View - North East Lincolnshire Council

Plan Design Enable 

BOC Immingham 

Dissolved Acetylene Plant 

Environmental Statement Volume 2 

Main Report 

August 2011

BOC Immingham Dissolved Acetylene Project Environmental Statement: Vol. 2 Main Text 

BOC Immingham Dissolved Acetylene 

Project 

Environmental Statement 

Volume 2 Main Report 

August 2011 

Notice 

This report was produced by Atkins Ltd. for BOC for the specific purpose of producing an Environmental 

Statement for the Dissolved Acetylene Project for submission as part of the Planning Application for the 

Project. 

This report may not be used by any person other than BOC without BOC’s express permission. In any event, 

Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon 

the contents of this report by any person other than BOC. 

Atkins Limited 

Document History 

JOB NUMBER: 5100935 DOCUMENT REF: ES Volume 2 Main Text 

01 Final report Project Team ES JK ES 18/08/11 

00 Draft for client review Project Team ES JK ES Various 

- Draft for internal review Project Team ES - - Various 

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 i


Contents 

Section Page 

Preface x 

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations xi 

Acronyms and Terms xi 

Chemical Symbols xv 

Units xv 

Prefix Symbols and Multiples xvi 

1. Introduction 1 

Project Overview 1 

Developer Profile 1 

Rationale and Need 3 

Existing Site and its Connection to the Proposed Site 3 

Background to the EIA and ES 4 

Project Execution, Key Milestones and Programme 5 

Report Contents and Structure 7 

2. Description of Development Site and Surroundings 10 

Introduction 10 

Development Site 11 

Surrounding Area 12 

3. Description of Development Project 15 

Project Management 15 

Construction and Commissioning Phase 15 

Operational Phase 20 

Decommissioning Phase 33 

Design Considerations and Standards 34 

Site Appearance, Layout and Structures 36 

Alternatives 44 

4. Planning Context and Policies 45 


Planning Policy 45 

Key Planning Issues 46 

Relevance of Policies to Project Development 49 

Site Planning History 51 

Relevant Applications and Consents 51 

Planning Consultations 53 

5. EIA Scope, Methodology & Consultation 54 

Objectives of an EIA 54 

Stages of an EIA 54 

EIA Scope and Assessment Methods 55 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 ii


Consultation 58 

6. Air Quality 70 


Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 71 

Baseline Description 76 

Identification of Potential Impacts 80 

Impact Assessment 81 

Mitigation Measures 87 

Residual Impact Assessment 87 

Recommendations 87 

Summary 87 

7. Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality 88 









Summary 110 

8. Hydrology and Water Quality 111 









Summary 126 

9. Flood Risk 128 









Summary 142 

10. Ecology 144 





5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 iii






Summary 187 

11. Noise and Vibration 188 








Summary 205 

12. Transport 206 







Summary 223 

13. Landscape and Visual 224 









Summary 250 

14. Historic Environment 251 








Summary 258 

15. Socio-economics 259 





5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 iv






Summary 268 

16. Cumulative and In-combination Impacts 269 


Cumulative Impacts 269 

In-combination Impacts 282 

17. Conformity to Planning Policies 285 


Air Quality 285 

Hydrology and Water Quality 287 

Flood Risk 288 

Ecology 290 

Noise and Vibration 292 

Transport 293 

Landscape and Visual 294 

Historic Environment 295 

Socio-Economics 296 

Waste 297 

18. Summary of Impact Assessment 298 


Air Quality 299 

Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality 299 

Hydrology and Water Quality 300 

Flood Risk 301 

Ecology 302 

Noise and Vibration 303 

Transport 304 

Landscape and Visual 304 

Historic Environment 305 

Socio-economics 305 

Cumulative and In-combination Impacts 305 

19. References 307 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 v


List of Tables 

Table 3.1 Chemical Usage and Storage 28 

Table 3.2 Waste Generation and Storage 31 

Table 3.3 Traffic Generation 33 

Table 4.1 Summary of Policy References within Scoping Report Consultation Responses 46 

Table 4.2 Relevant Applications 51 

Table 5.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Stages 55 

Table 5.2 Summary of Scoping Opinion Responses 61 

Table 5.3 Summary of EA Response to Draft FRA 69 

Table 6.1 National and European Air Quality Criteria 72 

Table 6.2 Nearby Residential Properties 77 

Table 6.3 Summary of 2010 Continuous Monitoring Data 78 

Table 6.4 Relative Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction, (%) 79 

Table 6.5 Annual Average Daily Traffic Movements during the Construction Phase 83 

Table 6.6 Annual Average Daily HDV Movements during the Construction Phase 83 

Table 6.7 Environmental Assessment Levels for Air 85 

Table 6.8 Results of H1 Screening for Emissions to Air 85 

Table 6.9 Annual Average Daily Traffic Movements during the Opening Year 86 

Table 6.10 Annual Average Daily HDV Movements during the Operation Year 86 

Table 7.1 Risk Estimation based on Probability and Consequence 97 

Table 7.2 Significance Criteria for Land Contamination 98 

Table 7.3 Land Contamination Impact Assessment for Construction Phase 108 

Table 7.4 Contamination Impact Assessment for the Operational Phase 109 

Table 8.1 Water Quality Sampling Locations and Duration 112 

Table 8.2. Sensitivity of Baseline Features 113 

Table 8.3 Assessment Criteria for Magnitude of an Effect 114 

Table 8.4 Matrix for the Assessment of Significance of Impact 114 

Table 8.5 Comparison of Monitoring Results with WFD EQS Values 118 

Table 8.6 Construction Impact Assessment 124 

Table 8.7 Operational Impact Assessment 125 

Table 9.1 Assessment of Impacts 131 

Table 9.2 Predicted Tide Levels 133 

Table 9.3 Extreme Sea Levels 133 

Table 10.1 Ecological Information Sources Used to Inform the Assessment 146 

Table 10.2 Statutory Designated Sites within the Desk Study Area and Reasons for Designation 152 

Table 10.3 Non-Statutory Designated Sites within 2 km of the Proposed Development Site 155 

Table 10.4 Phase 1 Habitat Map Target Notes 158 

Table 10.5 HSI Results for Water Bodies within 500 m of the Proposed Development Site 161 

Table 10.6 Potential Construction Impacts on Qualifying Features within the Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC, 

SPA and Ramsar Site 167 

Table 10.7 Potential Construction Impacts on Non-Statutory Designated Sites, Notable Habitats and Notable 

Species 173 

Table 10.8 Potential Operational Impacts on Qualifying Features within the Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC, 

SPA and Ramsar Site 179 

Table 10.9 Potential Operational Impacts on Habitats and Notable Species 183 

Table 11.1 Guidance on Effects of Vibration Levels Perceptible to Humans 190 

Table 11.2 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage 190 

Table 11.3 Significance Criteria for Road Traffic Noise 193 

Table 11.4 Noise Survey Measurement Positions 194 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 vi


Table 11.5 Results of Short-Term Noise Measurements 195 

Table 11.6 Results of Continuous Long-Term Noise Monitoring 197 

Table 11.7 Anticipated Plant and Associated Noise Levels 199 

Table 11.8 Piling Type and Associated Noise Level 200 

Table 11.9 18-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT) Flows 204 

Table 12.1 Daily Trip Generation Construction: Phase 1 209 

Table 12.2 Daily Trip Generation Construction: Phase 2 210 

Table 12.3 Daily Trip Generation Construction Period (Overall) 210 

Table 12.4 Operational Vehicle Movements 211 

Table 12.5 Peak Hour Trip Generation Operational Phase 211 

Table 12.6 Significance of Impacts 212 

Table 12.7 Number of Accidents A180 (Route A) 213 

Table 12.8 Number of Accidents A1173 (Route B) 213 

Table 12.9 Number of Accidents Kiln Lane Hobson Way (Route C) 213 

Table 12.10 Comparison to National Average Accident Rates 213 

Table 12.11 Identification of Receptors 215 

Table 12.12 Bus Service Details 216 

Table 12.13 Committed Developments 217 

Table 12.14 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Flows Construction Peak (2012) 219 

Table 12.15 Significance of Impacts Construction Peak (2012) 220 

Table 12.16 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Flows Operational Peak, Opening Year (2012) 221 

Table 12.17 Significance of Impacts Operational Peak, Opening Year (2012) 222 

Table 13.1 Landscape and Visual Receptor Sensitivity 228 

Table 13.2 Impact Significance Matrix 230 

Table 13.3 NCA 41 Key Characteristics 231 

Table 13.4 NCA 42 Key Characteristics 231 

Table 13.5 Summary of Landscape and Visual Construction Impact Assessment 244 

Table 13.6 Summary of Landscape Impacts (Operation) 246 

Table 14.1 Consultation Records for the Historic Environment Assessment. 252 

Table 14.2 Definitions of the Value of an Asset 253 

Table 14.3 Definitions of Assessment of Scale of an Impact 254 

Table 14.4 Matrix for Determining Impact Significance Severity 255 

Table 15.1 Population (1999 & 2009) 262 

Table 15.2 Profile of Economic Activity (2005 & 2010) 262 

Table 15.3 Employment by Sector (% of Total in 2010) 263 

Table 15.4 Occupation (2010) 264 

Table 15.5 Qualifications (2009) 264 

Table 15.6 Direct and Indirect Employment Generated during Operation 267 

Table 15.7 Summary of Socio-Economic Impacts 268 

Table 16.1 Proposed Developments 271 

Table 16.2 Development with the Potential for Cumulative Effects during Operation 278 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 vii


List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 Location of the Proposed Development 2 

Figure 1.2 Location Plan 2 

Figure 3.1 Piling Locations 18 

Figure 3.2 Overall Site Layout 26 

Figure 3.3 Main Site Process Area Layout 27 

Figure 3.4 Preliminary Landscape Plan 39 

Figure 6.1 Wind Rose Diagram for Donna Nook, 2005 to 2009 80 

Figure 7.1 ESG 2011 GI: Location of BHs, TPs and WSs 93 

Figure 8.1 Water Quality Sampling Locations 113 

Figure 8.2 Location of Main Drains in the Vicinity of the Development Site 116 

Figure 9.1 Flood Map (derived from Environment Agency Website 2010) 132 

Figure 9.2 Photographs of Middle Drain and the Pumping Station 134 

Figure 9.3 Coastal Defence 135 

Figure 9.4 Humber Standard of Protection 136 

Figure 9.5 Flood Warning Area (EA 2011) 138 

Figure 10.1 Phase 1 Habitat Map 156 

Figure 10.2 Designated Sites within 2 km of the Development Area 157 

Figure 11.1 Noise Survey Measurement Positions 195 

Figure 12.1 Road Network in Vicinity of Development Site 214 

Figure 13.1 Photograph Taken from Hobson Way, Looking Towards the Current BOC Site 233 

Figure 13.2 Photograph Taken from North Moss Lane Looking Towards the Site 234 

Figure 13.3 Photograph Illustrating Prominent Industrial Features of the Landscape 235 

Figure 13.4 Night Time View Looking Down Hobson Way Toward the Existing BOC Site 235 

Figure 13.5 Photograph Taken from the Flood Defence Embankment (West of the Site) 236 

Figure 13.6 Photograph from South Moss Lane 238 

Figure 13.7 View of Pylons and the Power Station off Hobson Way 238 

Figure 13.8 Tipping Activities to the North of Kings Road 239 

Figure 13.9 View over the Estuary from PRoW along the Flood Defence Embankment 240 

Figure 13.10 Photograph from Junction of Hobson Way and South Marsh Lane, Looking Towards the 

Existing BOC Site. 240 

Figure 13.11 Characteristic Views of Estuarine Industrial Development 241 

Figure 14.1 Geophysical Survey Results 256 

Figure 15.1 Population Growth 1981-2009 262 

Figure 16.1 Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 270 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 viii


List of Appendices (Contained within ES Volume 3) 

Annex 4 Planning Context and Policies Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 4A Schedule of Policies 

Annex 5 EIA Scope, Methodology & Consultation Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 5A Copy of Scoping Opinion 

Appendix 5B Copy of EA Comments on FRA 

Appendix 5C EIA Regulations (SI 1999 No 293) Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2 

Annex 9 Flood Risk Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 9A Flood Risk Assessment 

Appendix 9B Sequential Test 

Appendix 9C Exception Test 

Appendix 9D Rationale for Site Selection 

Appendix 9E Hazard Maps 

Appendix 9F Layout of Refuge Areas 

Appendix 9G Surface Water Drainage Calculations 

Annex 10 Ecology Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 10A Information to Support a Habitats Regulation Assessment: Appropriate Assessment 

Appendix 10B Summary of Wildlife Legislation 

Appendix 10C Ecological Desk Study Data Received from HEDC and Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership 

Appendix 10D HSI Raw Data 

Annex 11 Noise and Vibration Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 11A Results of the Long Term Continuous Noise Monitoring Survey 

Appendix 11B Noise Modelling Contour Plots 

Annex 12 Transport Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 12A Transport Statement 

Appendix 12B Framework Construction Traffic Management Plan 

Annex 13 Landscape and Visual Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 13A Viewshed Modelling and Zones of Theoretical Visibility 

Appendix 13B Visual Receptors & View Points 

Appendix 13C Landscape Character 

Appendix 13D Visual Impact Assessment 

Annex 14 Historic Environment Chapter Appendices 

Appendix 14A Geophysical Survey Report 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 ix


Preface 

This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared in support of an Application under The Town and 

Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to construct and operate a dissolved acetylene manufacturing 

plant on Hobson Way, Stallingborough. 

The ES includes a Non-Technical Summary (NTS), which provides an ‘executive summary’ of the statement 

and its findings which are presented in a non technical manner. The ES comprises the following three 

volumes: 

� Volume 1 NTS; 

� Volume 2 ES main text; and 

� Volume 3 Technical Appendices. 

This volume (Volume 2) comprises the ES main text. 

The ES (along with the forms, documents and plans that comprise the full Planning Application submission) 

may be viewed at the following locations during the statutory consultation period: 

� Civic Offices, Knoll Street, Cleethorpes, DN35 8LN; 

� 1-3 Kennedy Way, Immingham, DN40 2AB; and 

� online via the Council's web site at www.nelincs.gov.uk. 

Further copies of the NTS are available free of charge and the main ES and Technical Appendices may be 

purchased for £350 per hard copy or £25 for CD-ROM from: 

BOC 

Hobson Way 

Stallingborough 

DN41 8DZ 

Phone: 01469 577977 

Fax: 01469 550138 

If there are any queries on this project or if you would wish further information, including inviting the Project 

Team to make a presentation to your organisation, please contact: 

Martin Gorton 

Environment & Quality Coordinator 

martin.gorton@boc.com 

If you wish to contact North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) regarding this project, the contact is Ian 

Trowsdale: 

ian.trowsdale@nelincs.gov.uk 

Phone: 01472 324241. 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 x


Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 

Acronyms and Terms 

Term Meaning Definition 

AA Appropriate Assessment 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

AEP Annual Exceedence Probability 

AOD Above Ordnance Datum 

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

APIS Air Pollution Information System 

AQMA Air Quality Management Area 

AQS Air Quality Standard 

ATC Automatic Traffic Counts 

BAT Best Available Techniques. BAT includes both the technology used 

and the way in which the installation is designed, built, operated and 

decommissioned. It is defined as, “the most effective and advanced 

stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation 

which indicates 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.” 

Bgl Below Ground Level 

BGS British Geological Survey 

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand 

BS British Standard 

CAA Civil Aviation Authority 

CIBSE Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan 

CIEH Chartered Institute of Environmental Health 

CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association 

CLR Contaminated Land Report 

COMAH Control of Major Accident Hazards 

COMP Construction Ornithological Monitoring Programme 

COPA Control of Pollution Act 

COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to Health 

CSM Conceptual Site Model 

CTMP Construction Transport Management Plan 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 xi



Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 

DPD Development Plan Document 

DSD Dangerous Substances Directive 

EA Environment Agency 

EAL Environmental Assessment Level 

EC European Community 

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment 

EIGA European Industrial Gases Association 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EPA Environmental Protection Act 

EPAQS Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards 

EPCM Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management 

EQS Environmental Quality Standard 

ES Environmental Statement 

EU European Union 

FEED Front End Engineering and Design 

GB Great Britain 

GQA General Quality Assessment 

HA Highways Agency 

HDF Hull Development Framework 

HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle 

HER Historic Environment Record 

HFRS Humberside Fire & Rescue Service 

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle 

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment 

HSE Health and Safety Executive 

HSI Habitat Suitability Index 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 

INCA Industry Nature Conservation Association 

IOA Institute of Acoustics 

IPD Interim Planning Document 

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 xii



IRS Integrated Regional Strategy 

JRB Joint Regional Board 

JSP Joint Structure Plan 

LAQM TG Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance 

LCA Landscape Character Area 

LCT Landscape Character Type 

LDD Local Development Document 

LDF Local Development Framework 

LGV Light Goods Vehicle 

LNR Local Nature Reserve 

LPA Local Planning Authority 

LWS Local Wildlife Site 

MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information System 

MCCs Manual Classified turning Counts 

MPS Marine Policy Statement 

NCA National Character Area 

NE Natural England 

NELC North East Lincolnshire Council 

NELDB North East Lindsey Drainage Board 

NGR National Grid Reference 

NNR National Nature Reserve 

NRA National Rivers Authority 

No. Number 

NPS National Policy Statement 

OWS Oily Water Separator 

PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration 

PGN Planning Guidance Note 

PNEC Predicted No Effect Concentration 

POL Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory 

PPG Planning Policy Guidance 

PPL Potential Pollution Linkage 

PPS Planning Policy Statement 

PRoW Public Right of Way 

Ramsar site Wetland of International Importance 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 xiii



RGF Regional Growth Fund 

RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects 

RoW Right of Way 

RPG Regional Planning Guidance 

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy 

SAC Special Area of Conservation 

SCI Statement of Community Involvement 

SI Statutory Instrument 

SNCV Site of Nature Conservation Value 

SNIC Site for Nature Conservation Interest 

SPA Special Protection Area 

SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 

SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration 

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest 

Study Area This is defined for each discipline of the EIA (as relevant) and reflects 

the area considered in the impact assessment for each EIA topic. In 

many cases the study area extends beyond the proposed 

development site and is prefixed by the EIA discipline, e.g. noise 

study area, ecology study area, etc. 

SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage System 

Survey Area The area over which surveys have taken place for the collection of 

baseline data. This is defined for each relevant EIA discipline (as 

relevant) and is usually prefixed by the environmental topic, e.g. noise 

survey area, ecological survey area etc. 

TA Transport Assessment 

TN Target Note 

TPO Tree Preservation Order 

TRADS Traffic Flow Data System 

TS Transport Statement 

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

UK United Kingdom 

WMP Waste Management Plan 

WeBS Wetland Bird Survey 

yr year 

ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 xiv


Chemical Symbols 

Symbol Definition 

CO carbon monoxide 

NO2 

NOx 

nitrogen dioxide 

oxides of nitrogen 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 

PM2.5 

SO2 

Units 

particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 µm 

particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 µm 

sulphur dioxide 

Unit Definition 

% percent (per one hundred) (concentration) 

μg microgramme (1 x 10 -6 g) (mass) 

μg/m 3 microgramme per cubic metre (concentration) 

°C degree centigrade (temperature) 

dB(A) Decibel is the unit of sound with 0 dB(A) being the threshold of 

hearing and 140 dB(A) being the threshold of pain. The (A) denotes 

that it is ‘A’ weighted which is a frequency weighting which 

approximates to the human response to sound. Human hearing is not 

equally sensitive at all the frequencies being less sensitive at the low 

frequencies (8,000 Hz). (sound) 

g gramme (mass) 

hr hour (time) 

ha hectare, equivalent to 10,000 m 2 (area) 

Hz Hertz (frequency; the number of cycles per second) 

kg kilogramme (mass) 

km kilometre (length) 

kV kilovolt (electrical potential) 

kW kilowatt (power) 

l litre (volume) 

LAeq, t 

continuous equivalent noise level of a time-varying noise; the steady 

noise level (in dB(A)) which, over the period of time under 

consideration, contains the same amount of (A-weighted) sound 

energy as the time-varying noise over the same period of time (t) 

(sound) 

LA90 (dB) background noise level, the noise level exceeded for 90% of the 

measurement time (sound) 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 xv


Unit Definition 

LAFmax (dB) maximum noise level (in dB(A)) with a FAST time weighting in a 

stated interval (sound) 

m metres (length) 

m 2 square metres (area) 

m 3 cubic metres (volume) 

m/s metres per second (velocity) 

m 3 /s cubic metres per second (flow rate) 

mg milligramme (1 x 10 -3 g) (mass) 

mg/Nm 3 milligramme per Normal cubic metre (concentration) 

mm millimetre (length) 

MW megawatt (power) 

Nm 3 normal cubic metre (i.e. m 3 expressed at 273K and 101.3 kPa) 

(volume) 

s second (time) 

t metric tonne (= 1,000 kg) (mass) 

Prefix Symbols and Multiples 

Symbol Definition 

T tera (x 10 12 ) 

G giga (x 10 9 ) 

M mega (x 10 6 ) 

k kilo (x 10 3 ) 

m milli (x 10 -3 ) 

μ micro (x 10 -6 ) 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 xvi


1. Introduction 

Project Overview 

1.1 BOC Limited (hereafter referred to as BOC) is proposing to undertake a programme of 

development and investment at a location adjacent to one of its existing facilities near 

Stallingborough, on the south Bank of the Humber Estuary. The development would result in the 

construction and operation of a new acetylene manufacturing and cylinder filling plant (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘Dissolved Acetylene Project’, or simply ‘the Project’). 

1.2 The locations of existing and proposed sites and the proposed site application boundary are 

indicated in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2 and are within the North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) 

administrative area. The existing and proposed sites are wholly owned by BOC. 

1.3 Acetylene will be manufactured through the controlled reaction of calcium carbide with water. The 

gas will be cleaned, compressed, dried and charged into cylinders or bundles i , where it will be 

dissolved in solvent (acetone). Lime is produced as a by-product of the reaction. 

1.4 Acetylene (also known as ethyne) is a colourless hydrocarbon gas under standard conditions. Its 

chemical formula is C2H2 and it is the simplest compound in the alkyne family. Acetylene is 

flammable and is widely used as a fuel and also as a chemical building block. It is unstable in pure 

form and thus is usually handled as a solution, for example dissolved in solvent. Acetylene is not 

known to result in toxicological effects or environmental damage. In common with all hydrocarbon 

gases it would act as an asphyxiant at sufficiently high concentrations. 

1.5 The development will require planning consent from NELC under The Town and Country Planning 

Act 1990 (as amended). The Dissolved Acetylene Project has the potential to result in 

environmental effects and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Project is required. 

The findings of the EIA are presented in the form of an Environmental Statement (ES). This 

document is ES Volume 2, which presents the main text of the ES for the Project. 

1.6 The manufacture of acetylene is an activity which is listed in Schedule 1, Part 2 of the 

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 [SI 2010 No. 675] 1 under 

Section 4.1 A (1) (a) (i): ‘Producing organic chemicals such as hydrocarbons (linear or cyclic, 

saturated or unsaturated, aliphatic or aromatic).’ 

Developer Profile 

1.7 BOC is part of The Linde Group with its headquarters in Munich and the UK headquarters being in 

Guildford, Surrey. The Linde Group is a world leading gases and engineering company with 

almost 48,000 employees working in more than 100 countries worldwide. Linde acts responsibly 

towards its shareholders, business partners, employees, society and the environment in every one 

of its business areas, regions and locations across the globe. Linde is committed to technologies 

and products that unite the goals of customer value and sustainable development. 

1.8 BOC is an industrial, medical and special gases provider, supplying compressed and bulk gases, 

chemicals and equipment. For more than a century the company's gases and expertise have 

contributed to advances in many areas of everyday life, and industries including steelmaking, 

refining, chemical processing, environmental protection, wastewater treatment, welding and 

cutting, food processing and distribution, glass production, electronics and health care. 

i A bundle is a group of cylinders manifolded together. 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 1


Figure 1.1 Location of the Proposed Development 

Figure 1.2 Location Plan 



Rationale and Need 

1.9 Acetylene is a key raw material in support of the UK’s renewable energy policy, specifically in the 

manufacture of wind turbines. 

1.10 BOC has historically manufactured acetylene gas at its Bristol site. BOC does not have any other 

acetylene production facilities in the UK. However, following a major incident at the Bristol site in 

January 2010, BOC’s acetylene manufacturing capability has ceased. There is one other 

acetylene production plant in UK, which is located in Leicestershire and is operated by Air 

Products. The Air Products plant was constructed in the early 1990s and is not capable of meeting 

the total UK demand and since 2010 BOC has had to import the gas from continental Europe. 

1.11 The proposed Dissolved Acetylene Project near Immingham has a design life of 25 years and a 

gas production rate of 300 kg/hr. The new facility has been designed to have the capacity to meet 

100% of the anticipated UK product demand and hence will assist to ensure security and 

continuity of acetylene supply to the UK market. 

1.12 In addition, the Dissolved Acetylene Project would assist with safeguarding manufacturing roles 

within the 160,000 fabrication customers for acetylene in the UK, all of which would be impacted 

by the failure to invest in a new acetylene manufacturing facility. 

Existing Site and its Connection to the Proposed 

Site 

Existing Site 

1.13 BOC's existing site near Immingham is one of the world’s largest and most advanced compressed 

speciality gases facilities. The sophistication of the facility’s gas analysis systems is second to 

none, and the site is the global centre of excellence for the preparation, filling and analysis of 

complex gas mixtures. The existing site is dedicated to the production and purification of a wide 

range of high technology gases and gas mixtures; its activities extending from the preparation of 

cylinders to analysis of the end products. The main activities carried out on site involve filling 

cylinders and drums with gaseous chemicals, specialised gas mixtures and refrigerant gases. 

Support functions are provided by maintenance, administration and technical teams. The existing 

site has its own staff amenity facilities (offices, mess room etc.). 

1.14 The address of the existing site is Hobson Way, Stallingborough, Grimsby, DN41 8DZ and the 

approximate grid reference for the centre of the site is Ordnance Survey (OS) Grid Reference 

TA 219 137 (National Grid Reference (NGR) 521961 413772). 

1.15 Access to the site is off Hobson Way. Parking facilities are provided to the right hand side of the 

entrance. BOC is planning to apply for consent to extend the existing car park (this project is 

separate from and independent of the Dissolved Acetylene Project). 

1.16 The existing site has a Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) and is a ‘Top-tier’ site under the 

Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999. Under the Environmental 

Permitting Regulations 1 the existing site is classified as a Low Impact Installation. It has an 

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Environmental Permit (EP) (permit number 

PP3935LN) to operate from the Environment Agency (EA) for the recovery of anhydrous ammonia 

from used cylinders and for refrigerant reclamation and recovery. The existing site has two live 

consents to discharge water to Middle Drain. The site has an Environmental Management System 

(EMS), which is externally accredited to ISO14001 through Lloyds Register Quality Assurance 

(LRQA). 



Proposed Site 

1.17 The proposed site has been designed to manufacture and store acetylene gas. The site will 

include gas compression and cylinder filling facilities as well as facilities for cylinder examination 

and re-painting. The proposed site will have its own staff amenity facilities (including offices, mess 

room etc.). 

1.18 The approximate centre of the development area for the proposed site is at OS Grid Reference 

TA 221 134 (NGR 522105 413465). 

1.19 Normal operational traffic will access the proposed site through the existing site, across a new 

bridge over Middle Drain and via a new short link road. A new emergency access road will be 

constructed onto South Marsh Road (see Figure 3.2). Staff parking will be at the existing site car 

park, although two disabled parking sites will be available at the proposed site. 

1.20 Diesel for the proposed site (requirement for firewater pumps and some of the fork lift trucks) will 

be supplied from the diesel storage tank at the existing site. 

1.21 Maintenance and operations planning, site access, parking and diesel storage facilities for the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project will be provided by the existing site; there are no other shared 

facilities. Where feasible, to reduce traffic movements, some deliveries and waste collections to 

from the existing site will also serve the proposed site. Other than this, the activities at the existing 

and proposed sites are not considered to be directly associated (i.e. they are independent of each 

other). 

1.22 An application for a HSC (NELC reference DC/129/11/IMM) for the proposed site (for the storage 

and manufacture of acetylene (75 tonnes) and storage of calcium carbide (80 tonnes)) was made 

in February 2011. The proposed site will also be a Top-tier COMAH site and a COMAH Safety 

Report will be produced to enable consent to be obtained under the COMAH Regulations. The 

proposed site will require an IPPC EP to operate from the EA and will require consent to 

discharge to Middle Drain. The EP, COMAH and discharge consents will be applied for 

independently of the existing site. The EMS for the existing site will be extended to include the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project. 

Background to the EIA and ES 

1.23 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) 

Regulations 1999 2 and subsequent amendments (hereafter referred to as the EIA Regulations), 

transpose the requirements of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Council 

Directive 97/11/EC) into the law of England and Wales. The EIA Regulations set out the types of 

developments for which an EIA is required. 

1.24 The need for an ES has been established, on the advice of NELC, as a result of the nature and 

scale of development and the potential for significant effects on the environment. 

1.25 Before making an application for Planning Consent an applicant may ask the Local Planning 

Authority ((LPA) in this case NELC), for its formal opinion (known as a Scoping Opinion) on the 

information to be supplied within the ES. Submission of a formal request for a Scoping Opinion 

does not constitute an application for the Consent for the construction or operation of any part of a 

proposed project. The request for a Scoping Opinion is usually undertaken through the 

submission of a Scoping Report. The Scoping Report should provide the necessary background 

information for the LPA (and their statutory consultees) to prepare the formal Scoping Opinion and 

would be expected to contain: 

� a description of the proposed development; 

� the methodology to be adopted within the EIA; 



� the possible effects of the proposals, including those that are significant and those not 

considered to be significant and which can, therefore, be scoped out of the EIA; and 

� the proposed structure of the ES. 

