted that all trips in this section refer to 

single trips (i.e. a trip from the point of origin to the site or a return trip to the 

point of origin). Further details on the quantification and type of HGVs for each 

task in the construction programme can be found within Appendix D of 


692

Table 16-11 

Transport and Access Assessment - Summary of Annual HGV Generations – Preesall and Fleetwood 

Task Year Total 


Fleetwood 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Permanent Access Road (A588 to Back Lane) 1216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1216 

Permanent Access Road (Back Lane to Gas 

Compressor Compound) 

718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 718 

Site Entrance Facilities 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 

Booster Pump Station 484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 484 

River Crossing (North) 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286 

River Crossing (South)* 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 

Underground Power Lines* 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 

Site Pipework 152 152 150 0 0 0 0 0 454 

Gas Compressor Compound 0 1098 1096 0 0 0 0 0 2194 

Gravel Track 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 724 

Wellheads and Manifolds 964 964 964 48 48 48 48 48 3132 

Total (Preesall) 4804 2214 2210 48 48 48 48 48 9468 

Seawater Pumping Station 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 

Estuary Crossing (north) 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 228 

Estuary Crossing (south) 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 

SWPS to Estuary Crossing (north) 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 

Brine Discharge Pipeline 328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 328 

Seawall Crossing 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 

Total (Fleetwood) 1584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1584 

693

Task Year Total 

Total 

(Fleetwood 

and 

Preesall) 

* Would access the application site via Staynall 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

6388 2214 2210 48 48 48 48 48 11052 

694

16.7.4 As can be seen in Table 16-12, the majority of HGV movements connected with 

the construction of the Project occur during Year 1, with reduced movements in 

Years 2 and 3. Construction movements reduce further in Years 4-8 with an 

average of one HGV every two weeks. 

16.7.5 In addition to HGV trips, the other major generator of trips by the Project will be 

construction workers travelling to/from the site. An indication of the number of 

construction workers for each task of the construction period can be seen in 

Table 16-13. It should be noted that ancillary staff would only be required on an 

ad-hoc basis when carrying out major tasks during the construction period (e.g. 

during concrete pours). 

695

Table 16-12 Transport and Access Assessment - Summary of Construction Staff at Preesall and Fleetwood During the 

Construction Period 

Task 

Year 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Permanent Access Road (A588 to Back Lane) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Permanent Access Road (Back Lane to Gas Compressor Compound) 


Fleetwood 

Site Entrance Facilities 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Booster Pump Station 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

River Crossing (North) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

River Crossing (South) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Underground Power Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Site Pipework* 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 

Gas Compressor Compound 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 

Gravel Track 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wellheads and Manifolds 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Supervisory Personnel 8 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 

Ancillary** 8 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 

Total (Preesall) 88 54 54 5 5 5 5 5 

Seawater Pumping Station 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Estuary Crossing (north) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Estuary Crossing (south)*** 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

SWPS to Estuary Crossing (north) 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

696

Task 

Year 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Brine Discharge Pipeline 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Seawall Crossing 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Supervisory Personnel 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ancillary** 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total (Fleetwood) 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total (Fleetwood and Preesall) 166 54 54 5 5 5 5 5 

* 10 staff required for half a year, 5 staff required for remainder of the year 

** Ancillary staff would only be required at peak times (e.g. for concrete pours) and would not normally travel to the Scheme 

*** For three months only 

697

16.7.6 Following discussions with officers of LCC, a Construction Worker Travel Plan 

has been prepared and is presented in Appendix 16.2 of Volume 1B. The Travel 

Plan seeks to reduce the impact of the Project on the highway network, 

particularly the impact of construction workers travelling to and from work. To 

achieve this the Travel Plan has set out measures that can be implemented 

throughout the construction period. These measures include: 

 

 

 

 

The appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator 

Production of travel information leaflets 

Establishment of a car sharing scheme 

Investigate the provision of a dedicated shuttle bus from key locations to 

the site 

16.7.7 A summary of the Travel Plan construction worker modal split targets and 

subsequent traffic generations can be seen in Table 16-4. 

Table 16-13 Transport and Access Assessment - Forecast Construction Staff 

Travel Mode Splits 

Travel 

Mode(s) 

2001 

Census 

Mode split(s) Preesall Fleetwood 

Target Person Traffic 

Generated 

Person 

Traffic 

Generated 

Preesall Fleetwood 

Peak 

Hour 

Per 

Day 

Peak 

Hour 

Car / van 68.3% 60.3% 60.3% 50 50 100 47 47 94 

Passenger 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 8 0 0 7 0 0 

Works bus N/A 22.0% 0.0% 18 1 2 0 0 0 

Motorcycle 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1 1 2 1 1 2 

Bicycle 3.4% 3.0% 5.0% 2 0 0 4 0 0 

Walk 15.0% 2.0% 12.0% 2 0 0 9 0 0 

Taxi 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1 1 2 1 1 2 

Service 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2 0 0 2 0 0 

Train/tram 0.3% 0.0% 10.0% 0 0 0 8 0 0 

Total 100% 100% 100% 83 53 106 78 49 98 

Per 

Day 

16.7.8 It is therefore forecast that construction workers travelling to and from the 

Project would generate 53 and 49 trips in either peak period at Preesall and 

Fleetwood respectively, equating to 106 and 98 trips per day respectively. 

16.7.9 A summary of the daily vehicle generations for personnel and HGV movements 

in both Preesall and Fleetwood can be seen in Table 16-15. 

698

Table 16-14 Transport and Access Assessment - Summary of Daily Traffic 

Movements (Preesall and Fleetwood) 

Year 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Average Daily HGV Movements 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 

Peak Day HGV Movements 50 50 30 0 0 0 0 0 

Absolute Peak Day HGV Movements 62 62 38 0 0 0 0 0 


Average Day Personnel on site 75 49 49 5 5 5 5 5 

Average Day Travel Plan Traffic 

Generations* 

94 62 62 10 10 10 10 10 

Peak Day Personnel on site 83 54 54 5 5 5 5 5 

Peak Day Travel Plan Traffic 

Generations* 106 68 68 10 10 10 10 10 

Average Total Movements* 114 72 72 5 5 5 5 5 

Peak Total Vehicle Movements* 168 130 106 5 5 5 5 5 

Average Daily HGV Movements 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Peak Day HGV Movements 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Absolute Peak Day HGV Movements 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fleetwood 

Average Day Personnel on site 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Average Day Travel Plan Traffic 

Generations* 

88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Peak Day Personnel on site 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Peak Day Travel Plan Traffic 

Generations* 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Average Total Movements* 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Peak Total Vehicle Movements* 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

* Assumes Construction Travel Plan Target are met 

16.7.10 To provide a robust assessment, this analysis has considered the impact of the 

Project during the absolute peak day HGV movements (equating to 62 and 42 

HGV movements in Preesall and Fleetwood respectively) and the combined 

absolute peak day HGV movements and peak day Travel Plan traffic 

generations (for total traffic) (equating to 168 and 140 total traffic movements 

within Preesall and Fleetwood respectively). The peak day of traffic generation 

for the entire Project (the composite peak day) is likely to occur during the day 

699

of absolute peak day HGV movements at Preesall, when HGV movements at 

Fleetwood are likely to be average for reasons of general programming, 

differences in the extent and duration of preparatory work, logistics of concrete 

supply, assignment of equipment and contractor work force and assignment of 

contractor's and employer's supervisory personnel. 

16.7.11 To provide a robust evaluation the composite peak day has been used in this 

assessment. It is however emphasised that these traffic generations would only 

be expected during events such as a concrete pour, when extra materials and 

staff are required on site, however these have been assessed to represent an 

‘upper-limit’ scenario. 

Traffic Distribution 

HGVs 

16.7.12 In terms of construction vehicle (HGV) traffic generations, it is estimated that 62 

and 42 daily HGV movements (two-way) would be generated by the 

development sites at Preesall and Fleetwood respectively during the period of 

maximum construction. The estimated distribution of HGV movements is as 

follows: 

 

 

 

In the case of the Preesall application site, 13% of the 31 daily one-way 

HGV movements would utilise the A588 from the north east (i.e. from the 

Lancaster direction). Some 80% of the 31 daily one-way HGV movements 

would enter utilise the proposed haul road having travelled along the A588 

Hall Gate Lane corridor, whilst the balance of 7% of HGVs would utilise 

the Staynall Lane carriageway. 

In the case of the Fleetwood application site, 95% of the daily one-way 

HGV movements would utilise the A585 Amounderness Way corridor, 

whilst the balance (5% of HGVs) would utilise the West Way carriageway. 

It is estimated that 62% of the total one-way HGV movements associated 

with the Preesall and Fleetwood sites would utilise the A588 Breck Lane, 

whilst 19% of the estimated one-way daily HGV movements would be 

assigned to the A585 Fleetwood Road carriageway. Some 12% of the 

one-way daily HGVs would pass along the A586 Garstang Road 

carriageway, whilst 52% of the one-way daily HGV movements would pass 

along the A588 Shard Road carriageway. 

Construction Workers 

16.7.13 A gravity model methodology has been used to distribute trips by construction 

workers, with the methodology outlined in Section 6.7 of the Transport 

Assessment in Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B. 

16.7.14 It is estimated that the construction workers employed at the Preesall and 

Fleetwood sites will respectively generate 106 and 98 vehicle movements 

to/from the sites in the course of a working day during the period of maximum 

construction activity. The majority of these movements would however take 

place outside the highway network peak hours (e.g. between the hours of 7- 

8am and 6-7pm) as the 10-hour working day is expected to run from 8am to 

6pm. However, to provide a robust assessment it has been assumed that 

700

construction workers would travel during the 8am to 6pm working day (given 

that the percentage increase is being evaluated, not including the 7am-8am and 

6pm-7pm peak hours, which reduces the base traffic flow thus increasing the 

impact). 

16.7.15 The estimated distribution of construction worker vehicle-based movements is 

as follows: 

 

 

 

In the case of the Preesall application site, 6% of the daily one-way 

car/light vehicle movements would utilise the A588 from the north east (i.e. 

from the Lancaster direction). Some 80% of the daily one-way car/light 

vehicle movements would utilise the proposed haul road having travelled 

along the A588 Hall Gate Lane corridor, whilst 17% of cars/light vehicles 

would utilise the Staynall Lane carriageway. It is estimated that 10% of 

cars/light vehicles (one-way) would utilise the B5377 Park Lane 

carriageway which facilitates access to/from Preesall and beyond to/from 

Knott End-on-Sea, whilst 20% cars/light vehicles (one-way) would travel 

via Back Lane (having originated from either Preesall or Knott End-on- 

Sea). 

In the case of the Fleetwood application site, 35% of daily one-way 

car/light vehicle movements would originate from Fleetwood and would 

utilise the A585 Amounderness Way (North) corridor. The remaining 65% 

of car/light vehicle movements would travel via the A585 Amounderness 

Way (South) corridor. 

It is estimated that 32% of the total one-way car/light vehicle movements 

associated with the Preesall and Fleetwood sites would utilise the A588 

Breck Lane, whilst 3% of car/light vehicle movements would be assigned 

to the A585 Fleetwood Road carriageway. Some 32% of one-way daily 

car/light vehicle movements would pass along the A588 Shard Road 

carriageway. 

16.7.16 Schematics of the trip distributions can be seen in Appendix E of the Transport 

Assessment in Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B. 

Traffic Impacts 

16.7.17 This section outlines the expected maximum percentage increases in HGV and 

total traffic as a result of the construction of the Project. In order to provide a 

more robust assessment, the percentage increases in total traffic and HGVs are 

assessed directly to take into account the actual changes of traffic. 

16.7.18 The assessment has also used the absolute peak day HGV movements and the 

peak day personnel movements assuming that the Travel Plan targets would be 

met to ensure that the assessment is robust. As noted previously, the proposed 

working hours are between 08:00 and 18:00 on weekdays. It is likely that 

constructions workers would travel to/from work outside of these hours, 

however to make the assessment more robust, it has been assumed that 

members of staff would travel to/from site within the working hours (as the 

assessment looks at the percentage increase in total traffic, not including the 

traffic between 07:00-08:00 and 18:00-19:00, will allow for a more robust 

assessment). 

701

16.7.19 The predicted percentage increases in HGVs and total traffic as a result of the 

construction of the Project for each ATC site can be seen in Table 16-16. It 

should be noted that the traffic generations from the Project are for the 

composite peak day to create a more robust assessment. 

Table 16-15 Transport and Access Assessment - Percentage Increase in 

Construction Traffic on the Local Highway Network 

Site Highway Construction Year 

2014 Predicted 

Traffic Movements 

1 A588 Head Dyke Lane, 

between its junctions with 

Lambs Lane and Green 

Dicks Ln 

2 Back Lane, between its 

junctions with Cemetery 


3 A588 Hall Gate Lane, 


Cemetery Lane and Moss 

House Ln 

4 High Gate Lane, mid way 


Staynall Lane and Grange 

Lane 

5 A588 Shard Road, north of 

the signalised junction with 

the A585 Mains Lane 

6 A585 Amounderness Way, 

mid way between its 

junctions with the B5412 

and New Road 

7 A585 A’ness Way, 


Copse Road and Herring 

Arm Road 

8 West Way, between its 

junctions with The Strand 


9 A585 Mains Ln, between 

its junctions with A588 

Shard Rd and A585 

G’stang New Rd 

HGVs 

Total 

Traffic 

Traffic 

Generations from 

the Project 

HGVs 

Total 

Traffic 

Percentage 

Increase as a 

result of the 

Project 

HGVs 

Total 

Traffic 

122 3874 10 16 8.2% 0.4% 

1 85 0 24 0.0% 28.1% 

265 7751 60 124 22.6% 1.6% 

4 133 4 25 107.3% 18.6% 

396 11548 64 139 16.2% 1.2% 

834 19165 50 88 6.0% 0.5% 

353 13932 48 122 13.6% 0.9% 

20 1445 2 2 9.8% 0.2% 

1293 17856 38 46 2.9% 0.3% 

702

Site Highway Construction Year 

2014 Predicted 

Traffic Movements 

10 A586 G’tang Rd, between 

its junctions with A585 

F’wood Rd and Larbreck 

Gardens 

11 A585 Fleetwood Rd, 


Grange Rd and B5269 

Mile Road 

HGVs 

Total 

Traffic 

Traffic 

Generations from 

the Project 

HGVs 

Total 

Traffic 

Percentage 

Increase as a 

result of the 

Project 

HGVs 

Total 

Traffic 

386 7947 14 16 3.6% 0.2% 

837 15737 24 30 2.9% 0.2% 

16.7.20 The potential effects of the construction traffic on each assessed highway are 

detailed in Table 16-17. 

Table 16-16 

Transport and Access Assessment - Impacts at Assessed Locations 

Site Highway Overall Sensitivity 

of the Highway 

1 A588 Head 

Dyke Lane 

Minor 

Assessment of 

Impact 

Negligible 

With regard to 

the EIA 

Regulations, 

this effect would 

be considered 

not significant 

2 Back Lane Minor Minor adverse 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 

significant 

3 A588 Corridor 

(northern site) 

Moderate 

Moderate 

adverse 

Justification 

The overall increases in HGVs and 

total traffic are relatively low and 

below the 10% threshold specified 

in the EIA guidelines. It is also 

considered unlikely that additional 

traffic generated by the Project 

would significantly affect the 

identified receptors or create 

significant community severance or 

cause intimidation or delay to other 

road users. 

There are not predicted to be any 

HGVs on this link, with the 28.1% 

increase in total vehicles due to 

construction workers travelling to 

and from work. Given that the only 

receptors are five residences along 

this route, and that there is to be no 

HGV traffic along this route, the 

impact has been assessed as minor 

adverse, although significant given 

the relatively few vehicles along the 

highway at present. 

Whilst the overall increase in traffic 

is significantly less than the 10% 

threshold, a 22.6% increase in 

703



4 High Gate 

Lane 

5 A588 Corridor 

(southern site) 

6 A585 

Amounderness 

Way (southern 

site) 

7 A585 

Amounderness 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

Negligible 

Assessment of 

Impact 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 

significant 

Minor adverse 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 

significant 

Minor adverse 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


Negligible 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


Negligible 


Justification 

HGVs is predicted. The route 

passes through Stalmine which has 

a number of sensitive receptors of 

moderate value which could be 

affected by the increase in HGVs. 

The overall number of HGVs is 

predicted to increase by 107.3%, 

however this is just an increase of 4 

HGVs a day which amounts to an 

additional HGV every two and a half 

hours. The total traffic is expected 

to increase by 18.6%, although 

given that there are only three 

residences along the link, it is 

considered unlikely that additional 

traffic generated by the Project 

would create significant community 

severance or delay to other road 

users. The effect is however judged 

to be significant with regard to the 

EIA Regulations, owing to the low 

HGV movements at present and the 

potential affect on the receptors. 

The overall traffic increase is below 

the 10% significance threshold. 

However, it is predicted that HGV 

movements along the route could 

increase by 16.2% This section of 

the route would pass through 

Hambleton, although the effect is 

not expected to be significant owing 

to the existing levels of HGV traffic 

and the minor sensitivity of 

receptors along this section. 