1.26 One of the objectives of a Scoping Report is to highlight the most significant potential issues and 

to identify any environmental topic areas that are considered to be of negligible significance and 

thus can be “scoped out” of the EIA. This ensures that the resulting EIA can proceed in a fashion 

that focuses and prioritises the assessment on the key issues. The Scoping Report also provides 

an opportunity for the LPA and their consultees to highlight any additional issues that they believe 

should be addressed within the EIA; and to identify any sources of information, which may be of 

interest in the course of the EIA. 

1.27 A Scoping Report 3 and request for a formal Scoping Opinion was submitted to the NELC on 23 rd 

March 2011. The Scoping Opinion 4 was issued by the NELC on 27 th April 2011 (see Chapter 5). 

The process of undertaking the EIA then began. 

1.28 The EIA process is an integral component in ensuring that the investigation of the significant 

environmental impacts of the proposed development is robust and comprehensive. It highlights 

the key environmental issues that are considered to be associated with a development, and allows 

an unbiased prediction of their effects and relative significance. This ensures that these issues are 

fully addressed and integrated into the final design of a development project. 

1.29 As noted previously the findings of the EIA are reported in the ES. The ES (of which this report 

forms the main text) has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations 2 . 

The ES has been submitted with the Planning Application to assist NELC and its consultees with 

considering the significance of any environmental effects associated with the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project, and in reaching a decision as to whether Planning Consent should be granted. 

1.30 A more detailed description of the planning context for the Dissolved Acetylene Project is provided 

in Chapter 4. Further information relating to the EIA process and EIA methodology is provided in 

Chapter 5. Details of the consultation process, consultees and the responses to the Scoping 

Report 3 are also provided in Chapter 5. 

Project Execution, Key Milestones and 

Programme 

1.31 A summary of the key historical and predicted (in italics) milestones for the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project, and how they relate to the EIA process, has been summarised as follows: 

October 2010: Commencement of process design. 

15 th October 2010: Exploratory Meeting between BOC and NELC. 

26 th October 2010: Issue of Civils Brief. 

11 th January 2011: Meeting (BOC and Health and Safety Executive (HSE)) to introduce and to 

discuss the project. 

25 th January 2011: Appointment of Contractor (Atkins) for Engineering and Consultancy 

Services and commencement of infrastructure design. 

25 th January 2011: Meeting (NELC and BOC) to discuss the HSC. 

2 nd February 2011: Meeting (NELC Highways Development Engineer and Atkins) to discuss 

the scope and content of the Transport Statement and the proposed site 

access options. 

16 th February 2011: Issue of Feasibility Report. 

1 st March 2011: Phase 1 habitat walk-over survey. 



9 th March 2011: Meeting (NELC, EA, BOC and Atkins) to present the Project to the EA and 

to discuss potential flood risk and planning issues. 

23 rd March 2011: Issue of Scoping Report 3 to NELC. 

8 th April 2011: Meeting (NELC, Natural England (NE), BOC and Atkins) to present the 

Project to NE and to discuss potential ecological effects, in particular those 

relating to noise from piling activities. 

13 th April 2011: Presentation by BOC to Stallingborough Parish Council to inform the 

council of the Dissolved Acetylene Project proposals. 

27 th April 2011: Receipt of Scoping Opinion 4 from NELC. 

4-5 th May 2011: Geophysical survey. 

23 rd May 2011: Issue of Geophysical Survey Report 5 . 

23 rd May 2011: Meeting (NELC, BOC and Atkins) to discuss Planning Policy Statement 

(PPS) 25 (Flood Risk) and the Validation Requirements for the Planning 

Application. 

26 th May 2011: Meeting (North East Lindsey Drainage Board (NELDB) and Atkins) to gain 

an understanding of NELDB’s design requirements for the proposed bridge 

over Middle Drain and an understanding of its procedures for granting 

approval for works which will affect its watercourses. 

26 th May 2011: Submission to NELC of a proposed Schedule of Validation Requirements 

for the Planning Application. 

6 th June 2011: Confirmation from NELC that a Frame Travel Plan need not be submitted 

as part of the Planning Application. 

10 th June 2011: Submission of a letter from Atkins to NELC setting out further information in 

relation to BOC’s position regarding PPS 25 and the classification of the 

development as essential infrastructure (see Appendix 9D). 

10 th June 2011: Meeting (EA and BOC) to discuss the EP Application. 

16 th June 2011: Submission of a letter from NELC to the EA setting out further information 

in relation to BOC’s position regarding PPS 25 and the classification of the 

development as essential infrastructure. 

21 st June 2011: Submission of report: Information to Inform a Habitats Regulations 

Assessment (HRA) Screening 6 . 

27 th June 2011: Commencement of ground investigation works. 

7 th July 2011: Appointment of Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management 

(EPCM) Contractor (Worley Parsons). 

13 th July 2011: Submission of the Draft Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and associated 

documents (Annex 9 of the ES) to NELC (to be passed on to the EA). 

15 th July 2011: Meeting (Highways Agency (HA) and BOC to discuss the HA comments in 

the Scoping Opinion 4 . 

8th July 2011: Meeting (Humberside Fire & Rescue Services (HFRS) and BOC) to discuss 

emergency preparedness and environmental issues. 

4 th August Receipt of a response from the EA in relation to the Draft FRA and 

associated documents (Annex 9 of the ES). 

Mid-August 2011: Submission of Planning Application. 

August 2011 Submission of Report Information to Inform a HRA: Appropriate 

Assessment (AA) Stage 2 7 . 

August 2011: Issue of Ground Investigation Report (anticipated date). 



August 2011: Issue of Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stage C Concept Design 

Report (anticipated date). 

August 2011: Planned presentation to Immingham Town Council to inform them of the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project proposals (Stallingborough Council and the 

ward members for Immingham and Wolds will also be invited to attend). 

(The presentation is planned for August but at time of writing it has not 

been arranged.) 

October 2011: Completion of Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) for both 

infrastructure and process; 

November 2011: Target date for determination of Planning Application by NELC (assuming 

no call in or delay). 

November 2011: Finalisation of detailed infrastructure design (end of RIBA Stage F). 

December 2011: Finalisation of detailed process design. 

January 2012: Appointment of Construction Contractor. 

Q1 2012: Commencement of construction works. 

April 2012: Appointment of Engineering Contractor. 

Q3/Q4 2012: Commencement of production. 

1.32 This stage in the Dissolved Acetylene Project corresponds to the item in bold in the above list (i.e. 

submission of the Planning Application). On receipt of the application, NELC will check all 

documentation has been supplied and decide if the application is deemed valid. Once validated, 

the application will be registered and assigned to a case officer. The statutory 21 day consultation 

procedure forms part of the first stage of the decision making process. 

1.33 Once the 21 day consultation period has ended, the Council then uses the consultation responses 

to assist in determining the Planning Application. Pre-application consultation has indicated that 

the application will be treated by NELC as a 'Major Planning Application' (as opposed to an EIA 

application). The statutory determination period for Major Planning Applications is 13 weeks. 

1.34 As indicated above, the finalisation of detailed design and the appointment of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project Construction Contractor will not take place until after submission of the Planning 

Application. For the EIA, this means that the level of design detail available may vary for the 

different components of the Project. In areas where the Construction Contractor is to propose 

methodology and technical solutions, the EIA will only describe these in outline. The Contractor 

will then have to prepare solutions and environmental management plans that will fulfil these 

conditions, and if required obtain the necessary supplementary approvals for these. However, it is 

considered that sufficient information is available, including that relating to environmental 

performance, to enable the EIA to be undertaken and thus for NELC to be able to reach a 

decision as to whether to approve the proposed development. 

Report Contents and Structure 

1.35 The contents of the ES take into account the findings of the Scoping Report 3 and the Scoping 

Opinion 4 . The Environmental Scoping Report proposed that a separate chapter addressing waste 

would not be provided in the ES. Waste is initially addressed within a sub-section of Chapter 3 

Description of Development Project. The potential impacts associated with waste are addressed 

within the relevant assessment chapters of the ES e.g. air quality, hydrology and water quality, 

ecology (as applicable). The relative importance of the potential impacts resulting from the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project for, and within each topic area is varied and this is discussed on a 

chapter by chapter basis as relevant. 



1.36 There is no statutory provision as to the form of an ES; however, it must as a minimum contain the 

information specified in Part II of Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations 2 (see Appendix 5C): 

� a non-technical summary; 

� a description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the 

development; 

� an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant, if such a process has 

been undertaken, and an indication of the main reasons for this choice taking into account 

environmental effects; 

� the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to 

have on the environment; and 

� a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, where possible, 

remedy significant adverse effects (mitigation measures). 

1.37 The structure and layout of this ES has been designed with the aim of presenting information in a 

logical and concise form that will assist the reader. The ES is comprised of 3 volumes: 

� Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (NTS); 

� Volume 2: ES Main Text; and 

� Volume 3: Technical Appendices. 

1.38 This document (Volume 2 the ES) is supported and supplemented by Volumes 1 (the NTS) and 3 

(Appendices). A glossary of terms, acronyms and abbreviations is provided after the contents 

pages. References are listed in the final chapter (Chapter 19) of the ES. 

1.39 The remainder of this document is primarily divided into introductory background information 

chapters and impact assessment chapters. The introductory background chapters begin with 

Chapter 1 (this chapter). This is followed by: 

� Chapter 2: Description of Development Site and Surroundings; 

� Chapter 3: Description of Development Project; 

� Chapter 4: Planning Context and Policies; 

� Chapter 5: EIA Scope, Methodology & Consultation. 

1.40 Chapters 6 to 15 provide the details of the technical environmental impact assessments that have 

been undertaken to determine the potential effects on the various aspects of the environment as 

follows: 

� Chapter 6: Air Quality; 

� Chapter 7: Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality; 

� Chapter 8: Hydrology and Water Quality; 

� Chapter 9: Flood Risk 

� Chapter 10: Ecology; 

� Chapter 11: Noise and Vibration 

� Chapter 12: Transport; 

� Chapter 13 Landscape and Visual; 

� Chapter 14: Historic Environment; and 

� Chapter 15: Socio-economics. 



1.41 Chapter 16 examines the potential for cumulative and in-combination impacts, which may arise as 

a result of the combined effects of Dissolved Acetylene Project alongside other known planned 

developments. 

1.42 Chapter 17 provides a summary of planning policies for each environmental topic area and 

provides a summary discussion on the conformity of the Dissolved Acetylene Project with these 

policies. 

1.43 Chapter 18 provides a summary of the findings from the impact assessment for all environmental 

topic areas. 



2. Description of Development Site and 

Surroundings 

Introduction 

2.1 This chapter aims to describe the development site for the proposed Dissolved Acetylene Project 

in terms of its: 

� location; 

� size; 

� topography and land use; 

� general setting; 

� geology, hydrology and soil conditions; and 

� surrounding environs. 

2.2 It is not the intention to repeat within this chapter the detailed baseline descriptions of features of 

the built and natural environment. These are provided in the relevant impact assessment chapters 

as follows: 

� Chapter 6: Air Quality description of local air quality; 

� Chapter 7: Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality description of the geology and 

hydrogeology of the site and soil and groundwater quality; 

� Chapter 8: Hydrology and Water Quality description of the hydrology of the area and surface 

water quality; 

� Chapter 9: Flood Risk description of flood defences and potential sources of flood water; 

� Chapter 10: Ecology description of nature conservations sites, habitats and species on and 

around the site; 

� Chapter 11: Noise and Vibration description of the existing noise levels in the vicinity of the 

site; 

� Chapter 12: Transport description of the transport facilities in the area and details of the local 

and regional road networks; 

� Chapter 13: Landscape and Visual; description of the surrounding site context, surrounding 

landscape character; viewpoints and identification of public footpaths rights of way. 

� Chapter 14: Historic Environment description of the historic baseline of the site by reference to 

archaeological remains, built heritage assets and the wider historic landscape; and 

� Chapter 15: Socio-economics description of baseline socio-economics. 

2.3 In addition, each assessment chapter identifies, as necessary, the nearest and most sensitive 

environmental receptors that could be affected by the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 



Development Site 

Location 

2.4 It is proposed to build and install the acetylene plant within the area outlined in red (‘the 

development area’) as shown on the Location Plan (Figure 1.2). The approximate centre of the 

development area is OS Grid Reference TA 221 134 (NGR 522105 413465). 

Development Footprint 

2.5 The field that houses the proposed development is 9.4 ha in area. As indicated in Figure 1.2, the 

overall development area takes up less than half the field and is approximately 4.2 ha in area. 

This area includes space for the new acetylene plant as well as for temporary construction 

facilities. Within this the new roads and the main site process area will take up around 1.5 ha. In 

addition to the main site area there will be Deluge Tanks, Embankments, an Amenities Building 

and a Deluge Water Lagoon, thus the overall footprint of the development in terms of land-take 

will be slightly greater, estimated at


2.11 Groundwater in the top one metre of soils is understood to be controlled largely by land drains. 

Below this, shallow groundwater in the Superficial Deposits is understood to flow towards, and 

may be in partial hydraulic continuity with, the Humber Estuary. Deeper groundwater is present in 

the Chalk Principal Aquifer; however this is understood to be isolated from the shallow 

groundwater by a thick layer of clay. 

2.12 Other than Middle Drain on the boundary of the development area there are no permanent 

surface water features on the site. There is a ditch along the part of the northern verge of South 

Marsh Road. The former route of Middle Drain, in the north west corner of the development area, 

is now a depression with steep banks. Both of these features are seasonal and regularly dry out. 

Conservation Interests 

2.13 The proposed development site is predominantly arable with very little intrinsic value to nature 

conservation. There are narrow (approximately 1 m wide) field margins along the south eastern, 

south western and north western boundaries of the development area. 

2.14 There are no Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) associated with the development area. The only 

trees in the development area are located in the south western corner of the site; however these 

are within the Anglian Water easement and so would not be affected by the development. There 

are no established hedgerows on the site; however there are some patches of scattered scrub, 

largely dominated by hawthorn, along the railway line and along Middle Drain. Discussions with 

the NELC Trees and Woodland Officer 10 confirmed that the, ‘...existing tree hedge cover is very 

limited and does not pose a significant constraint in developing this piece of land therefore a tree 

hedge survey will not be a requirement.’ 

2.15 The site does not lie within a Conservation Area. There is no evidence of archaeological remains 

on the development site. There are no significant designated or undesignated historic buildings 

within the boundaries of the proposed development site (or within its immediate vicinity). The 

historic landscape of the site is of limited value and is relatively typical of the local area. 

Surrounding Area 

Immediate Surroundings 

2.16 The field housing the development area is bounded to the north west by Middle Drain, to the north 

east by Hobson Way, to the south east by South Marsh Road and to the south west by the 

Grimsby Light Railway Line (as shown on Figure 1.2). The railway line is not currently in 

operation. 

Surrounding Land Use 

2.17 The proposed site is located in an area of agricultural land mixed with high levels of industrial use 

(e.g. chemical processing and manufacturing). At present, fields are present immediately beyond 

Hobson Way, South Marsh Road and the railway line. However, a Planning Application (NELC 

Planning ID: DC/1147/10/IMM) has been submitted for consent to build a Bio-ethanol plant in the 

next field on the south east side of South Marsh Road. A Planning Application has also been 

submitted for consent to build two three megawatt (MW) wind turbines (NELC Planning ID: 

DC/827/08/IMM) to the south west of the existing plant, on the other side of the railway line (see 

Chapter 16 Cumulative for further details and a map showing the location of these (and other) 

proposed developments). Within the surrounding landscape, vertical manmade structures such as 

pylons, cooling towers and stacks dominate the skyline. 



Industrial Commercial Facilities 

2.18 An acrylonitrile pipeline, belonging to Simon Storage, runs adjacent to the railway, on the south 

westerly field boundary. 

2.19 There are a number of existing works, industrial estates, and commercial premises within one km 

of the proposed acetylene facility. There is an industrial estate approximately 500 m to the north 

east, an area of works (including a waste transfer station) approximately 780 m to the east, Kiln 

Lane Trading Estate is approximately 700 m to the north west and North Moss Lane Industrial 

Estate is over 900 m to the west. The South Humber Bank Power Station is located directly to the 

south east, less than 500 m from the proposed acetylene facility. A Planning Application to 

construct a new biomass power plant to the south of the power station has been submitted (NELC 

Planning ID: DC/151/10/IMM see Chapter 16). Immingham Dock is over 2 km away to the north 

west. 

Services 

2.20 Middle Drain is operated by NELDB, which is responsible for providing a public service in relation 

to land drainage and flood protection in the area. There is a pumping station at the point where 

Middle Drain meets the Humber Estuary. There are no public sewers in the area. 

2.21 There are three existing substations located generally around the perimeter of the existing BOC 

site and electricity pylons run along the southerly side of South Marsh Road. 

2.22 A mains gas pipeline and the Anglian Water water main (mentioned previously) run along the 

north verge of South Marsh Road and the west verge of Hobson Way. 

Residential Properties and Population Centres 

2.23 The nearest residential dwelling is a cottage (Poplar Farm) approximately 650 m to the south west 

of the proposed development site, on South Marsh Road. The next nearest dwelling (Grassmere) 

is approximately 850 m to the south west of the proposed development site, on North Moss Road 

(see Figure 11.1). There are no other residential dwellings within 1 km of the centre of the 

proposed development site. The nearest settlements are Stallingborough (~1.8 km to the south 

west), Healing (~2.3 km to the south south west) Immingham (~3 km to the north west) and 

Grimsby (~3 km to the south east). 

Drainage, Surface Waters and Flood Risk 

2.24 The most significant surface water feature is the Humber Estuary, approximately 1 km to the north 

east of the proposed development area. 

2.25 Much of the land surrounding the development site is drained by a network of field drains, which 

ultimately flow into larger drains (such as Middle Drain), which discharge to the Humber Estuary. 

However, none of these field drains enters the proposed development area. 

2.26 The proposed development site is within Flood Zone 3 of the EA Flood Map indicating that it is at 

risk from a 0.5% annual exceedence probability (AEP) tidal flooding event. However, the site is 

within an area benefiting from coastal defences which offer up to a 0.1% AEP standard of 

protection. 

Transportation 

2.27 Humberside Airport, which is located approximately 13 km to the west of the proposed 

development, provides services for both passenger and freight movements. Both scheduled and 

chartered passenger services are catered for, with these dominating the type of travel that passes 

through the airport. 



2.28 The nearest railway station is Stallingborough Station, which is located on the main Grimsby Line 

that connects Barton-on-Humber in the west to Grimsby and Cleethorpes in the east. The Grimsby 

Line then connects to a number of other destinations including Lincoln and Manchester Piccadilly. 

It is understood that an average of 40 passenger services operate on the Grimsby Line throughout 

the day from Grimsby Town. 

2.29 In addition to the main passenger line, the nearby Grimsby Light Railway Line also provides the 

potential for the movement of freight to and from the Port of Immingham. The Line connects to the 

main Grimsby Line to the west of Immingham at Ulceby railway station and to the east of Great 

Cotes Railway Station (located on the western outskirts of Grimsby). Part of the line forms the 

south west boundary of the field that houses the proposed development area (see Figure 1.2). 

The line is operational but is not currently used. 

2.30 The development area is well served by the existing highway infrastructure (see Figure 12.1). The 

existing BOC site is connected to the strategic road network, the A180, either via Kiln Lane to the 

north which joins the A1173 before joining the A180 at a grade separated roundabout, or South 

Marsh Road to the south which joins North Moss Lane before joining Kiln Lane and connecting on 

to the A180 via the A1173. The development area also benefits from having good transport links 

to Immingham Dock. 

2.31 There are no bus services operating in the immediate vicinity of the development site. The closest 

services are the 45 45M and 46 which operate along Kiln Lane and Laporte Road near 

Immingham. 

2.32 There is no formal cycling infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, although there are a number of 

paved footways and public bridleways which connect Hobson Way to the residential areas of 

Stallingborough and Immingham. A bridleway (bridleway 34) runs along two of the boundaries of 

the field (Hobson Way and South Marsh Road) and there is a public footpath (footpath 35) that 

runs from the corner of Hobson Way and South Marsh Road to the Humber Estuary. 

Ecological Features in the Surrounding Area 

2.33 The closest statutory sites of nature conservation importance are: Humber Estuary Site of Special 

Scientific Interest (SSSI), Humber Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Humber Estuary 

Special Protection Area (SPA), Humber Estuary Ramsar site, and Humber Estuary European 

Marine Site. The Estuary is of particular importance for over wintering and breeding birds. Habitats 

associated with the Estuary include intertidal and subtidal muds and sands, and salt marsh and 

fringing reed beds which support a large number of rare or threatened mammals, fish, 

invertebrates and plants. 

2.34 Water voles have been recorded as being present at Middle Drain, within 500 m of the proposed 

development. 

Local Air Quality 

2.35 NELC has declared two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within 10 km of the proposed 

development site. The nearest AQMA, which resulted from exceedences of the 24 hour objective 

for particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 μm (PM10) in 2004 and 2005, is located at 

Immingham, in the town centre, approximately 3 km to the north west of the development site. The 

second AQMA, declared in September 2010 for a breach in the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) annual 

mean objective, is in Grimsby and is over 6 km south east of the development site. A decision 

regarding the potential revocation of the Immingham PM10 AQMA has been deferred while a 

decision is made by the Government on the funding allocation for the proposed A18/A180 Link 

Road (Immingham Bypass). 



3. Description of Development Project 

Project Management 

3.1 The appointed Construction Contractor will prepare a Construction Environmental Management 

Plan (CEMP) and this will be submitted to NELC in advance of any construction works being 

undertaken. The CEMP will ensure that the effects of any potential construction impacts will be 

avoided or, where this is not possible, minimised and controlled. The CEMP will include, for 

example, procedures for waste management, transport management, control of pollution 

(including prevention of contaminants entering water courses and groundwater) and dust control 

and will identify and describe good site practice measures. 

3.2 Operation and management of the facility will take into account the relevant European Industrial 

Gases Association (EIGA) good practice guidance and operational control documents (for 

example, Noise Management 11 , Good Environmental Management Practices for the Industrial Gas 

Industry 12 , Environmental Impacts of Acetylene Plants 13 and Environmental Issues Guide 14 ). 

3.3 As noted previously, the existing BOC Immingham site is accredited under ISO 14001 EMS and 

this will be extended to cover the operation of the new facility. The new installation will also have 

an EP, and as a consequence will be required to demonstrate the application of Best Available 

Techniques (BAT) (as described in the EA’s EP Regulations 1 guidance EPR 4.01 Large Volume 

Organics (as applicable)). The operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project will also need to 

comply with the requirements of the COMAH Regulations and other current, relevant safety 

related legislation. 

Construction and Commissioning Phase 

Programme 

3.4 It is expected that construction and commissioning (hereafter referred to as ‘construction phase’) 

of the acetylene facility will take approximately nine months to complete. Preliminary construction 

work will commence in Quarter 1 (Q1) of 2012. The construction period will comprise of two 

phases. The first phase relates to preparation of the site and construction of site infrastructure. 

The second phase relates to the process plant fit out, testing and commissioning. It is likely that 

Phase 2 will run in parallel with the last two to three months of Phase 1. For the purpose of this 

assessment it has been assumed that Phase 1 will run in parallel to Phase 2 during months 7, 8 

and 9 of the construction phase. 

Working Hours 

3.5 Standard construction hours are expected to be from 0800 to 1600 hours Monday to Friday, with a 

10% allowance for working from 0800 to 2000 hours Monday to Saturday. 

Workforce 

3.6 The Phase 1 construction workforce is expected to peak during the middle of the construction 

period, with an average workforce at this time of 22 and a maximum of 26 construction workers 

being present on the site. The Phase 2 construction workforce will be at its highest during the last 

month, with an estimated average workforce of 23 construction workers on the site. When Phase 

1 runs in parallel with Phase 2 there could be up to 38 workers on site. 



Construction Facilities 

3.7 Contractors’ areas (workers facilities, lay-down area, temporary parking facilities etc.) will be 

established within the red line boundary area shown on Figure 1.2. 

Construction Activities 

General 

3.8 Construction activities will only take place within the area bounded in red on Figure 1.2. Other 

than in the immediate vicinity of the bridge landings, there will be a 7 m maintenance strip along 

the top of the bank of Middle Drain and no construction activities will occur within this zone. The 

bridge landings will be at least 5 m from the top of the banks and construction activities will not 

occur within 5 m of the top of the bank. Other than construction of the emergency access road, no 

works will take place within the Anglian Water easement on the south eastern boundary of the 

development area. Furthermore, with the exception of the area immediately around the new 

bridge access road, construction works are not expected to result in the disturbance to field 

margins or scattered scrub. 

3.9 At this stage in the Project, a schedule of works and a detailed construction programme are not 

available. However, activities associated with the construction phase are likely to be fairly 

standard to any construction project for industrial facilities and activities are likely to include: 

� site preparation and initial groundworks (for example, formation of temporary site access, 

removal of topsoil and excavations); 

� piling for buildings and construction of bridge (see following section for further details); 

� construction of ground beams, pile caps and solid bases under external areas; 

� laying of drainage pipes and creation of drainage infrastructure; 

� laying of services from the existing site (across the bridge); 

� establishment of site perimeter; 

� steel frame erection to all buildings; 

� formation of blast walls (Amenity Building only); 

� completion of road formations; 

� formation of building slabs; 

� cladding of buildings; 

� mechanical and electrical fit-out; 

� installation of process infrastructure steelwork; 

� installation of process equipment and ancillaries; and 

� testing and commissioning. 

Piling 

3.10 The ground conditions on the site are not yet known in sufficient detail for the choice of piling 

method to have been finalised; however, the current understanding suggests that the possible 

options include: 



� rotary bored piling (cast in-situ) large or mini rig; 

� continuous flight auger (CFA) piling (cast in situ); and 

� hydraulic hammer piling (pre-cast) 5 tonne rig. 

3.11 Driven (hammer) piling techniques are typically the noisiest. The design team has taken on board 

concerns from NE, regarding the potential disturbance to over wintering birds, and CFA or bored 

piling techniques will be considered in preference to driven piling. However, there may be 

technical reasons relating to the ground conditions which dictate the final selection of the piling 

method. 

3.12 The buildings and structures that will require piled foundations, and an estimate of the number of 

piles, are as follows: 

� bridge abutments 24 piles (12 at each end of the bridge); 

� Generator Building 22 piles; 

� Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building 52 piles; 

� Cylinder Examination Shop 24 piles; 

� Lime Storage Tanks and Rotary Drum Filters 29 piles; 

� Sort Dock 6 piles; and 

� Piperack between the Generator Building and the Cylinder Examination Shop -13 piles. 

3.13 Piling is likely to take place within the first four months of the construction phase during typical 

construction hours (i.e. 0800 to 1600 hours Monday to Friday). The overall duration of the piling 

activities will depend on the piling method that is selected. The actual phasing and construction 

sequencing will be proposed by the Construction Contractor. It is expected that a single rig would 

take two weeks to complete the piling works on the main site. Piling required for the bridge 

abutments is likely to be undertaken as a separate phase and is expected to take no more than 

one week. A plan showing the anticipated locations of piles is provided in Figure 3.1. 

3.14 At this stage in the Project it is anticipated that the depth of the piles will be 14 m to 15 m. This will 

be confirmed (or otherwise) as the project develops. 

Construction Materials 

3.15 It is likely that the majority of materials and process piping will be sourced and fabricated from 

within the UK. Where feasible consideration will be given to bringing materials and equipment to 

the site through Immingham Dock; however, imports are likely to be limited to a number of specific 

vendor package items, e.g. compressor skids. 

3.16 Two 2 m high earth embankments will be constructed along three sides of the main process area, 

(as illustrated on Figure 3.2). The soil requirements for the these will be met, so far as possible, by 

using the material that is excavated as a result of forming the Deluge Lagoon. 



Figure 3.1 Piling Locations 



Transport during Construction 

3.17 For materials that are transported by road, the route would be from the wider Strategic Road 

Network (onto the A180 before travelling to the site on Hobson Way, via the A1173 and Kiln 

Lane). For materials that are transported through Immingham Dock, it is expected that vehicles 

would route via Robinson Road and onto Laporte Road before joining Hobson Way. Thus, 

construction traffic will not affect the Immingham town centre, and in particular the AQMA (located 

at the junction between the A1173 Kings Road and Pelham Road). 

3.18 It is expected that the maximum two-way daily traffic flows will be less than 70 (including staff and 

deliveries). This flow would comprise all vehicle types including Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) 

and Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs). It is expected that two-way HGV movements would be no more 

than 22 per day. Construction traffic is described in more detail in Chapter 12. 

3.19 A Transport Statement (TS) has been prepared for the Project (see Appendix 12A); part of the TS 

will consider site accessibility by public transport and other sustainable modes of transport. A 

framework Construction Transport Management Plan (CTMP) is presented in Appendix 12B. This 

will be amended and updated in due course by the Construction Contractor. 

Construction Emissions, Discharges and Wastes 

3.20 The construction of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project is not expected to result in the 

generation of any atypical construction emissions, discharges or wastes. 

3.21 Emissions to atmosphere will primarily result from activities that could generate dust and or 

exhaust gas emissions resulting from the use of vehicles and diesel fuelled equipment. 

3.22 Construction wastes are expected to be primarily generated as a result of general site preparation 

works (e.g. site clearance, grading, levelling), civil works (e.g. foundations, installation of 

infrastructure and fabrication of buildings and structures), commissioning testing and final 

landscaping. It is expected that any soils generated from excavation will be uncontaminated ii and 

will be reused within the development area. Thus, the main wastes are likely to consist of general 

waste construction materials (e.g. metal, wood and packaging). There could also be small 

quantities of waste chemicals substances (e.g. paints, solvents, fuels, oils and lubricants) 

generated. It is expected that there will be individual skips for timber, general site waste, metal 

and an enclosed skip to facilitate the waste generated from the on site welfare facilities. It is 

expected that timber and metal waste will be collected every two weeks and that general waste 

will be collected every three weeks. Surface water runoff and site drainage will generate an 

aqueous waste. In addition, construction worker facilities are anticipated to generate domestic and 

office type wastes. All wastes will be handled, stored and disposed of in accordance with good 

practice and the relevant legislation. 

3.23 Commissioning activities will produce similar emissions to typical operation (as described in the 

subsequent section) and so these are not specifically addressed in the impact assessment. 

Integrity testing is usually carried out by using nitrogen and undertaking a pneumatic test; thus the 

generation of significant quantities of hydrotest water is not considered likely. 

3.24 The general philosophy for the Project will aim to ensure that emissions and waste generation 

from construction activities will be prevented or minimised at source. For wastes that cannot be 

avoided, the preferred options will be re-use, recycling or recovery and finally disposal. Any waste 

disposal and waste recovery activities will be undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation. 

ii As noted previously, there is no evidence to suggest that the soil beneath the site is, or is likely to be, contaminated; however this 

cannot be completely confirmed until the results from the GI are available (which is expected to be in August 2011). 



3.25 As part of the CEMP, the appointed Contractor will prepare a construction Waste Management 

Plan (WMP) prior to commencement of construction works. The WMP will address the working 

methodologies and practices which will be adhered to during the construction works and control of 

pollution (including prevention of contaminants entering soils and waters). The WMP will be based 

upon good practice in terms of material waste storage, handling and disposal. Adherence to such 

working practices will limit the potential for adverse impacts associated with waste generation and 

disposal. 

3.26 The potential impacts associated with the generation of construction waste could arise as a result 

of generation of contaminated soils (if the land is contaminated), improper storage and handling of 

wastes and the ultimate disposal option. These impacts have been addressed within the relevant 

assessment chapters (for example, impacts associated with dust will be addressed in the air 

quality assessment (Chapter 6), impacts on ecological receptors will be addressed in the 

ecological assessment (Chapter 10) and impacts on soils groundwater will be addressed in the 

assessment of land quality (Chapter 7)). 

Operational Phase 

Operation of the Plant 

3.27 The design life of the acetylene manufacturing plant is at least 25 years. The facility has been 

designed to operate at a production rate of 300 kg/hr of acetylene. 

3.28 Standard operating hours are 0600 to 2200 hours Monday to Friday. Thus the facility will typically 

operate for 16 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 50 weeks of the year, which would result in 

annual operating hours in the region of 4,000 hours per year. In the event of acetylene supply 

constraints, or abnormal demand, the facility may need to operate outside the standard operating 

hours for short periods. 

3.29 The acetylene facility will employ between 15 and 20 permanent staff. One of these will work a 

standard day, (for example from 0830 to 1700 hours); the remaining staff will be split across two 

day shifts (0600 to 1400 hours and 1400 to 2200 hours). 

3.30 It is expected that the facility will typically keep four weeks of stock on site and two weeks supply 

of product. 

Process Description 

Main Manufacturing Process 

3.31 Calcium carbide (often referred to as just ‘carbide’) and water react in the Generator to produce 

acetylene. Carbide is produced by a reaction between coke and burnt lime (calcium oxide) in an 

electric furnace at a temperature between 2,000°C to 2,400°C. Molten carbide is tapped from the 

furnace and run into moulds where it is left to solidify. When it cools it is crushed and screened by 

size. Unreacted calcium oxide and coke are likely to be present in the raw carbide at up to 20%. 



3.32 Carbide will be delivered to the site in turnbins iii , which will be stored in the Full Carbide Turnbin 

Store iv , ready for transfer to the Generator Building as required. Within the Generator Building 

turnbins will be lifted using a crane and positioned above the acetylene generator. A shaker plate 

will then feed the carbide into the generator at a controlled rate. The ratio of water to carbide is 

approximately 8:1 (by weight). The carbide then reacts with the water in the generator to produce 

acetylene gas at a reaction temperature of approximately 80°C. The reaction also produces lime 

slurry at the bottom of the generator. 

3.33 The plant has been designed to produce 300 kg/hr of acetylene, which results in approximately 

6,270 kg/hr of lime slurry. Under typical operating hours this equates to 1,200 t/y of acetylene and 

approximately 25,000 t/yr of lime slurry. 

3.34 The raw acetylene gas will contains trace quantities of ammonia, phosphine and hydrogen 

sulphide as a result of impurities in the raw material. When the gas exits the generator it passes 

through a water scrubber which removes any ammonia and cools the gas. The gas then passes to 

a Gas Holder, which maintains the system pressure at approximately ~30 mbarg, and on to 

chemical scrubbing towers (two sulphuric acid scrubbers and one sodium hydroxide scrubber) to 

remove the other impurities. The acid and alkali scrubber systems sit in a bund with a dividing 

wall. The two sections of the bund will each have a sump that would allow the collection of any 

spilled effluent. The effluent from the scrubber systems and sumps is collected in Waste Liquor 

Storage Tanks. There are two dedicated Waste Liquor Tanks, one for effluent from the acid 

scrubber system and one for the alkali scrubber system. 

3.35 The clean acetylene gas passes from the scrubbers to the compressors which will raise the gas 

pressure to approximately 25 barg. The compression process also helps to remove water from the 

gas. Each of the four gas compressors (and the air compressor in the Plant Room) is connected 

to a clean water trap and an Oily Water Separator (OWS). Clean water will either be recycled into 

the process or will be discharged into the surface water drainage system. The oily water sludge 

will be periodically removed and disposed of offsite. 

3.36 The gas is dried and fed via a header system to cylinder filling points. The drying process uses a 

‘High Pressure’ dryer, which is designed to operate continuously to remove moisture from the 

acetylene by adsorption. The dryer consists of a two piece drying tower that contains adsorbent 

type silica gel. One tower adsorbs moisture while the other is regenerated, after about four hours 

the towers are changed and the inverse relationship occurs. Acetylene gas is used for 

regeneration. After use, the acetylene is fed back into process. The water from the drying process 

is pure water and is directed to drain via an external tundish. The clean water will either be 

recycled into the process or will be discharged into the surface water drainage system. 

3.37 From the cylinder filling points gas is charged into cylinders or bundles i . The cylinders contain 

acetone, which is a solvent. The acetylene gas dissolves in the acetone. The cylinders also 

contain a porous mass which helps to stabilise the acetone acetylene solution. Heat is generated 

when acetylene is compressed into the cylinders and bundles. A chilled, closed loop, water spray 

is used during cylinder and bundle filling operations to increase the rate of absorption of gas. The 

Cylinder Cooling System requires the use of propylene glycol (hereafter referred to as ‘glycol’ to 

maintain a temperature at approximately -8°C. The Bundle Cooling System used chilled water 

only. Cooling Systems are described in more detail below see paragraph 3.46 onwards). 

iii 

The turnbins are metal containers and each one will contain 1.8 t of carbide. 

iv 

The site layout and locations of buildings and storage areas etc. are provided in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 and described in a 

subsequent section of this Chapter. 



3.38 The lime settles to the bottom of the Generator from which it passes, as a slurry, through a seal 

leg, via a crude filter (to remove solid impurities, e.g. coke, present in the carbide), to the Lime 

Sump. From the Lime Sump the slurry is pumped to one of three overhead Lime Storage Tanks. 

The lime solids in the slurry settle to the bottom of the Tanks and the water is recovered from the 

top of the Tanks for reuse in the manufacturing process. Tankers drive under the Lime Storage 

Tanks to load the lime slurry product. There is a bund well area below the Lime Storage Tanks, 

which is provided as a containment measure in the event of spills an accidental release. 

3.39 In the event that there is a period where there are no customers for the lime in slurry form, it can 

be fed through a Rotary Drum Filter v to remove excess water and produce a lime paste (with 70- 

80% solids content). The extracted water would be recycled back to the manufacturing process. 

The lime paste can either be sold or sent for offsite disposal. 

3.40 Prior to filling, all cylinders will undergo an external visual examination at the sort dock. 

Periodically, typically every five to ten years, cylinders are examined internally in the Cylinder 

Examination Shop. 

3.41 For empty cylinders that contained acetylene in acetone solvent, as much gas as possible is 

recovered via blowdown rigs and returned to the Gas Holder. The cylinders are then devalved, 

inspected, re-valved and repainted. Gas that cannot be recovered to the Gas Holder results in the 

release of small amounts of residual acetylene gas which is vented to atmosphere. A vent has 

been provided on the roof of the Cylinder Examination Shop for the disposal of this gas and 

residual acetylene from third party cylinders that do not contain acetone as the solvent. 

3.42 Shot blasting facilities and a Paint Shop are provided within the Cylinder Examination Shop. Dust 

emissions from shot blasting and painting activities will be minimised through use of appropriate 

filters suppression systems. Solvent emissions from painting and drying will be minimised (so far 

as possible) through the selection of the application method and the type of paint, and will be 

emitted through vents on the roof of the Cylinder Examination Shop. 

Rainwater Harvesting 

3.43 The rainwater from the Cylinder and Bundle Filling and Generator Building roofs will be collected 

and then stored within an above ground Rainwater Harvesting Tank. The Tank is located adjacent 

to the south gable of the Generator Building. The rainwater that collects in the tank will pass 

through a filter and be pumped to a water softener (see below) before discharging into the 

process water ‘Break Tank’. The water from the Break Tank will then be used to serve the process 

requirements of the site. Any excess flow will pass to the Site Drainage System (see paragraph 

3.52 onwards). 

Water Softening 

3.44 Water used in the process plant that generates, purifies and compresses acetylene needs to be 

softened. A Water Softener package will be installed, located in the south east corner of the 

Generator Building. The water softener will be able to treat all sources of water (i.e. the potable, 

non-potable supplies and recovered recycled water). Approximately twice a month the water 

softener will need to be regenerated, which will produce hard, salty water (i.e. a brine solution 

containing calcium ions), which will discharge to Middle Drain. 

v It has not been confirmed whether the Rotary Filter will definitely form part of the final design, however, it is included on the current 

layout drawings (see Figure 3.3), and is located adjacent to the Lime Storage Tanks. 



Cooling Water Systems 

3.45 There are three cooling water systems: 

� a glycol system used for cylinder filling; 

� a chilled water system for bundle filling; and 

� a cooling water system for compression. 

Cylinder Filling Cooling System 

3.46 The cylinder filling cooling system is a re-circulating waster spray system which uses refrigerated 

glycol. The refrigerated glycol passes over the surface of the cylinders and is collected in a 

shallow tray beneath the cylinders. From the tray the glycol flows by gravity to the Glycol Pit in the 

Plant Room. The pit will be a concrete structure with an internal tank inside (i.e. effectively double 

skinned) to allow easy inspection monitoring and maintenance. The glycol in the pit is then 

pumped to the refrigeration unit, via a sump, from which it is re-circulated to the cylinders. 

3.47 The glycol in the cooling system absorbs moisture from the air, resulting in its dilution, thus from 

time to time some of the glycol water mixture is removed and stored for offsite disposal (see Table 

3.2). A trace quantity of glycol is also lost from the system as droplets on the surface of the filled 

cylinders. 

Bundle Filling Cooling System 

3.48 The bundle filling Cooling System is a closed loop, re-circulating system water spray system. The 

system will use pure water that is simply recirculated via a chiller. It is likely that add treatment 

chemicals (e.g. biocide and corrosion inhibitors) will need to be added to the water 

3.49 Twice per year the cooling water system will need to be sterilised, which will result in the 

generation of a small volume of waste water which will be stored for offsite disposal (see Table 

3.2). 

Compressor Cooling 

3.50 The compressor cooling system is an open evaporative, re-circulating system and requires the 

use of biocide and corrosion inhibitors. A Cooling Water Tower, located adjacent to the south 

gable of the Generator Building (next to the Rainwater Harvesting Tank) chills the water. The 

water passes from the Tower to the compressors. From the compressors the water passes to the 

Hot Well (effectively an intermediate tank) and back to the Cooling Tower. 

3.51 Twice per year the cooling water system will need to be sterilised, which will result in the 

generation of a small volume of waste water which will be stored for offsite disposal (see Table 

3.2). 

Site Drainage System and Flooding 

3.52 Paved areas (i.e. roads and hard standing) have been designed so that rainwater will fall away 

from buildings and be collected by gullies and channels prior to entering the underground network 

of surface water drains. The layout of the drainage system accounts for the process requirement 

to prevent explosive, or asphyxiant (e.g. nitrogen), gases from entering the system. 

3.53 The drainage network has been designed to accommodate a 1 in 30 year return period storm 

without causing surface flooding. Any flooding caused by longer return period storms will be 

allowed to flood the paved surfaces in a controlled manner such that water is shed away from 

buildings but is prevented from flooding adjacent agricultural land. 

3.54 The standards of service relating to flooding used in the design of the surface water drainage 

network are based on a storms of a 1 in 30 year return period and a 1 in 100 year return period 

(the latter with 30% allowance for climate change). 



3.55 There will be no flooding (on site or offsite) from the drainage system during a 1 in 30 year storm. 

Any flooding during longer return period storms (up to the 1 in 100 year storm with 30% allowance 

for climate change) will be contained within the site. Any on site flooding (caused by storms with 

return periods longer than 30 years) would be allowed to flood the paved surfaces in a controlled 

manner such that water is shed away from buildings and would either be stored locally (to return 

to the drainage system when the storm abates), or be allowed to flow through the site towards the 

outfall and routed to avoid buildings. The system will be designed in such a way as to prevent 

flooding of adjacent agricultural land up to the 100 year return period storm (with 30% allowance 

for climate change) and for storms of longer return period if it is practicable to do so. 

3.56 The drainage network incorporates an oily water separator (OWS) to reduce hydrocarbon pollution 

and catch pits to capture silt particles. The clean rainwater from the Drainage System will 

discharge to Middle Drain via a pumping station. The pumping station will contain three pumps 

with variable speed drives capable of discharging to Middle Drain at flow rates between 25 l/s and 

300 l/s. Flows in excess of 300 l/s will overflow into the Deluge Lagoon and ultimately be returned 

to the pumping station via a low level return. 

3.57 The area beneath the Lime Storage Tanks will be at a lower elevation than the rest of the site and 

will have a valved connection to the Drainage System. The valve will be controlled locally. Under 

normal circumstances the valve will be open but when loading is taking place the valve will be 

automatically closed to prevent any spillages from entering the Drainage System and to enable 

containment of any spillages. Any rainwater runoff from the Carbide Turnbin Storage Areas will be 

diverted to the area below the Lime Storage Tanks. 

3.58 Any rainwater runoff from the Designated Area for Solid Waste (where the unreacted carbide coke 

waste will be stored) will be diverted to the Lime Sump. 

3.59 The following areas will be bunded (to 110% of the capacity of the largest tank): 

� Acid and Lye Store vi ; 

� Acetone Tank; 

� Lime Sump; and 

� Waste Liquor Tanks. 

3.60 Clean rainwater that collects in the bunds will, after inspection to confirm quality, be pumped from 

the bund and into the Drainage System. Any spills, or contaminated rainwater, will collect in the 

bund prior to removal for disposal offsite. The bunds will not connect directly to the surface water 

drainage system. 

Domestic Waste Water 

3.61 Domestic waste water will be generated from the staff facilities in the Amenity Building. As there is 

no foul sewer in the vicinity of the proposed site, domestic waste water will be treated on site in a 

rotating biological contactor (RBC) type treatment plant. The treatment plant will be located close 

to the Deluge Lagoon. 

3.62 Depending on the level of treatment required, the RBC may be supplemented with a reed bed. 

The treated effluent would be discharge to Middle Drain via the Site Drainage System. For an 

average workforce of 17, peak flows are expected to be less than 0.5 l/s. Middle Drain already 

receives treated domestic waste water from other facilities, including the existing BOC site. The 

discharge will require consent. 

vi 

Lye is another name for sodium hydroxide. Note, the Acid and Lye Storage Area will provide storage for other chemicals in addition to 

sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide (see Table 3.2). 



Fire Fighting and Deluge System 

3.63 The site will be installed with a new fire detection system and a deluge system. For futureproofing, 

the system will be designed in excess of the requirements of the EIGA Code of Practice 

for Acetylene 15 to supply water to an area of 450 m² for the duration of two hours. The deluge 

system will be complete with its own control system that will be located within the Amenity 

Building. 

3.64 The deluge system will consist of distribution pipework, heads, control valve, storage tanks and 

pumps. The fire pump arrangement will be three diesel sets at 50% duty (as per the existing site). 

The pumps will be on skids with an integral diesel supply built in. The fire pumps will be run each 

month for 30 minutes to confirm availability. The distribution pipework from the pumps to each of 

the service valves will be buried to provide frost protection. 

3.65 Two Deluge Tanks will be installed to provide water in the event of a fire, or for cooling purposes. 

The tanks will be located adjacent to the southern aspect of the Amenity Building. The two storage 

tanks will have a combined capacity of 540 m 3 . 

3.66 Safety showers will be provided on the plant in areas where skin corrosive chemicals are handled 

(i.e. the lime, chemical storage and scrubber areas). 

3.67 A Deluge Lagoon will be constructed adjacent to the new access road, as indicated in Figure 3.2. 

Discussions with the EA have indicated that the Deluge Lagoon does not need to be lined if it is 

excavated in a clay material, though the suitability of the clay for retaining water will need to be 

confirmed on site. At this stage in the design it is anticipated that the capacity of the Deluge 

Lagoon will be 600 m 3 ; this will be confirmed when the design is finalised. 

3.68 In the event of operation of the sprinkler systems, or in the event of a fire involving abstraction 

from hydrants, water will run into the surface water drainage system. A valve (which will be 

electrically actuated and controlled from the main gate house) will enable the water to be 

intercepted at a valve chamber and diverted into the Deluge Lagoon. 

3.69 Deluge water will be stored in the Deluge Lagoon until it can either be tankered away or treated to 

a standard that would allow it to be discharged into Middle Drain. The Deluge Lagoon will have a 

valved outlet to the surface water pumping station to assist with disposal of water (as if 

appropriate); during normal operation the valve will be closed. 

3.70 The Deluge Lagoon also provides the opportunity to contain any accidental spillages that enter 

the drainage system. 



Figure 3.2 Overall Site Layout 



Figure 3.3 Main Site Process Area Layout 



Raw Materials and Resources Use and Storage 

Chemicals 

3.71 The main raw materials are carbide and water. Other process related chemicals include sulphuric 

acid and sodium hydroxide (for the scrubbers), glycol (for the cooling water system for cylinder 

filling) and acetone (as a solvent for the acetylene). An estimate of raw material and chemical 

usage is provided in Table 3.1, along with the location where the material is stored and the main 

form of secondary containments (as applicable). 

Material Form Usage 

Calcium carbide 

Sodium 

hydroxide 

Irregular solid 

lumps (5 mm 

80 mm) 

Table 3.1 Chemical Usage and Storage 

3,700 t/yr 

Storage 

Method 

Turnbins 

(1.8 t) 

Liquid


Water Use 

3.72 The proposed development will use two new water supplies from Anglian Water’s mains water 

supply on Hobson Way. The two supplies will be potable and non potable water. The potable 

water is a secure supply, whereas the non-potable supply cannot be guaranteed. The water use 

philosophy will be to use the non-potable water supply when and where possible. The Anglian 

Water supplies will be supplemented by water that is recycled from the process. In addition, (as 

described previously) a rainwater harvesting system will collect clean surface water runoff to 

augment the supply of process water. 

3.73 The water requirements for the process have been estimated at approximately 29,600 t/yr, 

approximately 8,660 t/yr of this will be provided by water that has been recycled from the process. 

Non-process water requirements are estimated at approximately 860 t/yr. Thus, mains water 

usage is expected to be in the region of 21,800 t/yr. In reality water usage will be lower, as these 

figures do not account for water that is collected by the rainwater harvesting system. 

Electricity 

3.74 All equipment involved in the manufacturing and cylinder filling processes will be electrically 

driven. Annual electricity use has been estimated at 1,515,035 kWh/yr. 

Gas Use 

3.75 The site has a requirement for a natural gas supply which will serve the new boiler house, which 

will be used for domestic purposes and heating buildings. The new facilities will be connected to 

the mains gas supply on Hobson Way. Annual gas usage has been estimated at 71,000 kWh/yr. 

Diesel Use 

3.76 Diesel use will be limited to firewater deluge pumps and forklift trucks. Diesel will be supplied via 

the existing site. The firewater pumps will be on skids with an integral diesel supply built in. The 

fire pumps will be run each month for 30 minutes to confirm availability. Total annual diesel use is 

estimate to be less than 5 m 3 /yr. 

Atmospheric Emissions 

3.77 Emissions to atmosphere will consist of acetylene, ammonia, phosphine, hydrogen sulphide and 

acetone. Ammonia, phosphine and hydrogen sulphide are only present as a result of the 

impurities in the raw carbide. 

3.78 An estimate of the likely emissions from the proposed facility has been produced using the EIGA 

methodology and spreadsheet 16 for the calculation of air emissions from an acetylene plant. This 

gave the following approximate values: 

� acetylene 22,000 kg/yr; 

� phosphine 1.9 kg/yr; 

� ammonia 2.2 kg/yr; 

� hydrogen sulphide 0.06 kg/yr; and 

� acetone


3.80 The main sources of the acetylene emissions are: 

� charging the generator with carbide and turnbin purging (a non-continuous emission source, 

which would occur approximately four times per hour during charging) (1.8 t/yr); 

� fugitive emissions from the lime sump (a continuous area source) (1.9 t/yr); 

� compression, drying and filling operations (a mixture of point source and fugitive emissions) 

(6 t/yr); and 

� internal examination of cylinders (a mixture of point source and fugitive emissions) (12 t/yr). 

3.81 Thus, over 80% of the emissions of acetylene arise from the internal examination of cylinders and 

from the compression, drying and filling operations. There is a vent on the roof of the Cylinder 

Examination Shop for the release of acetylene that cannot be recovered from the blowdown of 

cylinders in the Cylinder Examination Shop. There are a number of vents on the Cylinder and 

Bundle Filling Building (and the Generator Building), most of these are associated with purging 

activities or pressure relief systems (for use during abnormal operation). In addition, the process 

related buildings will be naturally ventilated (to prevent build up of acetylene) through the use of 

louvres mounted at low level and in most cases a ridge vent running along the top of the apex of 

the building. 

3.82 In addition to the activities listed above, trivial volumes of emissions (approximately 40 kg/yr of 

acetylene) will be generated from the Gas Holder and the over pressure relief system under 

abnormal emergency use. 

3.83 As a result of the vapour pressure of acetylene, it will exist solely as a gas in the atmosphere. 

Gas-phase acetylene will be degraded in the atmosphere by reaction with photochemicallyproduced 

hydroxyl radicals and the half-life for this reaction in air is estimated to be 20 days. 

3.84 Other potential sources of atmospheric emissions are very small quantities of carbide dust, 

generated from materials handling activities and shot (from shot blasting). Also, solvent thinners 

will be released from the Paint Shop (via vents in the roof of the Cylinder Examination Shop) as a 

result of painting and drying activities. 

Aqueous Discharges 

3.85 There will be no discharge of process water from the manufacturing process to land or water. 

Where at all possible, process water is recovered and re-used in the manufacturing process. 

Some water is taken offsite as part of the lime slurry product. Small quantities of waste water will 

be generated from the scrubbing system and the cooling water systems; however, these aqueous 

wastes will be tankered offsite for appropriate treatment disposal. Further information on aqueous 

wastes is provided in the Section on ‘Waste Generation and Storage’ below. 

3.86 The aqueous discharges from the site will be the same in nature and source as those that are 

currently released to Middle Drain from the existing site, i.e.: 

� clean surface runoff water; 

� clean water from the OWSs for the compressors (if this is not recovered for re-use); 

� clean water from regenerating the dryers (if this is not recovered for re-use); 

� hard, salty water that is produced from the twice month regeneration of the water softener 

(approximately 25 t/yr); and 

� treated domestic effluent (see section on ‘Drainage Systems’). 

3.87 Water from deluge systems and fire-fighting activities will be collected by the site’s Drainage 

System and discharged to a Deluge Lagoon for recycling or treatment prior to discharge to Middle 

Drain offsite disposal (as appropriate). 



3.88 There will be a single discharge point into Middle Drain for all aqueous discharges. All water 

discharged from the site to Middle Drain will need to be pumped (as described in the previous 

Section on Drainage Systems). The discharges will require consent from the EA and or NELDB. 

3.89 As a result of cooling the cylinders during filling operations, trace amounts of glycol have the 

potential to remain on the surface of the cylinders. The glycol will evaporate and degrade from the 

cylinders’ surface over time (glycol vapour has an estimated half life of 32 hours 17 ). As glycol is 

soluble in water, if it rains soon after the cylinders have been filled, there is the potential for glycol 

to enter the Site’s Drainage System. 

3.90 The total rate of loss of glycol from the system is assumed to be the same as glycol usage, 

estimated to be 0.4 kg/hr. The majority of the glycol loss it associated with the over dilute glycol 

waste stream (as glycol absorbs moisture from the air, resulting in its dilution). 

3.91 The lowest level of rainfall that this required to result in a discharge to Middle Drain is 12.5 mm/hr. 

The paved areas of the site are estimated to cover ~ 1.5 ha, thus, rain falling over 1 hour would 

result in 187,500 litres of water. Assuming the absolute worst case quantity of glycol (0.4 kg/hr), 

this would result in the surface water discharge to Middle Drain have a glycol concentration of 

2.1 mg/l. 

3.92 Glycol is not expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment within the water column, the 

main environmental fate process is biodegradation 17 . Bio-concentration in animals is reportedly 

low 17 . Ecotoxicity data (lethal concentration) for glycol is in the order of 7,417 to 75,200 mg/l for 

daphnid and fathead minnow respectively 18 .The MSDS 19 for glycol gives the following LC50 data: 

� 5,000 mg/l 24 hours (goldfish); 

� >10,000 mg/l 48 hours (guppy); and 

� >10,000 mg/l 48 hours (water flea). 

3.93 Thus it is considered that this source of glycol and its potential effects are negligible and this is not 

considered further herein. 

Waste Generation and Storage 

3.94 The general philosophy for the Project will aim to ensure that waste generation from operation will 

be prevented or minimised at source. For wastes that cannot be avoided, the preferred options will 

be re-use, recycling or recovery and finally disposal. Any waste storage, disposal and waste 

recovery activities will be undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation and the requirements 

of the EP and the EMS for the site. 

3.95 There are relatively few wastes arising as a result of the manufacturing process, a summary of 

waste generation and storage methods is provided in Table 3.2. 

Table 3.2 Waste Generation and Storage 

Material Form Quantity Storage 

Method 

Unreacted carbide 

and coke 

Solid


Material Form Quantity Storage 

Method 

Dilute glycol Liquid 1.5 t/yr Drums (25 

l) 

Cooling Tower and 

Bundle Filling 

Cooling System 

waste water (from 

sterilisation) 

Waste filters and 

paint solids 

Waste paint 

thinners 

Storage Location Containment 

System 

Plant Room Acid & 

Lye Store 

Drip tray bund 

(as required) 

Liquid 4 t/yr IBCs Acid & Lye Store Bund 

Solid 1,025 l/yr Drums (205 

l) 

Liquid


Activity Vehicle 

Type 

Workforce 

Table 3.3 Traffic Generation 

One Way Vehicle 

Movements and 

Frequency (Mon-Fri) 

Max. No. Of One Way 

Trips in any Day 

Staff arriving leaving Car 15-20 trips per day 20 

Maintenance visits (a) car van 2 trips per month 1 

Raw Materials (b) 

Calcium carbide delivery HGV 2 trips per week 1 

Sodium hydroxide, 

sulphuric acid 

HGV 1 trip per fortnight 1 

Acetone & nitrogen HGV


Design Considerations and Standards 

Overarching 

3.102 The plant will be designed and constructed taking into account: 

� EIGA Code of Practice for Acetylene 15 , and associated documentation; 

� Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmosphere Regulations (DSEAR) 2002; 

� Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres 

Regulations 1996; 

� ACE-09-06-BOC Acetylene Plant Design; 

� ACE-09-07-BOC Examination Shop Design; 

� ACE-09-08-BOC Calcium Carbide Storage Area Design; and 

� ACE 09-11-GROUP Deluge Systems. 

Architectural 

3.103 The key architectural drivers determining the location and layout of the new facility are: 

� required safety separation from other populated areas (such as buildings on neighbouring 

sites) and roads the facility should be designed such that Hobson Way would not be affected 

by any cordon required in the event of an incident and such that domino effects on the existing 

site are minimised; 

� separation from the acrylonitrile pipeline running alongside the railway on the south western 

boundary of the site; 

� minimum 5 m separation between process buildings and compliance with other separation 

criteria as identified in the EIGA Code of Practice for Acetylene document 15 ; 

� pedestrian access is required from the existing BOC facility, which will provide staff and visitor 

car parking for cars, motorbikes and pedal cycles; 

� avoidance of any significant works in, or on, the 18 m Anglian Water easement on the south 

eastern perimeter of the site; 

� vehicle circulation is required such that it will enable HGVs to access, circulate and depart with 

the minimum of manoeuvring, and allow them to move safely and practically; 

� parked HGV’s need to have 5 m clear space around them for forklift truck operations; 

� safe pedestrian and forklift circulation routes are required around and throughout the facility 

these have been based on 3 m wide forklift with a 1.2 m pedestrian route on either side; 

� piperacks will be routed over pedestrian walkways with a minimum clear height of 4m, rising to 

5m where HGV access is required underneath; and 

� efficient usage of the site so that as much of the land remaining can be leased for agricultural 

purposes. 



Safety 

3.104 Given the nature of the operations at the proposed site the key driver to the design is safety. 

Providing that all safety requirements can be accounted for the design can then be influenced by 

other considerations (e.g. sustainability and environmental issues). 

3.105 As noted previously, the plant will be designed such that is can meet the requirements of the 

COMAH regulations and other current, relevant safety related legislation. 

Environmental 

3.106 The design of the plant will take into account the environmental requirements in the EIGA code of 

practice 15 and associated documentation. 

3.107 As noted previously, the plant will be designed such that is can meet the requirements of its EP 

and demonstrate the application of BAT. 

Sustainability and Efficiency 

3.108 The process is inherently efficient in that returnable gas containers are re-used and re-filled (i.e. 

they are not disposable cylinders). 