The overall increases in HGVs and 

total traffic are relatively low and 

below the 10% threshold specified 

in the IEA Guidelines. The Nautical 

College of Fleetwood is located 

away from the highway and the 

increase in total traffic and HGVs is 

unlikely to have a significant effect 

on the non-statutory designated 

nature conservation site. 

Although the percentage increase in 

HGVs (13.6%) is slightly above the 

704



Way (northern 

site) 

Assessment of 

Impact 

the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


8 West Way Minor Negligible 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


9 A585 Mains 

Lane 

10 A586 Garstang 

Road 

11 A585 

Fleetwood 

Road 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 

Negligible 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


Negligible 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


Negligible 


the EIA 

Regulations, 


be considered 


Justification 

10% threshold, the A585 is one of 

the main routes into Fleetwood and 

does not provide direct access to 

any properties. It is also considered 

unlikely that additional traffic 

generated by the Project would 

create significant community 

severance or cause intimidation or 

delay to other road users. Given 

that the percentage increase is only 

slightly above the 10% threshold 

and not the nature of the road, the 

impact is considered to be 

negligible and therefore not 

significant. 

The percentage increases in HGVs 

and total traffic are below the 10% 

threshold specified in the IEA 

Guidelines. The sensitivity of the 

receptors has been assessed as 

minor and the assessed magnitude 

of change amounts to just two HGV 

trips a day. 




Guidelines. Given the relatively low 

number and sensitivity of receptors 

along this link it is considered 

unlikely that the Project will have a 

significant effect. 

















705


16.7.21 The NTS Interconnector pipeline is expected to take seven months to construct 

with the possibility of extending the construction period for a further month for 

commissioning. The pipeline is 12.44km in length and crosses seven roads and 

nine tracks along the route. This section of the Project also includes the 

construction of a metering station at Nateby and a 37m width wayleave along 

the length of the pipeline. As previously outlined, it is proposed that delivery 

access to the pipeline during construction will be via the seven roads (RDX1-7), 

the metering station at Nateby and the Gas Compressor Compound, as shown 

in Figure 16.2. 

16.7.22 The main item delivered at the road crossings will be pipe which would be 

delivered by HGV. It is likely that there will be around 8 HGV deliveries of pipe 

per day (equating to 16 trips). Details of the proposed method of access to 

these points to allow for deliveries can be seen in Section 12 of Appendix D of 

Appendix 16.1 of Volume 1B. Table 16-18 outlines the number of HGV trips to 

each access location along the pipeline route and the number of days that pipe 

delivery would take place over. 

Table 16-17 Transport and Access Assessment - HGV Trips Associated with Pipe 

Deliveries 

Location 

Gas Compressor 

Compound 

HGVs (two-way trips) Duration (days) 

18 2 

RDX 1 42 3 

RDX2 138 9 

RDX 3 122 8 

RDX 4 78 5 

RDX 5 86 6 

RDX 6 52 4 

Nateby 48 3 

RDX 7 110 7 

Total 694 47 

16.7.23 In addition to pipe deliveries, there will be a number of other HGV movements 

required to deliver other construction materials and plant, which would be 

delivered to the nine access points along the pipeline. A summary of the 

expected movements can be seen in Table 16-19. 

706

Table 16-18 HGV Trips Associated with the Construction of the NTS 


Estimation of HGV 

generations (two way) 

Notes 

Pipe Delivery 694 As set out in Table 16-18 

Other Materials (granular 

material, fencing, etc) 

140 

Metering Station 70 30 HGV deliveries over a period 

of 2-3 weeks, 5 further HGVs 

estimated over a period of 12 

weeks. 

Construction Plant 216 Plant will work along the route 

(i.e. only requiring transportation 

for mobilisation/demobilisation). 

54 HGVs estimated to be 

required for transporting plant. 

Sand (provisional) 700 Inspection indicates that sand 

for bedding and pipe surround is 

not likely. A contingency of 350 

HGVs has been added but is 

unlikely to be required. 

Total 1820 

16.7.24 It is emphasised that the 350 deliveries (700 trips) of sand in Table 16-19 

represent a contingency and are unlikely to be required. 

16.7.25 The other traffic generating part of the construction of the NTS Interconnector 

pipeline is construction staff travelling to and from work. The pipeline is 

predicted to require 60 construction workers with a further three supervisory 

personnel. The construction workers will be split into teams and will work on 

separate sections of the pipeline with an estimate maximum of 20 construction 

workers at any one road crossing and an average of 10. 

16.7.26 Additional construction workers will also be required to construct the metering 

station at Nateby which would take around 12 weeks. An average of 17 

construction workers are likely to be required over the 12 week construction 

period for the metering station. 

16.7.27 An assessment of the NTS Interconnector pipeline has not been undertaken, 

owing to the relatively low numbers of HGV trips generated over a short 

construction programme with the trips dispersed along the length of the 

pipeline. The impact of the NTS Interconnector pipeline on the local highway 

network is thus assessed to be negligible and not significant with regard to 

the EIA regulations. 

707


16.7.28 The Project is expected to operate from Year 4 when the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline is complete and salt extraction has been completed on the first of the 

caverns. As outlined in the HGV and personnel trips generated in the 

construction programme in Table 16-15, the construction element of the Project 

is likely to generate 24 HGVs per year (48 trips) to complete the Wellheads and 

Manifolds. 

16.7.29 The operational part of the Project is forecast to generate around 40 light 

vehicle trips a day at Preesall with no more than 6-8 staff stationed per shift. 

The parts of the Project at Fleetwood and along the NTS Interconnector 

Pipeline would only generate vehicle trips on an ad-hoc basis for tasks such as 

maintenance and would therefore have a negligible impact on the highway 

network. 

16.7.30 Given the low construction and operational trip generations of the Project during 

Years 4-8, the impact of the Project is assessed to be negligible and not 

significant with regard to the EIA Regulations on the highways and identified 

receptors which were studied as part of this assessment. 

Operation 

16.7.31 Following the completion of the construction phase in Year 8, the only trips that 

would be generated by the Project would be the same as identified in the 

section above (i.e. around 40 light vehicle trips a day at Preesall and ad-hoc 

trips at Fleetwood and along the length of the NTS Interconnector pipeline). The 

operational phase of the Project is thus considered to be negligible and not 

significant with regard to the EIA Regulations. 


16.7.32 The Project is estimated to have a design life of over 40 years but its longer 

term operation would be dependent on the continued demand for gas, gas 

prices, potential new sources of gas and their reliability. 

16.7.33 At the end of the life of the proposals, the caverns may have the potential for 




would be maintained and monitored in accordance with an approved Project 



infrastructure could remain in place if required for alternative uses. The 

seawater pipelines may have particular long term benefits in respect of flood 

control. Alternatively, the buildings and pipelines would be removed in 

accordance with a Project to be agreed with the LPA. 

16.7.34 Given that parts of the Project are likely to remain in-situ following 

decommissioning, the traffic generated is likely to be lower than that generated 

during the construction phase. From the assessment of the construction 

impacts, the only route assessed as having a moderate adverse impact was at 

708

Site 3 because of the percentage increase in HGV traffic and the subsequent 

possible effect on Stalmine. 

16.7.35 Current baseline data collected for the purposes of this assessment would not 

be valid at the time of decommissioning and it is likely that the receptors and 

their sensitivity would change. However given that the amount of 

decommissioning traffic is likely to be no greater than the amount of 

construction traffic, the impact of the Project is assessed to be minor adverse, 

although this effect is considered significant with regard to the EIA 

Regulations. 




Construction 

General Principles 

 

 

 

 

Where possible the Project would avoid incoming/outgoing HGV 

movements at the beginning/end of the school day to minimise the impact 

upon schools in the local area 

Where possible the Project would utilise raw materials (e.g. stone) from 

local sources to reduce the vehicular traffic impact associated with the 

Project 

Discussions with the relevant authorities would be ongoing to minimise the 

potential for any cumulative traffic effects arising from the construction of 

any other developments within the vicinity of the Project 

Traffic signing would also be agreed at the strategic and local levels, to 

ensure that traffic uses the most appropriate routes to access site 

16.8.2 In accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), 

the construction team will reduce as far as possible any potential impacts on the 

surrounding highway network during the construction phase. 

Internal Arrangements 

16.8.3 It is proposed that there will be a 10mph speed limit enforced on all main site 

roads, and a 5mph speed limit will apply to temporary gravel roads. Further 

measures will include, but will not be limited to, the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The use of reduced speed limits for site vehicles 

Flashing beacons on all site vehicles 

Marshalled stop / go boards at junctions 

Site road cleaning vehicles 

Lighting systems 

Traffic marshals and security guards 

709

Mud on Roads 

16.8.4 The site area will generally be covered by hardstanding and the majority of the 

materials used for construction will be of a solid or granular nature. The 

potential for mud is therefore much reduced, and by segregating the on-site 

traffic from the delivery vehicles this can be further reduced. Appropriate wheel 

cleaning facilities will be provided within the application site to ensure that no 

mud or debris is carried from the site onto the surrounding highway network. 

Management of Construction Vehicle Noise 

16.8.5 There are a variety of ways by which construction vehicle noise can be 

controlled, including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Servicing vehicles regularly will lead to less noise, and such machinery is 

also less likely to break down 

Fitting noise-reducing devices, such as silencers and baffles, to vehicles 

Turning off engines when they are not in use 

Checking the brakes are properly adjusted and do not squeal 

Not revving the engine unnecessarily 

Only using the vehicle’s horn in emergencies 

Undertaking regular checks to ensure that vehicle tyres are well 

maintained and inflated to appropriate pressures 

Replacing exhaust systems as soon as they become noisy 

Site Management 

16.8.6 Site staff will ensure that all plant and equipment in good repair. Maintenance 

shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations or 

in such a manner and frequency as operational experience may show to be 

appropriate. 

16.8.7 During the construction programme, site personnel will record deliveries, ensure 

all drivers have been inducted, verify all materials, equipment entering and 

leaving the construction site, provide directions for delivery via agreed access 

routes and execute main site security duties. 


16.8.8 The mitigation measures identified for the construction phase above would 

continue to be carried out in the combined construction and operational phase. 

16.8.9 During the operational phase measures such as car sharing amongst personnel 

travelling to the site and combined trips (e.g. carrying out maintenance at 

multiple sites instead of one site) would be encouraged where possible in order 

to reduce the amount of traffic generated. 

710

Operation 

16.8.10 Operational mitigation measures as set out in the above construction and 

operational phase would be continued in this phase. 


16.8.11 Measures similar to those implemented during the construction phase would 

also be employed during the decommissioning phase if considered applicable. 





Construction 

16.9.2 Whilst the identified mitigation measures would seek to reduce the vehicular 

impacts, materials and construction workers would still need to be brought 

to/from site as part of the construction process and therefore impacts on the 

majority of highways would remain. The impacts on the construction phase of 

the Project therefore remain the same as in Table 16-17. 


16.9.3 As outlined in Section 16.7.31, the construction and operational trip generations 

of the Project during Years 4-8 remain low and therefore are assessed as 

negligible and not significant with regard to the EIA Regulations on the 

highways and identified receptors which were studied as part of this 

assessment. 

Operation 

16.9.4 As previously outlined in Section 16.7.32, the operational trip generations of the 

Project are predicted to be low and therefore are assessed as negligible and 

not significant with regard to the EIA Regulations on the highways and 

identified receptors which were studied as part of this assessment. 


16.9.5 As for the construction phase of the Project, the identified mitigation measures 

would reduce the impact associated with trips from the decommissioning phase 

of the Project, however the trips would still have to be made. The impacts 

therefore continue to be minor adverse, which is considered significant with 

regard to the EIA Regulations. 


16.10.1 There have been no difficulties in compiling the Transport and Access section of 

the ES. 

711

16.11 Summary 

16.11.1 This assessment has examined the possible effects of the Project on traffic 

volumes on the local and strategic highway network that currently surrounds 

and would ultimately serve the Project site. 

16.11.2 Traffic surveys conducted on the local and strategic highway network during 

July 2011, in addition to the assessment of personal injury accident recorded 

over the latest 5-year period, have helped to establish relevant baseline 

conditions. Traffic generation projections have been calculated based on 

anticipated construction activity at the Project, and a traffic impact assessment 

has been performed based upon the estimated period of maximum construction 

activity. 

16.11.3 On the A588 Shard Road, the number of cars/light vehicles and Heavy Goods 

Vehicles without the Project is predicted to be 11,153 and 396 respectively 

whilst the additional number of cars/light vehicles and HGVs with the Project 

would amount to 76 and 54 respectively during the period of maximum 

construction activity. On the A585 Amounderness Way, the number of 

cars/light vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles without the Project is predicted to 

be 18,332 and 834 respectively whilst the additional number of cars/light 

vehicles and HGVs with the Project would amount to 38 and 42 respectively 

during the period of maximum construction activity. 

16.11.4 Whilst the Project would increase the number of vehicles on the surrounding 

highway network during the construction phase, the existing carriageways are 

capable of accommodating the additional vehicles and, therefore, potential 

adverse effects as a result of the Project are not expected. In light of this, it is 

considered that no mitigation or enhancement measures would be required. 

16.11.5 A key measure that would be put in place to minimise the effect of the Project 

on the highway network is to implement and monitor a Construction Worker 

Travel Plan (which sets out the sustainable transport initiatives to reduce 

dependence on the private vehicle). Identified measures include providing a 

works bus service into the site, encouraging walking, cycling and the use of 

public transport as well as promoting car sharing amongst staff. 


Department for Transport (2007) Guidance on Transport Assessment 

Department for Transport (2007) Planning and the Strategic Road Network – 

Circular 02/2007 

Highways Agency (1993) The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 




Report 

712

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1993) Guidelines for 

the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic 

713

714

17 WATER ENVIRONMENT 


17.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Water Environment Assessment, 











the ES. 

17.1.3 A plan is provided showing the location of waterbodies within the River Basin 

Management Plan within the DCO Application Site and in the wider vicinity 

(Figure 17.2 of Volume 2B of the ES). As such the figure and this chapter fulfil 

the requirement of Regulation 5(2)(l) of the Infrastructure Planning 

(Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 to provide 

such plans and an assessment of any effects on such sites, covered by 

Regulation 5(2)(l) likely to be caused by the proposed development. 

17.1.4 This chapter encompasses the surface water environment and flood risk (the 

full Flood Risk Assessment is presented in Appendix 17.1 of Volume 1B). This 

chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature 

Conservation (which assesses the potential effects of the discharge of brine into 

the Irish Sea on marine ecology), Chapter 10 Geology, Hydrolgeology and 

Stability (which assesses the potential effects on groundwater), Appendix 17.1 

of Volume 1B and Figures 17.1 and 17.2 of Volume 2B. 



national, regional and local plans and policies. Outlined in Table 17-1 below are 

those elements of current legislation, policy and guidance relevant to Water 

Environment in the context of this assessment. 

Table 17-1 

Regulatory / 


Framework 


Statement 25 

(PPS25) 

Water Environment Assessment – Regulatory / Planning Policy 

Requirements 

PPS25 sets out Government policy on 

development and flood risk. Its aims 

are to ensure that flood risk is taken 

into account at all stages in the 

planning process to avoid 


A Flood Risk Assessment 

(FRA) has been carried 

out for the Project in 

accordance with PPS25. 

The FRA concluded the 

715

Regulatory / 


Framework 

The Water 

Framework 

Directive 

(2000/60/EEC) 

The Flood and 

Water 

Management Act 

2010 

Requirements 

inappropriate development in areas at 

risk of flooding, and to direct 

development away from areas of 

highest risk. Where new development 

is, exceptionally, necessary in such 

areas, policy aims to make it safe, 

without increasing flood risk 

elsewhere, and, where possible, 

reducing flood risk overall. 

The Directive provides a framework for 

the protection of surface (fresh) water, 

estuaries, coastal water and 

groundwater. The objectives of the 

Directive are to enhance the status, 

and prevent further deterioration, of 

aquatic ecosystems, promote the 

sustainable use of water, reduce 

pollution of water (especially by 

‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’ 

substances) and ensure progressive 

reduction of groundwater pollution. 

Among the main features of the 

Directive are that all inland and coastal 

waters within defined river basin 

districts must reach at least good 

status by 2015. 

The Flood and Water Management Act 

2010 will provide better, more 

comprehensive management of flood 

risk for people, homes and 

businesses. It will also help tackle bad 

debt in the water industry, improve the 

affordability of water bills for certain 

groups and individuals, and help 

ensure continuity of water supplies to 

the consumer. 

The Flood and Water Management Act 

2010 encourages the use of 

sustainable drainage in new 

developments and re-developments. 

National standards for the design, 

construction, operation and 

maintenance of SuDS are currently 

being drafted. 


application site can be 

developed safely, without 

exposing the new 

development to an 

unacceptable degree of 

flood risk or increasing the 

flood risk to third parties. 

The FRA is contained 

within Appendix 17.1 of 

Volume 1B 

The Project will aim to 

attain the highest 

achievable level of water 

quality standards. This will 

be achieved with the 

incorporation of 

Sustainable Drainage 

Systems (SuDS) into the 

design to improve the 

quality of the runoff from 

the application site. 