3.109 The Project will take into account Policy DM 10 (Adapting to climate Change) and will aim to adopt 

a sustainable approach to developing the design. In particular the design has considered 

addressing flood risk by adopting a sequential approach to the identification, and development of 

sites in accordance with PPS 25 (see Annex 8) such as: 

� incorporating appropriate flood mitigation and where necessary flood resilience measures; or 

flood warning measures; 

� incorporating sustainable drainage systems; and where appropriate, green infrastructure; 

� adopting sustainable building techniques (including selection and sourcing of materials) that 

promote water and energy efficiency and minimise waste through reduction and reuse; both 

during the construction and lifetime of the development; 

� adopting sustainable design principles regarding the layout and form of development; 

� ensuring consideration is given to the effect of development on biodiversity; and 

� supporting renewable energy proposals that contribute to meeting the renewable energy 

targets for North East Lincolnshire. 

3.110 Examples of how some the points listed above have been considered are discussed below: 

� the new plant has been designed to be considerably more efficient than its predecessor in 

Bristol. In particularly, buildings will be better insulated to minimise heat loss gain, the footprint 

of buildings will be reduced where possible and automatic doors at entrances and exits will be 

considered (where appropriate feasible) to minimise heat loss; 

� the construction of the project will adopt sustainable building techniques including, as far as is 

possible, those relating to the selection and sourcing of materials and those that minimise 

waste generation and material use, whilst maximising efficiency; 

� rainwater will be harvested from roofs for use as process water in order to help reduce water 

usage; 

� it is intended that ‘return gas’ (i.e. any residual acetylene gas in cylinders returned for refill) will 

be recovered and returned to product lines; 

� it is intended to recover heat from the generator that results from the exothermic reaction of 

the carbide with the water for use in heating the Generator Building; 



� water will also be recovered from the lime slurry and will be re-used in the process to help 

minimise water usage; 

� a Deluge Lagoon will be designed to facilitate recovery of deluge water; and 

� the use of solar panels is inconsistent with the process buildings; however, the Amenities 

Building will have solar panels. 

Biodiversity 

3.111 As evidenced by the existing site, the presence of wildlife on site is positively encouraged. For 

example, a number of employees have constructed and installed nest boxes, including ones 

specially designed for kestrels and owls, at the existing site. The kestrel nest box has been in 

place for a number of years and young have been reared every year since its placement. An 

innovation last year was to install a camera so that live footage could be displayed in a nearby 

workshop. 

3.112 At the proposed site, the embankments will be planted with meadow grass. The area that houses 

the Deluge Lagoon, between the railway line and the new access road, will be set aside for nature 

enhancements (see Figure 3.4 for further information). 

Site Appearance, Layout and Structures 

Landscaping 

3.113 The proposed Site Landscaping Plan (see Figure 3.4) provides details of the landscape features 

of the proposed development. The proposals include the creation of a ‘Nature Enhancement Area’ 

(NEA) within the portion of the site that lies between the south western extent of the new 

development and the railway line that forms the south-western site boundary. The NEA will deliver 

enhanced biodiversity value to the site in a manner that is compatible with the proposed facility. At 

this stage of the development, detailed landscaping planning has not been completed BOC has 

committed to design the NEA in consultation with NE, NELC and the Humber Industry Nature 

Conservation Association (INCA). BOC is considering whether the project could also involve the 

community (e.g. local schools), potentially through the forum of a design competition. 

Layout and Appearance 

3.114 The design and layout of the facility aims to minimise the area of hard standing required and to 

maximise the area of the field that can continue to be used as agricultural land. 

3.115 The emergency access route to the site provides the maximum separation possible between the 

proposed site and BOC’s existing site (within the constraints of the field boundaries in the event of 

a gas release). 

3.116 It is proposed to retain the existing site levels, averaged out to provide a flat site, with falls as 

necessary for adequate drainage. 

3.117 The proposed site use requires a mixture of buildings, a drive through lime tanker filling facility and 

areas of hard standings for cylinder storage, loading and unloading HGV’s and process plant. The 

building shapes will be to suit the processes which they house and the majority of the building 

forms have been dictated by the process requirements. 

3.118 The main elements and physical features of the proposed development include: 

� a new two lane footbridge from the existing site to the proposed site (over Middle Drain) and a 

new access road from the bridge to the site; 

� a new carriageway that will serve as a circular one way route around the main process area; 



� a new emergency access road from the south easterly corner of the one way loop road to 

South Marsh Road; 

� 2 m high earth embankments; 

� four main buildings: 

- Amenities Building (including toilets, mess room, office, communications room, boiler 

room and store), 

- Generator Building (including Safe Haven refuge areas on the first and second floors), 

- Cylinder & Bundle Filling Building (also housing a room for compression and an Electrical 

Switch Room), and 

- Cylinder Examination Shop (including a Paint Shop); 

� three Lime Storage Tanks and one or two Rotary Drum Filters; 

� two Deluge Water Tanks and an attenuation lagoon for deluge water; 

� areas for storage (cylinders, bundles (a number of cylinders manifolded together), materials, 

liquid nitrogen, chemicals and wastes); 

� areas for vehicle trailer filling, parking and turning; 

� a drivers’ shelter; 

� pipe racking; and 

� a new 2.4 m high paladin (or equivalent) security fence. 

3.119 The main building fabrication materials are likely to be metal, insulated panels. Due to the nature 

of the development, material selection is limited and needs to be based on process requirements 

(insulation, fire proofing, sound reduction etc.). The colour scheme and finish will be as per the 

existing BOC site (i.e. greys with a low sheen finish). The bridge deck and all the road and hard 

standings will be of concrete construction. 

Access and Accessibility 

3.120 The design assumed that site access is gained in the following ways: 

� normal operational traffic will access through the existing BOC site and across a new bridge 

over Middle Drain using a new short link road to the proposed site; and 

� emergency access and construction vehicles will access the site via South Marsh Road. 

3.121 During normal operation vehicular and pedestrian access and to the proposed site will be via the 

existing site entrance (on Hobson Way) and the main gatehouse. A junction will be formed with 

the existing site perimeter road to feed the new facility. A footway would run along the eastern 

side of the new bridge over the Middle Drain connecting to the new facility via a pedestrian 

crossing. A security barrier with intercom will be in place between the existing site gatehouse and 

the proposed site. 

3.122 Staff parking (including cycle and motor bike facilities) will be at the existing site car park, although 

two parking places, one disabled, will be available at the proposed site. Following organic growth 

in the existing site workforce BOC is planning to apply for consent to extend the existing car park 

(this is project is separate from and independent of the Dissolved Acetylene Project). 



3.123 The site has been laid out to provide the simplest vehicle access routes for HGVs visiting the site. 

The road is designed to be wide enough for two way traffic for future flexibility, but it is envisaged 

that it will be used as one way route around the plant in a clockwise direction. This will minimise 

the amount of manoeuvring and reversing on the site. The new road will provide access to the 

Lime Storage Tanks, Full Cylinder and Bundle Stores and all other storage tanks. Access to these 

elements is also enabled by the provision of dedicated vehicle parking areas, which are off the 

main circulation route, across the site. 

3.124 The site will be nominally level (with falls for drainage) so that forklift access is available to all 

circulation routes, hard standing storage areas and building entrances. The majority of internal 

floors will be at the same level as external levels to minimise ramps and slip, trip and fall hazards. 

3.125 There will be a secondary gate in the fence facing South Marsh Road, which will be used initially 

during the construction phase. In the final scheme this will be used only as a means of access for 

the emergency services. An additional pedestrian gate will be situated in the fence at the most 

south westerly corner for emergency egress. 

3.126 There will be gates in the security fence on either side of the new bridge to provide access to 

NELDB for maintenance to Middle Drain. Typically these gates will be locked. 



Figure 3.4 Preliminary Landscape Plan 



Buildings and Structures 

Overview 

3.127 The nature and form of the proposed buildings vary depending on the activity carried out within. 

The very simplest structures form shields to protect the contents from the weather whilst the most 

complex must provide a temperature controlled work space with over-pressure release features 

and potentially blast walls incorporated. The main structures and their substructures are discussed 

in turn below. 

Amenity Building 

3.128 The Amenity Building (see Figure 3.2) is a single storey structure. This building has a flat roof 

which will be equipped with solar panels. The only doors and windows to the staff areas are on the 

north elevation, so as not to face either the Process Area to the south east, or the acrylonitrile 

pipeline to the south west. 

3.129 The Amenity Building has been designed to provide welfare facilities for 17 workers, along with an 

office for the site Operations Manager, and a Communications Room. The welfare facilities 

include lobbied male and combined female disabled toilets, a general space to be used as a mess 

briefing area and a kitchen. The mess area will provide access to the Communications Room, 

which will house IT telephony security equipment. This building also houses in separate spaces 

the Boiler Deluge Pump Room and Store Maintenance Room. 

3.130 The overall building is expected to have an estimated footprint in the region of 97 m 2 . It is 3.95 m 

high to the top of the roof ridge; however, because of the solar panels it has an overall height of 

5.2 m. 

3.131 The two Deluge Tanks are located to the south east of the building and the Deluge Lagoon is to 

the south west. 

Generator Building 

3.132 The Generator Building (see Figure 3.3) is a three storey high building which is accessed by a 4 m 

high sectional door with three additional single pedestrian doors on the ground floor. There is an 

additional pedestrian door at high level to access the walkway to the Lime Storage Tanks. The 

building has a lightweight pitched roof capable of providing relief in the event of an overpressure 

event. 

3.133 The ground floor of the building will contain the Generator, Gas Holder, the scrubbing systems 

and the Water Softener. The building has a footprint of 140 m 2 . It is 12.8 m high to the top of the 

roof ridge with an overall height of 15.8 m including vent stacks, making it the tallest structure on 

the site. 

3.134 In the event of flooding, the first and second floors of the Generator Building will provide safe 

havens refuges for site personnel. 

3.135 The Waste Liquor Storage Tanks and the Lime Sump are external, adjacent to the north western 

gable of to the building. The Rainwater Harvesting Tank and Cooling Water Tower are also 

external to the building, adjacent to the south eastern gable. The Acid and Lye Store is located 

close to the north eastern wall. 

Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building 

3.136 The Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building will be designed with a roof capable of providing relief in 

the event of an overpressure event, whilst the walls must be strong enough to prevent or restrict 

the spread of fire. The design principles for the Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building are largely 

driven by EIGA standard IGC 123 15 . 



3.137 The Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building contains separate rooms for cylinder filling, bundle filling, 

compression (and drying). There will be four compressor units and two high pressure drying units 

in the Compressor Room. The Building contains the Plant Room, which houses the glycol-based 

cylinder filling cooling system and plant air compressor. The Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building 

also contains rooms for a new HV Substation and a LV Switchroom. 

3.138 The building has a footprint of 632 m 2 . It is 8.3 m high to the top of the roof ridge with an overall 

height of 11.3 m including vent stacks. 

3.139 The Cylinder Filling Room has recessed sides and an overhanging roof to provide shelter to six 

sectional doors on the north east and south west elevations. The area has single pedestrian doors 

on both these elevations, along with two smaller sectional doors to access a conveyor which runs 

between them. It has roof ventilation at the ridge. The floor level of this room is 150 mm above 

external levels, with sort dock kerbs within the six main doors. 

3.140 The Bundle Filling Room is accessed by two 4 m high sectional doors with two additional single 

pedestrian doors. It has roof ventilation at the ridge. The floor level of this room is the same as 

external levels. 

3.141 The Plant Room is accessed by large external louvered double doors with additional louvers 

above. It is formed from gas tight walls with no internal openings between it and other spaces. It 

has roof ventilation at the highest point. The floor of this room is set 200 mm above external levels 

to provide some simple protection from low level flooding events. 

3.142 The Compressor Room is accessed by a 4 m high sectional door with an additional single 

pedestrian door. It has roof ventilation at the highest point. The floor of this room is the same as 

external levels. There is a clear opening in the wall on the south side of this room providing 

access. 

3.143 The new Substation and the LV Switchroom will be defended from flood water ingress by flood 

doors. 

Cylinder Examination Shop 

3.144 The Cylinder Examination Shop (see Figure 3.3) is accessed by two 4 m high sectional doors with 

three additional single pedestrian doors. It has a pitched roof with ventilation to the ridge, and 

insulated wall panels on a steel frame. The floor level of this building is set 150mm above external 

levels. It will be designed with a roof capable of providing relief in the event of an over-pressure 

event. 

3.145 The Cylinder Examination Shop contains areas for blowing down, maintaining cylinders, shot 

blasting, painting and drying cylinders. The building has a footprint of 200 m 2 . It is 8.3 m high to 

the top of the roof ridge with an overall height of 13 m including vent stacks. This building has not 

been specifically designed for blast or flood protection. 

Sort Dock 

3.146 The Sort Dock (see Figure 3.3) is an open sided structure with forklift access along the two long 

sides, and sort kerbs within, to allow the sorting of cylinders returned to the facility. It has a 

monopitch roof with a ridge height of 5 m and a footprint of 52 m 2 . 

Drivers’ Shelter 

3.147 The drivers’ shelter (see Figure 3.3) is a simple steel framed structure clad with clear Glass 

Reinforced Plastic (GRP). Its purpose is to provide a waiting area whilst vehicles are being loaded 

unloaded. The footprint of the Shelter is 7 m 2 , it is 2.4 m high. 



Storage 

3.148 There will be three Lime Storage Tanks (see Figure 3.3), these will be elevated (13.2 m high) to 

allow tankers to pass beneath the containers for loading from the top. The arrangement of the 

containers will allow two tankers to be filled side by side. The Rotary Drum Filters are also located 

on the elevated platform, adjacent to the Lime Tanks. 

3.149 Two deluge water tanks and the Deluge Lagoon are located near to the Amenities Building. 

3.150 The N2 VIE Tank (which is 4 m high) is located to the south east of the Cylinder Examination Shop 

and to the north east of the Empty Cylinder Storage Area. 

3.151 The Acid and Lye Storage Area is located to the north east of the Generator Building, with a 

footprint of 12 m 2 . 

3.152 The Waste Liquor Storage Tanks and the Lime Sump are on the north western gable of the 

Generator Building. 

3.153 The Rainwater Harvesting Tank and Cooling Water Tower are also adjacent to the south eastern 

gable of the Generator Building. 

3.154 The Acetone Tank is located between the Lime Storage Area and Surplus Cylinder Store. 

3.155 The south east corner of the main process the main process area will provide the following 

storage areas: 

� Empty Cylinder Storage (footprint approximately 168 m 2 ); 

� Cylinder Examination Shop Storage (footprint approximately 131 m 2 ); and 

� Empty Bundle Storage (footprint approximately 128 m 2 ). 

3.156 The west side of the main process area will provide the following storage areas: 

� Full Bundle Storage (footprint approximately 128 m 2 ); 

� Full Cylinder Storage (footprint approximately 128 m 2 ); and 

� Surplus Cylinder Storage (footprint approximately 128 m 2 ). 

3.157 Cylinder and bundle storage areas are open areas (i.e. no roof or exterior walls). 

Vehicle Related Areas 

3.158 There will be a number of vehicle related areas around the edge of the main process area. All of 

these areas will be within the one way loop road. 

3.159 An area for container loading will be located on the north western side of the main process area, 

close to the Lime Storage Tanks. In the south east corner there will be an area for vehicle 

unloading. A trailer assembly area will be located at the centre of the south eastern boundary. 

Two vehicle parking areas will be located on the south western boundary. 

Pipe Racking 

3.160 Pipe racking will provide a link from the Lime Storage tanks to the Generator Building. An 

additional set of racking links the Generator Building to the Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building 

and the Cylinder Examination Shop. 



Lighting 

3.161 The lighting installations will be designed in accordance with the recommendations and 

requirements of: 

� Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE): The Industrial Environment; 

� CIBSE: The Outdoor Environment; 

� Building Regulations Part L; and 

� BS5266: Emergency Lighting. 

3.162 As far as possible, lighting will be confined to the main site areas. Where offsite lighting is required 

for safe pedestrian and vehicle movement (e.g. the new bridge across Middle Drain) this will be 

designed to reduce minimise light spill. 

3.163 Where possible, lighting for external areas will be provided via building mounted luminaries. 

Where buildings are not available for mounting, lighting columns will be utilised. Luminaries will be 

selected to suit the hazardous area classification. 

3.164 The perimeter road will be illuminated using lighting columns (anticipated to be 4 m to 8 m high) 

sited around the external perimeter of the road. 

3.165 Walkway lighting will be mounted on available buildings \ structures where available 

Supplementary lighting will need to be provided in certain areas for maintenance work on the 

plant. 

3.166 Out of hours lighting will be limited to road lighting and security requirements. The design of 

lighting will need to be co-ordinated with the CCTV installation and other security measures 

proposed for the site perimeter fencing, manned patrols etc. Consideration of security lighting will 

include: 

� defensive area lighting (this is the lighting of open spaces around and between structures from 

building mounted, pole mounted or tower mounted luminaries); and 

� defensive building floodlighting (this is floodlighting of buildings, plant, structures to reveal 

people silhouettes). 

Security 

3.167 A 2.4 m high security fence will be installed around the development area. As discussed 

previously, access will be controlled through the existing site and security systems will be in place 

to prevent traffic being allowed across the bridge over Middle Drain without clearance. In addition, 

the following security requirements will be developed and implemented (as required): 

� security lighting (see paragraph 3.161 onwards); 

� full CCTV coverage around the new development; 

� possible presence detection; 

� loudspeaker installation for warnings alarms; 

� microwave detection at perimeter; 

� intruder detection alarms within buildings; and 

� alarms \ CCTV monitoring at the existing site’s Gatehouse. 



Alternatives 

Site and Layout Alternatives 

3.168 BOC considered a large number of sites for the Project, at both a local and national level. A full 

description of the site selection process is provided in Appendix 9D. The Immingham site was the 

only site that fulfilled all of the search criteria and was selected as it has the advantages of: 

� being able to ensure a safe distance (200 m buffer) between the facility and the public; 

� as a result of all the other chemicals and manufacturing industries along the Humber: 

- the HSE and emergency services in the area are familiar with and trained in dealing with 

chemical process and gases, and 

- there is a skilled labour pool in the area; 

� proximity to Immingham Docks, which gives good access to imported raw material and to the 

European supply chain; and 

� proximity to customers for the lime by-product. 

3.169 The selection of the location and orientation of the facility within the Stallingborough site was 

primarily safety based in relation to achieving appropriate separation distances between the 

facility and the public. A further consideration for the layout has been the efficient usage of the site 

so that as much of the land remaining can be used for agricultural purposes. 

Process Alternatives 

3.170 There two different processes for the manufacture of acetylene: 

� reaction of calcium carbide with water; and 

� as a gaseous by product from cracking crude oils. 

3.171 In the UK, the main method is the reaction of carbide and water. This is due to the lack of 

availability of crude oil feedstock where acetylene is required and to the economics of the 

production process. 

3.172 There are different methods of producing acetylene from carbide a low pressure method and a 

medium high pressure method. For this development the low pressure route has been chosen on 

safety grounds. 



4. Planning Context and Policies 

Introduction 

4.1 This chapter sets out the specific planning background that has informed the development of the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project and the content of the Planning Application. It also refers to other 

relevant Planning Applications and consultation, indicating where these have influenced the 

Project. An evaluation of the proposed development in relation to pertinent national, regional and 

local planning policies is provided in Chapter 17. 

Planning Policy 

4.2 Planning Applications are assessed against the content of the Development Plan. During the 

period of development of the Project, the composition of the Development Plan and its content 

has continued to evolve. Currently, the Development Plan is represented by the Regional Spatial 

Strategy (RSS) for Yorkshire and Humber (The Yorkshire and Humber Plan) to 2026, and the 

saved policies from the Adopted North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 (the Local Plan). It is 

noted that the Coalition Government has stated an intention to abolish the regional planning 

structure and revoke RSSs. Following a series of court cases into the legality of RSS abolition (via 

the Localism Bill), Chief Planning Officers across England have been advised that RSSs currently 

remain part of the Development Plan; however, the intended abolition of RSSs should form a 

material consideration in assigning weight to RSS policies in the determination of Planning 

Applications. 

4.3 In addition to the Development Plan, proposals should be developed in accordance with national 

planning policies. These policies are expressed in Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and PPSs. 

The contents of national policies form material considerations in the determination of Planning 

Applications. The North East Lincolnshire Local Development Framework (LDF) is also under 

preparation and, once adopted, will supersede the Local Plan as part of the Development Plan. As 

the Development Plan Documents (DPDs) that will comprise the LDF are published, and subject 

to consultation, they gain increasing weight as material considerations in the determination of 

Planning Applications. 

4.4 For the purposes of the ES, the aim is for specialist assessment work to demonstrate that 

development is acceptable in terms of potential impacts on the environment. In this respect, this 

Chapter is not intended as a Planning Supporting Statement presenting the overall case for the 

development, but rather, identifies policies that are relevant to the consideration of the likely 

environmental effects of the proposed development. In this context, relevance is governed by the 

following factors: 

� policies identifying quantified compliance standards for development proposals; and 

� policies presenting qualitative criteria to be met by development proposals. 

4.5 As part of the EIA process, the environmental specialists have been made aware of relevant 

policies. This has ensured that the planning policy context for the development is known and 

reflected in the execution of the EIA. This approach ensures that the design of the Project has 

evolved in an awareness of planning policy and that the design and control measures proposed 

within the ES have been developed in an awareness of the compliance standards and criteria 

specific to North East Lincolnshire. 



Key Planning Issues 

4.6 The planning policy framework for the Project has been reviewed. A summary of the relevant 

policies that have informed the preparation of the ES is presented in Appendix 4A. The review has 

been informed by the Scoping Opinion 4 provided by NELC in accordance with Regulation 10 of 

the EIA Regulations 2 . 

Scoping Opinion 

4.7 The Scoping Opinion 4 indicates that NELC supports the approach as presented by the Applicant 

in the Scoping Report 3 . The Scoping Opinion 4 includes consultation responses from NE, the EA; 

the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT), the HA and the NELC Environmental Health Officer (EHO), 

which are presented as an Appendix to the NELC response. The Applicant is requested to take 

these responses into consideration in conducting the EIA. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the 

policy matters referenced within the Scoping Opinion. The Scoping Opinion 4 is presented as 

Appendix 5A. In addition, Table 5.2 provides a summary of Scoping Opinion 4 responses, along 

with an indication of how and where these have been addressed within the ES. 

Table 4.1 Summary of Policy References within Scoping Report Consultation Responses 

Respondent Issue Policy Legislation 

NE Location in relation to the Humber Estuary 

means a HRA will be required. HRA is to be 

undertaken in accordance with ODPM Circular 

06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation Statutory Obligations and their 

impacts within the Planning System 

NE 

LWT 

NE 

LWT 

Requirement for bird data on recorded 

numbers of SPA species both in the 

development itself and the surrounding fields 

where they represent >1% of the Humber 

Estuary bird population. 

Requirement to ensure the data is up-to-date 

and remains relevant. 

Avoidance of clearance of trees and scrub 

during the bird breeding season (advised 

March August inclusive). 

Support the integration of appropriate 

mitigation within the Project. 

NE Impacts on Protected Species: 

� potential construction disturbance to Middle 

Drain on water voles; 

� confirmation of presence/absence of bats; 

� survey information for badgers, if 

appropriate; and 

� data relating to potential effects on Great 

Crested Newts. 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 

1981 (as amended); the 

Habitats Regulations 2010. 

PPS 9 Biodiversity and 

Geological Conservation. 




Geological Conservation: 

paragraph 98. 




NE Noise - potential impacts of construction noise 

on SPA designated bird species, demonstrated 

via a worst case scenario noise plot. 

NE Air quality - assesses the potential impacts on 

designated habitats within 10 km of the Site. 

NE Seek to maximise opportunities to build in 

beneficial biodiversity or geological features 

within the design, in and around developments. 

Suggests: 

� altering farming practices in neighbouring 

fields to support SPA bird species; 

� wildflower meadow creation; and 

� bird, owl and bat boxes. 

EA Requirement for correct classification of the 

Project in relation to the flood risk vulnerability 

classification. 

EA Requirement for a FRA. Should incorporate an 

accurate assessment based on the predicted 

lifetime of the Project. 

EA Appropriate consideration of whether the 

Project is required to remain operational during 

a flood event; and appropriate evidence of if 

how this will be achieved (use 0.1% annual 

probability + climate change). 

EA Demonstration of the way in which flood 

resilience is incorporated into the design. 

EA Submission of a robust Flood Warning and 

Evacuation Plan for the Project. 

EA Conduct of the additional works set out in 

paragraph 6.16 of the Scoping Report in 

relation to GI works. 

HA Potential requirement for a traffic management 

plan for construction phase to minimise the 

impact on the local and strategic road 

networks. 













Lincolnshire Biodiversity 

Action Plan. 

PPS 25 Development and 

Flood Risk, especially Table 

D2 and Table D3. 


Flood Risk. 


Flood Risk. 


Flood Risk. 


Flood Risk. 

PPS 23 Planning and 

Pollution Control. 

CLR 11 Model Procedures for 

the Management of Land 

Contamination. 

PPG 13 Transport. 

NELC Local Transport Plan 3. 




HA Requirement for consideration of the hazards 

associated with transportation of raw materials, 

finished product and waste products on the 

strategic road network. Supported by 

information on Emergency Planning at the Site, 

including: 

� strategy and arrangements for emergencies 

on or close to the A180; 

� proposals for implementing closures and or 

diversion routes if the A1173 A180 is 

compromised by any incident; and 

� proposals for buffer zones and emergency 

management relating to an incident on site. 

Summary of Key Planning Issues 

4.8 Taken together, the Scoping Opinion 4 and the policy review indicate that the following issues are 

of particular importance in achieving development proposals that are acceptable in terms of 

potential environmental impacts (references in brackets are to the pertinent planning 

policies/documents): 

� understanding and managing the risks of flooding associated with the industrial areas defined 

along the Humber Estuary, developing measures within the design of the Project to ensure 

flood resilience and avoid elevation of flood risk on site or offsite (PPS 25; Yorkshire and 

Humber Plan (RSS) Policies YH1 and ENV1); 

� assessing and responding to the potential impacts of the Project arising from proximity to the 

international and national ecological designations on the Humber Estuary, particularly in 

relation to SPA Bird Species (PPS 9; PPG 24; Consultation Paper on Natural and Healthy 

Environment PPS; RSS Policies YH1 and ENV8; NELC Local Plan (LP) Policies E2, NH1, 

NH2 and NH3, Local Development Framework (LDF) emerging Policy DM9); 

� achieving satisfactory access arrangements onto the site and managing impacts associated 

with likely traffic movements generated by the Scheme (PPS 1 and supplement to PPS1; 

PPG 13, RSS Policies YH7 and T1; NELC LP Policies T6 and T7; LSF emerging Policies 

SO6 and DM7); 

� controlling the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the 

Scheme (PPS 10; PPG 24; NELC LP Policy GEN1); 

� minimising the potential for the Project to give rise to pollution through the inclusion of 

appropriate controls (PPS 1 and supplement to PPS1; PPS 23; NELC LP Policy GEN8; LDF 

emerging Policies SO9 and DM10); 

� ensuring that the Project achieves a balance of effects across social, economic and 

environmental factors to deliver sustainable development (PPS 1; PPS 4; PPS 9; PPS 10; 

PPS 22; Consultation Paper on Natural and Healthy Environment PPS; RSS Policies YH1 

and ENV5; NELC LP Policy GEN1; LDF emerging Policies SO8, SO9, SP2, DM1 and DM10; 

and 

� delivering an acceptable relationship between the Project and surrounding land uses (PPS1; 

PPS 5; PPS 9; PPS 23; PPG 24; PPS 25; Consultation Paper on Natural and Healthy 

Environment PPS; RSS Policies YH1, ENV8, ENV9 and ENV10; NELC LP Policies GEN1, 

E1, E2, E12, NH1 and NH12; LDF emerging Policy SO5). 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011 48 

-


Relevance of Policies to Project Development 

4.9 On the basis of the review presented in Appendix 4A, the relevance of policies to the project has 

been considered. The nature of policy and the way in which it has influenced development and is 

achieved within the Project is outlined here. General policy principles are set out below. Chapter 

17 provides details of the relevant environmental planning policies, arranged by topic; and 

evaluates the conformity of the proposed development in relation to pertinent national, regional 

and local policy requirements. 

General Principles 

4.10 ‘PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development’ interprets the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 

to apply the principles to planning policy. In essence, the PPS seeks to ensure that all 

development contributes to delivering a win situation in respect of social, economic and 

environmental effects. Specifically, it states in paragraph 5 that planning policies should provide 

the appropriate conditions for development proposals to contribute by: 

� ‘making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and 

environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life; 

� contributing to sustainable economic development; 

� protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of 

the countryside, and existing communities; 

� ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of 

resources; and, 

� ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of 

safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services 

for all members of the community.’ 

4.11 Paragraph 19 of PPS 1 indicates that opportunities to deliver environmental enhancement within 

development proposals should be encouraged, citing mitigation of the effects of climate change; 

protecting the wider countryside; avoiding locating development in areas of flood risk where 

possible; accommodating natural hazards; and managing waste production and realising its value 

as a resource. A supplement to PPS 1 was published in 2007 (PPS 1 Planning and Climate 

Change supplement to PPS 1’) to provide further guidance on the way in which new development 

should contribute to reducing the effects of climate change. The PPS 1 supplement references 

support for energy efficiency; sustainable transport; resilience to climate change; sustainable 

water and waste management; conservation and enhancement of biodiversity; engaging with 

communities through meeting needs; and responding to the concerns of businesses, encouraging 

competitiveness and technological innovation in mitigating and adapting to climate change. 