It has been recommended 

by the Environment 

Agency that a drainage 

strategy be prepared for 

the Project which 

incorporates SUDS into 

the design. The FRA has 

concluded that the Project 

will not be exposed to an 

unacceptable degree of 

flood risk or increase the 

flood risk to third parties. 

716


17.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Water 

Environment chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). 




 

 

 







 

 

 

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 

3, Part 10 (HD 45/09) (Highways Agency, 2009). 

Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: Pollution 

Prevention from Major Pipelines. 

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk 

(Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010). 


parties) within agreed study area(s)). 

Undertaking site visits (surveys) within the agreed study area(s). 

Study Area(s) 

17.3.3 The study area for the assessment comprises all surface water features in 

hydrological connectivity with the application site and groundwater in 

hydrological continuity with the application site, the Wyre Estuary and areas of 

the Irish Sea potentially affected by the Project (refer to Figure 17.1 of Volume 

2B). 

Desk Studies 

17.3.4 Desk study information has been obtained from the following sources: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping 

Topographic survey 

Site plans 

Environment Agency online data sets for water quality and pollution 

incidents 

MAGIC interactive mapping 

Irish Sea Observatory online datasets 

Soil classifications from the Soilscapes project 

717




Table 17-2 

Source 

Environment 

Agency 

Water Environment Assessment - Baseline Information Requests 

Baseline Information Obtained 

Flood Zone Mapping 

Coastal Flood Levels 

Extent of Main Rivers 

Flood defence information - location, crest height, condition of defence 

Previous modelling studies in the Preesall area 

Pollution incidents 

Abstractions and discharges 


17.3.6 In spring 2008 a detailed inspection of the site and surrounding area was 

undertaken to confirm potential sources of flood risk and to investigate flood 

mechanisms. 

Consultation 


Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report are summarised in Appendix 5.5 of Volume 

1B. However, further consultation has been undertaken since the receipt of 

these consultation responses to agree a range of issues particular to the Water 

Environment assessment. Table 17-3 summarises the post-scoping 

consultation undertaken, including responses received to the Preliminary 

Environmental Information (PEI) Report. 

Table 17-3 

Water Environment Assessment - Post-Scoping Consultation 

Consultee 

Environment 

Agency 

Date of 

Consultation 

18 November 

2010 


The Environment Agency provided comments on what 

they would like to see addressed within the FRA, as the 

Project is located within a tidal flood zone and in close 

proximity to flood defences (also recommended that 

Annex E in PPS25 gives some background information 

as what needs to be considered within a FRA): 

Location and level of protection offered by flood 

defences in this area 

Extent of the caverns relative to the location of any 

flood defence embankments 

Likelihood of subsidence in caverns and how this 

might affect the embankments 

718

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


Whether or not the entire length of the defence would 

be compromised 

Whether or not the caverns could be located in such 

a manner so as not to affect the embankment 

If the possibility of short breaches as a result of 

subsidence results in extensive flooding inland 

Possible maintenance of the defences by the 

applicant to protect the gas storage in the future 

The Environment Agency recommended that it be noted 

that within the Shoreline Management Plan, the majority 

of the proposed development site sits within a no active 

intervention policy area, which would mean that any new 

or existing defences on site must be constructed and 

maintained by the land owner. 

The Environment Agency also provided responses to the 

following questions: 

1. What standard of flood protection is required for - 

construction phase/control infrastructure 

(buildings/units holding telemetry), access roads etc? 

2. Has there been any changes to the 1 in 200 year 

coastal flood levels (6.36mAOD at site and 

6.41mAOD adjacent to pumping station) provided in 

2008? Are coastal flood levels in the area of the sea 

outfall? 

3. How extensive are the existing defences in the area 

and is new flood defence data available? 

4. Is the Environment Agency able to confirm the 

development lifetime for the development/different 

elements (access road/buildings etc) 

5. Is the Environment Agency able to advise on the 

likely rates of increases in coastal flood levels due to 

climate change? 

6. Is there any flood information for the watercourses 

located within the study area? (i.e. does the 

Environment Agency have flood levels for the main 

rivers on the gas storage site and in the area of the 

NTS Interconnector pipeline) 

7. Are there any constraints in terms of development 

associated with the existing flood defences, i.e. 

infrastructure is located in close proximity to 

proposed infrastructure therefore can the defence 

assets be realigned or can infrastructure be put under 

the defences? 

Answers from the Environment Agency: 

1. The Environment Agency would want to see all 

services located above the Q100 flood level plus 

719

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


climate change. With respect to roads, they need to 

be raised to allow for access and egress during times 

of flood events but following the production and 

implementation of an evacuation plan they may not 

need to be raised to the Q100 level. 

2. There was a revised mapping study undertaken in 

2010, which may have altered the flood levels. 

3. (and 4. and 6) All defence information and model 

data will be supplied with the data request. 

5. Climate change should be calculated according to 

table B.1 in annex B in PPS25. 

7. Any infrastructure placed under defences would need 

to be buried deep enough so that it would not impact 

on any future development or if any defences needed 

to be rebuilt. Full cross sectional survey of the 

crossing point would need to be provided. 

The Environment Agency also suggested that the 

developer considers about building new defences up to 

the 1 in 100yr flood level to protect the 

caverns/development site from any tidal erosion. These 

defences should be maintained by the developer for the 

duration/lifetime of the project. 

7 June 2011 Obtained Flood Risk Assessment information (i.e. 

abstraction, discharge or pollution incidents data) from 

the Environment Agency that had not been received 

during the EIA scoping phase. 

16 June 2011 Obtained additional flood defence data and any studies 

relating to the Preesall area from the Environment 

Agency. 

16 June 2011 

(section 42 

response) 

16 June 2011 

(section 42 

response) 

The EA concurs with receptors identified and possible 

effects listed in Table 13-1 of the PEI and note the 

proposals for dealing with the events are stated in the 

PEI report on pages 15 and 16. 

Commented that potential environmental risks to 

controlled water during the construction phase of the 

project had been fully considered. The Environment 

Agency would like to discuss referenced (in PEI) Method 

Statements at the earliest opportunity. 

17 June 2011 Discussion of ES methodology and Environment Agency 

response to the PEI report (i.e. section 42 consultation 

response). The Environment Agency confirmed 

proposed methodology was suitable. 

4 July 2011 Issued the FRA to the Environment Agency for technical 

review. 

720

Consultee 

Marine 

Management 

Organisation 

(Section 42 

response) 

The Maritime and 

Coastguard Agency 

(Section 42 

response) 

Date of 

Consultation 


19 July 2011 Discussions of flood defence consent requirements with 

the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency 

confirmed the defence consent would need to be issued 

a minimum of 2 months before site work was due to 

commence. 

20 July 2011 Discussions of Environment Agency response to the 

FRA. The Environment Agency confirmed the FRA was 

satisfactory, and provided development conditions 

relating to surface water drainage and the flood defence 

consent. 

22 July 2011 Formal Environment Agency comments to the FRA 

received. 

15 June 2011 Concern regarding the discharge of the brine into the 

Irish Sea. Limited information within PEI and need 

further clarification on the overall amounts to be 

discharged and the discharge rates over a specified 

period, salinity and its effects on fisheries, supported with 

appropriate mitigation. 

15 June 2011 Section 1.2.32 of the Scoping Report refers to the outfall 

for the saturated brine from the washed out caverns 

situated 2.3 km offshore. Following issues need 

clarifying: 

How toxic is the saturated brine, and what are 

implications of its release at different times of the 

year (e.g. spawning for particular fish species?) 

Over what period will the brine be released and what 

are the cumulative effects of such a release? Flow 

rates and arrangements for screening of intakes / 

outfalls? 

What is quantity of brine to be released? 

What are implications of current patterns etc? 2.3km is 

not all that far offshore, so is there potential for the brine 

to be carried closer in shore in particular tides / weather 

conditions? What suspended solids are coming with the 

brine? 

13 June 2011 Provided list of conditions to adhere to. Those relevant 

to the Water Environment are listed below: 

The Consent Holder should ensure the best method of 

practice is used to minimise re-suspension of sediment 

during these works. 

The Consent Holder should ensure suitable bunding / 

storage facilities are employed to prevent the release of 

fuel oils, lubricating fluids associated with the plant, and 

equipment into the marine environment. 

721

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


Natural England 

(Section 42 

response) 

30 June 2011 Project has the potential to impact upon the marine 

environment through 2 main pathways: 

The introduction of terrestrially derived sediment into 

the Wyre Estuary during construction. 

The discharge of super saline brine into the east 

Irish Sea via a diffuser off the Fylde coast. 

30 June 2011 Natural England was consulted upon in relation to the 

previous application. It was NE’s opinion that neither the 

introduction of suspended sediment into the Wyre, nor 

the proposed discharge of brine, would significantly 

affect any designated site / known feature of 

conservation importance. It is NE’s understanding that 

methodology for construction and brine disposal is 

similar. No information has been provided which 

indicates the physical / biological characteristics of the 

disposal site have changed from the previous proposal, 

therefore NE does not feel that a review of the (granted) 

discharge consent is required and continue to hold the 

opinion that the project will not have any significant 

impact on any designated feature. 

North Western 

Inshore Fisheries 

and Conservation 

Authority (Section 

42 response) 

Preesall Town 

Council 

(Section 42 

response) 

Ribble Fisheries 

Consultative 

Association (Section 

42 response) 

4 May 2011 Concern related to the potential damage to sensitive 

marine and estuarine habitats from brine discharge. 

16 May 2011 Concern relating to the control of levels of salt discharge 

into sea. Queried what tests have been carried out. 

16 May 2011 Concern over Zone 3 flood risk area. 

16 May 2011 Concern of position of the Gas Compressor Compound 

in relation to the Environment Agency Shoreline 

Management Plan. 

27 July 2011 Have serious concerns about the proposed discharge 

and its impact upon the Irish Sea. 

Objects to the discharge of this quantity of saturated 

solution and at such temperatures. 

Furthermore, are concerned with the effects on the 

quality of bathing water off the Fylde Coast, and whether 

it would then meet the WDF standards. 

27 July 2011 Made reference to comments previously issued in 2009: 

Effects of amount of concentrated brine (resulting 

brine estimated at 45 million tonnes pumped into 

Irish Sea) into sea would be dramatic to the 

environment and sea life in the vicinity, and would 

not be a small area of the sea bed due to currents at 

722

Consultee 

Date of 

Consultation 


 

the sea floor level. 

Concern over the potentially damaging effect upon 

the environment of such a concentrated salt 

solution, especially at temperature, and how it would 

decimate the natural marine life in the area. The 

tidal flows in the Irish Sea would not encourage 

dissipation, as might be the case in the Atlantic, but 

rather mean an increased concentration in the whole 

of the Irish Sea and so a ‘marine desert’ could be 

created. 


Lancashire 

Highways 

Department 

16 June 2011 Requested information and studies relating to the 

Preesall area from UU. No data held. 

15 June 2011 Requested information and studies relating to the 

Preesall area from the Highways Department. No 

response received. 





Consideration of best practice / guidance outlined in Section 17.3.2 

 

 

 

 

 


Consideration of the baseline information obtained, the Project details and 




Prediction of potential effects based on baseline information and the 

Project details 







17.3.9 The following section outlines the criteria (taken from the DMRB, Volume 11, 

Part 3, HA 45/09) that have been used to determine the assessment of effects. 

Value 

17.3.10 Table 17-4 presents the criteria that have been used for estimating the value of 

the water environment attributes. 

723

Table 17-4 Water Environment Assessment - Criteria for Determining Value of 

Potential Receptors 

Value / 

importance Criteria 

Very High 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Attribute 

has a high 

quality and 

rarity on a 

regional or 

national 

scale. 

Typical example 

Surface 

Waters: 

Attribute Surface 

has a high Waters: 

quality and 

rarity on a 

local scale. 

Flood Risk: 


has a Waters: 

medium 

Flood Risk: 

quality and 

rarity on a 

local scale. 


has a low Waters: 

quality and 

Flood Risk: 

rarity on a 

local scale. 

EC Designated Salmonid / Cyprinid fishery. 

RQO River Ecosystem Class RE1. 

Site protected under EU or UK wildlife legislation 

(SAC, SPA, SSSI, Ramsar site). 

Flood Risk: Flood plain or defence protecting more than 100 

residential properties from flooding. 


Major Cyprinid Fishery. 

Species protected under EU or UK wildlife 

legislation. 

Flood plain or defence protecting between 1 and 

100 residential properties or industrial premises 

from flooding. 

RQO River Ecosystem Class RE3 or RE4. 

Flood plain or defence protecting 10 or fewer 

industrial properties from flooding. 


Flood plain with limited constraints and low 

probability of flooding of residential and industrial 

properties. 


17.3.11 The magnitude of change has been determined using the criteria presented in 

Table 17-5. 

Table 17-5 Water Environment Assessment - Criteria for Determining Magnitude 

of Change 

Magnitude of 

Change 

Major adverse 

Moderate 

adverse 

Minor adverse 

Criteria 

Results in loss of attribute and/or quality and integrity of the attribute 

Results in effect on integrity of attribute, or loss of part of attribute 

Results in some measurable change in attributes quality or 

vulnerability 

724

Magnitude of 

Change 

Negligible 

Minor 

beneficial 

Moderate 

beneficial 

Major 

beneficial 

Criteria 

Results in effect on attribute, but of insufficient magnitude to affect 

the use or integrity 

Results in some beneficial effect on attribute or a reduced risk of 

negative effect occurring 

Results in moderate improvement of attribute quality 

Results in major improvement of attribute quality 


17.3.12 The significance of effects has been determined by combining the value of the 

resource with the magnitude of change, as illustrated in Table 17-6. 

17.3.13 Potential effects would be either beneficial or adverse. 

Table 17-6 Water Environment Assessment - Criteria for Determining 


Value 


Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Very High Neutral Moderate/Large Large/Very Large Very Large 

High Neutral Slight/Moderate Moderate/Large Large/Very Large 

Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Large 

Low Neutral Neutral Slight Slight/Moderate 



17.3.15 Potential effects can be either beneficial or adverse (refer to Table 17-7 for 

definitions). 

Table 17-7 Water Environment Assessment - Qualifying Conditions for Overall 

Assessment Scores 

Criteria 

Large 

Beneficial 

Moderate 

Beneficial 

Definition 

Proposals could have a large positive impact if it is predicted that they 

will result in a ‘very’ or ‘highly’ significant improvement to a water 

attribute(s). 

Where the proposal provides an opportunity to enhance the water 

environment, because it results in a moderate improvement for an 

attribute. 

725

Criteria 

Slight 

Beneficial 

Neutral 

Slight 

Adverse 

Moderate 

Adverse 

Large 

Adverse 

Very Large 

Adverse 

Definition 

All other situations where the proposal provides an opportunity to 

enhance the water environment or provide an improved level of 

protection to an attribute. 

Where the net impact of the proposals is neutral, because it results in no 

appreciable effect, either positive or negative, on the identified attributes. 

Where the proposal may result in a degradation of the water 

environment because it results in a predicted slight impact on one or 

more attributes. 

Where the proposal may result in the degradation of the water 

environment, because it results in predicted moderate adverse impacts 

on at least one attribute. 

Where the proposal would result in a degradation of the water 

environment, because it results in predicted highly significant adverse 

impacts on a water attribute and/or significant adverse impacts on 

several water attributes. 

Where the proposal would result in degradation of the water 

environment, because it results in predicted very significant adverse 

impacts on at least one water attribute and/or on several water 

attributes. 

Source: DMRB, Volume 11, Part 3, HA 45/09 



studies, site visits (surveys) and consultation. For clarity this assessment has 

been divided into two parts, water resources and flood risk. 

Water Resources 

Irish Sea 

17.4.2 The Irish Sea separates the islands of Ireland and Great Britain. It is connected 

to the Atlantic Ocean in the south by St George's Channel, and in the north by 

the North Channel. Although relatively small (it has only about 6% of the 

volume of the North Sea), the Irish Sea receives significant inputs of 

contaminants from direct discharges along its coasts, and from diffuse 

agricultural and urban sources. The quality of bathing waters has improved in 

recent years due to substantial investment in sewage treatment and 

infrastructure by United Utilities. In 2008, 32 out of the 36 bathing waters 

sampled met the European mandatory standards (Environment Agency, 2011). 

17.4.3 The Irish Sea Observatory conducts research and takes measurements such as 

temperature, salinity, turbidity and oxygen concentration. Results from 

deployments of equipment in the Irish Sea are documented in online reports. 

Monitoring points are located in the Liverpool Bay area of the Irish Sea, 

726

Table 17-8 

approximately 30 km from the study area. The latest published results 

documented in Table 17-8 were recorded in March 2011. 