4.12 Support for the use of renewable energy in new development is provided in ‘PPS 22 Renewable 

Energy’. There is an intention for this to be amplified at the local level through the provisions of the 

emerging North East Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy including 

Development Management Policies November 2008 (LDF). Within this document, ‘Policy SO9 

Climate Change’ seeks to ensure that development proposals mitigate and adapt to the effects of 

climate change; minimise use of natural resources and energy use, reduce waste, encourage 

reuse and recycling, reduce pollution, respond to an increased threat of flood risk and promote 

sustainable construction practices. Policy DM10 of the emerging LDF sets minimum targets for 

sourcing 10% of energy requirements from on site renewable energy for certain types of 

development and advocates the following: 



� ‘addressing flood risk by adopting a sequential approach to the identification, and 

development of sites in accordance with PPS 25. Essential infrastructure will be permitted to 

locate within flood risk zones only where they satisfy the Sequential Test and are designed 

and constructed to remain operational and safe in times of flood; 

� contributing to appropriate flood defence works where applicable, in accordance with the 

Humber Flood Risk Management Plan; 






during the construction and lifetime of the development; 

� adopting sustainable design principles regarding the layout and form of development; 

� ensuring consideration is given to the effect of development on biodiversity and its capacity to 

adapt to likely changes in the climate; 

� supporting renewable energy proposals that contribute to meeting the renewable energy 

targets for North East Lincolnshire set out in the RSS (50MW by 2021). Renewable energy 

development will need to be achieved in ways that maintain the integrity of internationally 

important biodiversity resources along the Humber Estuary; and 

� development of more than 10 dwellings or 1,000 m 2 of non-residential floorspace, will as a 

minimum, be required to source 10% of their energy requirements from on site renewable or 

low-carbon energy sources unless it is demonstrated to be not feasible or not viable.’ 

4.13 Policy GEN 1: Development Areas of the Adopted Local Plan established the principle of 

development on the proposed site as it falls within the development area (as defined on the 

Proposals Map). Policy E1: Industrial Land indicates that the Site is zoned for B1, B2 and B8 land 

uses, thus establishing the principle of using the site for the land use proposed. 

4.14 Policy E2: Estuary Land identifies the site as E2/3 Land west of Hobson Way, Stallingborough 

(Site A 20.6 ha), (Site B 9.8 ha), (Site C 31.1 ha) and limits development on the Site to that for 

which there is a requirement to ‘take advantage of the site’s special estuarial potential or to 

ancillary activities with close operational links to existing estuarial related uses’. Policy GEN1 

states that proposals must be suitable in relation to the following factors (described more fully in 

other Local Plan policies), with: 

� ‘their size, scale, density and impact on the character and appearance of the area and the 

relationship to existing land uses; 

� access and vehicle generation levels; 

� provision for services; 

� impact upon neighbouring land uses by reason of noise, disturbance or visual intrusion; 

� advice from the Health and Safety Executive; 

� flood risk; 

� impact upon areas of natural and historical heritage; and 

� the requirements of other appropriate policies in the development plan.’ 



4.15 The forthcoming LDF builds upon the requirements of Policy GEN1 in the proposed form of words 

for ‘Policy DM4: Promoting High Quality Design’. This emerging policy is currently phrased to 

ensure that proposals are designed to respect and enhance the local context including natural and 

built environments. It seeks the adoption of sustainable construction principles and practices and 

minimise impact on natural resources from development and reference is made to BREEAM vii (no 

grade specified). Proposals may also be expected, if Policy DM4 is adopted in its current form, to 

incorporate hard and soft landscaping that brings environmental enhancements; and features that 

reduce crime or the fear of crime, clearly distinguishing between public and private space. 

Site Planning History 

4.16 An application for a Hazardous Substance Consent (HSC) (NELC reference DC/129/11/IMM) for 

the site (for the storage and manufacture of acetylene (75 tonnes) and storage of calcium carbide 

(80 tonnes)) was made in February 2011. This was made by BOC and relates to this Project. 

4.17 The combination of consultations to date and an online search of the relevant database have not 

identified any other relevant planning history on the site. There are no buildings on the site it is 

currently planted with wheat and used for agricultural purposes. 

Relevant Applications and Consents 

4.18 S57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) provides that planning permission is 

required for the carrying out of any development of land. The definition of development includes 

the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or 

the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. 

4.19 Developments that are already consented but not operational and or those currently applied for 

and being processed, may give rise to cumulative environmental impacts and these, amongst 

other matters, are the subject of ongoing consultations with the LPA. Known developments that 

will or may have relevance are set out below and are assessed within Chapter 16 of this ES. 

Table 4.2 Relevant Applications 

Developer Description Application Ref. No. Decision 

BOC 

Helius Energy 

PLC 

Hobson Way, Stallingborough. 

Hazardous Substance consent 

for the storage and 

manufacture of Acetylene (75 

tonnes) and storage of 

Calcium carbide (80 tonnes). 

Land off Hobson Way, 

Stallingborough. 

Hazardous substance 

application for the storage of 

ethanol (20,000 tonnes) under 

Schedule 8 of the Electricity 

Act 1989 

DC/129/11/IMM Awaited 

DC/576/07/IMM 

Decision Obs. to 

Secretary of State 

on 16/06/2008 

vii BREEAM is the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method for buildings. It sets the standard for best 

practice in sustainable design and has become the de facto measure used to describe a building's environmental performance. 




C.A.T.C.H. 

College 

Extension 

Aeolian 

Abengoa 

Bioenergy UK 

Abengoa 

Bioenergy UK 

RWE Npower 

Renewables 

Associated 

British ports 

(ABP) 

Vireol PLC 

Proposed two storey extension 

to existing office block, new 

process unit, canteen with 

support facilities, scaffold 

training centre, workshop and 

new car park facility. 

Erection of two 3 MW Wind 

Turbines (maximum height of 

150 m) with ancillary 

development including new 

access. 


Application for the storage & 

processing of Hazardous 

substances in connection with 

a proposed Bio-ethanol plant 


Construction of a bioethanol 

plant with associated power 

plant, access, parking and 

office building. 

Section 36 (S.36) Application 

for integrated 65MWE 

electricity generating station 

fuelled by Biomass processing 

& refinery and 

S.36 Application 

Supplementary Statement and 

amendments to the proposal 

for the 65MWe Biomass Power 

Station 

Outline application to form an 

Employment Business Park 

Class B1, B2 and B8 uses 

Moody Lane (former Acordis 

Site) Great Coates Grimsby N 

E Lincolnshire 

Hazardous Substances 

Consent for the storage of 

hazardous substances relating 

to a Bio-ethanol production 

facility 

DC/1114/09/IMM 

20/12/2009 

DC/827/08/IMM 

23/7/2008 

DC/766/07/IMM 

25/06/2007 

DC/1147/10/IMM 

21/12/10 

Application for a new 

planning permission 

to replace extant 

application 

DC/70/07/IMM in 

order to extend time 

limit for 

implementation 

DC/303/07/IMM 

20/2/2007 and 

DC/151/10/IMM 

25/2/2010 

DC/511/10/IMM 

7/6/2010 

(Application to 

replace an extant 

planning permission 

DC/1258/06/IMM) 

DC/339/08/WOL 

31/03/2008 

Approved 2/11/10 

No decision as yet 

Conditionally 

Approved 

16/05/2008 

Consent to extend 

the period given 

12/4/11 for a further 

3 years 

No decision from the 

Secretary of State 

yet over the 

amendments to the 

scheme 

Decision pending 

Conditionally 

Approved 

24/09/2008 




Vireol PLC 

Vireol PLC 

Magna 

Holdings 

Real Ventures 

Moody Lane (Former Acordis 

Site), Great Coates, Grimsby. 

Erect Bio-ethanol production 

facility, assoc. structures and 

pipes to include a feed stock 

reception and storage, process 

plant and equipment, ethanol 

storage tanks, administration 

operation and control 

buildings, with access from 

Fifth Avenue. 

Development of a Bio-ethanol 

production facility, associated 

structures and pipes including 

a feed stock reception and 

storage facilities, process plant 

and equipment, and ethanol 

storage tanks, the re-use of 

existing buildings for 

administration, operation and 

control buildings, by-product 

storage and distribution, with 

access from Fifth Avenue. 

Outline application with access 

and layout details for mixed 

B1, B2, B8 industrial park with 

ancillary A3, A4, A5 units 

Biomass power station, 

49 MW, burning clean wood. 

Planning Consultations 

DC/202/08/WOL 

29/02/2008 

DC/225/10/WOL 

22/3/2010 

DC/730/07/IMM 

21-06-2007 

n/a due to submit in 

August 2011 

Conditionally 

Approved 

05/07/2010 

Decision pending 


4.20 Pre-application consultation has been undertaken with NELC on the planning issues associated 

with the development. This took the form of telephone consultation to inform the ES Scoping 

Report; a meeting in May 2011; and subsequent e-mail and telephone communications. 

4.21 The principal purpose of the consultation was to acquire relevant technical information, determine 

the scope of supporting information required to validate the Planning Application and, in particular, 

to seek agreement on those policy documents that are believed to have most relevance to 

consideration of the Planning Application for the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project. The 

consultation was also used to identify whether there are any current planning consents that might 

have a bearing on the impact assessment, either interactively or cumulatively. The information 

presented above (and in Chapter 16) reflects the outcome of these consultations. 

Detailed information relating to the consultation approach associated with the Project is provided 

in the Statement of Community Involvement that supports the Planning Application. 



5. EIA Scope, Methodology & Consultation 

Objectives of an EIA 

5.1 The main objectives of an EIA are to: 

� describe the development in sufficient detail to allow any interactions between the 

development and the environment to be determined; 

� identify environmental constraints and opportunities within the study area, taking account of 

the characteristics of the development and the sensitivities of the local environment; 

� identify potential impacts and interpret the nature and significance of these impacts; 

� describe the mitigation measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any 

significant adverse effects on the environment; and 

� determine the significance of any residual environmental effects following mitigation 

measures. 

Stages of an EIA 

5.2 The EIA process typically follows a number of stages: 

� development initiation; 

� screening (decision as to whether an EIA is required); 

� pre-application discussions; 

� scoping (consultation on proposed scope and methodology of the EIA, including preparation of 

a Scoping Report, submission to the LPA and a request for a Scoping Opinion); 

� data collection and the undertaking of environmental baseline studies; 

� assessment of potential environmental effects; 

� modification of proposals to incorporate mitigation measures; 

� re-assessment to determine residual impact significance; 

� production of an ES; 

� submission of the ES (to the LPA as part of the Planning Application for Planning 

Consent); 

� determination of the application by the LPA and consultation bodies; 

� decision to refuse or grant consent (with or without conditions); and 

� implementation and monitoring. 

5.3 The stage fulfilled by this report is shown in bold on the preceding list. 

5.4 EIA should be considered as an iterative process rather than a one off, ‘static’ environmental 

appraisal. The findings of the EIA are fed into the design process. Where potential adverse effects 

are identified, the design of the development can be adjusted and or appropriate mitigation 

measures proposed. Early consultation is a crucial component throughout the EIA process, and 

one which contributes to both the identification of potential effects and the requirement for, and 

design of, mitigation measures. 



EIA Scope and Assessment Methods 

General Approach 

5.5 The EIA has been carried out taking into consideration the responses to the Scoping Report, 

received from the LPA as the ‘Scoping Opinion’ 4 and the outcome of the consultation process (see 

paragraphs 5.13 onwards). In addition, the preparation of the ES has taken into account relevant 

regulations and general advice guidance relating to good practice, including: 

� The Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) 

Regulations 1999 (as amended); 

� The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; 

� Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that require Environmental 

Assessment, A Good Practice Guide (Department of the Environment, 1995); and 

� Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental 

Impact Assessment, 2004, as updated. 

5.6 Wherever possible, accepted impact assessment standards and guidelines have been followed in 

the EIA. The specific methodologies used in the assessment process are provided in detail for 

each of the EIA topic areas (see Chapters 6 to 15). 

Assessment of Construction and Operational Phases 

5.7 Each impact assessment chapter within the ES addresses the construction and operational 

phases of the Dissolved Acetylene Project. Where feasible each of the assessment chapters 

follows a standard structure, which (as relevant for each environmental topic) typically adheres to 

the process steps outlined in steps 1 to 9 in Table 5.1. Steps 1 to 3 in Table 5.1 generate the 

general methodology and background information for the assessment process. Steps 4 to 8 are 

the main stages of the assessment process. For most EIA topic areas steps 4 to 8 have been 

repeated twice, once for the construction phase and once for the operational phase of the Project. 

The final step of the assessment process (step 9) provides a summary of the key findings and 

conclusions for each EIA topic area. 

Table 5.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Stages 

Assessment Step Description 

1 Legislative and policy 

context 

2 Assessment 

methodology and 

significance criteria 

An overview description of the key legislation, policies and 

guidance notes etc. that are applicable to the EIA topic. 

A description of how the assessment has been undertaken, 

where data have been sourced, what consultations have been 

held, what surveys may have been undertaken and what criteria 

thresholds will be used to evaluate the significance of any 

impacts. 

Significance criteria or thresholds relate to the amount or type of 

impact or effect which constitutes a substantial or potentially 

substantial adverse or beneficial change in the environment. 

Some thresholds can be quantitative (e.g. for air quality) whilst 

others are qualitative (e.g. for visual effects). Thresholds are used 

to provide the basis behind the conclusions reached regarding 

the significance of a particular impact or effect. 

The specific methodologies, baseline surveys, data sources and 

the criteria to be used in the assessment process are provided in 

detail for each of the environmental topics. 




3 Environmental 

baseline 

A discussion of the existing conditions, services and physical 

natural environment of the site and its surroundings. This includes 

consideration of sensitivity and importance of the existing 

environmental conditions (as appropriate). 

4 Potential impacts Identification and evaluation of the proposed Dissolved Acetylene 

Project’s potential impacts in quantitative and qualitative terms. 

Impacts have been considered in terms of direct or indirect, shortterm, 

medium-term or long-term, permanent or temporary, 

positive or negative effects. 

5 Assessment and 

significance of effects 

Following the identification of potential impacts (Step 4), the 

environmental baseline data (Step 3) have been used to predict 

any changes to the existing conditions and to allow an 

assessment of these changes. 

The assessment of a potential impact takes into account any 

methods to reduce the impact that are already incorporated into 

the design and assumes that ‘good practice’ will be applied. 

For impacts relating to emissions (e.g. noise, stack gases), a 

‘source-pathway-receptor’ viii approach has been taken to 

determine whether the identified potential impacts could result in 

an environmental effect. 

The effect that a project may have on each type of environmental 

receptor is influenced by the sensitivity of the baseline 

environment and the predicted degree of alteration from the 

baseline state. 

Significance of an impact has been evaluated in terms of the 

magnitude of impact and sensitivity of the receptor. For impacts 

effects where an assessment of significance cannot be 

determined (e.g. for reasons of uncertainty) this issue has been 

highlighted and an explanation given as to why this is the case. 

Criteria (as identified in Step 2) have been used in the 

assessment process to define the significance of effects. Specific 

criteria have been defined in each impact assessment chapter but 

are generally considered as: 

Major: substantial fundamental changes in an ecosystem ix , 

society, or economy. Changes are well outside the range of 

natural variation and unassisted recovery could be protracted. 

Moderate: a material but non-fundamental change in an 

ecosystem, society, or economy. Changes may exceed the range 

of natural variation. Recovery could occur in the long-term. 

Minor: a detectable but non-material change in an ecosystem, 

society or economy. Changes might be noticeable, but fall within 

the range of normal variation. 

Negligible: changes in an ecosystem, society, or economy that 

are unlikely to be noticeable (i.e. well within the scope of natural 

variation). 

viii The source-pathway-receptor approach typically involves an estimate of the quantity and composition of material which could escape 

(source), the routes by which it could travel offsite (pathways) and the environmental sensitivity of the receiving environment (receptors). 

For there to be an environmental effect all three linkages must be present. If connecting source-pathway-receptor linkages cannot be 

identified then there is no environmental effect and no need to progress further with the environmental assessment. 

ix The term ‘ecosystem’ can be taken to mean the physical environment and the biological communities that live within that environment. 

Typically impacts to biological populations and communities are considered rather than impacts to individuals. 




In general, impacts that are assessed to be major or moderate 

are considered to result in significant effects; impacts assessed 

as negligible are considered to result in insignificant effects; and 

minor impacts may result in borderline significant insignificant 

effects. This is discussed as relevant in each EIA chapter. 

6 Mitigation measures Where, even after the application of ‘good practice’, a significant 

adverse effect is identified, specific specialist mitigation measures 

to minimise, reduce, offset or avoid such effects are proposed. In 

general, mitigation measures are not proposed for beneficial 

impacts or those of borderline significance insignificance. 

7 Residual impacts Determination of the proposed development’s remaining 

significance of effects after mitigation measures are implemented. 

Where no mitigation measures are required or proposed the 

residual impact is the same as that determined through step 5 

above. 

8 Recommendations A summary of any recommendations that have been identified 

within the assessment process. Recommendations will differ from 

mitigation measures in that it will not be assumed that these will 

necessarily be adopted and hence they will not be included 

accounted for in the assessment of residual impacts. 

Recommendations are generally suggestions, or measures that 

could be considered further. 

9 Summary and 

conclusions 

A summary of the assessment and key conclusions. 

Assessment of Decommissioning Phase 

5.8 The acetylene facility is designed to operate for 25 years. If operation after this period is not 

feasible, the plant will be required to close and be decommissioned. At this early stage in the 

Project, no further information is available relating to the decommissioning phase. However, as a 

guideline, it is anticipated that decommissioning activities will be similar to those that could occur 

during the construction phase of the Project. At the end of the life of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene 

Project, and prior to decommissioning, a detailed assessment will be undertaken to address 

environmental impacts associated with decommissioning, thus, and as stated in the Scoping 

Report decommissioning has not been discussed in any further detail in this ES. 

Assessment of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

5.9 For impacts associated with the Dissolved Acetylene Project that are assessed to be of an 

adverse nature, the EIA has considered, so far as is possible, the potential for combined and 

cumulative impacts. The assessment of combined and cumulative impacts is an integral part of 

the EIA process and ensures that all aspects of potential impacts from the proposed development 

have been addressed to ensure minimum overall impact on communities and the natural 

environment. 

5.10 Combined impacts may occur when an operation (or operations) associated with the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project gives rise to several types of impacts on a single receptor (e.g. the combination 

of air quality, noise and traffic impacts at a particular residential property). 



5.11 Cumulative impacts can arise when an impact from one project occurs at the same time as an 

impact from another project in the vicinity (for example, two concurrent construction projects). The 

cumulative impacts of existing operational facilities are accounted for through the baseline studies 

(as described in Chapters 6 to 15). Thus, only proposed developments are considered in the 

assessment of cumulative impacts. Proposed developments have been identified through 

consultation and only include ‘known’ developments (i.e. those that have already applied for 

planning consent). 

5.12 The identification of proposed developments and the assessment of combined and cumulative 

impacts is presented as a standalone Chapter of the ES (Chapter 16). 

Consultation 

Overview 

5.13 Consultation is an important and fundamental component of the development process for a 

project. It allows interested and affected parties and organisations to become involved in the 

planning and development process of a project and ensures that their concerns, ideas and 

aspirations for the project can be taken into consideration. 

5.14 Consultation at an early stage is considered to be good practice and beneficial to the EIA and to 

the development of the design process. For projects that require an EIA, the first formal step in the 

consultation process is usually undertaken via the production of a Scoping Report and the request 

for a formal Scoping Opinion. Typically consultation is an iterative process which develops further 

during the preparation of the EIA, following through to the submission of the ES and beyond. 

5.15 Information from the consultation process has been used to inform, influence and refine certain 

elements of the design of the project. Information from consultees has also been used to refine 

the EIA methodology (as presented in the Scoping Report), thereby ensuring that the consultees 

and NELC are in agreement with the methodology that was proposed for the EIA. 

5.16 The following sections of this chapter provide an outline the consultation process that has been 

undertaken for the EIA for the Dissolved Acetylene Project. Full details relating to the consultation 

process and the resultant outcomes are provided in the Statement of Community Involvement 

(SCI), which has been submitted as part of the Planning Application documentation. 

Scoping Stage Consultation and Scoping Opinion 

5.17 The Environmental Scoping Report 3 and the request for a Scoping Opinion was submitted to 

NELC on 23 rd March 2011. The Scoping Opinion 4 was issued by NELC on 27 th April 2011 and is 

contained in ES Volume 3 Appendix 5A. Prior to receipt of the Scoping Opinion, meetings were 

held with the following consultation bodies: 

� NELC; 

� HSE; 

� EA; 

� NE; and 

� Stallingborough Parish Council. 

5.18 Other parties were contacted for the purposes of data collection and obtaining information and 

views to inform the scoping exercise. Details of these are provided as relevant in the Chapters for 

each of the EIA topic areas (see Chapters 6 to 15). 



5.19 NELC invited the following consultees to comment on the Scoping Report 3 : 

� Anglian Water; 

� EA; 

� HA 

� Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (LWT); 

� NE; 

� NELDB; 

� NELC Archaeological Officer; 

� NELC Drainage Department; 

� NELC Ecology Officer; 

� NELC Environmental Protection Department; and 

� NELC Highways Department. 

5.20 Responses were received from the EA, HA, LWT, NE and NELC Environmental Protection 

Department. Table 5.2 provides a summary of these responses in conjunction with an outline of 

how the scoping responses have been addressed within this ES (as appropriate). Further details 

are provided in the SCI. 

Consultation during Production of ES 

5.21 Since the Scoping Opinion 4 was received, NELC and the EA have been sent the Draft FRA for the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project. The EA responded with comments on the FRA on 4 th August 2011, 

the response is contained in ES Volume 3 Appendix 5B. Table 5.3 provides a summary of the EA 

response to the FRA, in conjunction with an outline of how the scoping responses have been 

addressed within this ES 

5.22 In addition, the following meetings have been held with the following consultees since the 

submission of the ES: 

� NELDB; 

� HA; and 

� HFRS. 

5.23 It is planned (though not arranged at the time of writing) to present the Project to Immingham 

Town Council (including an invitation to Stallingborough Council and the ward members for 

Immingham and Wolds) in August 2011. 

5.24 In addition, as part of the process of undertaking the EIA technical consultations have been 

undertaken with various organisations. More details of these consultations are provided in the 

chapters covering the individual EIA topics (see see Chapters 6 to 15). Further details are 

provided in the SCI. 

Consultation Following Submission of the ES 

5.25 In addition to NELC and its sub-departments, the consultees to whom the ES (by NELC) will be 

circulated include the following x : 

� Ambulance Service; 

x The list of consultees was provided by NELC in March 2011 and updated in July 2011. 



� Anglian Water; 

� British Horse Society; 

� Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Directorate of Airspace Policy; 

� EA; 

� Grimsby Cleethorpes Access Group; 

� HSE; 

� HFRS; 

� Immingham Town Council; 

� Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Association; 

� LWT; 

� National Grid; 

� National Casework Unit; 

� NE; 

� NELDB; 

� Network Rail; 

� Ramblers Society for North East Lincolnshire and Louth; 

� Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB); 

� Simon Storage; 

� Stallingborough Parish Council; 

� The Open Spaces Society; 

� Transco; and 

� Yorkshire Electricity Distribution. 

Summary 

5.26 Technical consultation has been undertaken as part of the process of producing the EIA and the 

LPA has undertaken consultation with the consultation bodies under the EIA Regulations 2 . The 

information received during consultation has been used to refine the methodology of the EIA and 

the content of the ES and to influence the project design and development. A SCI has been 

submitted as part of the Planning Application Documentation as a standalone document. 



Consultation 

Body 

NELC (Jake 

Newby) 

LWT (Clare 

Sterling) 

EA (Dean 

Rezzougui) 

Date of 

Response 

27 th April 

2011 

21 st April 

2011 

20 th April 

2011 

Table 5.2 Summary of Scoping Opinion Responses 

Consultees Responses Comments ES Response 

The ES must comply with the requirements of Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 4 

to SI 1999 No 293 (as relevant). 

The LPA considers the Scoping Report to be comprehensive in 

addressing the possible impacts of the proposed development. 

The comments and recommendations in the consultees’ responses to the 

Scoping Report should be addressed in the ES. 

LWT is generally satisfied with the proposed Scope of the ecology section 

of the EIA. 

LWT’s main concern is that the bird surveys referred to are getting out of 

date and LWT wishes to ensure that NE is satisfied that these data are 

still relevant and that no further surveys are necessary. 

Long Strip Wood is no longer designated as a Site of Nature Conservation 

Importance (SNCI). Figure 10.1 has Stallingborough Fish Ponds Local 

Wildlife Site (LWS) and Laporte Road Brownfield Site LWS labelled the 

wrong way round. 

LWT wishes to ensure that the appropriate mitigation is implemented to 

any adverse impacts on nature conservation sites or protected notable 

species. 

The flood risk vulnerability of the development will need to be clarified in 

accordance with Table D2 of PPS 25. 

The preparation of the EIA has taken into account the 

EIA Regulations 2 and the requirements of Schedule 4 

(which is included as Appendix 5C). 

No further action required. 

These have been address, as relevant and as noted 

in this Table. 

No further action required. 

The Atkins ecologist has discussed the available 

baseline data with NE and NE is satisfied with the 

data used in this ES (see Chapter 10 (Ecology) for 

further details). 

Comments appreciated. Amendments made 

accordingly see Chapter 10 (Ecology). 

The assessment of impacts and requirement for 

mitigation measures is discussed in Chapter 10 

(Ecology). 

The development is considered to be ‘essential 

infrastructure’. A letter providing the rationale for this 

was sent (by email) to the EA by NELC on 16 th June. 

A copy of the letter is provided as Appendix 9D. 



Consultation 

Body 

Date of 

Response 


The lifetime of the development will need to be confirmed. The flood risk 

to the development, including an appropriate allowance for climate 

change, will then need to be considered over the lifetime of the 

development. If the development is required to remain operational during 

a flood event the 0.1% annual probability, plus an allowance for climate 

change flood event, should be considered for determining the level at 

which flood sensitive equipment and areas of safe refuge are set. Also, 

other parts of the development will need to be shown to be flood resilient 

easily recoverable following a flood. 

The proposal should be accompanied by a robust Flood Warning and 

Evacuation Plan. As part of this plan we recommend registration with the 

Environment Agency’s free Floodline Warnings Direct service. 

The EA considers the plans for the EIA to be appropriate for the site in 

terms of groundwater and land contamination. The site is considered to be 

of relatively low sensitivity with respect to groundwater issues. 

Nevertheless, the proximity of surface waters to the site warrants the 

additional works proposed in section 6.16 of the Scoping Report. Please 

note that any reports or investigations should be done in accordance with 

PPS 23 'Planning and Pollution Control' and Contaminated Land Report 

(CLR) 11 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination'. 

The operational lifetime of the development is 25 

years. A FRA has been carried out. The FRA has 

considered all of the EA’s requirements and is 

presented in Appendix 9A and summarised in 

Chapter 9: Flood Risk. 

The FRA resulted in the following recommendations, 

which BOC plans to follow: 

� during construction and throughout its operation 

the proposed Dissolved Acetylene facility should 

be included on the EA flood warning register; and 

� that a flood warning and emergency evacuation 

plan be prepared and submitted to the LPA for 

approval before construction of the plant is 

completed. 

Further information is presented in Appendix 9A. 

Section 16.6 referred to the collection of additional 

baseline data, including an intrusive ground 

investigation with appropriate representative soil and 

groundwater sampling and chemical analysis. The 

results of this exercise are provided in Chapter 7 

(Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality). The 

preparation of Chapter 7 has taken PPS 23 and 

CLR 11 into account. 



Consultation 

Body 

HA (Daniel 

Gaunt) 

Date of 

Response 

15 th April 

2011 


The Scoping Report covers the potential environmental risk to air and 

surface water. It also accounts for the production of waste and its 

disposal. Please note that we are already in discussions with the operator 

regarding these issues and the need for the site to have an Environmental 

Permit. 

The EA has produced a series of guidance notes which aim to promote a 

good practice approach to scoping as part of the EIA process, which in 

some respects goes beyond the statutory EIA requirements. When 

scoping, a project developer or its consultants, should satisfy themselves 

that they have addressed all of the potential impacts and the concerns of 

all organisations and individuals with an interest in the project. The 

attached notes A1, A3 and G3 provide information on the most likely 

potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. However, 

each project must be considered on a case-by-case basis as the detailed 

characteristics of the proposal/site will determine the potential impacts. 

The construction phase is unlikely to be of significant concern in terms of 

the strategic road network. However the LPA may wish to request a traffic 

management plan to minimise any impact on the local and strategic road 

networks. 

The impact of staff travel to from work during operation is not expected to 

be material to the operation of the strategic road network. 

Noted, no further action required. 

The EA guidance notes were circulated to the EIA 

team for consideration in undertaking the EIA. 

A framework CTMP is presented in Annex 12. This 

will be amended and updated in due course by the 

Construction Contractor. Further details are provided 

in Chapter 12 (Transport). 

Noted, no further action required. 



Consultation 

Body 

NE (William 

Maclennan) 

Date of 

Response 

14 th April 

2011 


The most significant aspect for the HA is the implication of moving large 

amounts of hazardous materials (raw materials and product) via the 

strategic road network, in particular acetylene cylinders. 

The HA would wish to see discuss: 

� details for the strategy and arrangements for addressing emergencies 

close to on the A180 (including details and response times for the 

deployment of chemical response and clean-up teams); 

� proposals for closure diversion should the A1173 A180 route be 

compromised by an incident on the road network; and 

� details of exclusion zones diversionary routes that could be needed as 

a result of a major incident on the site. 

The location of this proposal in relation to the Humber Estuary means that 

the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and 

the Habitats Regulations 2010 will apply. Any assessment will need to 

consider potential impacts of the development both within and adjacent to 

the designated sites on all of the features of the SSSI, SPA, Ramsar and 

SAC. Natural England therefore advises that the Environmental Report 

should include sufficient information to allow the “competent authority” (in 

this case the North East Lincolnshire Council) to make the judgements 

required of them under the Habitats Regulations. 

In its response, the HA recognised that some of these 

issues, and its information requirements, were either 

inappropriate to include in the ES and or were of a 

sensitive nature. The HA offered to meet with BOC to 

discuss these issues on a confidential basis prior to 

completion of the ES. 