Water Environment Assessment - Irish Sea Archived Survey Data 

Cruise Station Oxygen 

Concentration 

[umol/l] 

Temperature 

[ o C] 

Salinity 

[PSU] 

PD07_11 58611 241.5 6.49 31.97 

241.5 6.49 31.97 

239.7 6.84 33.44 

17.4.4 Table 17-8 presents salinity as Practical Salinity Units (PSU). The modern 

oceanographic definition of salinity is the Practical Salinity Scale of 1978 (PSS- 

78). The numeric unit from PSS-78 is PSU, which defines salinity in terms of a 

conductivity ratio, so it is dimensionless. Salinity was formerly expressed in 

terms of parts per thousand (ppt), which is a physical quantity ppt (kg salt per kg 

water in parts per thousand). However, both units are comparable. 

17.4.5 The waters around Fleetwood are known to vary in temperature, as a normal 

function of season effects, such as solar insulation and rainfall. Temperature is 

a function of solar radiation and typically varies between 4° and 18° C in UK 

waters. Salinity in UK waters typically varies between 34 and 36ppt. However, 

salinity in this area is strongly influenced by freshwater inputs and tends to be 

lower than that of normal coastal waters (Marine Dispersion Modelling Report, 

Hyder Consulting, 2003). 

17.4.6 Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Bathing Water Directive, each 

bathing water site receives an annual water quality classification for every 

season. This classification is calculated from 20 samples taken during the 

season. The number of certain types of bacteria which may indicate the 

presence of pollution, mainly from sewage or livestock waste are counted. 

Total coliforms (TC), faecal coliforms (FC) and faecal streptococci (FS) are 

bacteria that are not directly harmful but indicate the presence of pollution. An 

increase in the concentrations of bacteria indicates a decrease in water quality. 

17.4.7 There are several water quality monitoring points in the Irish Sea, including at 

Fleetwood and Cleveleys which are located approximately 2.2 km and 5.0 km 

from the application site respectively. The bathing water monitoring points at 

Fleetwood and Cleveleys are all currently classified at Higher, which means the 

bathing water meets the criteria for the stricter UK guideline standards of the 

Directive. The limits used are TC:

17.4.9 Cleveleys bathing water usually achieves a satisfactory standard of water 

quality. There are outfalls discharging to the sea close to this bathing water 

which can cause a temporary decline in water quality particularly after rainfall. 

In 1997 the Cleveleys monitoring point was classified as a Fail. Since 1997 the 

monitoring point has been classified as Minimum or Higher. 

17.4.10 A pollution incident is recorded on the Environment Agency online database off 

the coast at Cleveleys dated 2003. The impact of the incident was classified as 

‘significant’ to water and was due to pollution by sewage materials. A 

‘significant’ impact is classed as less severe than a major impact; there may still 

be significant damage to the ecosystem and a reduction in amenity value. It 

may also have an impact on man. No other pollution incidents have been 

recorded. 

Morecambe Bay 

17.4.11 Morecambe Bay forms part of the Irish Sea and is designated a Special Area of 

Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, the latter 

designations recognising its international importance as a habitat for wading 

and breeding birds. It also harbours protected fish species, shellfish species 

and commercial shellfisheries. 

Wyre Estuary 

17.4.12 The tidal limit of the Wyre Estuary is from the mouth of the Estuary to Little 

Eccleston. The Wyre Estuary is designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest 

(SSSI), which underpins the Morecambe Bay SPA / Ramsar. 

17.4.13 The Environment Agency WFD online dataset contains information relating to 

the hydromorphological, ecological and chemical status of rivers in the UK. 

According to the Environment Agency, the hydromorphological status of the 

Wyre Estuary is classified as Heavily Modified. A surface waterbody that does 

not achieve good ecological status because of substantial changes to its 

physical character resulting from physical alterations caused by human use, is 

classified as ‘Heavily Modified’. 

17.4.14 ‘Ecological Potential’ is the status of a heavily modified or artificial waterbody 

measured against the maximum ecological quality it could achieve given the 

constraints imposed upon it by those heavily modified or artificial characteristics 

necessary for its use. The Current Ecological Quality (CEQ) is classified as 

Moderate Potential. The 2015 predicted ecological quality is classified as 

Moderate Potential. 

17.4.15 The Current Chemical Quality (CCQ) is classified as Good, which means that 

concentrations of chemicals in the waterbody do not exceed the environmental 

standards specified in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

2008/105/EC. The 2015 predicted chemical quality is classified as Good. 

17.4.16 Under the WFD, each waterbody is assessed against a number of pressure 

elements; including point source pollution risk, diffuse pollution risk, combined 

source sanitary risk, combined source nutrients risk, water abstraction and flow 

regulation risk, physical or morphological alteration risk, and alien species risk. 

The overall risk is classified as ‘Probably At Risk’. The Wyre Estuary is located 

728

in a Protected Area. Protected Areas are protected for their use (such as 

drinking water or fisheries) or because they have important habitats and species 

that directly depend on water. 

17.4.17 Several water environment pollution incidents have been recorded on the 

Environment Agency online database in the Wyre Estuary area. The source of 

the pollutants is recorded as specific waste materials, oils and fuels and sewage 

treatment works. The majority of the incidents have occurred in the industrial 

areas around the docks on the western side of the estuary. 

17.4.18 An abstraction licence provides the right to take a certain quantity of water from 

a source of supply (inland water such as rivers or streams or an underground 

source). A list of abstractions licenses from the Wyre Estuary is provided in 

Table 17-9 below. 

Table 17-9 Water Environment Assessment - Abstractions from the Wyre 

Estuary 

Purpose 

Description 

Industrial, 

Commercial And 


Industrial, 

Commercial And 


Agriculture 


General Cooling 

(Existing Licences 

Only) (Low Loss) 


To Secondary 


Loss) 

Make-Up Or Top Up 

Water 

Abstraction 

Start 

Abstraction 

End 

Point Name 

01-Jan 31-Dec Estuary of River 

Wyre at Burn 

Naze, Fleetwood 

01-Jan 31-Dec Estuary of River 

Wyre at Burn 

Naze, Fleetwood 

01-Jan 31-Dec River Wyre at 


Nature Park 

17.4.19 The Cleveleys coast is located in the Formby Point to River Wyre plan 

(Shoreline Management Plan 11b) and the Preesall coast is located in the River 

Wyre to Walney Island plan (Shoreline Management Plan 11c). 

17.4.20 Each Shoreline Management Plan divides the shoreline into a series of 

‘Management Units' and sets out the options for future coastal defence on a 

Unit by Unit basis. For some Units the recommended option may be 'Do 

Nothing', with no immediate action other than observe, monitor and review. In 

most Units the recommended option is 'Hold the Line', which means to 

maintain, improve or rebuild the existing defences. The Shoreline Management 

Plan looks forward over the next fifty years and takes account of the possible 

effects of climate change and sea level rise. The option for the Preesall 

coastline is 'Hold the Line', i.e. the EA will maintain existing standards of 

defences. 

729


17.4.21 The fish dock, constructed in 1880, was used to supply cooling water to an 

electricity generating station in the 1950’s and some of this infrastructure is still 

in place. There is no known water quality data for the Fleetwood Fish Docks. 

17.4.22 Pollution incidents are recorded on the Environment Agency online database at 

the Fleetwood Fish Docks. A pollution incident was recorded on the online 

database in 2004, due to pollution by oils and fuels and specific waste 

materials. The impact of the incident was classified as ‘significant’ to water. A 

further ‘significant’ pollution impact was recorded in 2010 due to oils and fuels. 

A ‘significant’ impact is classed as less severe than a major impact; there may 

still be significant damage to the ecosystem and a reduction in amenity value. It 

may also have an impact on man. 

Surface Watercourses 

17.4.23 Of the watercourses in the study area that are monitored by the Environment 

Agency under the WFD, Pilling Water and its tributary Ridgy Pool are each 

assessed as being of ‘Moderate’ CEQ. Short lengths of Grange Pool and 

Burrow’s Pool are assessed as having ‘Good’ CEQ. None of these 

watercourses are assessed for CCQ. 

17.4.24 Water in rivers is set to improve under measures set out in River Basin 

Management Plans (RBMPs) drawn up for river basin districts across England 

and Wales under the WFD. River Basin Management Plans are plans for 

protecting and improving the water environment and have been developed in 

consultation with organisations and individuals. The RBMP that comprises the 

area of the Project is the ‘Water for Life and Livelihoods, River Basin 

Management Plan North West River Basin District’ (Environment Agency / 

Defra, 2009). Refer to Figure 17.2 of Volume 2B for the locations of 

waterbodies included within the North West RBMP. The waterbodies identified 

within it, which fall within the study area, have been considered as part of this 

Water Environment Assessment. 

Unnamed Streams and Drainage Ditches 

17.4.25 There are numerous unnamed surface streams and drainage channels, which 

are located within the study area (refer to Figure 17.1 of Volume 2B). There is 

no known water quality data for these unnamed water features. 

Ponds and Flashes 

17.4.26 Numerous roughly circular ponds are present above the Mean High Water Mark 

on the eastern bank of the Wyre, in the Wyre Estuary and Preesall to Nateby 

area. These ponds are most likely the result of settlement associated with 

previous brine extraction. The ponds continue to act as drainage ponds and are 

all linked through a series of pipes and channels. 

17.4.27 There are also a number of deep freshwater pools or flashes east of Cote Walls 

Farm, the largest of which is known as Alkali Flash, which was formed by the 

subsidence of brine workings. These are significant stillwater fisheries. None of 

the ponds are tidally fed. 

730

17.4.28 There are a number of ponds or flashes within the study area. There is no 

known water quality data for the ponds and flashes within the study area or that 

are hydraulically connected to the application site. 

Flood Risk 

17.4.29 This section summarises the flood risk within the study area. For more 

information regarding flood risk (including definitions of flood zones), refer to the 

Flood Risk Assessment contained within Appendix 17.1 of Volume 1B. 

Coastal 

17.4.30 As confirmed by the Environment Agency, the primary source of flood risk in the 

study area is coastal, arising from the River Wyre Estuary and the coast off 

Fleetwood and the North Fylde Coastal Plain. The Environment Agency 

predicted floodwater levels for the coast at Fleetwood and within and around the 

Wyre Estuary are provided in Table 17-10. 

Table 17-10 Water Environment Assessment - Predicted Coastal Flood Water 

Levels 

Location 1 in 200 year (2008) 

Flood Level (mAOD) 

Coast between Fleetwood and Cleveleys 6.08 

Wyre Estuary to the Main site of the infrastructure (at 

Higher Lickow Farm) for the Project 

6.40 

Main site of the infrastructure for the Project 6.22 

Wyre Estuary adjacent to Stanah Substation 6.41 

17.4.31 Data provided by the Environment Agency indicates the earth bund that 

provides protection to land on the eastern side of the Estuary has a crest height 

of between 6.74mAOD to 7.30mAOD. However, topographical survey reviewed 

during this study indicates that the minimum level of the crest of the earth bund 

may be as low as 6.3mAOD. The predicted flood levels and the Environment 

Agency reported defence levels indicate that the defences on the eastern side 

of the Wyre Estuary will protect the land to a 1 in 200 year standard. 

17.4.32 Flood defences, maintained by Wyre BC, are located along the coast between 

Fleetwood and Cleveleys. Environment Agency data indicates that at the 

proposed location where the brine discharge pipeline would cross the seawall, 

the defences have a crest level of between 7.8mAOD - 8.3mAOD and have 

been assessed to be in good condition. 

Fluvial 

17.4.33 Due to the extensive system of main rivers, ordinary watercourses and land 

drainage ditches, some areas within the application boundary are likely to be at 

risk of fluvial flooding. However, due to the flat and relatively low lying nature of 

the topography in the study area coastal sources of flooding are considered to 

represent the dominant risk within the study area. 

731

Groundwater 

17.4.34 Groundwater flooding is caused by the emergence of water originating from 

sub-surface permeable strata. A groundwater flood event results from a rise in 

groundwater level sufficient for the water table to intersect the ground surface 

and inundate low lying land. 

17.4.35 The Soil Map of England and Wales (Soil Survey of England and Wales 

(SSEW), 1983) has been reviewed in order to confirm the underlying ground 

conditions within the application boundary. The underlying ground consists of 

Marine Alluvium, Reddish Till and Raised Bog Peat. 

17.4.36 There is a risk of groundwater flooding within the application boundary, however 

flooding from this source would likely be restricted to boggy/saturated ground 

conditions or shallow depths of standing water. The Environment Agency has 

confirmed that groundwater flooding is only likely to occur where there is an 

aquifer or permeable substrate at the surface. Further information on the 

ground conditions and infiltration can be found in Chapter 10: Geology, 

Hydrogeology and Stability. 

The Project has been designed to ensure that none of the above-ground 

structures are at risk from groundwater flooding. Therefore, groundwater 

flooding is not considered further within this chapter. 

Surface Water 

17.4.37 Surface water runoff (also known as pluvial flooding) is the result of high 

intensity rainfall ponding or flowing over the ground surface before it enters the 

underground drainage network or watercourse. Where the drainage network or 

watercourse is full to capacity or there are obstructions to discharge, surface 

water flooding occurs. Pluvial flooding has been assessed by examining levels 

within the site. 

17.4.38 The site at Preesall is currently under agricultural use (pasture and arable 

crops), with some isolated farms buildings, and a golf course at the northern 

edge. Surface water is predominantly drained via a system of land drainage 

ditches and watercourses. As the site decreases in elevation towards the Wyre 

Estuary, it is considered that during an extreme rainfall event surface water 

would flow away from the site, reducing the likelihood of ponding within the site. 



through the desk studies, site visits (surveys) and consultation. Values have 

been assigned using the criteria presented in Table 17-4. The location / extent 

of receptors are presented on Figure 17.1 of Volume 2B and the figures within 

the FRA within Appendix 17.1 of Volume 1B. 

732

Table 17-11 

Water Environment Assessment – Evaluation of Receptors 

Receptor 

Irish Sea 

Morecambe Bay 

Wyre Estuary (mouth to the tidal limit at 

Cartford Bridge) 


Main rivers, unnamed streams and drainage 

ditches 

Ponds and flashes 

Flood Risk- people and property in flood zones 

Value 

High 

Very High 

Very High 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 



Project. 

17.5.2 With reference to Geological Summary Report (Mott MacDonald, 2010) on the 

east side of the estuary three existing brine wells show evidence of on-going 

migration through roof collapse namely BW44, BW50 and BW64. Potentially 

their collapse could eventually create new fenced off areas of circular water 

bodies. 

17.5.3 In order to assess potential flood risk, consideration been afforded to future sea 

levels associated with climate change. With reference to Environment Agency 

guidance, climate change allowances have been calculated according to Table 

B.1 in Annex B in PPS25. It has been assumed that the tidal flood levels 

provided by the Environment Agency are relevant to the year 2008. The 

predicted rises in sea levels as a result of climate change are presented in 

Table 17-12. 

Table 17-12 

Water Environment Assessment - Predicted Rise in Sea Level 

Period of Time 3 year (2016) 8 year (2021) 40 year (2056) 

Adjustment to baseline date 

(2008-2025 at 2.5 mm/yr) 

20mm 32.5mm 42.5mm 

2025-2055 (7.0mm/yr) 0 0 210mm 

2055-2085 (10.0mm/yr) 0 0 10.0mm 

Cumulative increment 20mm 32.5mm 262.5mm 

17.5.4 New climate change predictions have recently been published (September 

2011) within the report ‘Adapting to Climate Change: Advice for Flood and 

Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities’ (EA, 2011). An assessment has 

been undertaken, using the new climate change predictions, which confirms the 

733

cumulative increment outline in Table 17-15 would increase by a further 12mm 

for 2016, 19.5mm for 2021 and 46.5mm for 2056. As these increases are 

relatively small they would not have a significant impact on flood risk predictions 

within the study area and therefore the overall findings of this study. 

17.5.5 The Environment Agency predicted floodwater levels for the coast at Fleetwood 

and within the Wyre Estuary are provided in Table 17-13. Flood levels have 

been estimated for 2016, 2021 and 2056 by uplifting the predicted 2008 flood 

level to take into account sea level rise due to climate change. 

Table 17-13 

Water Environment Assessment - Predicted Sea Level 

Location 

200 YR 

(2008) 

(mAOD) 

200 YR 

(2016) 

(mAOD) 

200 YR 

(2021) 

(mAOD) 

200 YR 

(2056) 

(mAOD) 

200 YR 

(2115) 

(mAOD) 

Coast between Fleetwood 

and Cleveleys 

6.08 6.10 6.11 6.34 6.98 

Wyre Estuary to the Main 

site of the infrastructure (at 

6.40 6.42 6.43 6.66 7.31 

Higher Lickow Farm) for 

the Project 

Main site of the Project 6.22 6.24 6.25 6.48 7.09 

Wyre Estuary adjacent to 

Stanah substation 

6.41 6.43 6.44 6.67 7.31 

17.5.6 Comparing predicted flood levels and defence levels indicates that the coastal 

defences at Fleetwood will provide protection of the land adjacent to the seawall 

at West Way to 2115. In relation to the Preesall area, the predicted flood levels 

and previously reported Environment Agency defence levels indicate that the 

defences on the eastern side of the Wyre Estuary will protect the land to a 1 in 

200 year standard over the full lifetime of the Project (2056). Throughout the 

lifetime of the Project it is not considered that the coastal climate change would 

have a significant impact at the application site. 