A meeting between BOC and the HA was held in 

Leeds on 15 th July 2011. Three actions arose as a 

result of the meeting: 

� the ES is to make reference to an incident offsite 

invoking use of the HA tactical diversion route (see 

Chapter 12). 

� BOC to ensure that the HFRS have the HA 

representative’s contact details so that HFRS will 

always have access to the latest copy of the HA 

tactical diversion route. 

� BOC is to keep the HA representative updated on 

the progress of the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 

The EIA has considered potential impacts of the 

development both within and adjacent to the 

designated sites on all of the features of the SSSI, 

SPA, Ramsar and SAC (see Chapter 10 (Ecology)). 

Information to Inform a HRA: Screening Report 6 was 

submitted to NE and NELC on 21 st June. Information 

to Inform a HRA: Stage 2 AA Report 7 will be submitted 

to NE and NELC in August 2011. 



Consultation 

Body 

Date of 

Response 


Part I B of ODPM Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning 

System describes the procedure for the consideration of plans and 

projects which may affect sites protected by the Habitats Regulations. 

Developers and their consultants should make themselves familiar with 

this procedure so that they are aware of the kind of assessments that the 

competent authority is required to make and thus the type and quality of 

information they will be required to provide. 

SPA birds: 

� Section 10.14 NE is satisfied that there is enough existing bird data for 

the development site and surrounding fields and that no additional bird 

surveys are required. 

� NE requests more data and detail in the environmental statement (ES) 

on the recorded numbers of SPA bird species both in the development 

site itself and the surrounding fields. 

Breeding birds: 

� All British birds, their nests and eggs are protected in law. NE 

recommends that any clearance of trees and areas of scrub should 

aim to avoid the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). 

� NE recommends carrying out a pre-construction survey and if breeding 

birds are discovered, construction work should be halted and a wildlife 

licence obtained through NE. 

The assessment of potential ecological impacts (see 

Chapter 10 (Ecology)) has been undertaken with full 

knowledge of this procedure. 

Comments noted and addressed in Chapter 10 

(Ecology) as relevant. 

Site preparation works, including clearance of any 

vegetation are expected to occur in Q1 2012, before 

the breeding bird season. If construction is delayed 

and vegetation clearance is required during the 

breeding season, a detailed inspection for breeding 

birds would be carried out and actions taken 

accordingly. See Chapter 10 for more details. 



Consultation 

Body 

Date of 

Response 


Protected Species PPS 9 (nature conservation) paragraph 98 states: 

“The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a 

local planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if 

carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. 

Local authorities should consult Natural England before granting planning 

permission. They should consider attaching appropriate planning 

conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer 

would take steps to secure the long-term protection of the species. They 

should advise developers that they must conform with any statutory 

species protection provisions affecting the site concerned.” 

Water voles NE requests additional information on potential construction 

disturbance to Middle Drain. It has been established that water voles are 

present in this drain and therefore details should be provided on the 

design of the bridge construction and how potential impacts on middle 

drain will be avoided. This will allow the council to make a more informed 

decision as to whether mitigation measures will be necessary. 

There is no mention of the presence / absence of bats using the 

development site. This information will be required in the ES to rule out 

potential impacts on bat species. 

Badgers a survey for badgers in the area should be undertaken before 

construction work commences. If any badgers are found, you will be 

required by law to obtain a disturbance licence. 

The potential for the presence of protected species is 

discussed in Chapter 10 (Ecology). 


(Ecology). 

All bat records received from desk study were at least 

1 km from the development area. Habitats within the 

application site and immediate surrounds are not 

suitable to support roosting bats. 

Features which may have some value to bats as 

foraging or commuting habitats comprise, Middle 

Drain, the light railway and the semi-improved 

grassland in areas adjacent to the development site. 

However, given the open and windswept environment 

around the application site and the limited vegetation 

structure, these features are unlikely to be of value to 

bat populations. See Chapter 10 (Ecology) for more 

details). 

There is no evidence of badgers using the 

development site (see Chapter 10 (Ecology) for more 

details. 



Consultation 

Body 

Date of 

Response 


Great Crested Newts (GCNs) there were several water bodies identified in 

the scoping report that are within 500 m of the development site that were 

considered to be “Good” for use by individual GCN’s and, in some cases, 

for breeding populations. NE requests additional information in the ES on 

potential impacts to GCNs and potential mitigation measures for these 

particular water bodies. 

Noise Section 11.7. NE requests more information on the potential 

impacts of construction noise on SPA designated bird species. The 

construction activity likely to create the most disturbance to birds is piling. 

NE recommends displaying this information in the form of a worst case 

scenario noise plot showing the dissipation of piling construction noise 

over distance. 

Air quality NE welcomes the consideration of statutory ecological 

designations within 10 km of the development site and requests that the 

applicant provides additional information with regard to air quality impacts 

on specific designated habitat types. This information can be found on 

Natural England’s APIS website (www.apis.ac.uk) and includes critical 

loads for sensitive habitat types that should not be exceeded. We would 

recommend including background deposition levels for the habitat types in 

each of the designated sites, the critical loads (CL), the Process 

Contribution (PC) of the development the Predicted Environmental 

Contribution (PEC = PC + Background) as well as the PEC and PC as a 

percentage of the upper and lower CL levels. 

GCNs are discussed in Chapter 10 (Ecology). 


(Ecology). The piling noise contours are provided in 

Appendix 11B. 

Comments noted and addressed in Chapter 6 (Air 

Quality). 



Consultation 

Body 

NELC 

Environmental 

Protection 

Department 

(Danny Fox) 

Date of 

Response 

4th April 

2011 


Biodiversity: 

� Developments should not simply seek to avoid causing harm but as 

indicated in paragraph 14 of PPS 9 (Biodiversity and Geological 

Conservation) opportunities should be sought for positive biodiversity 

enhancement. 

� Consideration should be given to identifying opportunities to contribute 

towards enhancing local biodiversity. This could include altering the 

farming practices in the field surrounding the development site to 

increase its ability to support populations of SPA designated bird 

species, creation of a wildflower meadow, or enhancing the site further 

by the installation of bird, owl and bat boxes. Natural England 

recommends that the applicant put together a document of 

enhancement options for the council to consider. Reference should 

also be made to Lincolnshire’s Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP). 


(Ecology). 

The Scoping Report covers the areas of interest (air quality and noise). Noted, no further action required. 



Consultation 

Body 

EA (Annette 

Hewitson, 

Planning 

Liaison 

Officer) 

Date of 

Response 

4 th August 

2011 

Table 5.3 Summary of EA Response to Draft FRA 


The EA considers that the details in the Draft FRA are not yet fully 

compliant with Annex E of PPS25 for the following reasons: 

1 The FRA does not yet demonstrate that surface water can be 

satisfactorily managed on the site without increasing risks to third parties. 

2 Additional information is required on the level to AOD to which the 

refuge area will be set. 

3 PPS 25 states that temporary and demountable defences are not 

normally appropriate for new development and makes reference to the 

importance of considering the impacts of water pressure hydrostatic 

pressure when excluding flood waters. We would recommend this is 

considered carefully in the design of the critical infrastructure element 

(identified as the Electrical Switch Room). We would further 

recommend options that seek to locate these above the predicted flood 

level are considered more thoroughly. 

Following review of the response further telephone 

discussions were held with the EA 20,21 and agreement 

was reached as follows: 

It was agreed that drainage model outputs need to be 

provided to the EA showing that the 1 in 100 year 

storm with 30% allowance for climate change can be 

contained within the site. The FRA has been updated 

and model outputs are provided in Appendix 9G. 

The EA confirmed that the safe refuge elevations of 

6.61 mAOD and 8.88 mAOD are acceptable as they 

are above the 1 in 200 year plus climate change sea 

level. This information is now in Chapter 9 and the 

FRA (Appendix 9A). In additional, Appendix 9F 

provides a diagram showing the layout, elevation and 

sections of the Generator Building (where the refuges 

are located). 

This issue was discussed further with the EA. BOC’s 

stance is that it finds the residual risk of the flood 

protection strategy for electrical infrastructure to be 

acceptable. The EA confirmed that, for this type of 

installation, it would register its concerns (but would 

not formally object) on the issue. 



6. Air Quality 

Introduction 

6.1 This Chapter describes the potential effects of the Dissolved Acetylene Project on air quality. It 

considers direct and indirect emissions of air pollutants, during the construction and operational 

phases. It also includes a discussion of relevant legislation and policy, significance criteria, 

baseline air quality, sensitive receptors, impact assessment methodology and results, mitigation 

measures and residual effects. Cumulative impacts and potential combinations of various effects 

due to other planned developments are discussed separately in Chapter 16. 

6.2 The Scoping Report 3 for the Project concluded that the only potential air quality impact associated 

with the Dissolved Acetylene Project that required further assessment in the ES was that of 

construction and operational traffic. Atmospheric dispersion modelling of process emissions was 

found not to be required, as the quantities of process emissions were small and were ‘screened 

out’ using the EA’s H1 procedure. The scoping report also concluded that no further assessment 

was required for construction dust emissions due to use of best practice and the distance to the 

closest sensitive receptors. 

6.3 This Chapter updates the description of baseline air quality, summarises the findings of the 

previously undertaken construction dust assessment, considers potential effects on local air 

quality of transport-related emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, uses the latest 

information on process emissions to update the H1 assessment and looks at the potential for 

fugitive emissions of dust and odour during operation. In producing this ES Chapter, consultees’ 

comments have been considered; in particular, specific consideration of the potential for effects on 

designated habitats is now included. 

6.4 The remainder of this Chapter is set out as follows: 

� ‘Legislation and Policy’ describes the relevant air quality criteria, the local authority role in 

air quality management and relevant planning guidance, applicable European legislation, 

the UK regulatory regime and EA guidance; 

� ‘Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria’ provides an overview of the approach 

adopted with regard to the assessment of construction and operational factors; 

� ‘Baseline Description’ evaluates existing ambient air quality as documented in local 

authority and national monitoring network reports, and provides background pollutant 

concentrations. Local meteorological data are also described; 

� ‘Identification of Potential Impacts’ summarises the main potential effects on air quality that 

may arise as a result of construction and operation of the development; 

� ‘Impact Assessment’ presents the evaluation of the potential effects of the proposals on 

human health and ecological receptors; 

� ‘Mitigation Measures’ describes any measures proposed to control pollutant emissions (as 

necessary); and 

� ‘Summary’ summarises the findings of the assessment. 



Assessment Methodology and Significance 

Criteria 

Legislation and Policy 

Air Quality Strategy 

6.5 The UK Government’s Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern 

Ireland 22 provides details of national air quality standards and objectives for a number of local air 

pollutants. These statutory criteria are defined in Regulations SI 2000/928 and SI 2002/3043. 

6.6 The standards define the level of pollution below which health effects are unlikely to be 

experienced even by the most sensitive members of the population. These are based upon the 

recommendations of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS). The objectives are 

targets for air pollution concentrations which take account of the costs and benefits of achieving 

the standard. In the case of short-term targets, the permissible number of hours or days above the 

objective concentration is also specified. The number of permissible ’exceedences’ is considered 

when determining compliance with the short-term objectives over an annual period. 

6.7 The AQS objectives also implement the requirements of European Directives on air quality. The 

first European Community (EC) air pollution limit values were introduced in the 1980s. The 

directives contain mandatory limit values that must be attained and more stringent, but nonobligatory, 

guide values. In April 2008, the European Commission adopted a directive on ambient 

air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC). This directive merged the previous Air Quality 

Framework Directive and the first three daughter directives and introduced new objectives for 

PM2.5. It has recently been transposed into UK Regulations (SI 2010/1001). 

6.8 It should be noted that the UK air quality objectives only apply in locations where there may be a 

‘relevant exposure’. These human health objectives are applicable where members of the public 

may be exposed to pollutant levels for periods equal to or exceeding the averaging periods set for 

these criteria. Locations of relevant exposure include building façades of residential premises, 

schools, public buildings and medical facilities. Places of work (other than certain community 

facilities) are excluded. 

6.9 The air quality objectives for the protection of human health and for the protection of vegetation 

and ecosystems, relevant to transport emissions, are presented in Table 6.1. 

Ecosystems 

6.10 The objectives set for the protection of ecosystems apply in areas that are: 

� more than 20 km from towns with more than 250,000 inhabitants; or 

� more than 5 km from industrial sources regulated under Part 1 of the Environmental 

Protection Act 1990, motorways and built up areas of more than 5,000 people. 

6.11 Nevertheless, the regulatory agencies have agreed with the countryside agencies that these 

objectives (also referred to as critical levels) should be applied at all locations as a matter of 

policy, and therefore they have been included in this study. 

6.12 Critical loads for nitrogen and acid deposition have been set by the United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe (UNECE). A critical load is defined as a quantitative estimate of an 

exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on specified sensitive 

elements of the environment do not occur, according to present knowledge. Critical loads vary by 

type of habitat and species. The critical load for nitrogen deposition (eutrophication) is given as a 

range and is quoted in units of kg N/ha/year. A single critical load is quoted for acidification, in keq 

H + /ha/year. The critical load for acidification considers both nitrogen and sulphur deposition fluxes. 



6.13 Site-specific critical loads for eutrophication and acidification are held on the Air Pollution 

Information System (APIS) website 23 . Background rates of nitrogen and acid deposition are also 

available from the website for a three year period average, 2006 to 2008, for 5 by 5 km areas. 

Table 6.1 National and European Air Quality Criteria 

Pollutant Objective Compliance Date 

Oxides of nitrogen Annual mean concentrations should not exceed 

30 µg/m 3 for the protection of vegetation and 

ecosystems 

Nitrogen dioxide Hourly average concentration should not exceed 

200 µg/m 3 more than 18 times a year 

PM10 

PM2.5 

Exposure 

reduction^ 

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 

40 µg/m 3 

24-hour mean concentration should not exceed 

50 µg/m 3 more than 35 times a year 

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 

40 µg/m 3 

UK (except Scotland): annual mean concentration 

should not exceed 25 µg/m3 † 

UK urban areas: target of 15% reduction in 

concentrations at urban background* 

31 st December 2000 

[1 st January 2001] 





2020 

[2015] 

Between 2010 and 

2020 

Notes: 

[ ] denotes EU Limit Value compliance date in UK Regulations 

† 3 

EU limit value is 25 µg/m to be met by 2015, with a requirement in urban areas to bring 

exposure down to below 20 µg/m 3 by 2015. 

^ New European obligations for a target of 20% reduction 

* 25 µg/m 3 is a cap to be seen in conjunction with 15% reduction 

6.14 There are no statutory ambient air quality criteria for the key process emissions from the facility. 

Furthermore there are no statutory criteria for the assessment of dust or odour. 

Local Air Quality Management 

Environment Act 1995 

6.15 All local authorities are required by the Environment Act 1995 Part IV to carry out a periodic 

review and assessment of air quality. This involves examining current pollutant concentrations, 

estimating future concentrations and comparing the future concentrations with the objectives in 

the AQS. Where a local authority expects an AQS objective to be breached, they must designate 

an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and develop an action plan to reduce pollutant 

concentrations. 

North East Lincolnshire Air Quality Strategy 

6.16 NELC’s Air Quality Strategy “Breathing Space‟ is being updated at the time of writing. The 

strategy will reflect the requirements of the Environment and the Climate Change Strategy 

Framework and will contribute to the Council’s Plan 2010 to 2013. The three-year strategy will be 

reviewed on an annual basis to monitor progress in delivering outcomes, objectives and priorities. 

The Plan includes a strategic aim to ‘improve health and well being’, and within the context of this, 

the strategic aim for local air quality management is to protect the good standard of air quality 

throughout North East Lincolnshire and, where possible, enhance it. 



6.17 The objectives of the Council‟s Local Air Quality Strategy are: 

� monitoring, assessing and reporting on air quality; 

� to develop, consult on and implement new initiatives to improve air quality; 

� to incorporate air quality considerations in all relevant Council operations; and 

� to increase general awareness of air quality. 

Role of Planning in Air Quality Management 

6.18 The land use planning system is integral to improving air quality and guidance was originally 

prepared to assist local authorities incorporate air quality considerations into planning decisions. 

The guidance described the contribution local planning policy can make to long-term 

improvements in air quality through strategic and development control planning as set out in 

PPG 23. 

6.19 That guidance (PPG 23) has been replaced by PPS 23. The statement reiterates many of the 

principles in the original guidance and states that the potential effects of a development upon 

ambient air quality are likely to be particularly important: 

� where the development is proposed inside, or adjacent to, an AQMA; 

� where the development could in itself result in the designation of an AQMA; and 

� where to grant planning permission would conflict with, or render unworkable, elements of a 

local authority’s air quality action plan. 

6.20 However, Annex 1, Appendix 1G of the statement is clear that it is not the case that all planning 

applications for developments within or adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if the development 

results in a deterioration of local air quality. Such an approach could sterilise development, 

particularly in those instances where the authority has designated their entire area as an AQMA. 

6.21 In addition PPS 23 states that developers should discuss their proposals with both the planning 

and pollution control authorities, and with other legitimate authorities in pre-application 

discussions. 

6.22 The NELC website 24 provides advice on air quality issues in relation to planning. For construction 

dust, the advice states that, ‘A method statement including details of dust suppression techniques 

to be employed during the course of construction are to be submitted and agreed with the LPA 

prior to commencement of development. The techniques shall be applied as agreed. Reason: To 

ensure that dust emissions arising from the development are within acceptable levels, and in the 

interests of amenity.’ 

6.23 Further details of relevant planning policies at national, regional and local levels are discussed in 

Chapter 4 and are summarised in Appendix 4A. The conformity of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

with plans and policies is discussed in Chapter 17. 

Regulatory Control and EA Guidance 

6.24 The Project comprises a listed activity under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 1 . BOC has 

already entered into discussions with the EA in relation to the Permit Application. The facility will 

be required to operate within the conditions specified by the EA in the EP (subject to the 

operator’s EP application having satisfactorily demonstrated the use of BAT to protect the 

environment). 



6.25 The EA provides criteria for use in air quality risk assessments in their Horizontal Guidance Note 

H1 25 . This gives long-term and short-term Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) for numerous 

substances, many of which do not have statutory criteria. These environmental benchmarks 

provide an indication of the concentration that can be considered to be acceptable for a particular 

substance. All of the pollutants considered in this study, with the exception of acetylene, are 

included in H1 due to their potential effect on human health. These EALs have been derived from 

Health and Safety Executive Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs). The EALs for specific 

substances are referred to later in this Chapter in the Impact Assessment section. 

Consultation 

6.26 The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) at NELC was contacted for the latest information on 

existing local air quality conditions in the vicinity of the development. 

6.27 The EHO at North West Lincolnshire Council was consulted 26 regarding the potential for odour 

emissions from the facility. 

6.28 The Scoping Report 3 received the following comments regarding air quality, which have been 

taken on board in the production of this Chapter: 

� the EA provided guidance notes on undertaking scoping for environmental impact 

assessment; 

� NE welcomed the consideration of statutory ecological designations as part of the air 

quality assessment and requested additional information regarding impacts on specific 

habitats. The APIS website was suggested as a useful resource. A checklist was provided 

which contained further information; and 

� NELC’s Pollution Control Officer was satisfied that the scoping report covered all areas of 

interest. 

Other Data Sources 

6.29 The assessment is based on the data and information presented in the Project description for the 

development (Chapter 3). Road traffic data have been obtained from the transport assessment 

(Chapter 12). All other data sources are discussed as and when relevant in the subsequent 

Sections of this Chapter. 

Assessment Methodology 

Construction 

Dust Emissions 

6.30 There are no statutory national or European criteria relating to dust, nor is there a standard 

methodology for the assessment of potential dust effects. The assessment of dust emissions 

during construction is considered qualitatively, in the context of the overall scale and nature of the 

development and the potential sensitivity of neighbouring land use (e.g. residential properties, 

certain process industries, designated ecological sites). 

6.31 Dust emissions from construction sites potentially arise from a range of diffuse sources and are 

termed ‘fugitive emissions’ as they are not derived from a controlled or discrete source. Dust that 

may deposit in the local area close to (i.e. within 100 m of) 27 a source of fugitive dust typically 

comprises particles between 10 and 75 micrometers (µm) in diameter, with the larger size 

particles settling to the ground within just a few tens of metres from the source. Small particles 

settle more slowly over a larger area and therefore contribute relatively little to the general 

ambient dust levels. Such particles are also more susceptible to being blown away. Excessive 

accumulations of dust on exposed surfaces, particularly in residential locations, may cause a 

perceived loss of amenity and give rise to public complaint. 



6.32 The 100 m distance is indicative of where concerns are most likely to be experienced near to dust 

sources from surface mineral operations and in the absence of appropriate mitigation. Research 

carried out by BRE Ltd 28 on PM10 from a construction site shows that, if properly mitigated using 

best practice techniques, levels may be indistinguishable from background at 150 m from the 

source. 

Transport Emissions 

6.33 Traffic emissions have the potential to influence air quality at sensitive receptors that are located 

within 200 m of the edge of a busy road. 

6.34 To assess the potential effects on local air quality due to road traffic during operation of the facility, 

the HA’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 29 Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, simple 

assessment procedure can be applied. The assessment considers existing traffic flows, 

proportions of heavy vehicles, road type and alignments in a base year, and the construction year, 

without and with the development. If changes in traffic due to the Project are expected to meet the 

DMRB assessment criteria for “affected” roads, pollutant concentrations are then estimated at a 

number of representative receptors within 200 m and compared with the relevant air quality 

criteria (see Table 6.1). 

Operation 

Process Emissions 

6.35 A detailed process description and a discussion of atmospheric emissions that would be 

generated from the process are provided in Chapter 3. In summary, the main process emissions 

associated with dissolved acetylene production are relatively minor amounts of: acetylene, 

acetone, ammonia, phosphine and hydrogen sulphide. These emissions may be released either 

continuously or intermittently from point sources (vents) and or area sources (as fugitive 

emissions) from the facility. 

6.36 An assessment of the process emissions from the acetylene facility was carried out at Scoping 

Stage using the EA’s Horizontal Guidance Document H1 Screening Tool. This approach, 

described in Annex F of H1, allows the user to determine whether or not a further, more detailed 

assessment of emissions to air is required or whether the emissions are negligible and can be 

screened out as insignificant. 

6.37 The methodology uses conservative dispersion factors appropriate for a range of effective stack 

heights, which can be multiplied by a pollutant emission rate to estimate the “process contribution” 

(PC) i.e. the maximum ground level pollutant concentration. The PCs can then be compared with 

short and long term EALs, and a decision made on whether a further, more detailed assessment 

such as dispersion modelling need be undertaken. For the consideration of effects on human 

health, the results of the study were compared EALs set out in Annex F of the H1 guidance note. 

The results of the Scoping exercise showed that no further assessment would be required for any 

of the pollutants considered. 

6.38 H1 also requires that an assessment is made of the potential impact of changes in air quality at 

ecological conservation sites. Sites need only be considered where they fall within set distances of 

the activity: 

� SPAs, SACs or Ramsar sites within 10 km of the installation (or 15 km from coal or oil fired 

power station); and 

� SSSIs, National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), LWSs and 

ancient woodland within 2 km of the location of the installation. 

6.39 Long-term concentrations of ammonia, the only relevant process emission with potential 

ecological effects, have been compared with critical level for vegetation contained in H1 guidance. 

The results of the ecological assessment are presented in the Impact Assessment Section. 



6.40 Where the facility contribution to the critical level is more than 1%, a calculation of nitrogen 

deposition (also known as deposition fluxes) would be undertaken. 


6.41 The methodology used for the assessment of emissions from transport on local air quality during 

operation follows that described above for the construction phase. 

Assessment Criteria 

6.42 The general criteria which will be applied to assess the overall significance of potential impacts 

are presented below. Impacts may be beneficial or adverse: 

� major the impacts are likely to be an important consideration at a regional or district scale 

but, if adverse, are a potential concern to the Project, depending on the relative importance 

attached to the issue during the decision-making process; 

� moderate the impacts, if adverse, are important at a local scale, but not likely to be a key 

decision making issue. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of such issues may lead to an 

increase in the overall effects on a particular area or resource; 

� minor the impacts may be raised as a local issue but are unlikely to be of importance in the 

decision making process. Nevertheless, the impacts are of relevance in the detailed design 

of the Project; and 

� negligible the impacts are expected to be beneath levels of perception, or remain within 

established thresholds with regard to sensitive receptors. The effects are within normal 

bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. 


6.43 The simple significance thresholds published by the EA in their H1 guidance have been applied to 

process emissions. Where a modelled increment in the concentration of a pollutant is less than 

1% of the long-term EAL or less than 10% of the short-term EAL, it can be considered 

insignificant. 

6.44 For ecological habitat receptors, if the calculated deposition rate increases by less than 1% of the 

critical load or background rate, NE advises that this can be interpreted as not significant. 

However, it should be noted that an exceedence of this criterion would not indicate that the 

increment is either significant or unacceptable, merely that a more detailed interpretation of the 

data is required. 

Fugitive Emissions of Dust and Odour 

6.45 No specific assessment criteria are proposed for dust and odour as there are no statutory 

objectives for these pollutants. Professional judgement will be applied. 

Traffic Emissions 

6.46 For traffic emissions the significance of results may be interpreted with reference to criteria set by 

the organisation Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) in association with the Institute for Air 

Quality Management (IAQM). The criteria interpret the impact of a development with regard to the 

magnitude of change and achievement of the statutory air quality limit value criteria. 

Baseline Description 

Residential Receptors 

6.47 The development site is within a predominantly agricultural setting, with high levels of chemical 

processing and manufacturing industries situated within the wider area. The nearest settlements 



are Stallingborough (~1.8 km to the south west), Healing (~2.3 km to the south south west), 

Immingham (~3 km to the north west) and Grimsby (~3 km to the south east). The nearest 

residential receptor is Poplar Farm on South Marsh Road, approximately 550 m south west of the 

site (see Figure 11.1). Other isolated residential properties are located within 1.3 km of the site, as 

summarised in Table 6.2 below. 

Table 6.2 Nearby Residential Properties 

Property Name Distance from Site (a) (m) 

Poplar Farm, South Marsh Lane 550 

Grasmere, North Moss Lane 770 

Brickfield House, South Marsh Road 1,000 

Brickyard Cottage, South Marsh Road 1,050 

Eleanor House, Ephams Lane 1,220 

Primrose Cottage, Marsh Lane 1,260 

Table Notes: 

a As measured from nearest corner of development site 

Ecological Receptors 

6.48 A review of statutory ecological designations within a 10 km radius of the project site has identified 

the Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar site to be the nearest relevant location, located 

approximately 1 km to the north east of the site. The primary reasons for the SAC designation are 

the presence of Annex 1 Habitats. The Humber Estuary SPA covers virtually the same area as the 

Humber Estuary SAC, but is designated under the Birds Directive due to its importance in 

protecting and conserving certain European wild bird populations and their habitats, as well as 

protecting migratory birds and those considered rare or vulnerable. 

6.49 The Estuary comprises component habitats of intertidal mudflats and sand flats and coastal salt 

marsh. The salt marsh habitat and sand dunes are potentially sensitive to air pollution and are 

therefore considered in the assessment. 

6.50 There may be salt marsh present within the Pyewipe Mudflats (approximately 1 km from the 

development site); however, the closest sand dunes are at least 4 km from the development, on 

the northern banks of the Humber, and are therefore extremely unlikely to be affected by facility 

emissions. 

6.51 The background ammonia concentration within the SAC at its closest point to the site is 1 µg/m 3 

(three year average concentration, APIS 23 website) compared to a critical level of 3 µg/m 3 . 

Ammonia can contribute to nitrogen deposition; the critical load range for saltmarsh is 20 to 30 

kg/ha/year. The existing deposition rate for nitrogen at this location is 16 kg/ha/year (i.e. 

background levels are below the lower critical load for salt marsh). 

6.52 Apart from the Humber Estuary SSSI, there is only one other SSSI within 10 km, North 

Killingholme Haven Pits, which is situated on the south bank of the Humber Estuary near 

Immingham. The main reasons for notification of these pits are their importance as large saline 

lagoons with an exceptionally rich fauna, and their significance as roosting and feeding grounds 

for waterfowl, which occur in internationally important numbers in the Humber Estuary in winter. 

Further information on the ecological designations and receptors is provided in Chapter 10. 



Local Air Quality 

6.53 The Project site lies within the boundaries of NELC. The Council has declared two AQMAs, due to 

likely exceedences of national air quality objectives. The nearest AQMA is located in the 

settlement of Immingham, approximately 3 km north west of the development site. It was declared 

in October 2006 following monitoring results in excess of the 24-hour objective for PM10 in 2004 

and 2005. It encompasses properties near the junction of Kings Road and Pelham Road and 

some properties in Hawthorn Avenue. The second AQMA, declared in September 2010 for a 

breach in the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) annual mean objective, encompasses a number of properties 

on Cleethorpes Road in Grimsby and is over 6 km south east of the development site. A decision 

regarding the potential revocation of the Immingham PM10 AQMA has been deferred. 

6.54 Concentrations of NO2, sulphur dioxide (SO2), PM10 and ozone are measured continuously at 

three sites within NELC’s area. Two sites are located in Immingham: Kings Road (roadside) and 

Woodlands Avenue (urban background); the third site is located at Fryston House in Grimsby. The 

2011 Air Quality Progress Report 30 indicates that none of these sites provided measured 

concentrations above the AQS objectives for PM10 or NO2 in 2010 (see Table 6.3). Monitoring 

results for SO2 indicate that the 15 minute objective is unlikely to be breached at either site in 

Immingham, and in turn neither the hourly or daily mean objectives are at risk of being exceeded. 

Table 6.3 Summary of 2010 Continuous Monitoring Data 

Pollutant Averaging Period Objective Kings Road Woodlands 

Avenue 

NO2 

PM10 

Annual mean 40 31.4 35.1 

Hourly mean (no. of 

exceedences) 

18 7 0 

Annual mean 40 20.7 26.0 

Daily mean (no. of 

exceedences) 

35 3 9 

6.55 The Council also operates a network of 34 diffusion tubes measuring NO2, located predominantly 

in Grimsby and Cleethorpes with the exception of those tubes co-located with continuous 

monitoring sites in Immingham. The co-located tubes at Kings Road, Immingham recorded 

concentrations in excess of the annual mean objective (37.3 to 44.0 µg/m 3 ) during 2010. However, 

this monitoring site is located close to the kerbside while the nearest properties are located across 

the road some 6 to 8 m back from the kerb; hence it is considered unlikely that the annual mean 

objective of 40 µg/m 3 would be exceeded at the façade of these properties. 

6.56 In 2010, five Osiris particulate monitors were located at the docks, and a further three in 

residential areas of Immingham. These provide indicative data used to react to pollution incidents 

in the Immingham area and identify sources of dust pollution in the local area. The latest available 

reports do not provide information on dust deposition rates. 

6.57 NELC’s 2010 Air Quality Progress Report 30 confirmed there has been no change since their 2009 

report with respect to industrial pollution sources, such that there have been no industrial 

installations with substantially increased emissions or new relevant source of exposure within the 

local authority area. In addition there are no major petrol fuel storage depots in the council area, 

nor any petrol stations meeting the criteria for relevant exposure to benzene. 

6.58 In summary, the available monitoring data for the Immingham area suggest that the air quality is 

generally good, and that national objectives at the development site are likely to be met, as would 

be anticipated given its predominantly rural location. It is considered unlikely that the development 

would have a material effect on the Immingham AQMA, over 3 km away. 



Meteorological Data 

6.59 Meteorological data from the nearest meteorological station with adequate records, Donna Nook, 

is 40 km to the south east of the development site. The data for the years 2005 to 2009 were used 

to generate a five-year frequency distribution of wind speed and direction as shown in Table 6.4 

and presented as a wind rose diagram in Figure 6.1. 

Table 6.4 Relative Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed and Direction, (%) 

Direction Speed, m/s 

Bearing Degree �3.09 

3.09 to 

4.12 

4.12 to 

5.14 

5.14 to 

6.17 

6.17 to 

7.20 

�7.20 Total % 

N 0.0 0.15 0.25 1.01 1.45 1.27 0.92 5.06 

NNE 22.5 0.12 0.21 0.83 1.18 0.78 0.48 3.60 

NE 45.0 0.16 0.28 1.05 1.02 0.64 0.63 3.78 

ENE 67.5 0.17 0.30 1.12 1.03 0.68 0.62 3.92 

E 90.0 0.12 0.34 1.26 1.22 0.45 0.26 3.64 

ESE 112.5 0.16 0.29 1.37 1.53 0.53 0.26 4.13 

SE 135.0 0.13 0.28 1.49 1.67 0.44 0.13 4.15 

SSE 157.5 0.15 0.45 2.17 1.30 0.38 0.20 4.65 

S 180.0 0.31 0.82 3.51 2.96 1.04 0.47 9.12 

SSW 202.5 0.31 0.82 3.5 4.10 1.87 1.26 11.86 

SW 225.0 0.36 1.07 4.26 4.60 2.22 1.23 13.75 

WSW 247.5 0.35 1.24 3.79 2.49 0.63 0.20 8.70 

W 270.0 0.31 1.20 3.56 1.79 0.42 0.14 7.43 

WNW 292.5 0.21 0.52 2.95 1.67 0.46 0.15 5.95 

NW 315.0 0.18 0.31 0.97 1.49 0.94 0.76 4.65 

NNW 337.5 0.10 0.23 0.99 1.20 0.65 0.85 4.03 

Total % 3.29 8.61 33.82 30.70 13.41 8.58 98.40 

Calms 0.18 

Missing 1.41 

Total % 100.00 

6.60 It is evident from the data for these years that there is a pronounced prevailing wind from the 

south west and the adjoining sectors. Winds from the three sectors between the south south west 

and the west south west occur for over 34% of the time, almost twice as frequently as the evenly 

distributed case. The whole quadrant including the south sector to the west sector accounts for 

over half of the total winds with an average of 10% per sector. Winds from the remaining sectors 

are relatively infrequent, these eleven sectors account for 48% of the total winds with an average 

of only 4% per sector. 



Figure 6.1 Wind Rose Diagram for Donna Nook, 2005 to 2009 

Identification of Potential Impacts 

Construction 

Overview 

6.61 The construction phase of the Dissolved Acetylene Project is expected to take place over a period 

of approximately nine months starting in the first quarter of 2012. During the works, there 

potentially may be effects on local air quality as a result of site construction activities, and as a 

result of vehicle movements on site and on the local road network. 

6.62 Exhaust emissions from the use of on site plant are not considered likely to result in air quality 

impacts, given the likely transitory nature of their operation and the distance to the nearest 

locations of relevant exposure. 

Dust Emissions 

6.63 General construction activities which may give rise to dust emissions include demolition; 

earthworks; handling and disposal of spoil; wind-blow from stockpiles of particulate material; 

handling of loose construction materials; and construction vehicles travelling on un-surfaced haul 

routes. Once generated, the emissions may be transported beyond the site boundary if not 

properly controlled at source. Larger particles may be carried to, and then deposited at, nearby 

properties depending on the particle size and distance between the source and the receptor. If the 

particles are deposited in a significant quantity or over a continued period of time and in the 

absence of control measures, a nuisance may be caused. 




6.64 The delivery of construction materials and worker access to the site will take place via the local 

road network. The increases in traffic flow may potentially affect air quality as a result of the 

corresponding increase in emissions of combustion derived pollutants in motor vehicle exhausts. 

6.65 Exhaust emissions from construction traffic vehicles have the potential to affect local air quality at 

properties close to (within 200 m of) haul routes. From an air quality perspective, sensitive 

receptors include residential properties and locations where there are likely to be vulnerable 

occupants such as hospitals, nursing homes and schools. 

Operation 


6.66 Process emissions from the production of acetylene were demonstrated at Scoping stage 3 to have 

a very limited potential to affect sensitive human health receptors. However, potential impacts, 

including those to ecological receptors, have been assessed. 

6.67 Exhaust gas emissions from the use of on site diesel-fuelled plant are not assessed, given the 

likely transitory nature of their operation and the distance to the nearest locations of relevant 

exposure. 

6.68 Other potential sources of atmospheric emissions are very small quantities of carbide dust, 

generated from materials handling activities and shot (from shot blasting). These will be controlled 

through good practice techniques and the application of BAT and are not considered further. 

6.69 Solvent thinners will be released from the Paint Shop (as a result of painting and drying activities. 

These will be controlled through the selection of paint, the method of paint application, good 

practice techniques and the application of BAT and these are not considered further in the 

assessment. 


6.70 The delivery of materials and worker access to the site will take place via the local road network. 

The changes in traffic flow may potentially affect local air quality where there are receptors within 

200 m of roads that are affected by the operation of a site. 

Impact Assessment 

Construction 

Dust 

6.71 The findings of the Scoping Report 3 concluded that there would be no requirement for further 

assessment of construction dust as part of the EIA; however a summary of the rationale for this 

conclusion is provided below for completeness and transparency. 

6.72 Activities associated with the construction phase (for example, deliveries, piling, excavations and 

“stoning up”) could generate dust. Contractors’ areas (workers facilities, lay-down area, temporary 

parking facilities etc.) will be established within the red line boundary area (Figure 1.2). There are 

no sensitive receptors within 100 m of the red line boundary; the closest residential properties are 

over 500 m away, whilst the closest designated ecological site (the Humber Estuary) is 

approximately 1 km away. Dust emissions are highly unlikely to travel such large distances, 

furthermore, the regular tidal inundation of the vegetation adjacent to the shoreline will ensure that 

there would be no material effect on the designated site. Construction vehicle haul routes do not 

pass within 100 m of sensitive receptors. 



6.73 Construction dust will be controlled in accordance with good practice and the use of BAT. Dust 

control measures will be incorporated into the CEMP. Examples of dust control measures include: 

� water-spraying and sweeping of unpaved and paved roads to minimise dust and remove 

mud and debris; 

� using wheel washes, shaker bars or rotating bristles for vehicles leaving the site where 

appropriate to minimise the amount of mud and debris deposited on the roads; 

� sheeting vehicles carrying dusty materials to prevent materials being blown from the 

vehicles whilst travelling; 

� enforcing speed limits for vehicles on unmade surfaces to minimise dust entrainment and 

dispersion; 

� ensuring any temporary site roads are no wider than necessary to minimise surface area; 

� damping down of surfaces prior to their being worked; 

� storing dusty materials away from site boundaries and in appropriate containment (e.g. 

sheeting, sacks, barrels etc); 

� limiting stock pile heights and dampen down in dry weather; and 

� limiting material drop heights during bulk transfers. 

6.74 The measures in the CEMP will ensure that every possible precaution is taken to ensure no offsite 

transport of dust. It is possible with care and good working practices, to control dust emissions to 

a significant degree such that any effects of dust are not discernable beyond the site boundary. 

6.75 On the basis of the above, all residential, commercial and industrial properties and designated 

ecological sites are likely to remain unaffected by dust throughout the construction operations. 

The impact arising from construction dust may therefore be considered to be negligible. 

Road Transport 

6.76 Construction traffic will typically use the strategic road network, i.e. the A180, accessing the site 

locally via the A1173 and Kiln Lane onto Hobson Way; vehicles will be routed such that they do 

not pass through the Immingham AQMA. Where feasible, consideration will be given to bring 

materials and equipment to the site through Immingham Dock. For materials that were transported 

through Immingham Dock, it is expected that vehicles would route via Robinson Road and onto 

Laporte Road before joining Hobson Way. 

6.77 The Highways Agency’s DMRB air quality assessment methodology for transport schemes has 

been followed. An analysis is first undertaken on the magnitude of changes to vehicle flow rates, 

speeds, fleet composition and road network alignment; if none of these parameters change 

beyond the thresholds of significance published by the Highways Agency then no air quality 

assessment is required. An assessment of the change in concentrations of NO2 and PM10 at 

selected locations as a result of vehicle movements is required only if the DMRB criteria for 

affected roads are exceeded with the proposed development in place. 

6.78 Data that are used in the DMRB screening assessment are: 

� annual average daily traffic (AADT) flows, average vehicle speeds and fleet composition in 

terms of light duty vehicles (LDV) and heavy duty vehicles (HDV greater than 3.5 tonnes 

gross weight including heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and coaches); 

� road type (either motorway ’A’ road, urban road or rural road); 

� distance between the receptor façade and road centreline where receptors are within 

200 m of affected roads; and 



� background annual mean pollutant concentrations, obtained from the DEFRA background 

maps of air quality or measurements made by the relevant local authority. 

6.79 The change criteria are: 

� road alignment will change by 5 m or more; 

� daily traffic flow will change by 1,000 AADT or more; 

� HDV flows will change by 200 AADT or more; 

� daily average speed with change by 10 kph or more; or 

� the peak hour speed will change by 20 kph or more. 

6.80 The traffic data used in the air quality assessment are summarised in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 for 

AADT flows and HDV movements respectively. The data are presented for the existing baseline 

data (2011) and for the peak construction year (2012) both without and with the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project construction phase traffic. The traffic flows include committed development 

flows (see Chapter 12 for more details). 

Table 6.5 Annual Average Daily Traffic Movements during the Construction Phase 

Road 

2011 2012 

Base 

Without Dissolved 

Acetylene Project 

With Dissolved 


Change 

Hobson Way 1,167 1,173 1,235 +62 

Kiln Lane 2,674 2,689 2,751 +62 

A1173 12,480 12,563 12,614 +51 

A180 S of roundabout 31,335 32,156 32,193 +37 

Table 6.6 Annual Average Daily HDV Movements during the Construction Phase 

Road 2011 2012 

Base Without Dissolved 




Change 

Hobson Way 299 301 323 +22 

Kiln Lane 797 802 824 +22 

A1173 1,852 1,867 1,889 +22 


6.81 Analysis of the data shows that the proposed facility will not result in changes to traffic flows on 

local roads sufficiently high enough during the construction phase for any of the roads to be 

deemed ’affected’, according the DMRB criteria. There would be no changes to daily average 

speed or peak hour speed with the proposed development, nor any changes to road alignment. 

6.82 In summary, none of the DMRB assessment criteria would be exceeded during the construction 

phase of the Project; furthermore there are no sensitive receptors within 100 m of local haul 

routes. No assessment of changes in pollutant concentrations is required and it can be concluded 

on that basis that there would be no significant change in air quality as a result of the additional 

vehicle movements generated during construction. The impact of construction traffic may be 

considered to be negligible. 



Operation 


Air Quality 

6.83 The Dissolved Acetylene Project will require an EP to operate and as a consequence will be 

required to demonstrate that it has been designed, and will be managed and operated, in 

accordance with BAT. The new facilities will also be accredited under ISO 14001 EMS. 

6.84 As described in Chapter 3, emissions to atmosphere will consist of acetylene, ammonia, 

phosphine, hydrogen sulphide and acetone. The main emission is acetylene. Ammonia, 

phosphine and hydrogen sulphide are only present as a result of the impurities in the raw carbide 

and acetone is only present as a result of its use as a solvent for dissolving the acetylene gas. 

6.85 An estimate of the likely emissions from the proposed facility has been produced using the EIGA 

methodology and spreadsheet 16 for the calculation of air emissions from an acetylene plant. The 

emissions were estimated based on an acetylene production rate of 1,200 t/yr, which gave the 

following approximate values: 

� acetylene 22,000 kg/yr; 

� acetone 118 kg/yr; 

� ammonia 2.2 kg/yr; 

� hydrogen sulphide 0.06 kg/yr; and 

� phosphine 1.9 kg/yr. 

6.86 These estimates are relatively generic and since as much acetylene as possible is routed back to 

the Gas Holder it is likely that the emissions from the proposed BOC facility could be lower than 

those listed above. Over 80% (18 tonnes) of the emissions of acetylene arise from the internal 

examination of cylinders and from the compression, drying and filling operations. 

6.87 The EA has set EALs for phosphine, acetone, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide on account of 

their potential health effects. There are no such EALs for acetylene, which is essentially nontoxic 

31 . The EALs are presented in Table 6.7. 

6.88 Acetylene is, however, a volatile organic compound (VOC) and is categorised as a Class B VOC 

on account of its low toxicity and low ozone depletion potential. As a result of the vapour pressure 

of acetylene, it will exist solely as a gas in the atmosphere. Gas-phase acetylene will be degraded 

in the atmosphere by reaction with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals and the half-life for 

this reaction in air is estimated to be 20 days. 

6.89 The Environment Agency Environmental Permit Regulations 1 guidance for the large volume 

organics sector (EPR 4.01) 32 sets emission limits for Class B VOCs emitted in quantities of more 

than 5 tonnes per year or 2 kg per hour. The guidance notes state that the use of a concentration 

limit is not normally appropriate in the case of an emission from non-point sources such as 

storage tanks or process vessels and that an approach based on limiting total mass released or 

mass per unit of production is likely to be more effective. This issue will be dealt with in the 

application for the EP for the facility. 



Table 6.7 Environmental Assessment Levels for Air 

Pollutant Long Term (µg/m 3 ) Short Term (µg/m 3 ) 

Acetone 18,100 362,000 

Ammonia 180 2,500 

Hydrogen sulphide 140 150 

Phosphine - 42 

6.90 In addition, a long-term EAL for ammonia of 3 µg/m 3 has been set for higher plants (i.e. non lichen 

communities). 

6.91 Screening calculations were undertaken at the Scoping stage, following the methodology 

described in Annex F of the EA’s H1 guidance. The dispersion factors for an effective stack height 

of zero (a very conservative approach) have been used, assuming that all of the substances are 

released from a single, low level point source with no buoyancy or momentum (a reasonable 

approximation given the absence of sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity). The emission 

rates (g/s) were derived assuming operation for 4,000 hr/yr (50 weeks per year, 5 days per year 

and 16 hours per day). 

6.92 The results of the screening assessment are presented in Table 6.8 for the health-based EALs. 

These results use the maximum ground level concentrations and are therefore an overestimate of 

concentrations that would occur at the nearest sensitive receptor. 

Table 6.8 Results of H1 Screening for Emissions to Air 

Pollutant Emission rate PC, 

µg/m 3 

PC as Percentage 

of EAL 

kg/yr g/s L/T S/T L/T S/T 

Acetone 118 8.2x10 -3 1.21 31.96 0.01 0.01 

Ammonia 2.17 1.5x10 -4 0.02 0.59 0.01 0.02 

Hydrogen sulphide 0.06 4.2x10 -6 0.001 0.016


Odour 

6.95 The extremely low emissions of hydrogen sulphide (0.06 kg/yr) are not expected to give rise to 

any noticeable odour during normal operation of the facility. Discussions with the environmental 

protection team at North West Leicestershire Council 26 in relation to odour complaints associated 

with Air Product’s Bardon acetylene production plant support this. Although odour complaints had 

been received for the Bardon site, they had only been received approximately once per year from 

Harlows wood yard. The wood yard and the acetylene plant share their back boundaries and there 

are a number of other facilities adjacent to the acetylene plant. Investigations of the complaint 

found that the complaint is co-incident with annual maintenance operations at the acetylene plant, 

specifically those associated with tank cleaning. There are no other complainants or complaints 

during typical operation. The proposed BOC plant will not share a boundary with any other 

facilities and is distant from other premises and housing and thus is unlikely to give rise to odour 

complaints, even once per year. 

Transport 

6.96 The traffic data used in the air quality assessment are summarised in Table 6.9 and Table 6.10 for 

AADT flows and HDV movements. The data are presented for the existing baseline data (2011) 

and for the opening year (2012) both without and with the development traffic. The future year 

traffic flows include committed developments (see Chapter 12 for more details). 

Table 6.9 Annual Average Daily Traffic Movements during the Opening Year 

Road 2011 2012 





Change 

Hobson Way 1,173 1,976 2,047 +71 

Kiln Lane 2,689 3,478 3,549 +71 

A1173 12,553 13,239 13,299 +60 


Table 6.10 Annual Average Daily HDV Movements during the Operation Year 

Road 2011 2012 





Change 

Hobson Way 301 732 766 +34 

Kiln Lane 802 1,233 1,267 +34 

A1173 1863 2,294 2,328 +34 

A180 S of roundabout 3287 3,843 3,869 +26 

6.97 The DMRB criteria for affected roads will not be met, in terms of the change in vehicle 

movements, and there will be no change in average speed on any road. The effect of operational 

traffic on local air quality can be considered negligible. It has been agreed with the local authority 

that a Travel Plan for the site is not required. 



Mitigation Measures 

Construction 

6.98 With appropriate good working practices and the production and implementation of the CEMP, it is 

expected that there will be no significant air quality impacts during the construction phase of the 

development. Therefore no specific mitigation measures are deemed necessary. 

Operation 

6.99 Operational process emissions will be controlled as a result of the Project design (e.g. through the 

requirements of BAT and occupational health considerations), the implementation of good practice 

and regulation, monitoring and control measures (e.g. through the EP and the EMS). 

6.100 Atmospheric emissions resulting from the operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project are 

expected to have a negligible impact on human and ecological receptors and specific additional 

mitigation measures are not proposed. 

6.101 Air quality impacts from road traffic generated by the development have been assessed to be 

negligible and no specific mitigation measures are proposed. 

Residual Impact Assessment 

6.102 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated with air quality, the 

significance of impacts does not change from that described above. 

Recommendations 

6.103 The CEMP should include a method statement detailing dust suppression techniques to be 

employed during the course of construction. In accordance with their planning advice 24 , it is 

recommended that this is submitted and agreed with NELC prior to commencement of 

development. 

Summary 

6.104 Construction dust emissions are considered not likely to affect sensitive receptors, which are over 

500 m from the facility. Potential dust raising activities will be controlled through the use of good 

practice measures, to be specified in a CEMP. This short-term impact is considered to be 

negligible. 

6.105 Additional traffic generated by the development during its construction and operational phases will 

not cause any significant impact on local air quality as the changes do not exceed the DMRB 

criteria that trigger the need for a quantitative assessment. There are no sensitive receptors within 

200 m of roads that are likely to be affected by the development. The effect of traffic emissions is 

considered to be negligible. 

6.106 Under the EA permitting regime, BAT must be applied to control emissions (for design, operation 

and management of the facilities). Process emissions from the facility were assessed for their 

effects on air quality using the EA’s H1 screening method. In all cases the emissions were found 

to be insignificant (i.e. less than 10% of short term and less than 1% of the long term health and 

ecological based assessment criteria). Given the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, the 

effect of process emissions will be negligible. 

6.107 Consideration was also given to whether the facilities would result in odour issues; the 

assessment concluded that the Dissolved Acetylene Project was unlikely to give rise to odour 

complaints. 



7. Geology, Hydrogeology and Land 

Quality 

Introduction 

7.1 This Chapter presents the geology, hydrogeology and land quality assessment for the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project. It includes the relevant legislation and policy, assessment methodology and 

significance criteria, baseline description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment, 

mitigation measures, residual impact assessment and recommendations. Where activities are 

identified that could have effects on hydrological receptors water quality, the assessment of these 

impacts is provided in Chapter 8. Where activities are identified that could have effects on 

ecological receptors, the assessment of these impacts is provided in Chapter 10. The potential for 

cumulative and in-combination impacts is discussed in Chapter 16. 


Criteria 


Contaminated Land 

7.2 Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 33 introduced a statutory regime for the 

identification and remediation of ‘Contaminated Land’. It introduced, for the first time in the UK, a 

statutory definition of ‘Contaminated Land’ based on significant harm or the likelihood of 

significant harm (including risks to human health) or the pollution or likely pollution of controlled 

waters (all groundwater, inland waters and estuaries but excluding groundwater perched above 

the zone of saturation). 

7.3 Local authorities are the primary regulators under the Part 2A regime, with a duty to determine 

whether the land in their area is ‘Contaminated Land’, although provision is made for consultation 

and co-ordination with the EA in situations when pollution of controlled waters is an issue. 

7.4 Government objectives with respect to ‘land contamination’ are also set out as part of the 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the Defra Circular 01 2006 34 as: 

� to identify and remove unacceptable risks to human health and the environment; 

� to seek to bring damaged land back into beneficial use; and 

� to seek to ensure that the cost burdens faced by individuals, companies and society as a 

whole are proportionate, manageable and economically sustainable. 

7.5 It should be noted that this Circular is being revised currently, although the overall principles are 

likely to remain unchanged. 

7.6 These three objectives underlie the ‘suitable for use’ approach to the assessment and remediation 

of 'land contamination’. This approach recognises that the risks presented by any given level of 

land contamination will vary greatly according to the use of the land and a wide range of other 

factors, such as the sensitivity of the underlying geology and the receptors which may be affected. 



7.7 The ‘suitable for use’ approach consists of three elements: 

� ensuring that land is suitable for its current use; 

� ensuring that land is made suitable for any new use; and 

� limiting requirements for remediation to the work necessary to prevent unacceptable risks to 

human health or the environment in relation to the current use or future use of the land. 

7.8 Primary guidance for assessing and managing land contamination is presented in Contaminated 

Land Report (CLR) 11 35 . This provides a technical framework for identifying and remediating 

contamination through the application of a risk management process. The question of whether risk 

is unacceptable in any particular case involves not only scientific and technical assessments, but 

also appropriate criteria by which to judge the risk and conclude exactly what risk would be 

unacceptable. 

Legislation Relating to Controlled Waters 

7.9 Protection of groundwater from new developments is regulated in the UK by the updated 

Groundwater Regulations 2009 36 which predominantly control the acceptability of discharge of 

certain chemical species into groundwater from new activities, especially where the activities are 

not covered by other regimes. It regulates the following areas: 

� development of criteria for assessing good groundwater status; 

� identification and reversal of trends of chemical groundwater pollutants; and 

� measures to prevent or limit pollutant inputs into groundwater. 

7.10 The Water Framework Directive 2000 37 aims to provide a comprehensive and holistic water policy 

for Europe by establishing a consistent legal framework for the protection, improvement and 

sustainable use of water. The overarching objective is to protect aquatic ecosystems by ensuring 

that all surface, transitional, coastal and groundwater across Europe should reach good 

ecological, chemical and quantitative status by 2015. 

7.11 In addition, the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by the Water Act 2003) 38 aims to improve 

the management of water resources and protection to the environment by changing the way that 

water abstraction and impoundment is regulated. 

Environmental Damage Regulations 

7.12 The Environmental Damage Regulations, 2009 39 bring the EU Environmental Liability Directive of 

2004 40 into law in the UK. The overall objective is to ensure that the environment is fully protected 

against the most serious environmental damage. The Regulations require polluters to prevent and 

repair damage to water systems, land quality, species and their habitats and protected sites. If any 

business carries out an activity that causes environmental damage there is a requirement to 

remedy the damage and if there is a risk of damage from the business activities, this must be 

prevented. 

Environmental Permitting and Pollution Control for Contamination 

7.13 There is a wide range of legal requirements that address Environmental Permitting and pollution 

control for contamination. Best practice guidance documents have been produced by the EA and 

organisations such as the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) 

which are designed to prevent pollution during construction. 



7.14 The Dissolved Acetylene Project will be required to operate under the Environmental Permitting 

regime. The Environmental Permitting Regulations 1 came into force in April 2008 combining the 

Pollution Prevention and Control and Waste Management Licensing Regulations. The Permitting 

Regulations require operators of certain processes and activities to have an EP (or an exemption) 

and to operate within specific conditions which will be under the ongoing supervision of the EA. As 

part of the permitting requirements, a site condition report is required that identifies the land 

contamination condition of the site prior to the operation of the permitted process and which 

defines the land quality to which the site must be returned on surrender of the permit. 

Building Control and Contamination 

7.15 Building work is subject to Building Control under the Building Regulations 1991 41 . Schedule 1 of 

these Regulations (Requirement C2) states that “precautions shall be taken to avoid danger to 

health and safety caused by substances found on or in the ground covered by the building”. It 

should be noted that if contaminating substances in the ground have the potential to attack 

building materials, this may lead to a breach of Part A of these Regulations which relate to 

structural safety. Approved Document C 42 sets out how contamination should be addressed in 

building control: 

� site investigations should be carried out to determine the extent and nature of any 

contamination; 

� any ground covered by the building must be reasonably free from any material that might 

damage the building or affect its stability; 

� reasonable precautions must be taken to avoid danger to health and safety caused by 

contaminants on or in the ground covered by the building and any land associated with the 

building; and 

� precautions must be taken against ground gases such as landfill gases and radon vapours. 

Exposure of Construction Workers to Contamination 

7.16 The Contaminated Land Regime, as implemented through Part 2A and planning, does not 

explicitly address the risks to construction workers or other occupational groups that may have 

direct exposure to ‘contaminated land’, such as people employed to carry out environmental 

monitoring on such sites. The risks to these human receptors are managed through health and 

safety legislation, such as the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 43 

that require the employer to carry out an assessment of the risks associated with exposure to 

hazardous substances and then to prevent and if this is not reasonably practicable, adequately 

control such exposures. 

Planning Policies and Guidelines 

7.17 PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control addresses contamination as a material planning 

consideration in the context of the redevelopment of a site or other alterations which fall under the 

planning regime. As a component of these considerations, the planning authority may require 

investigation that may lead to the identification of the need for remediation works as part of the 

redevelopment of the land. Remediation is often secured via planning conditions. PPS 23 makes it 

clear that in the context of dealing with land contamination, the developer is responsible for 

ensuring that development is safe and suitable for use for the purpose for which it is intended and 

the environment protected from contamination during development. In particular, the developer 

should carry out an adequate investigation to inform a risk assessment and remediation. PPS 23 

recommends the phased approach outlined in CLR 11 35 for assessment of land affected by 

contamination. 






Consultation 

7.19 Consultation was carried out by e-mail telephone with the Pollution Control Unit of NELC and the 

EA. This was to confirm whether they held (and if so to obtain) any land contamination specific 

information. The Pollution Control Unit of NELC reported 44 that they had no additional information 

to that presented in this Chapter and the development site had not been identified of potential 

concern. The EA 45 also reported that they had no additional information to that presented in this 

Chapter and if the development site had not been developed, they would not expect to find 

existing contamination. 

7.20 There was only one response in the Scoping Opinion 4 (see Table 5.2 Summary of Scoping 

Opinion Responses) that related to soils groundwater, and that was from the EA: 

‘We have reviewed the Environmental Scoping Report by Atkins, dated March 2011 (ESR) and 

consider the plans for the Environmental Impact Assessment to be appropriate for the site in 

terms of groundwater and land contamination. The site is underlain by a Principal Aquifer relating 

to the Flamborough Chalk. However, given the thickness of overlying unproductive superficial 

deposits of Glacial Till, the site is considered to be of relatively low sensitivity with respect to 

groundwater issues. Nevertheless, the proximity of surface waters to the site warrants the 

additional works proposed in section 6.16 of the submitted Scoping Report. Please note that any 

reports or investigations should be done in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 

'Planning and Pollution Control' and CLR11 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land 

Contamination'.’ 

7.21 Section 16.6 of the Scoping Report 3 referred to the collection of additional baseline data, including 

an intrusive ground investigation (GI) with appropriate representative soil and groundwater 

sampling and chemical analysis. The GI works are discussed in later Sections of this Chapter. The 

preparation of this chapter has taken PPS 23 and CLR 11 35 into account. 

Other Information Data Sources 

7.22 Sources of information consulted to inform this Chapter include: 

� Envirocheck Report 9 ; 

� British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology Map number 81 (includes parts of 82 and 90) of 

Patrington, dated 1991 and number 90 (includes parts of 91) of Grimsby, dated 1990 (Scale 

1:50,000); 

� National Rivers Authority (NRA) Groundwater Vulnerability Sheet No. 13 of the Humber 

Estuary, dated 1994; 

� reference to the EA website; 

� ESG, Report Number A1038-11, BOC Immingham Dissolved Acetylene Plant, Desk Study, 

June 2011; 

� Burk, Green and Partners, Report on a Ground Investigation for Proposed Oxygen Plant and 

Depot at Stallingborough near Immingham for BOC, dated January 1990; 

� Atkins Limited, Feasibility Report for BOC Dissolved Acetylene Production facility at 

Immingham, dated 2011; 

� EIGA publication Environmental Impacts of Acetylene Plants; 13 



� ABB Limited, BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project, Hazard Study 1 and 2 Report, dated 

February 2011; 

� BOC internal guidance on chemical storage and spills; and 

� a site visit by Atkins on Tuesday 1st March 2011. 