734

Table 17-14 

Water Environment Assessment - Receptors Potentially Affected 

Receptor 

Type 

Water 

Resources 


Irish Sea 

Morecambe Bay 

Wyre Estuary 


Discharging of brine into the Irish Sea 

during the construction phase, the 


phase and the operational phase. 

Pollution incidents / contamination during 

the construction phase, particularly the 

construction of the sea wall. 


the construction phase. 

Potential for disturbance of Wyre Estuary 

bed through directional drilling. 


the construction and construction and 

operation combined phases. 

Flood risk 

Fleetwood Fish Dock Abstraction of seawater from Fleetwood 

Fish Dock during the construction and 


combined, and operation phases. 

Pollution incidents during the 


Surface 

watercourses 

Unnamed streams 

and drainage ditches 

Ponds and flashes 

Property, people 

and infrastructure in 

flood risk zones 

Temporary disturbance during the 






Effect on the hydrological mechanisms 

that sustain the ponds/flashes during the 

construction phase and construction and 






Works to seawall at Rossall during the 

construction phase resulting in reduction 

of existing standard of protection to 

defended areas of land. 

Potential reduction in the crest height of 

the existing flood defences, due to 

subsidence caused by the construction of 

the proposed caverns, during 

735

Receptor 

Type 




combined, and operation phases. 

Loss of fluvial and coastal floodplain 

storage volume due to land 

regrading/raising during construction 

(temporary), construction and operation 

combined and operation (longer-term) 

phases. 

Detriment to the performance of existing 

drainage systems during the construction 

phase due to siltation / in channel or 

bankside works associated with 

construction of road infrastructure and 

NTS pipeline installation. 

Increase in impermeable surfaces during 

the construction, construction and 

operation combined and operation 

phases, generating increased rates and 

volume of surface water runoff. 


17.7.1 The following section assesses the potential effects of the Project on the 

individual receptors indentified in Section 17.4, in the absence of mitigation or 

enhancement measures. Measures that have been incorporated into the 

design of the Project to minimise any potentially significant effects are outlined 

in Chapter 17.8 and have been considered in this section. For clarity, this 

assessment has been split into two parts, water resources and flood risk. 

Construction 


Irish Sea 

17.7.2 During the construction phase, one cavern would be created by a washing 

process. The resultant brine would be discharged to the Irish Sea via an outfall 

located approximately 2.3 km offshore. Salinity in UK waters typically varies 

between 34 and 36ppt. The washing process would raise the salinity of the 

washing water to a theoretical maximum of 260 ppt, although the normal 

effluent salinity is likely to be in the range of 150 to 250 ppt. The release of this 

highly saline water has the potential to adversely impact upon water quality, 

which could subsequently impact upon ecology (refer to Chapter 9: Ecology and 

Nature Conservation). However, the outfall location has been chosen to 

maximise potential dispersion while minimising effects. Furthermore, the nearfield 

dispersion modelling indicated that a single diffuser with a double port 

configuration would minimise impacts on seawater quality, and therefore this 

736

configuration has been adopted. In addition, the Environment Agency discharge 

consent states the volume to be discharged shall not exceed 80,000 cubic 

metres (80 megalitres) a day and the rate of discharge shall not exceed 926 

litres per second. Plume modelling has shown that acceptable dilution rates 

could be achieved within 50 m of the point of discharge, except in worst-case 

conditions where it would be achieved within 60 m. The immediate area would, 

however, be denuded of benthic life (refer to Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature 

Conservation). 

17.7.3 To minimise potential impacts during solution mining, the following measures 

would be undertaken. Before saline water is discharged to the Irish Sea, the 

water from the caverns would pass through a De-brine Facility, which would 

comprise a pond, hydro-cyclones and brine discharge pumps. The De-brine 

Facility includes a reservoir tank which is required during the process of dewatering 

of the caverns. When gas is first introduced into the completed 

caverns, the residual brine would be driven out and piped to the reservoir to 

ensure any possibility of dissolved gas is allowed to vent. Any suspended 

solids within the retained saturated brine would be removed by passing the 

brine through hydrocyclones. The ‘filtered’ saturated brine would then be 

pumped back across the Wyre Estuary and the Fleetwood Peninsula to the 

outfall point in the Irish Sea. 

17.7.4 The Irish Sea has been classified as having high value. Without mitigation 

measures, it is considered that this could result in moderate adverse changes 

to the characteristics of the waterbody within 60 m of the point of discharge and 

therefore the impact significance has been assessed as moderate/large. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered significant. 

17.7.5 A temporary construction compound is proposed landside of the sea wall. 

Potential impacts on water quality during the construction phase would arise 

from the particular hazards of construction on an exposed site. These would 

include storage and management of fuels and oils, cementitious products and 

the potential release of sediment. The Irish Sea has been classified as having 

high value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this could result in 

minor adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and therefore 

the impact significance has been assessed as slight/moderate. With regard to 


Morecambe Bay 

17.7.6 During the construction phase there is the potential for materials stored in the 

temporary construction compounds adjacent to the sea wall and at Fleetwood 

Fish Dock to be accidentally released into the water environment, e.g. fuels and 

oils, cementitious products and sediment. Such material could be transported 

to Morecambe Bay, which could result in pollution incidents or deterioration in 

water quality. Morecambe Bay has been classified as having very high value. 

Without mitigation measures, it is considered that there would be minor 

adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and therefore the 

impact significance has been assessed as moderate/large. With regard to the 

EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered significant. 

737

Wyre Estuary 

17.7.7 Potential impacts on water quality during the construction phase could arise 

from the storage and management of fuels and oils, cementitious products and 

the potential release of sediment. The Wyre Estuary has been classified as 

having very high value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this 

could result in minor adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbody 

and therefore the impact significance has been assessed as moderate/large. 

With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered significant. 

17.7.8 The construction of the water washing infrastructure involves crossing beneath 

the Wyre Estuary with four directionally drilled boreholes: one for the seawater 

passing from the seawater pump station; one for the returning brine; one for 

power, communications, controls and ancillary uses leaving one in reserve. 

These would be formed by directionally drilling boreholes from the west bank, at 

sufficient depth to minimise the environmental impact. The pipelines would be a 

minimum of 8 m below the bed to ensure that the existing silt, sediments and 

flood defences are not disturbed. Due the location of the pipelines at least 8 m 

under the bed, it is considered that the construction would have a negligible 

effect on the Wyre Estuary. The Wyre Estuary has been classified as having 

very high value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this could 

result in negligible changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and 

therefore the impact significance has been assessed as neutral. With regard to 



17.7.9 The main impact on the Fish Docks would be during the solution mining. In 

order to dissolve the salt and create the caverns, a supply of water is required, 

together with pumps and pipelines to take it to the caverns and from there to the 

brine disposal point. Fleetwood Fish Dock has been selected as a suitable 

source of seawater. The amount of water required is up to 80 megalitres a day. 

Abstraction of seawater from Fleetwood Fish Dock could result in detrimental 

effects to the water environment as water quantity within the docks could 

decrease. In the absence of mitigation measures, abstraction of seawater from 

Fleetwood Fish Dock has the potential to result in changes to the hydrological 

regime of the Dock itself and the tidal channel that supplies it. 

17.7.10 To avoid over abstracting water from the Fish Dock, it is designed to abstract 

seawater from the Fish Dock making use of an existing culvert originally built to 

supply cooling water to the former Fleetwood Power Station. The seawater 

would enter a sump underneath the Pump Station building prior to being filtered 

and pumped in an underground pipeline under the Wyre Estuary to the Booster 

Pump Station at the Preesall site. Abstraction of water from the Fish Dock 

would be controlled to ensure a viable water level is always maintained in the 

dock. Fleetwood Fish Dock has been classified as having medium value. 

Without mitigation measures, it is therefore considered that this could result in 

moderate adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and 

therefore the impact significance has been assessed as moderate. With regard 

to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered significant. 

738

17.7.11 Potential impacts, without mitigation, on water quality during the construction 

phase would arise from the particular hazards of construction. These would 

include storage and management of fuels and oils, cementitious products and 

the potential release of sediment. Additional hazards arising from construction 

activities could potentially include accidental release of floatable material. 

Fleetwood Fish Dock has been classified as having medium value. Without 

mitigation measures, it is considered that this could result in minor adverse 

changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and therefore the impact 

significance has been assessed as slight. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 


Surface Water Features 

Main Rivers, Unnamed Streams and Drainage Ditches 

17.7.12 Potential impacts, without mitigation, on water quality during the construction 

phase could arise from the particular hazards of construction on an exposed 

site. These would include storage and management of fuels and oils, 

cementitious products and the potential release of sediment. Additional 

hazards arising from construction activities could potentially include accidental 

release of floatable material. Works in the study area are limited to relatively 

narrow corridors of land, although in the absence of suitable mitigation 

measures, there is potential for pollution incidents and detrimental effects on the 

water quality of surface waterbodies to occur during the construction phase. 

These surface water features have been classified as having medium value. 

Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this could result in minor 

adverse changes to the characteristics of the water bodies and therefore the 

impact significance has been assessed as slight. With regard to the EIA 



17.7.13 During the construction phase potential impacts, without mitigation, on water 

quality would arise from the particular hazards of construction on an exposed 

site. Excavations for trenches and pipework may cause silt run-off and potential 

ponding. The use of chemicals, fuels and oils on site throughout the 

construction and construction and operation combined phases presents a risk to 

the water environment from leaks, spills and accidents. These could occur as a 

result of major pollution incidents or more chronic releases of pollutants. During 

the construction phase potential impacts, without mitigation, on the hydrological 

mechanisms that sustain the ponds/flashes could arise. For example minor 

ground profile and watercourse changes could alter surface water and fluvial 

flows that sustain the ponds. Ponds and flashes have been classified as having 

medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this could 

result in moderate adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbodies 

and therefore the impact significance has been assessed as moderate. With 

regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered significant. 

739

Flood Risk 

Coastal 

17.7.14 As confirmed by the Environment Agency, the primary source of flood risk in the 

study area is coastal. Flood defences, maintained by Wyre Borough Council, 

are located along the coast between Fleetwood and Cleveleys. During the 

construction of the water washing infrastructure, sections of the seawall at 

Rossall would be removed. The work would take place during the summer in 

the first year of construction and would be completed within 9 months. 

17.7.15 The areas proposed for the creation of the caverns are located within the 

vicinity of the flood defences located on the eastern side of the estuary at 

Preesall. A comprehensive re-assessment of the geological conditions has 

been undertaken to support the Project (Mott MacDonald, 2011). As a result of 

the construction of the proposed caverns a maximum future aerial subsidence 

rate in the order of 2mm/yr has been estimated. As the rate at which the crest 

of the flood defences may reduce in height, due to subsidence caused by the 

new caverns, is relatively low the crest can be closely monitored over the 

lifetime of the Project and beyond. 

17.7.16 Some infrastructure (such as the proposed wellheads) are located within the 

high risk flood zone. However, all of these facilities are able to accommodate 

floodwater and are also located behind existing defences. Localised ground 

raising (visual bunds) located within the high risk flood zone has the potential to 

displace coastal floodwater. 

17.7.17 For sections of the road located within the high risk flood zone, it is proposed to 

set the road surface so that it ties in with existing ground levels. As a result the 

proposed roads would not have an adverse impact on existing coastal flood 

conditions. 

17.7.18 Following completion of construction at the seawall, the sections of the seawall 

defences that were removed will be rebuilt. 

17.7.19 During the construction phase potential impacts, without mitigation, could result 

in a reduction of existing standard of protection to defended areas of land. The 

areas considered to be at risk of flooding have been classified as having 


result in moderate adverse changes to potential flood risk and therefore the 



Fluvial 

17.7.20 There exists an extensive system of main rivers, ordinary watercourses and 

land drainage ditches within the study area. During the construction phase the 

Project is expected to slightly increase the area of impermeable surface 

coverage within the study area, with the associated potential for increases in 

existing rainfall runoff rates and volumes. Without mitigation the potential for 

increased runoff could increase fluvial flood risk. 

740



floodwater. Localised ground raising (visual bunds) located within the high risk 

flood zone has the potential to displace fluvial floodwater. 



proposed roads would not have an adverse impact on existing fluvial flood 

conditions. 

17.7.23 The areas considered to be at risk of flooding have been classified as having 


result in minor adverse changes to potential flood risk and therefore the impact 

significance has been assessed as slight/moderate. With regard to the EIA 


Surface Water 

17.7.24 In order to gain access for the Project, improvements would be required to the 

road infrastructure in the area. It is proposed to form a new road from the A588 

to the site, constructed to a standard to allow for the movement of large items of 

equipment such as transformers, interconnector pipes and compressors. A 

possible impact is detriment to the performance of existing drainage systems 

during the construction phase due to siltation, in channel or bankside works. 

Drainage systems may be disturbed during construction as a consequence of 

the National Transmission System (NTS) Interconnector Pipeline installation. 

The areas considered to be at risk of flooding have been classified as having 





17.7.25 Impacts relating to surface water flood risk are typically associated with 

increases in coverage by impermeable surfaces or built development. Land use 

within the Preesall area is currently under agricultural use (pasture and arable 

crops), with some isolated farms buildings, and a golf course at the northern 

edge. The Project has the potential to slightly increase the impermeable area 

during the construction phase, generating increased rates and volume of 

surface water runoff and therefore potentially increasing surface water flood 

risk. The areas considered to be at risk of flooding have been classified as 

having medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this 

could result in minor adverse changes to potential flood risk and therefore the 

impact significance has been assessed as slight/moderate. With regard to the 




Irish Sea 

17.7.26 During the construction and operation combined phase, the remaining 18 

caverns would be created by a washing process, resulting in a total of 19 

741

operational caverns. The resultant brine would be discharged to the Irish Sea 

via an outfall located approximately 2.3 km offshore. The potential effects of this 

process are described in paragraphs 17.57.2 to 17.7.4. The Irish Sea has been 

classified as having high value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered 

that this could result in moderate adverse changes to the characteristics of the 

waterbody within 60 m of the outfall and therefore the impact significance has 

been assessed as moderate/large. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this 

effect would be considered significant. 

Morecambe Bay 

17.7.27 It is considered that there would be no potential effects upon Morecambe Bay 

during the construction and operation combined phase. 

Wyre Estuary 

17.7.28 Potential impacts on water quality during the construction and operation 

combined phase would arise from the storage and management of fuels and 

oils, cementitious products and the potential release of sediment. The Wyre 

Estuary has been classified as having very high value. Without mitigation 

measures, it is considered that this could result in minor adverse changes to 

the characteristics of the waterbody and therefore the impact significance has 

been assessed as moderate/large. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this 

effect would be considered significant. 


17.7.29 During the construction and operation combined phase, the Fish Docks would 

experience potential impacts as a result of the abstraction associated with the 

solution mining. These potential effects would be similar to those associated 

with the construction phase, as discussed in paragraphs 17.7.9 and 17.7.10. 

Fleetwood Fish Dock has been classified as having medium value. Without 

mitigation measures, it is considered that this could result in moderate adverse 


significance has been assessed as moderate. With regard to the EIA 

Regulations, this effect would be considered significant. 



17.7.30 During the construction and operation combined phase, potential impacts, 

without mitigation, on water quality could arise from the particular hazards of 

construction on an exposed site (as discussed within paragraph 17.7.12). 

These surface water features have been classified as having medium value. 

Without mitigation measures, it is considered that this could result in minor 

adverse changes to the characteristics of the water bodies and therefore the 

impact significance has been assessed as slight. With regard to the EIA 


742


17.7.31 During the construction and operation combined phase, potential impacts upon 

ponds and flashes would arise from the particular hazards of construction on an 

exposed site (as discussed in paragraph 17.7.13). Ponds and flashes have 

been classified as having medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is 

considered that this could result in minor adverse changes to the 

characteristics of the water bodies and therefore the impact significance has 

been assessed as slight. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would 


Flood Risk 

Coastal 

17.7.32 The existing standard of flood protection provided by the sea defences along 

the coast between Fleetwood and Cleveleys would be maintained during the 

construction and operation combined phase. Therefore it is considered that the 

Project would not increase the coastal flood risk within this vicinity during this 

phase. 

17.7.33 The areas proposed for the creation of the caverns are located within the 

vicinity of the flood defences located on the eastern side of the estuary at 

Preesall. A comprehensive re-assessment of the geological conditions has 

been undertaken to support the Project (Mott MacDonald, 2011). As a result of 

the construction of the proposed caverns a maximum future aerial subsidence 

rate in the order of 2mm/yr has been estimated. As the rate at which the crest 

of the flood defences may reduce in height, due to subsidence caused by the 

new caverns, is relatively low the crest can be closely monitored over the 

lifetime of the Project and beyond. 











Fluvial 

17.7.36 During the construction and operation combined phase the Project is expected 

to slightly increase the area of impermeable surface coverage within the study 

area, with the associated potential for increases in existing rainfall runoff rates 

and volumes. Without mitigation the potential for increased runoff could 

increase fluvial flood risk. 



743





result in minor adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and 

therefore the impact significance has been assessed as slight/moderate. With 


Surface Water 

17.7.39 Impacts relating to surface water flood risk are typically associated with 

increases in coverage by impermeable surfaces or built development. The 

Project has the potential to slightly increase the impermeable area during the 

construction and operation combined phase, generating increased rates and 

volume of surface water runoff and therefore potentially increasing surface 

water flood risk. The areas considered to be at risk of flooding have been 

classified as having medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is 

considered that this could result in minor adverse changes to potential flood 

risk and therefore the impact significance has been assessed as 

slight/moderate. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be 


Operation 


Irish Sea 

17.7.40 During the operational phase, periodical washing of the caverns would be 

required (every 10 – 15 years). The resultant brine would be discharged to the 

Irish Sea via an outfall located approximately 2.3 km offshore. The potential 

effects of this process are described in paragraphs 17.57.2 to 17.7.4. The Irish 

Sea has been classified as having high value. Without mitigation measures, it is 

considered that this could result in moderate adverse changes to the 

characteristics of the waterbody within 60 m of the outfall and therefore the 



Morecambe Bay 

17.7.41 It is considered that there would be no impacts upon Morecambe Bay during the 

operation phase. 

Wyre Estuary 

17.7.42 It is considered that there would be no impacts upon the Wyre Estuary during 

the operation phase. 


17.7.43 The principal use of the seawater and the water washing infrastructure is for the 

creation of caverns during solution mining. During the operation phase, the 

744

water washing infrastructure would solely be used for the filling of caverns of 

brine during periods of cavern maintenance, which would generally be every 10 

to 15 years to allow for testing and inspection. The potential effects during the 

operational phase would therefore similar to those associated with the 

construction phase, as discussed in paragraphs 17.7.9 and 17.7.10. However, 

due to the infrequent use of water from the Fish Dock it is considered that the 

potential impact will be reduced. Fleetwood Fish Dock has been classified as 

having medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that 

changes to the characteristics of the Fish Dock would be negligible, and 

therefore the impact significance has been assessed as neutral. With regard to 




17.7.44 Once the Project is operational, potential impacts upon unnamed streams, main 

rivers and ditches could be generated from accidental spillages from vehicles or 

machinery located within the study area. These surface water features have 

been classified as having medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is 

considered that changes to the characteristics of the water bodies would be 

negligible, and therefore the impact significance has been assessed as 

neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered not 

significant. 


17.7.45 During the operation phase, potential impacts upon ponds and flashes could be 

generated from accidental spillages from vehicles or machinery located within 

the study area. Ponds and flashes have been classified as having medium 

value. Without mitigation measures, it is considered that changes to the 

characteristics of the water bodies would be negligible, and therefore the 

impact significance has been assessed as neutral. With regard to the EIA 


Flood Risk 

Coastal 

17.7.46 As discussed in paragraphs 17.7.32 and 17.7.34, potential impacts upon 

coastal flood risk within the Preesall area to the eastern side of the Wyre 

Estuary could be generated as a result of subsidence associated with the 

proposed caverns. 









745



Fluvial 



area, with the associated potential for increases in existing rainfall runoff rates 

and volumes. Without mitigation the potential for increased runoff could 

increase fluvial flood risk. 





17.7.51 It is considered that there would be no additional impacts upon fluvial flood risk 

during the operation phase, over and above this. The areas considered to be at 

risk of flooding have been classified as having medium value. Without 

mitigation measures, it is therefore considered that this could result in minor 

adverse changes to the characteristics of the waterbody and therefore the 

impact significance has been assessed as slight/moderate. With regard to the 


Surface Water 



area, generating increased rates and volume of surface water runoff and 

therefore potentially increasing surface water flood risk. It is considered that 

there would be no additional impacts upon surface water flood risk during the 

operation phase, over and above this. The areas considered to be at risk of 

flooding have been classified as having medium value. Without mitigation 

measures, it is therefore considered that this could result in minor adverse 

changes to potential flood risk and therefore the impact significance has been 

assessed as slight/moderate. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect 



17.7.53 At the end of the life of the proposals, the caverns may have the potential for 




would be maintained and monitored in accordance with an approved scheme 



infrastructure could remain in place if required for alternative uses. 

Alternatively, the buildings and pipelines would be demolished. As the details of 

decommissioning are not know it would be assumed in this assessment that the 

caverns are filled with brine, sealed and all buildings and pipelines are 

demolished. 

746


Irish Sea 

17.7.54 If the proposed brine outfall pipeline was to remain in-situ, there would be no 

potential effects during the decommissioning phase. However, if the pipeline 

was removed, then the potential effects would be similar to those outlined with 

regard to the installation of the pipeline and pollution incidents during the 


Morecambe Bay 

17.7.55 If the various elements of the Project were to remain in-situ, there would be no 

potential effects during the decommissioning phase. However, if the various 

elements were to be removed, then the potential effects would be similar to 

those outlined with regard to pollution incidents during the construction phase. 

Wyre Estuary 

17.7.56 If the various elements of the Project were to remain in-situ, there would be no 

potential effects during the decommissioning phase. However, if the various 

elements were to be removed, then the potential effects would be similar to 

those outlined with regard to pollution incidents during the construction phase. 


17.7.57 Decommissioning of the caverns would consist of filling them with brine and 

sealing them, which would require a supply of water from Fleetwood Fish Dock. 

The Fish Dock would therefore experience potential impacts similar to those 

associated with the construction phase, as the abstraction of seawater has the 

potential to result in changes to the hydrological regime of the Dock itself and 

the tidal channel that supplies it, as discussed in paragraphs 17.7.9 and 

17.7.10. However, during the decommissioning phase water abstraction would 

not be required for long periods of time. Fleetwood Fish Dock has been 

classified as having medium value. Without mitigation measures, it is 

considered that this could result in minor adverse changes to the 

characteristics of the waterbody and therefore the impact significance has been 

assessed as slight. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be 




17.7.58 During the decommissioning potential impacts, without mitigation, on water 

quality could exist. However, it is considered that potential effects would be no 

greater than those predicted during the construction phase. These surface 

water features have been classified as having medium value. Without 

mitigation measures, it is considered that this could result in minor adverse 


significance has been assessed as slight. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 


747


17.7.59 During the decommissioning potential impacts, without mitigation, on water 

quality could exist. However, it is considered that potential effects would be less 

than those predicted during the construction phase. Ponds and flashes have 

been classified as having medium importance. Without mitigation measures, it 

is considered that this could result in negligible changes to the characteristics 

of the waterbody and therefore the impact significance has been assessed as 

neutral. With regard to the EIA Regulations, this effect would be considered not 

significant. 

Flood Risk 

Coastal 

17.7.60 The creation of the gas storage caverns has the potential to cause subsidence 

to existing defences on the eastern side of the River Wyre Estuary which may 

continue into the decommissioning phase. However, a low rate of maximum 

aerial subsidence in the (order of 2mm/yr) has been estimated. 

17.7.61 Some infrastructure, which may be retained during the decommissioning phase 

(such as the proposed wellheads) are located within the high risk flood zone. 

However, all of these facilities are able to accommodate floodwater and are also 

located behind existing defences. Localised ground raising (visual bunds) 

located within the high risk flood zone has the potential to displace coastal 

floodwater in the decommissioning phase. 



proposed roads would not have an adverse impact on existing coastal flood 

conditions in the decommissioning phase. 

17.7.63 During the decommissioning phase potential impacts, without mitigation, could 

result in a reduction of existing standard of protection to defended areas of land. 

The areas considered to be at risk of flooding have been classified as having 





Fluvial 

17.7.64 The Project is expected to slightly increase the area of impermeable surface 

coverage within the study area. In the decommissioning phase the area of 

impermeable surface is likely to decrease when compared to the operational 

phase. However, compared to the baseline there is still potential for increases in 

existing rainfall runoff rates and volumes. Without mitigation the potential for 

increased runoff could increase fluvial flood risk. 

17.7.65 Some infrastructure, which may be retained during the decommissioning phase 

(such as the proposed wellheads) are located within the high risk flood zone. 

However, all of these facilities are able to accommodate floodwater. Localised 

748

ground raising (visual bunds) located within the high risk flood zone has the 

potential to displace fluvial floodwater in the decommissioning phase. 



proposed roads would not have an adverse impact on existing fluvial flood 

conditions in the decommissioning phase. 






Surface Water 

17.7.68 As a result of the construction and operation phases the Project is expected to 

slightly increase the area of impermeable surface coverage within the study 

area, generating increased rates and volume of surface water runoff and 

therefore potentially increasing surface water flood risk. It is considered that 

there would be no additional impacts upon surface water flood risk during the 

decommissioning phase, over and above this. The areas considered to be at 

risk of flooding have been classified as having medium value. Without 

mitigation measures, it is therefore considered that this could result in minor 

adverse changes to potential flood risk and therefore the impact significance 

has been assessed as slight/moderate. With regard to the EIA Regulations, 




proposed to minimise the potential effects identified in Section 17.7. 


17.8.2 With regard to the discharging of brine into the Irish Sea, a discharge consent 

has been obtained from the Environment Agency (refer to Appendix 2.1 of 

Volume 1B). This requires a monitoring programme to be implemented to 

ensure that the provisions of the consent are adhered to, and that the 

predictions of the discharge modelling are achieved. The monitoring 

programme (to be undertaken as part of the discharge consent) would reduce 

the potential negative impacts of discharging brine to the Irish Sea, because 

any discharges that do not meet the criteria of the ES Discharge Consent would 

be prevented. This would provide mitigation for predicted significant effects on 

the Irish Sea and Morecambe Bay during the construction, construction and 

operation combined phase and the operational phase. 

17.8.3 The majority of the ditches crossed by the NTS Interconnector Pipeline would 

be "flume" cut during a dry season. This technique is proposed as it would 

maintain the ditch and cause the least disturbance to the in-channel. A flume is 

simply a length of pipe of suitable diameter to be lowered and fit snugly inside 

the ditch. This is then sealed at both ends of the pipe with clay. The trench is 

749

then cut up to the pipe on both sides and then hand cut to the required depth. 

The NTS Interconnector Pipeline is then laid under the flume or the flume may 

be removed if the flow of water is minimal. 

17.8.4 Mitigation for the potential pollution incidents during the construction phase, the 

construction and operation combined phase (and potentially the 

decommissioning phase) would be provided in a Method Statement and 

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).These documents 

would detail how these potential environmental risks would be managed in 

agreement with key stakeholders e.g. Environment Agency. It is essential that 

the CEMP covers all the potential impacts that could arise at this site and that 

no discharge of polluting material or release of sediment occurs during these 

phases. The CEMP would reduce the potential for water quality impacts 

associated with the construction works. This would provide mitigation for the 

significant effects predicted during the construction phase and constructional 

and operation combined phase on the Wyre Estuary and the ponds and flashes. 





would be restricted according to Environment Agency guidance. During the 

operational phase, it is envisaged that a suitable water surface drainage system 

would be installed (sustainable drainage system (SuDS), which would further 

minimise the potential effects on water quality by restricting discharge rates and 

runoff volumes. The final surface water design option would be developed as 

part of the detailed design of the Project, and would be dependent on the 

infiltration potential of the site. Leak detection systems would be employed to 

limit the possibility and the potential harm of any leaks of brine or oils. This 

would provide mitigation for the significant effects predicted on the Wyre 

Estuary and ponds and flashes during the construction phase, construction and 

operation combined phase and the operational phase. 

Flood Risk 

Coastal 

17.8.6 To install the brine discharge pipe, modifications to the seawall at West Way 

would be required which has the potential to reduce the existing standard of 

protection, which could increase third party coastal flood risk. To mitigate 

against this the marine contractor would install a cofferdam on the seaward 

side. The marine contractor would install a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 

pipe from inside the cofferdam to the low water mark and relevant sections of 

the existing seawall would be removed without affecting the efficiency of the 

continuing sea defence. Measures embedded in the project design are 

expected to maintain the existing standard of flood protection. 

17.8.7 As the rate at which the crest of the flood defences (on the east side of the 

River Wyre Estuary) may reduce in height, due to subsidence, is relatively low 

the crest can be closely monitored over the lifetime of the Project and beyond. If 

potential subsidence problems are identified, appropriate studies would be 

750

undertaken and mitigation measures identified to ensure the existing standard 

of protection can be maintained over the long-term. 

17.8.8 To mitigate the potential displacement of coastal floodwater, due to localised 

ground raising (visual bunds), floodwater compensation would be provided 

internally within the visual bunds and within the Gas Compressor Compound. 

17.8.9 Parts of the study area are at risk of coastal flooding from the Wyre Estuary at 

present (refer to the Flood Risk Assessment presented within Appendix 17.1 of 

Volume 1B for further information). Therefore, it is recommended that the 

Applicant produce a Flood Management and Evacuation Plan (FMEP) to set out 

the flood emergency arrangements and provide information for responding to a 

flood during the construction and operation of the Project. In order to implement 

the FMEP it is envisaged that the Applicant would register to the Environment 

Agency Flood Warning System throughout the construction, operation and 

decommissioning phases. During times of flood warning it is recommended that 

no materials are kept near to the shoreline and that staff members are aware of 

flood evacuation procedures. It is recommended that these details are covered 

in the CEMP. This would provide mitigation for the significant coastal effects 

predicted. 

Fluvial 

17.8.10 To mitigate the slight increase in the area of impermeable surface coverage 

within the study area, a surface water drainage strategy would be established 

for the construction phase to ensure that drainage is controlled and that no 

contaminated runoff is allowed to enter surface watercourses. This would be 

agreed with the Environment Agency prior to the start of works. The strategy 

would also ensure that runoff is managed so as to avoid increases in fluvial 

flood risk. 

17.8.11 To mitigate the potential displacement of fluvial floodwater, due to localised 

ground raising (visual bunds), floodwater compensation would be provided 

internally within the visual bunds and within the Gas Compressor Compound. 

17.8.12 Parts of the study area are at risk of fluvial flooding from small watercourses. 

Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant produce a FMEP to set out the 

flood emergency arrangements and provide information for responding to a 

flood during the construction and operation of the UGS. In order to implement 

the FMEP it is envisaged that the applicant would register to the Environment 

Agency Flood Warning System throughout the construction, operation and 

decommissioning phases. During times of flood warning it is recommended that 

no materials are kept near to the shoreline and that staff members are aware of 

flood evacuation procedures. It is recommended that these details are covered 

in the CEMP. This would provide mitigation for the fluvial effects predicted. 

Surface Water 

17.8.13 To mitigate the slight increase in the area of impermeable surface coverage 

within the study area a surface water drainage strategy would be established for 

the construction phase to ensure that drainage is controlled and that no 

contaminated runoff is allowed to enter surface watercourses. This would be 

751

agreed with the Environment Agency prior to the start of works. The strategy 

would also ensure that runoff is managed so as to avoid increases in surface 

water flood risk. This would provide mitigation for the surface water effects 

predicted. 






17.9.2 With the provision of the mitigation and enhancement measures identified in 

Section 17.8, it is considered that there would be no significant residual effects 

on water resources. 

Flood Risk 

17.9.3 With the implementation of mitigation outlined in Section 17.8 there should be 

no significant increased flood risk to the receptors within the study area. 

17.9.4 With mitigation the impacts on the identified receptors is negligible and 

therefore the impact significance for coastal, fluvial, surface water and 

groundwater flooding has been assessed as neutral. With regard to the EIA 



17.10.1 No difficulties have been encountered in compiling the ES. 

17.11 Summary 

17.11.1 The water environment within the proposed Project site comprises coastal 

waters, surface watercourses, still waters and groundwater. 

17.11.2 A consent to discharge for the disposal of hypersaline washwater into the Irish 

Sea has been obtained from the Environment Agency. The outfall location has 

been chosen to maximise potential dispersion while minimising effects on 

Morecambe Bay and the coastline. Modelling has been undertaken on the 

extent of the plume created by the discharge and assessments concluded that 

there would be no significant effects on marine ecology or coastal processes. 

17.11.3 Surface watercourses and groundwater generally have Good to Moderate 

existing quality and the Project has potential to cause pollution of these water 

features. Measures to avoid their contamination during construction would be 

incorporated into the construction programme and the Project design, and 

would be agreed with the Environment Agency prior to construction. The need 

to prepare and enforce appropriate working practices during construction would 

be included in the CEMP. A contingency plan to deal with emergencies, agreed 

with the Environment Agency, would also be put in place. 

752

17.11.4 Coastal flooding is the main source of flood risk but the majority of the Project 

infrastructure located in the high risk flood zone would be able to accommodate 

floodwater and would also be located behind existing defences. Works to the 

seawall at Rossall during the construction phase would be designed so that 

there is no reduction to the existing standard of protection to defended areas of 

land. For any raised infrastructure located within the high risk flood zone 

appropriate compensation storage would be provided. With the implementation 

of a suitable surface water drainage strategy, no increase in third party flood 

risk is anticipated. 


Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2001) Control of 

Water Pollution from Construction Sites (C532) 

Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Planning Policy 

Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk TSO, London 

Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: Pollution Prevention from 

Major Pipelines 

Environment Agency (2011) Quality of our seas in the North West. Available at 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/40915.aspx 

Environment Agency (2011) European Mandatory Standards 

Environment Agency (2011) Adapting to Climate Change: Advice for Flood and 

Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities 

Highways Agency (2009) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 

Volume 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD 45/09) 

Hyder Consulting (2003) Marine Dispersion Modelling. NH50679/NE/RT002/2 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2008) Canatxx Gas Storage Preesall Saltfield, 

Lancashire – Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment 




Report 


Facility – Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment 


Facility –Flood Risk Assessment – Regulation 5(2)(e) 

Irish Sea Observatory (Coastal Observatory) http://cobs.pol.ac.uk/ 

Mott Macdonald (2011) Geological Review 

753

Soil Survey of England and Wales (1983) Soil Map of England and Wales 

754

18 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 


18.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the Cumulative Effects Assessment, 

undertaken by Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited. It aims to ensure the 

incremental effects resulting from the combined effects of various actions are 

assessed. 






the ES. 

18.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Figure 18.1 of Volume 2B and 

the environmental topic chapters of Volume 1A of the ES. 

18.2 Legislation and Guidance 

18.2.1 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with current legislation 

and guidance. 

18.2.2 The EIA Regulations require ‘a description of the likely significant effects of the 

development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any 

indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and 

temporary, positive and negative effects of the development’. 

18.2.3 Various guidance considers cumulative effects. According to the DMRB, 

Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA 205/08) ‘Assessment and Management of 

Environmental Effects’, cumulative effects result from multiple actions on 

receptors and resources and over time and are generally additive or interactive 

(synergistic) in nature. Cumulative effects can also be considered as impacts 

resulting from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably 

foreseeable actions together with the project. 

18.2.4 ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures, A 

Consultation Paper.’ (DCLG, 2006) states that ‘In the context of EIA, cumulative 

effects could refer to the combined effects of different activities within the 

vicinity or those of different aspects of a single development on a particular 

receptor’. This document identifies two types of cumulative effects: 

 

 

Cumulative effects from different environmental features 

Cumulative effects from different developments 

18.2.5 In addition, the European Commission has published the ‘Guidelines for the 

Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. 

Prepared for the European Commission, EC DG X1 Environment, Nuclear 

Safety and Civil Protection.’ (Hyder Consulting UK Limited, 1999), which 

755

provide information on methods, the assessment process and information 

needed to assess the impacts. 


18.3.1 The approach outlined below has been followed in preparing the Cumulative 

Effects chapter of the ES. 

18.3.2 Within this Cumulative Effects Assessment, three types of cumulative effects 

have been considered. In addition to the two types identified within paragraph 

18.2.4 above (in relation to the DCLG guidance), an additional type has been 

considered owing to the nature of the Project. The information gathered to 

inform this assessment has been compiled, in part, with reference to Scoping 

and Post-Scoping consultation responses, and also through further discussion 

with Wyre Borough Council. In addition, the assessment draws on the results of 

the assessments carried out for the topic specific chapters contained in the 

preceding chapters of this ES. The three types of cumulative effects are 

discussed below. 

Cumulative Effects from Different Environmental Features 

18.3.3 The assessment of cumulative effects as a result of the Project on individual 

receptors from different environmental features (e.g. changes in noise levels 

together with visual impacts at a single receptor) is discussed within this 

chapter. This assessment has comprised consideration of the residual impacts 

identified for each individual environmental topic chapter, and the potential 

combined effects upon single receptors / resources. 

18.3.4 For cumulative effects assessment, the key is to focus on the receptor and 

consider its capacity to accommodate the changes that are likely to occur 

because of the Project. Sensitive receptors have been identified in the 

environmental topic chapters (Chapters 6 to 17). 

Cumulative Effects from Different Developments 

18.3.5 An assessment of cumulative effects from different developments has been 

undertaken. 

18.3.6 The IPC, in their Scoping Opinion, recommended that the cumulative effects 

assessment should consider major developments in the area that are: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Built and operational 

Under construction 

Permitted application(s), but not yet implemented 

Submitted application(s) not yet determined 

Projects on the Commission’s Programme of Projects 

Identified in the adopted and emerging local development plan (with 

appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) 

recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited 

756

Identified in other policy documents, as development reasonably likely to 

come forward 

18.3.7 Where applicable, the findings of the assessment of cumulative effects from 

different developments are considered in each specific environmental topic 

chapter. However, as this Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects is the main location 

for discussion of likely cumulative effects, there is inevitably some repetition 

with other environmental topic chapters as summary text is presented to provide 

context to this assessment. 

18.3.8 A number of developments have been identified for consideration within the 

cumulative effects assessment. This list has been compiled, in part, with 

reference to Scoping and Post-Scoping consultation responses (where 

particular developments were identified for consideration), and also through 

further discussion with Wyre Borough Council. Refer to Figure 18.1 of Volume 

2B for the location of the various developments. 

18.3.9 Each of the identified developments has been screened in relation to the 

potential effects predicted as a result of the Project for each environmental 

topic, with consideration of their location, timing, nature and scale. Not all of the 

developments listed have been assessed as having the potential to generate 

cumulative effects in respect to a particular environmental topic. However, in 

certain circumstances the potential for developments, in combination with the 

Project, to lead to significant cumulative effects has been identified as 

potentially likely. 

18.3.10 Table 18-1 within Section 18.4 of this chapter therefore identifies developments 

that have been screened out of the Cumulative Effects Assessment, together 

with justification for this. Table 18-2 identifies developments that have been 

taken forward for further consideration within the cumulative effects 

assessment, as they have the potential to, in combination with the Project, 

generate a significant cumulative effect. Although, as mentioned above, these 

developments are assessed within the relevant environmental topic chapter, a 

summary of the associated likely cumulative effects with the Project is provided 

within Table 18-2 for context. 

Cumulative Effects of Overlapping Phases of the Project 

18.3.11 An assessment of cumulative effects as a result of the construction and 

operation combined phase of the Project has been undertaken (e.g. the 

potential combined noise effects at a receptor as a result of proposed caverns 

being constructed as the Project becomes operational). This type of effect has 

been considered within each specific environmental topic chapter (within the 

sections relating to the construction and operation combined phase), and is 

therefore not repeated here. 

18.4 Assessment of Cumulative Effects 

18.4.1 The assessment of cumulative effects as a result of the Project on individual 

receptors from different environmental features (e.g. changes in noise levels 

together with visual impacts at a single receptor) is considered within this 

Cumulative Effects chapter. 

757

18.4.2 As stated in Section 18.3 above, the cumulative effects as a result of different 

developments is also considered within the relevant environmental topic 

chapters (Chapters 6 – 17). However, Tables 18-1 and 18-2 below present the 

findings of the screening process undertaken to determine those developments 

that have the potential to generate cumulative effects with the Project, and 

therefore needed to be taken forward for consideration within the relevant 

environmental topic chapters. 

18.4.3 As stated in Section 18.3 above, the cumulative effects as a result of the 

construction and operation combined phase are considered within the relevant 

environmental topic chapters (Chapters 6 – 17), as they relate to topic specific 

impacts. 


18.4.4 Cumulative effects from different environmental features on individual receptors 

can be categorised into the construction and operation phases. 


18.4.5 Receptors within close proximity to the proposed construction works and 

construction traffic access routes associated with the Project, such as 

residential properties, Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and Rossall Hospital, have 

the potential to experience temporary increases in dust and noise levels and 

also visual intrusion. In addition, some receptors could potentially experience 

temporary land take, construction traffic effects and geology and safety issues. 

The potential effects would vary depending upon the nature and duration of the 

works, and their proximity to receptors. 

18.4.6 In order to reduce these potential cumulative effects, a range of control 

measures would be implemented during the construction phase through the 

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), the Construction 

Worker Travel Plan and the Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP). In 

addition, guidance within the ‘Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable 

Use of Soils on Construction Sites’ (Defra, 2009) and Defra’s ‘Good practice 

Guide for handling Soils’ would also be followed. Collectively, these documents 

contain a range of mitigation measures which would reduce the range of effects 

on individual receptors. 


18.4.7 As the operation of the Project is anticipated to generate low traffic levels, 

potential cumulative effects on individual receptors from different environmental 

features are generally restricted to the built infrastructure. Such effects 

therefore include potential reductions in air quality, noise impacts, permanent 

land take and / or changes in land use, loss of habitat, visual effects, geological 

and safety related effects. 

18.4.8 The proposed embedded mitigation and mitigation measures associated with 

the Project, for example screening / bunding, appropriate building design and 

implementation of the Ecological and Landscape Management Plan, would 

reduce these effects. 

758

18.4.9 With reference to the environmental topic specific assessments, a review of the 

residual operation effects (i.e. with mitigation measures) that have a 

significance score above neutral / negligible has been undertaken, to determine 

the potential cumulative effects. None of the receptors would experience 

effects greater than neutral / negligible significance from two or more different 

topic areas once mitigation measures have become effective. 


18.4.10 As stated within Section 18.3 above, Table 18-1 below identifies developments 

that have been screened out of the cumulative effects assessment, together 

with justification for this. Refer to Figure 18.1 of Volume 2B for the location of 

the various developments. 

18.4.11 This table references certain existing developments, for example the 

Wastewater Treatment Works, which have been specifically raised by 

consultees for consideration within the cumulative effects assessment. As 

indicated within the table, these types of development form part of the existing 

baseline situation and have been considered when carrying out the 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and have therefore been screened 

out of the cumulative effects assessment. 

18.4.12 It should be noted that information presented within the table is accurate at the 

time of obtaining information to inform the preparation of the ES. Where 

possible, the source of the information is provided. 

759

Table 18-1 

Developments Scoped Out of the Cumulative Effects Assessment 

Environmental Topic Potential Cumulative Effects 

LOCATION 1 (refer to Figure 18.1 of Volume 2B) 

Planning Application 10/00529 (WBC) 

Outline Application for a change of use to provide a new fish and food processing park (Class B2), Copse Road, Fleetwood. 

Outline planning application permitted (Awaiting possible funding before any application is submitted) (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 

Archaeology and Built 

Heritage 


Ecology and Nature 

Conservation 

Geology, 

Hydrogeology and 

The potential cumulative effect during the construction phase in terms of fugitive dust is dependent on the 

proposed timing of the construction of the development, which is not currently confirmed but is not expected 

to occur at the same time as that of the Project. However, provided that the development adopts suitable 

mitigation measures, the potential cumulative effect from fugitive dust emissions during the construction 

phase should remain insignificant. 

Any traffic generated by the development would cause increases in exhaust-related pollutants. However, it 

is not anticipated that this would cause significant cumulative effects as vehicle emissions associated with 

the Project are predicted to be negligible (as less than a 1% increase in AADTs is forecast with the Project) 

and baseline air quality concentrations are well below the respective Air Quality Limit Values. 

Similarly, any atmospheric emissions generated by the development could cause increases in pollutants. 

However, it is not anticipated that this would cause significant cumulative effects as atmospheric emissions 

associated with the Project are predicted to be negligible and baseline air quality concentrations are well 

below the respective Air Quality Limit Values. 

It is not known if the development would have any odour effects although, in any event, there would be no 

cumulative effects, as the Project is not predicted to have any odour impacts. 

Unlikely to be any aspects of the application that would lead to significant cumulative effects. 

760


Stability 

Land Use and Socio- 

Economics 


Safety 

Construction is unlikely to occur at the same time as the Project and, if it does, it would be unlikely to add 

significantly to traffic volumes. Traffic volumes are not expected to increase significantly with the Project in 

any event, with changes in noise levels assessed as an 18 hr AAWT ranging from no change to negligible 

for the Project. 

A separation of over 250m between the proposed fish and food processing park and the Seawater Pump 

Station means that potential cumulative noise effects at the Harbour Village housing development (which is 

the closest residential receptor) are unlikely. 


Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 



Transport and Access Construction unlikely to occur at same time as the Project and even if it does unlikely to add significantly to 

traffic volumes. Note traffic volumes not expected to increase significantly with the Project in any event with 

less than a 1% increase in AADTs forecast with the Project. 




Planning Application 10/00515 (resubmission of 10/00014/LMAJ) (Croft Goode Ltd) 

Full Application. Approval for erection of 16 affordable dwellings (including an area of 5 car parking spaces), at Birch 

Grove, Stalmine, for use by Stalmine County Primary School. 

Permitted (Under construction) (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 

Construction works are unlikely to take place at the same time as the Project. However, if they did, provided 

that the development adopts suitable mitigation measures, the potential cumulative effect from fugitive dust 

761


emissions during the construction phase should remain insignificant. 

Any traffic generated by the development would cause increases in exhaust-related pollutants. However, it is 

not anticipated that this would cause significant cumulative effects as vehicle emissions associated with the 

Project are predicted to be negligible (as less than a 1% increase in AADTs is forecast with the Project) and 

baseline air quality concentrations are well below the respective Air Quality Limit Values. 





It is unlikely that the development would have any odour effects although, in any event, there would be no 



Heritage 




Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 

Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 

Construction unlikely to occur at same time as the Project and even if it does unlikely to add significantly to 

traffic volumes. 


762





traffic volumes. 




Wyre Power Station Planning Application 09/00685 (Wyre Power) 

Circular 18/84 – Government Development. Erection of gas powered power station at NPL site, Thornton-Cleveleys (land at 

Bourne Road). 

No objection (with DECC at the moment, awaiting legal agreement to be signed) (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 


Heritage 


proposed timing of the construction of the development, which is not currently confirmed, but is not expected 












It is not known if the development would have any odour effects although there would be no cumulative 

effects, as the Project is not predicted to have any odour impacts. 


763




Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 

Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 














Planning Application 08/00676 (Wind Direct Ltd) 

Full Application. Erection of one 126m high wind turbine, foundation, access track and ancillary equipment, at Dewlay 

Cheese Factory, A6, Garstang. 

764


Operational (Source: WBC). 

All environmental 

topics 

Existence of the wind turbine forms part of the existing baseline situation, as with all other relevant features, 

and has therefore been considered when carrying out the EIA. 


Planning Application 09/00971 (HOW Planning LLP) 

Outline Application. Outline planning permission for a local centre, Bourne Road, Thornton-Cleveleys. Would comprise a 

new foodstore (A1), retail units (A1), financial institutions (A2), community centre (D1 and D2), 2 residential units (C3), 

leisure unit (D2), cafes, restaurants, drinking / hot food establishments (A3-5), public realm (including a square, car parking, 

highway works and plant / service areas). 

Full planning permission for associated watercourse diversion and ecological mitigation and habitat creation. 

Permitted (No development to date) (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 


Heritage 

















765




Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 

Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 














Planning Application 10/00215 (David Wilson Homes North West Ltd) 

Planning permission for erection of 273 dwellings with access, parking, public open space and landscaping, Bourne Road, 

Thornton-Cleveleys. 

766


Under Construction (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 


Heritage 



















Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 




767




Safety 


Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 









Planning Application 11/00226 (HOW Planning) 

Outline Application proposing the demolition of existing football club and erection of a residential development comprising 

up to 54 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for means of access and siting (Bourne Road, Thornton-Cleveleys). 

Pending Decision (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 


proposed timing of the construction of the development, which is not currently confirmed but is not expected 










768



Heritage 



Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 

Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 
















769





Planning Application 07/01211 

Planning permission for 30 dwellings, Former Auction Mart, Lancaster Road, Pilling. 

Permission implemented, no works at present (Source: WBC). 

Air Quality 


Heritage 



Conservation 

Geology, 


















770


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 






Seascape, 

Landscape, 

Townscape and 







Unlikely to be any aspects of the application that would lead to significant cumulative effects 


Preesall Wastewater Treatment Works (owned and operated by United Utilities) 

Located within the Preesall area on land immediately to the east bank of the Wyre Estuary. Proposed Booster Pump Station would 

be located adjacent to the WWTW. Serves a population of approximately 26,000 in Knott End and Preesall. (Source: United Utilities 

consultation response). 

All relevant topic 

areas. 

Existence of the WWTW forms part of the existing baseline situation, as with all other relevant features, and 

has therefore been considered when carrying out the EIA. 


Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works(owned and operated by United Utilities) 

771


Located on the west of the Wyre Estuary, on land at Jameson Road, Fleetwood. Significant works serving the whole of the Blackpool 

and Fleetwood area (population of up to 426,000 during peak season). Over £60 million has been spent on the works over the last 4 

years, meeting an expectation of improved treatment, sludge management and odour. (Source: United Utilities consultation 

response). 


areas. 

Existence of the WWTW forms part of the existing baseline situation, as with all other relevant features, and 

has therefore been considered when carrying out the EIA. 


Heysham Nuclear Power Station (operated by British Energy, part of EDF Energy). 

Located in Heysham, Lancashire. The site is divided into two separately-managed stations, Heysham 1 and Heysham 2. Both are 

the advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) type, with two reactors each. (Source: www.british-energy.com). 

Geology, 


Stability 

Safety 

NB: Only the Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, and Safety environmental topics are covered, as 

consideration relates to concern regarding gas escape / explosion leading to a nuclear incident. 

Heysham Nuclear Power Station is situated 12km to the north of the proposed cavern field and is founded on 

the Upper Carboniferous Namurian Limestone and Sandstone formations (BGS Solid & Drift Sheet 59, 

1:50,000). At this locality it will not be affected by cavern-field subsidence. Within the vicinity of Preesall the 

Upper Carboniferous Formation is situated at depths greater than 1.5km, located in excess of 750m below 

the proposed cavern field and separated from the cavern field by the lower Mercia Mudstone and Sherwood 

Sandstone formations. A migration pathway for gas is therefore considered a negligible risk. 


River Wyre Barrage (pre-feasibility stages). 

Wyre Tidal Energy are leading the way for a tidal barrage on the River Wyre, and have been established to promote and deliver the 

construction of a Tidal Barrage across the Wyre Estuary to produce renewable electricity, provide flood control for the river and 

regeneration for North Fylde. Wyre Tidal Energy is not committed to any particular location. The best position will be determined by 

the feasibility work still to be done and consultations with all the stakeholders in the area, the port and the river. (Source: Wyre Tidal 

Energy website www.wyretidalenergy.com). 

All topic areas. 

Given that the location and nature of the development has yet to be determined, predicting potential 

cumulative effects is difficult. Notwithstanding it should be noted that the Project would not directly affect the 

River Wyre or any associated designated sites. 

772



Cuadrilla Shale Gas Exploration (investigative stages). 

Bowland Shale, Lancashire. Cuadrilla began drilling for natural gas at its first location, Preese Hall 1, located approximately five 

miles east of Blackpool, in August 2010. The company completed its first phase of exploration in December 2010, which involved 

drilling a vertical exploratory well with total depth of around 9,000 feet. (Source: www.cuadrillaresources.com). 

Geology, 


Stability 

Cuadrilla states that shale gas exploration and potential future exploitation will be restricted to depths greater 

than 5000ft (1520m) within the Bowland Shale, part of the Upper Carboniferous Namurian Shale Formation. 

Cuadrilla state (source: http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Cuadrilla- 

ECCC-Shale-Gas-Enquiry-Submission-January-13-2011.pdf) that the fracturing process of the shale never 

exceeds 200-300ft (61-91m) vertically upwards, hence exploitation depths will be greater than 1.4km. 

In June 2011 Cuadrilla suspended drilling works at the Preese Hall site due to two noticeable seismic events 

and 48 minor seismic events. They commissioned an independent investigation to study the relationship 

between Cuadrilla’s shale gas fracturing process and two small earthquakes which occurred near their 

Preese Hall well site in April and May 2011, situated some 8km to the south of the Project. The synthesis 

report was published on 2 nd November 2011 and is currently subject to peer review by, amongst others, the 

British Geological Survey (BGS). Cuadrilla has committed to publication of the peer review findings in due 

course. The report is published at http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/news/news/. 

The study concluded that the region is an area of low natural seismicity hence the recent repeated seismicity 

was most likely triggered by the hydro-fracking process, with direct injection of fluid at 8 intervals between 

7670-8949ft (2338-2728m) depth, leading to over-pressurisation of an adjacent fault zone within a period of 

hours following injection. The effected fault is deemed to be entirely constrained within the Carboniferous 

strata of the Bowland Basin. In the worst case scenario, hydro-fracking fluid migration is reported to have 

potential to migrate along potential fault planes a distance of 2000ft (610m) equating to a minimum vertical 

depth of circa 1700m. It should however be borne in mind that the hydro-fracking process utilises pressures 

of upto 9000ps (620 Bar) designed to instigate micro-fracturing of the host rock, 6-10 times the maximum 

gas storage pressure proposed by the Project. The maximum induced seismic event is considered to be of 

the order of M L 3.0, which given the depth of gas shale exploitation is not considered to be a risk to surface 

structures. Nevertheless Cuadrilla has committed to instigating seismic monitoring during future 

development, such that, if seismic events >1.7M L are recorded, production will cease. 

Within the vicinity of the Project, the Bowland Shale or equivalent formation is situated at depths >1.5km, 

773


separated from the Project proposed caverns by several hundred metres of low permeability lower Mercia 

Mudstone deposits and the underlying Sherwood Sandstone and Carboniferous sandstones, limestones and 

shales. Given the reported seismic induced risk range, and the fact that the Project is constrained entirely 

within a separate depositional and structural basin, the risk to the Project from Cuadrilla operations and viceversa 

is negligible. 

DCO Application Document Reference 9.2.7 Seismic Desk Study (Mott MacDonald, 2011), produced prior to 

publication of the Cuadrilla investigation, nevertheless assumed a worst case scenario for the Project, and 

assessed the risk of potential earthquakes induced by Cuadrilla’s activities affecting cavern stability. The 

findings were consistent with that of Cuadrilla, in that at the depth of Cuadrilla operations any induced 

earthquakes would fall well within the background earthquake magnitude range for Preesall. A site specific 

risk assessment demonstrates that the earthquake magnitudes do not pose a risk to the Project. 


Fylde Coast Interceptor Tunnel (operated by United Utilities). 

Located at a depth of 26m below the inlet of the Fleetwood WWTW. The tunnel runs the whole length of the Fylde Coast from the 

Manchester Square headland at the southern end of the Golden Mile, along the front up to Rossall School, prior to turning in the 

direction of the treatment works. (Source: United Utilities consultation response). 

Geology, 


Stability 

Safety 

NB: Only the Geology, Hydrogeology and Stability, and Safety environmental topics are covered, as 

consideration relates to concern regarding risk of gas migration and explosion. 

The tunnel is situated approximately 2km to the west of the proposed cavern field, constructed within Glacial 

Till Deposits separated from the cavern field by the Burn Naze fault and Mercia Mudstone. The DCO 

Application Document Reference 9.3.1 Risk Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2011) has assessed potential 

gas migration pathways to Fleetwood, including via flow through or along the fault plane, and reports 

migration risk to be negligible. 


The Gateway Project. Planning permission secured. 

Gateway Storage Company Ltd plans to build an underground natural gas storage facility in the East Irish Sea, approximately 25 km 

(15 miles) offshore, south west of Barrow-in-Furness. Storage caverns will be developed in a natural salt structure below the seabed 

and will enable gas to be delivered, stored and then returned to the UK's national transmission system. (Source: 

www.gatewaystorage.co.uk). 

774



Conservation 


NB: Only the Ecology and Nature Conservation, and Water Environment environmental topics are covered, 

as consideration relates to concern of the potential impact of discharge into the Irish Sea. 

With reference to Gateway Gas Storage Project Offshore ES NTS (October 2007), their cumulative effect 

assessment considers the brine discharge outfall of the Halite Project, relating to marine discharges. 

Results from previous modelling work undertaken showed that, given the distance between the Project’s 

outfall pipeline and the Gateway Project (approximately 22km), it is not anticipated that two plumes will 

overlap, therefore, there will be no significant cumulative effects. 


Harbour Village Housing Development 

New Housing Estate, Off Amounderness Way, Fleetwood, Lancashire (some houses are finished, and some under construction). 


areas. 

Existence of the housing development forms part of the baseline situation, as with all other relevant features, 

and has therefore been considered when carrying out the EIA. 


Final Effluent Pipeline from Fleetwood Wastewater Treatment Works (United Utilities) 

Pipeline extends from the facility to the coastline near Chatsworth Avenue, and discharges approximately 5km out into the Lune 

Deep area of the Irish Sea, in line with the Environment Agency’s requirements. (Source: ‘Morecambe Bay and Approaches’, 

Admiralty Charts and Publications, 2010). 


Conservation 


Geology, 


Stability 

Safety 

NB: These environmental topics are covered, as consideration relates to concern of the potential effect of 

discharge into the Irish Sea. 

It is considered that the distance between the Project brine outfall and the UU effluent pipeline would allow 

significant dispersion and dilution of the plume. It is therefore unlikely that there would be any significant 

cumulative effects. 

NB: These environmental topics are covered, as consideration relates to concern regarding risk of gas 

migration and explosion. 

The discharge pipeline is situated 3km west of the Project and 1km north of the Project brine discharge 

pipeline. At these distances there will be no cavity induced settlement (Mott MacDonald (2011) Surface 

Subsidence Assessment Report (Reference: 277663/08)). The DCO Application Document Reference 9.3.1 

Risk Assessment (Mott MacDonald, 2011) assesses the risk of underground gas migration and found 

775


negligible risk of gas migration to the Fleetwood Peninsula. 

776

18.4.13 As stated within Section 18.3 above, Table 18-2 identifies developments that 

have been taken forward for further consideration within the cumulative effects 

assessment, as they have the potential to, in combination with the Project, 

generate a significant cumulative effect. Although these developments are 

assessed within the relevant environmental topic chapter, a summary of the 

associated likely cumulative effects with the Project is provided within Table 18- 

2 for context. Refer to Figure 18.1 of Volume 2B for the location of the various 

developments. 

18.4.14 It should be noted that information presented within the table is accurate at the 

time of preparation of the ES. Where possible, the source of the information is 

provided. 

777

Table 18-2 

Developments Considered within the Cumulative Effects Assessment 

Environmental Topic 

Potential Cumulative Effects 


Planning Application 09/00352 (Resubmission of 08/00204) (CLP Wind Projects) 

Full Application. Erection of 2 wind turbines with a hub height of 80m and a tip height of 125m, access track, control building 

and a temporary compound, at Orchard End Farm, Eagland Hill, Pilling. 

Not yet constructed (Source: WBC) 

Air Quality 


Heritage 



Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 

Seascape, Landscape, 

Townscape and Visual 

Amenity 


Predicted noise effects from the metering station are well below existing background noise levels at closest 

receptor location and therefore cumulative noise effects are not anticipated to be significant. 


This development would be located just outside the study area for the Project but by virtue of the wind turbine 

heights, it would potentially be visible from Project specific character area LCA-6: Pilling Farmed Mosses and 

LCA-7: Nateby Lowland. For the purposes of the cumulative effects assessment it is assumed that this 

development would be in operation during the construction of the proposed Project NTS interconnector and 

the metering station in year 1 and year 2. 

It is therefore anticipated there would be potential localised temporary, short term cumulative effects on the 

778






character of LCA-6 and LCA 7 and on local visual receptors within these areas. In particular there would be 

localised temporary, short term cumulative visual impacts on receptors in the vicinity of Bone Hill Lane (Visual 

receptors VR6.15, VR6.16, VR6.17, VR6.18, VR6.19, VR6.20, VR6.21, VR6.22, VR6.23 and VR6.24), Black 

Lane (Visual receptors VR7.1a, VR7.1b), and two other receptors on Station Road (VR7.5 and VR7.6). 

In addition there would be potential long term cumulative effects during the construction, construction and 

operation combined and operation phases on visual receptors on Island Lane (VR6.25), and those to the 

north and east of the proposed Project metering station including VR7.2, VR7.3a, VR7.3b, VR7.4 and VR7.6. 

Refer to Chapter 14: Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity for further details. 



Planning application 02/11/0671. Riverside Waste Transfer and Recycling Centre 

Jameson Road, Fleetwood. A joint venture between Reform Energy plc and Wyre Waste Recycling Ltd, who have submitted plans for 

a £40 million waste to energy facility. The proposal comprises erection of a building to house a completely contained fluidised bed 

combustion apparatus to generate up to 10Mw of electricity from pre stored dry waste with secondary heat/drying capacity, together 

with construction of a high level enclosed waste conveyor, a 28m high chimney, and a 40 seat visitor centre and car park. Planning 

application submitted and validated. (Source: LCC). 

Air Quality 










Similarly, any atmospheric emissions generated by the development, such as from the chimney, could cause 

779



Heritage 


increases in pollutants. However, it is not anticipated that this would cause significant cumulative effects as 

atmospheric emissions associated with the Project are predicted to be negligible and baseline air quality 

concentrations are well below the respective Air Quality Limit Values. 

It is not known if the development would have any odour effects although, in any event, there would be no 





Conservation 

Geology, 


Stability 


Economics 


Safety 

Seascape, Landscape, 

Townscape and Visual 

Amenity 





Operational traffic associated with the development at Fleetwood is likely to be negligible, therefore 

cumulative operational traffic noise effects upon the nearby Harbour Village are not likely to be significant. 

Operational plant noise impacts from the Seawater Pump Station at the Harbour Village are predicted to be 

26.6 dB (below the existing night-time noise levels) and therefore cumulative effects are not expected. 

Unlikely to be any aspects of the application that would lead to significant cumulative effects 

This project would be located within the Project specific Townscape Character Area TCA-9a and would be 

visible from the Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve. Assuming the worst case scenario that the waste transfer 

/ recycling centre is constructed at the same time as the proposed Seawater Pumping Station i.e. Year 1/Year 

2, it is anticipated there would be potential short term, adverse cumulative effects on the character of the 

780



adjacent Project specific Landscape Character Area LCA-3a: Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve, Visual 

Receptor VR3.1: Nature Reserve users, Visual Receptors VR9.3a, 9.3b and 9.3c: properties at the south 

edge of the Redrow Homes development within TCA-9c: Fleetwood Harbour Village. 

However it is assumed the operation of the waste transfer / recycling centre would include appropriate 

landscape proposals which take account of the adjacent setting of the Fleetwood Marsh Nature Reserve 

(LCA-3a) resulting in no overall operational cumulative effects on landscape character or visual receptors. 

Refer to Chapter 14: Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity for further details. 





Construction unlikely to occur at same time as the Project and even if it does unlikely to add significantly to 




781

18.4.15 It should be noted that the construction of developments 3, 6, 7 and 8 could 

potentially occur at the same time, in combination with the Project, and there is 

therefore a potential for cumulative traffic effects to be generated along the 

A585 corridor. 

18.4.16 If this situation occurred, albeit unlikely, the Project’s Travel Plan Coordinator 

would monitor travel on a regular basis throughout the construction period and 

would report to officers at Lancashire County Council (LCC) every 6 months 

(refer to Section 8.2, page 29, of Appendix 16.2: Construction Worker Travel 

Plan). This would ensure that officers at the LCC Highway Authority and the 

Highways Agency (HA) have an up-to-date appreciation of the traffic generating 

nature of the Project, and it is understood that a similar process will be followed 

at other development sites throughout the surrounding area. 

18.4.17 By ensuring appropriate monitoring of traffic volumes (and travel behaviour) is 

undertaken at all development sites, LCC and the HA should be in a position to 

identify whether there would be any cumulative effects on the highway network 

as a direct consequence of construction works at two or more given sites. From 

this, LCC and HA officers should be able to identify links and/or junctions on the 

surrounding highway network that could be sensitive to cumulative traffic 

generations in the event that construction works at two or more development 

sites within the area that is local to the Preesall and Fleetwood are carried out 

at corresponding times. 


18.4.18 As described above, the findings of this assessment are presented within each 

individual environmental topic chapter, and are therefore not repeated here. 


18.5.1 There are uncertainties in relation to other developments that are planned / 

proposed, e.g. in relation to construction / operation timescales, traffic 

generation and the nature / scale. It has therefore not been possible to 

undertake any quantitative assessments for these types of cumulative effects. 

18.6 Summary 

18.6.1 Three types of cumulative effects have been assessed as follows: 

 

 

 




18.6.2 Once the Project is operational and mitigation measures have become effective 

there would be no cumulative effects from different environmental features. 

18.6.3 A number of developments have been identified for consideration within the 

assessment of cumulative effects from different developments, the majority of 

which are considered unlikely to generate significant cumulative effects in 

combination with the Project. From the developments that were taken forward 

Page 782

for further consideration within the cumulative effects assessment, the following 

potentially significant cumulative effects have been predicted (refer to Chapter 

14: Seascape, Landscape, Townscape and Visual Amenity for further details): 

 

 

Cumulative effects from the Project proposed metering station and a 

planning application for the erection of two wind turbines at Orchard End 

Farm, Eagland Hill, Pilling (Location 5 – Figure 18.1), consisting of 

potential localised temporary, short term visual effects upon Landscape 

Character Areas (LCA) and visual receptors within them, during the 

Project construction phase. In addition, there would be potential long term 

cumulative effects during the construction, construction and operation 

combined and operation phases on some visual receptors within these 

LCAs. 

Cumulative effects from the proposed Seawater Pumping Station, incombination 

with the proposed Riverside Waste Transfer and Recycling 

Centre development, Jameson Road (Location 18), would generate 

potential short-term, adverse cumulative effects upon an LCA and a 

Townscape Character Area (TCA) and visual receptors within them. 

18.6.4 The assessment of cumulative effects of overlapping phases of the Project has 

been considered within each individual environmental topic chapter and is 

summarised above where relevant. 


Admiralty Charts and Publications (2010) Morecambe Bay and Approaches 

Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Environmental 

Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures, A Consultation 

Paper 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2000) Good practice 

Guide for handling Soils 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2009) Construction Code 

of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites 

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA 

205/08) Assessment and Management of Environmental Effects 

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (1999) European Commission has published the 

‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as 

Impact Interactions. Prepared for the European Commission, EC DG X1 

Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.’ 




Report 

www.british-energy.com 

Page 783

www.cuadrillaresources.com 

www.gatewaystorage.co.uk 

www.wyretidalenergy.com 

Page 784

Preesall Underground Gas Storage Facility

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?