7.23 GI works have been undertaken recently by ESG to obtain geotechnical and geo-environmental 

information. Works did not commence until 27 th June 2011 consequently, the full GI report, 

including geo-environmental information, will not be available until after the ES has been finalised. 

The only information available at this time is preliminary site-specific geological, ground gas and 

groundwater information (from Borehole logs). Figure 7.1, indicates the location of the Borehole 

(BH), Trial Pit (TP) and Window Sample (WS) locations. 



Figure 7.1 ESG 2011 GI: Location of BHs, TPs and WSs 




Introduction 

7.24 The Government’s Good Practice Guide for environmental impact assessment 46 states that the 

following potential environmental effects should be considered: 

� physical effects of the development: for example changes in topography, soil compaction, soil 

erosion and ground stability; 

� effects on geology as a valuable resource, for example mineral resource sterilisation, loss or 

damage to regionally important geological sites; 

� effects on soils as a valuable resource, for example, loss or damage to soils with good 

agricultural quality; 

� effects associated with land contamination that may already exist; 

� effects associated with the potential for polluting substances that are used (during 

construction operation) to cause new ground contamination issues on a site, for example 

introducing changing the source of contamination; and 

� impacts associated with re-use of soils and waste soils, for example, re-use of site-sourced 

materials on site or offsite, disposal of site-sourced materials offsite, importation of materials 

to the site, etc. 

7.25 The development site is understood to be classified as Grade 3 agricultural land. Pre-application 

discussions with the LPA (in relation to PPS 7 xi ) indicate that the Local Plan has addressed this 

issue by allocating sites for specific non-agricultural related uses, such as the existing BOC site, 

because in certain areas NELC considers that such uses can take priority over protecting the best 

farming land. This is discussed further in Chapter 4. Thus, the effects on soils as a valuable 

resource are not considered further herein. 

7.26 Potential impacts to surface water quality are discussed in Chapter 8 and potential impacts to 

ecological receptors are discussed in Chapter 10. 

7.27 No statutory or non-statutory geological or geo-morphological conservation designations have 

been identified on or within 1 km of the development site. 

7.28 Therefore, this Chapter focuses on land quality. The assessment of potential impacts associated 

with land quality has considered the possible presence of land contamination currently in, on or 

under the land at the development site, together with implications of the development for sensitive 

receptors including human beings, controlled waters (surface water and groundwater) and 

property as defined by Defra Circular 01 2006 34 . 

7.29 Land contamination is defined as contamination in Made Ground, natural strata, perched water in 

Made Ground and groundwater in natural strata. The assessment has also considered the 

potential for new sources of land contamination to be introduced during construction and 

operation. 

xi PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) states that protection will be given to the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural 

land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a), stating that where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable, LPAs should seek to develop 

areas of poorer quality land (Grades 3b, 4 and 5) in preference to that of higher quality. 



Land Contamination Risk Assessment 

Conceptual Site Model 

7.30 Land contamination can present an unacceptable risk to a proposed development, or the 

proposed development itself may increase a risk that existing land contamination already poses. 

Therefore, a preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) has been prepared to aid in the 

identification and assessment of potential impacts and associated effects of the proposed 

development and any land contamination that may be present. A CSM describes the relationship 

between potential sources of contamination (resulting from both on site and offsite historical and 

recent activities) and receptors to the potential contamination. As part of the CSM development, 

three elements, the source of contamination and associated contaminants, receptors to that 

contamination and the pathways between the two are identified and assessed. Where all three 

elements are present or are likely to be present, they are described as potential pollutant linkages 

(PPLs). Identification of PPLs, also called source-pathway-receptor linkages, underpins the CSM 

and enables the potential risk posed by any contamination to be assessed and thus, potential 

impacts and effects to be identified. 

UK Guidance and Approach to Land Contamination 

7.31 Primary guidance for assessing and managing land contamination is presented in CLR 11 35 . The 

process of contamination risk assessment as defined in CLR 11 35 includes: 

� developing a preliminary CSM by a desk study review of available documentary information 

and identifying the potential hazards sources, pathways and receptors relevant to the site 

and the PPLs which may be present; 

� gathering site-specific information on the CSM through site investigation to identify the 

presence, nature, potential concentrations and spatial distribution of contamination, details of 

pathways for migration of contamination and specific information on the receptors to update 

the CSM; and 

� risk assessment by applying criteria that will enable a judgement as to whether the 

concentrations of contaminants represent an unacceptable risk. These criteria must be 

relevant to each PPL and can be generic or site-specific. Generic assessment criteria are 

concentrations of a contaminant below which the risk is acceptable. Site-specific assessment 

criteria are concentrations of a contaminant above which there is likely to be an unacceptable 

risk. If a site fails on the site-specific assessment criteria, remediation may be required. 

7.32 The process of contamination risk assessment as defined in CLR 11 35 has been adopted as 

follows: 

� hazard identification (establishing contaminant sources) and hazard assessment 

(establishing pathways and receptors and identifying PPLs). Both the hazard identification 

and assessment stages conclude in development of the CSM; 

� risk estimation which predicts the likelihood (probability assessment) and degree 

(consequence assessment) of harm pollution occurring. Risk estimation has two 

components: firstly probability assessment which relates to whether pollution harm will occur 

in the short and or long term (risk estimation is only undertaken when a PPL exists); and 

secondly consequence assessment which is the magnitude of harm that would occur 

because of the PPL, that is, the degree of harm pollution considering the sensitivity of the 

receptor. Therefore, the consequence is whether the PPL would be a significant pollutant 

linkage; and 

� risk evaluation which is the process of deciding whether a risk is acceptable or not and 

entails the application of evaluation criteria. These evaluation criteria are set in relation to a 

level of harm or pollution to the specific receptor. They may be absolute standards or 

recommended limit values, for example, a health criterion value for the intake of a substance. 




Introduction 

7.33 Atkins has developed definitions of probability and consequence based on guidance from CIRIA 

C552 47 and National House Building Council EA R&D 66 48 which provide general guidance on the 

development and application of the consequence and probability ‘matrix approach’ to 

contamination risk assessment, CLR 11 35 , Defra Circular 01 2006 34 and EA guidance on pollution 

of controlled waters. 

7.34 Based on the above, Atkins’ definitions of probability are as follows: 

� high likelihood: the PPL exists and it is very likely to result in harm pollution in the short term 

and or will almost inevitably result in harm pollution in the long term and or there is current 

evidence of harm pollution. Likelihood is defined as more likely than not and meets the 

definition of ‘significant possibility’ under Part 2A of EPA 33 1990; 

� likely: all the elements (source-receptor-pathway) are present and in the right place which 

means it is probable that a PPL is present. Circumstances are such that harm pollution is not 

inevitable, but possible in the short term and likely over the long term; 

� low likelihood: all the elements (source-receptor-pathway) are present and in the right place 

which means that it is possible that a PPL is present. However, it is by no means certain that 

even over a longer period harm pollution would take place and harm pollution is less likely in 

the short term; and 

� unlikely: all the elements (source-receptor-pathway) are present and in the right place which 

means that it is possible that a PPL is present but circumstances are such that it is 

improbable that harm pollution would occur even in the very long term. 

7.35 Classifications of consequence are as follows: 

� severe: short term (acute) damage to human health likely to result in ‘significant harm’ (as 

defined by Part 2A 33 ), exposure to hazardous substances is likely to result in reportable death 

major injury. Short term risk of pollution of sensitive water resources (pollution of a principal 

aquifer, groundwater source protection zone and drinking water supply, reducing quality) and 

pollution meets the Part 2A 33 definition. Catastrophic damage to buildings foundations 

services and harm meets the definition of ‘significant harm’ under Part 2A 33 . Substantial loss 

in the value of crops or domestically grown produce, death of livestock, domesticated animals 

or wild animals and harm meets the definition of ‘significant harm’ under Part 2A 33 ; 

� medium: chronic damage to human health, likely to result in ‘significant harm’ (as defined by 

Part 2A 33 , exposure to hazardous substances likely to result in reportable dangerous 

occurrence, exceedence of workplace exposure limits. Pollution of sensitive water resources 

(pollution of a principal aquifer but outside a groundwater protection zone and industrial 

agricultural water supply, but insufficient to reduce the water quality). Substantial damage to 

buildings and foundations rendering them unsafe and to services, impairing their function and 

harm meets the definition of ‘significant harm’ under Part 2A 33 . Substantial diminution in yield 

(over 20% reduction) of crops or domestically grown produce and serious disease physical 

damage to livestock, domesticated animals or wild animals and harm meets definition of 

‘significant harm’ under Part 2A 33 ; 



� mild: no appreciable damage to human health, exposure to hazardous substances likely to 

result in limited, not reportable health effects and below workplace exposure limits. Pollution 

of non-sensitive water resources (low-level pollution of a principal aquifer outside a 

groundwater source protection zone and industrial agricultural abstraction). Significant 

damage to buildings and foundations but not resulting in the buildings being unsafe for 

occupation and damage to services but not sufficient to impair their function. Harm to crops 

but not resulting in a substantial loss in value or diminution in yield (less than 20% reduction), 

limited harm to livestock, domesticated animals or wild animals; and 

� minor: non-permanent harm to human health (easily prevented by means such as personal 

protective clothing). No appreciable pollution of a water resource. Easily repairable damage 

to buildings, structures and services. No appreciable harm to livestock, domesticated and 

wild animals, crops and domestically grown produce. 

7.36 The land contamination risk, which is a function of the probability and the consequence, can then 

be defined using the risk matrix in Table 7.1, which is taken from R&D 66 48 . 

Probability 

High 

Likelihood 

Table 7.1 Risk Estimation based on Probability and Consequence 

Consequence 

Severe Medium Mild Minor 

Very High Risk High Risk Moderate Risk Moderate Low 

Risk 

Likely High Risk Moderate Risk Moderate Low 

Risk 

Low 

Likelihood 

Unlikely Moderate Low 

Risk 

Moderate Risk Moderate Low 

Risk 

7.37 Descriptions of the classified risks given in R&D 66 48 are as follows: 

Low Risk 

Low Risk Very Low Risk 

Low Risk Very Low Risk Very Low Risk 

� very high risk: there is a high probability that severe harm could arise to a receptor from an 

identified hazard without remediation action or there is evidence that severe harm to a 

receptor is already occurring. Realisation of that risk is likely to present a substantial liability 

to the site owner or occupier. Investigation is required as a matter of urgency and 

remediation works are likely to follow in the short term; 

� high risk: harm is likely to arise to a receptor from an identified hazard without remediation. 

Realisation of the risk is likely to present a substantial liability to the site owner or occupier. 

Investigation is required as a matter of urgency to clarify the risk. Remediation works may be 

necessary in the short term and are likely over the longer term; 

� moderate risk: it is possible that harm could arise to a receptor from an identified hazard. 

However, it is either relatively unlikely that any such harm would be severe and if any harm 

was to occur it is more likely that the harm would be relatively mild. Further investigative work 

is normally required to clarify the risk and to determine the potential liability to site owner 

occupier. Some remediation works may be required in the longer term; 



� low risk: it is possible that harm could arise to a receptor from an identified hazard, but it is 

likely at worst, that this harm if realised would normally be mild. It is unlikely that the site 

owner or occupier would face substantial liabilities from such a risk. Further investigative 

work (which is likely to be limited) to clarify the risk may be required. Any subsequent 

remediation works are likely to be relatively limited; 

� very low risk: it is a low possibility that harm could arise to a receptor, but it is likely at worst 

that this harm (if realised) would normally be mild or minor; and 

� no potential risk: there is no potential risk if no PPL has been established. 

Land Contamination Impact Assessment and Significance Criteria 

7.38 The approach to the impact assessment involves developing a CSM for each phase of the 

proposed development and carrying out a land contamination risk assessment for the following: 

� baseline condition: development of the baseline CSM based on current use and identification 

and risk assessment of baseline PPLs; 

� construction phase: development of the construction phase CSM, addressing the potential for 

new sources of contamination to be introduced and the change in pathways and receptors, 

identification and risk assessment of PPLs; and 

� operational phase: development of an operational phase CSM for the developed site, 

reflecting final site conditions including the status of contamination sources, changes in the 

receptors and pathways, and identification and risk assessment of PPLs. 

7.39 Each CSM phase risk assessment is compared with the baseline to identify the potential impact. 

This CSM comparison approach allows the changes in land contamination status during the 

construction and operational phases of the proposed development to be divided into major, 

moderate, minor or negligible impact of adverse, neutral or beneficial effect. The key definitions 

are summarised in Table 7.2. 

Significance Definition 

Major adverse 

effect 

Moderate adverse 

effect 

Minor adverse 

effect 

Table 7.2 Significance Criteria for Land Contamination 

Baseline land condition where it is unlikely that PPLs are present and if 

so, they are of minor consequence (very low risk), becomes land where 

there is a high likelihood that PPLs are present of severe consequence 

(very high risk), or a high risk PPL is introduced. 

Baseline land condition where it is low likelihood that PPLs are present 

and if so, they are of mild consequence (low risk) becomes land where 

PPLs are likely and of medium consequence (moderate risk), or a 

moderate risk PPL is introduced. 

Baseline land condition where it is unlikely low likelihood that PPLs are 

present and if so, they are of mild minor consequence (very low low risk) 

becomes land where it is likely low likelihood that PPLs are present of 

medium mild consequence (moderate low risk), or a very low low risk 

PPL is introduced. 

Neutral effect No change in contamination risks. 

Minor beneficial 

effect 

Baseline land condition where it is likely low likelihood that PPLs are 

present and if so, they are of medium mild consequence (moderate low 

risk) becomes land where it is unlikely low likelihood of PPLs of mild 

minor consequence (very low low risk), or a very low low risk PPL is 

removed. 



Significance Definition 

Moderate beneficial 

effect 

Major beneficial 

effect 


Site Location and Setting 

Baseline land condition that has a likelihood of PPLs of medium 

consequence (moderate risk) becomes land with a low likelihood of PPLs 

of mild consequence (low risk), or a moderate PPL is removed. 

Baseline land condition has a high likelihood of PPLs of severe 

consequence (very high risk) becomes land where PPLs are unlikely and 

of minor consequence (very low risk), or a high risk PPL is removed. 

7.40 Site location and the extent of the development area are illustrated in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2. A 

description of the development area and its surrounds is provided in Chapter 2. 

Current Site Use 

7.41 The site is used for agricultural purposes and is currently planted with wheat. 

Site History 

7.42 The earliest map (1887) shows the development field as two fields separated in the approximate 

centre by a north to south drain. Middle Drain forms the north west boundary with fields beyond. A 

fence forms the north east boundary with fields beyond. South Marsh Lane and a parallel footpath 

and drain form the south east boundary with fields beyond. A stream and associated embankment 

form the south west boundary. Fields are beyond to the south west. There are footbridges in the 

north east and south east corners of the development site boundary and one mid-way along the 

south east boundary. Poplar Farm (not named) is approximately 650 m to the south west (see 

Figure 11.1), together with two ‘springs’. 

7.43 A path is present along the north east boundary by 1907, joining Green Lane, approximately 

300 m to the north west. The Grimsby District Light Railway has been constructed parallel with the 

stream between 1910 and 1932 along the south west boundary. There is a level crossing to the 

south west across South Marsh Lane. At some point between 1966 and 1968 the industrial works 

approximately 500 m to the east has been constructed with expansion by 1982. 

7.44 The existing BOC site and Hobson Way to the north east are shown to have been constructed 

between 1985 and 1993. The South Humber Bank power station (approximately 500 m to the 

south east), Kiln Lane Trading Estate (approximately 700 m to the north west) and North Moss 

Lane Industrial Estate (approximately 900 m to the west) are shown to have been constructed 

between 1989 and 2000. The drain between the two fields has been removed (or is no longer 

shown) by 2000. 



Contaminated Land 

7.45 As discussed above, historical maps from 1888 to present day 9 indicate that the field has not been 

developed and so the ground is not expected to be contaminated as a result of historical land use. 

Ground Investigation (GI) works have been undertaken recently by ESG. The full GI report, 

including the result of sampling for potential contaminants, will not be available until after the ES 

has been finalised. However, ESG has confirmed that all soils encountered were natural, no 

made-ground was described in the borehole logs, there were no visual or olfactory indications of 

potential contamination and all soil vapour headspace readings were below instrument detection 

(i.e. there was no indication of volatile hydrocarbon contamination in the soil). This supports the 

view that the soil beneath the site is not likely to be contaminated, but this will be confirmed (or 

otherwise) once the full GI Report has been received 

Geology 

7.46 Published geology shows the development site to be underlain by Estuarine Alluvium comprising 

clay, silt and sand resting on Glacial Till (Superficial Deposits). These are underlain by the 

Cretaceous White Chalk Formation (Bedrock). 

7.47 Site-specific geology, based on preliminary borehole logs, provided by ESG, indicates that the 

development site is underlain by: 

� Estuarine Alluvium (Recent Deposits): 

- stiff, brown and orange-brown, slightly sandy CLAY from surface to between 1.1 and 

2.7 m bgl (0 to -0.88 m AOD), with a thickness of 1.1 to 2.7 m 

- soft, brown-grey, silty CLAY becoming very soft and with occasional shell fragments 

towards the base to between 6.4 and 8 m bgl (-4.48 to -6.54 m AOD), with a thickness of 

4.2 to 6.2 m, 

- either black, plastic, amorphous PEAT (BH1, BH4, BH5, BH7) to between 7.2 and 8.3 m 

bgl (-5.56 to -6.57 m AOD) with a thickness of 0.5 to 1 m, or 

- silty CLAY with PEAT (BH3, BH6, BH7) to 7 and 8.4 m bgl (-5.08 to -6.94 m AOD) with a 

thickness of 0.4 to 0.6 m; 

� Glacial Till (Superficial Deposits): 

- firm to stiff, brown-grey, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly CLAY to between 9.1 and 14.5 m 

bgl (-7.39 to -12.7 m AOD), with a thickness of 4.8 to 6.5 m where proved, 

- medium-dense, grey, slightly clayey, slightly gravelly, fine- to coarse-grained SAND to 

between 15.9 and 16.2 m bgl (-14.4 to -14.47 m AOD), with a thickness of 1.7 to 2.7 m 

where proved, and 

- stiff, grey, slightly sandy, slightly gravelly CLAY to between 18.2 and 18.4 m bgl (-16.47 

to -16.94 m AOD) with a thickness of 2 to 2.5 m where proved; and 

� Cretaceous White Chalk Formation (Bedrock): 

- CHALK proved to 25.45 m bgl (-23.72 to -24.04 m AOD). 

7.48 The intrusive investigation carried out on the adjacent BOC facility in 1990 proved a similar 

geological sequence. 



Hydrogeology 

7.49 The Superficial Deposits under the development site are ‘Unproductive Strata’ but the Chalk 

bedrock is a Principal Aquifer. Principal Aquifers are defined as layers of rock or drift deposits that 

have high intergranular and or fracture permeability, meaning they usually provide a high level of 

water storage. They may support water supply and or river base flow on a strategic scale. In most 

cases, Principal Aquifers are Aquifers previously designated as a Major Aquifer. 

7.50 NRA Groundwater Vulnerability Sheet 13 of the Humber Estuary shows that soils are of high 

leaching potential. Such soils readily transmit liquid discharges because they are either shallow or 

susceptible to rapid by pass flow. The development site does not lie within a groundwater source 

protection zone and there are no current, licensed groundwater abstractions or recorded pollution 

incidents to groundwater within 1 km. However, there are 12 current, licensed groundwater 

abstractions between 1 km and 2 km, one held by JD McCarthy, approximately 1 km to the south 

west for general farming and domestic use and 11 held by Tioxide Europe Limited, approximately 

1.2 km to 1.4 km to the south for industrial use. 

7.51 Site-specific hydrogeology, based on preliminary logs provided by ESG indicates that with the 

exception of BH3 and BH4 (encountered in soft CLAY at between 2.9 and 4.7 m bgl and PEAT 

PEATY CLAY at between 8 and 8.4 m bgl), shallow groundwater was not struck during drilling in 

the Recent Deposits, which were described as dry to at least 5 m bgl. Groundwater was struck in 

the Glacial Till during drilling (between 7.5 and 11.1 m bgl) and in towards the top and base of the 

sand horizon of the Glacial Till (at 9, 13.2, 13.6 and 14.4 m bgl). Groundwater was also struck 

towards the Glacial Till Chalk interface at (18, 18.3 and 18.4 m bgl), confined by the overlying 

relatively low permeability deposits. 

7.52 ESG has installed groundwater-monitoring boreholes, screened in the Recent Deposits (BH4, 

BH5, BH6, WS1, WS2, WS3, WS4, WS6 and WS7), Glacial Till (BH1 and BH7), and Chalk (BH 2 

and BH3). The first two rounds (13 th and 20 th July 20011) indicate that groundwater is present in 

all installed boreholes. Groundwater is present at 1.15 to 3.15 m bgl in the Recent Deposits. 

Groundwater is artesian in BH1 in the Glacial Till and close to surface (0.96 m bgl) in BH7 in the 

Glacial Till. Groundwater is artesian in BH2 and BH3 installed in the Chalk 

7.53 The intrusive investigation carried out on the adjacent BOC facility in 1990 indicated that 

groundwater in the top 1 m of soils was controlled largely by land drains. Groundwater seepages 

were recorded at 1.7 to 2.4 m bgl in the Superficial Deposits and the shallow groundwater was 

considered to be in hydraulic continuity with the tidal Estuary (approximately 1 km to the north 

east) to which the shallow groundwater was likely to flow. Deeper groundwater is present at depth 

in the Chalk Principal Aquifer, although depth to groundwater in these strata is not known. 

Ground Gas 

7.54 Ground gas monitoring is being carried out by ESG as part of the GI. Monitoring results for the 

13 th and 20 th July 2011 detected: 

� methane in BH4 (0.4 and 0.9%); and 

� carbon dioxide in BH4 (0.5 and 0.3%), WS1 (2.7 and 3.6%), WS2 (2.1 and 3.9%), WS3 (3.3 

and 4%), WS4 (2.6 and 3.9%) and WS6 (0.5 and 0.7%). 

7.55 These boreholes are all screened in the Recent Deposits, which include peat and peaty clays 

which is the probable source for the ground gas detected. Further monitoring is ongoing and full 

results will be available in the ESG GI Report. 



Baseline Conceptual Site Model 

Baseline Contamination Sources 

7.56 Based on the documentation reviewed, no potentially contaminative historical activities have been 

identified on the development site which could have given rise to contaminants in, on or under the 

ground at the development site. This is supported by visual evidence from the GI works, which 

confirmed that all soils encountered were natural, no made-ground was identified, there were no 

visual or olfactory indications of potential contamination and all soil vapour headspace readings 

were below instrument detection (i.e. there was no indication of volatile hydrocarbon 

contamination in the soil). 

7.57 However, the potential for unforeseen contamination to be present in soil and any shallow 

groundwater cannot be precluded and absence can only be demonstrated by the site-specific GI 

and associated sampling which is currently on-going. 

7.58 The existing BOC facility is a potential offsite source for contamination xii as a result of: 

� migration of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust 

� migrating groundwater; and 

� migrating vapours ground gas. 

Baseline Receptors and Pathways 

On and Offsite Human Receptors and Exposure Pathways 

7.59 Current potential baseline on site receptors include humans who access the development site, 

primarily agricultural workers and public who may walk across the land. Exposure pathways for 

current on site human receptors include: 

� dermal contact with and ingestion of: 

- contaminants in soil and soil-derived dust 

- contaminants entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and 

contaminants) is exposed at the surface, and 

- contaminants in perched water shallow groundwater in natural strata (if pre-construction 

excavation takes place below the perched water groundwater table); 

� inhalation of contaminants in soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and contaminants) is 

exposed at the surface; and 

� inhalation of soil and water derived vapours (volatile organic contaminants which volatilise to 

the surface) and ground gas. 

7.60 Potential current offsite receptors include workers at and visitors to the existing BOC facility to the 

north west, agricultural workers on fields to the north east, south east and south west and the 

public who may cross these areas (offsite receptors). Exposure pathways for current on site 

human receptors include: 

xii However, it is noted that this assumes that the existing BOC site is contaminated, that there are areas of exposed contaminated soil, 

and that the proposed site is down hydraulic gradient of the existing site. 



� dermal contact with and ingestion of: 

- contaminants in windblown soil and soil-derived dust 

- contaminants entrained in surface water run-off from areas where soil (and 

contaminants) is exposed at the surface, and 

- contaminants in perched water shallow groundwater in natural strata (if pre-construction 

excavation takes place below the perched water groundwater table); 

� inhalation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust from areas where soil (and 

contaminants) is exposed at the surface; and 

� inhalation of migrating soil- and water-derived vapours and migrating ground gas. 

Controlled Waters Receptors and Pathways 

7.61 The following potential controlled waters receptors and pathways have been identified: 

� groundwater in the Superficial Deposits by leaching of contaminants: 

- from the unsaturated zone to perched water and migration vertically to the shallow 

groundwater, and or 

- from the unsaturated zone directly to the shallow groundwater; 

� Middle Drain (and ultimately the Humber Estuary) by discharge of contaminants entrained in 

surface water run-off from areas where soil is exposed at the surface (the assessment of 

which is addressed in Chapter 8); and 

� the Humber Estuary by discharge of contaminants in migrating groundwater. 

7.62 At this stage, groundwater in the Chalk Principal Aquifer is not considered a receptor. The Chalk is 

separated from the shallow near surface strata and any potential sources by over 20 m of 

unproductive strata (clay) as indicated in the EA’s response 4 to the Scoping Report 3 and the email 

response to Atkins of 09/06/2011. These strata will be of relatively low permeability and 

should act as a barrier to downward migration of contamination, providing they are of sufficient 

thickness and un-breached. In addition, downward migration of contaminants over that thickness 

of strata will result in attenuation. 

Ecological Receptors 

7.63 Ecological receptors are discussed in Chapter 10. As such, they have not been considered further 

in this Chapter. 

Current Property Receptors 

7.64 Defra Circular 01 2006 34 defines property as domestic animals, domestic produce, crops, 

livestock, game, fish and buildings infrastructure. At present, depending on the time of year, crops 

could be growing on and adjacent to the development area. There are no buildings on the 

development area; the nearest buildings are those at the adjacent existing BOC site. 

7.65 Pathways to on site crops include uptake of contaminants in shallow groundwater by roots and 

leaf contact with contaminants in soil-derived dust. 

7.66 Pathways to offsite crops require windblown, soil-derived dust for leaf contact and migration of 

contaminants in shallow groundwater for root uptake. 

7.67 The pathways to offsite buildings include direct contact with contaminants in migrating shallow 

groundwater and migration and accumulation of ground gas vapours. 



Baseline Risk Assessment 

7.68 As described above, no potential sources of contamination have been identified from past and 

current activities on the development site. This will be confirmed once the ESG GI is complete. 

7.69 Based on the assessment methodology described earlier in this Chapter, the qualitative baseline 

contamination risk assessment can be summarised as follows: 

� baseline on site and offsite human receptors: the probability of the PPL is considered 

‘unlikely’, the consequence is considered ‘mild’ and the risk identified as ‘very low’; 

� baseline controlled waters receptors (groundwater in the Superficial Deposits): the probability 

of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’, the consequence is considered ‘mild’ and the risk 

identified as ‘very low’. 

� baseline controlled waters receptors (surface water in the Estuary): the probability of the PPL 

is considered ‘unlikely’, the consequence is considered ‘mild’ and the risk identified as ‘very 

low’. 

� baseline on site property receptor (crops): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’, 

the consequence is considered ‘mild’ and the risk identified as ‘very low’; 

� baseline offsite property receptor (crops): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’, 

the consequence is considered ‘minor’ and the risk identified as ‘very low’; and 

� baseline offsite property receptor (buildings): the probability of the PPL is considered 

‘unlikely’, the consequence is considered ‘minor’ and the risk identified as ‘very low’. 

7.70 The qualitative risk assessment above can be confirmed refined once the ESG site investigation is 

complete. 


Construction 

Construction Phase Conceptual Site Model 

7.71 A Construction Phase CSM has been developed to identify any changes to contamination 

sources, receptors and pathways and a qualitative contamination risk assessment has been 

carried out and compared with the baseline to identify potential impacts during the construction 

phase. The methodology has been described earlier in this Chapter. Construction of the proposed 

development could include the following potential changes to contamination sources, receptors 

and pathways: 

� change of receptors: 

- on site human receptors will now comprise construction workers visitors (with exposure 

by dermal contact, ingestion and inhalation pathways), not agricultural workers public, 

- controlled waters and offsite human and property receptors will remain the same as for 

the baseline. 

- on site property receptors (crops), will no longer be present on the development area; 

however, the area of remaining field to the north east of the site is likely to continue to be 

farmed; 



� removal of vegetation, soil stripping, removal of ground and excavation at the proposed 

development site could (if the land is ‘contaminated’, which is not considered likely): 

- potentially remove contaminants but could also release and mobilise contaminants during 

the clearance excavation process, for example, release contaminants into air which are 

then inhaled by the human receptors and lead to leaf contact with offsite crops, 

- increase or modify the area over which direct exposure to human receptors could take 

place, 

- increase the area over which rainfall can infiltrate and increase leaching of contaminants 

to the controlled waters and down hydraulic gradient property receptors, and 

- increase the sources of contamination by accidental release of contaminants from, for 

example, buried pipework and drains; 

� redistribution of the ground and contaminants, which could increase the potential for leaching 

of contaminants to the controlled waters receptors or introduce contaminants into new areas 

of the development site and thus to additional receptors; 

� stockpiling of excavated material prior to either re-use or for removal which could: 

- release contaminants from the stockpile into air which are then inhaled by the human 

receptors, 

- increase the area over which direct exposure to human receptors could take place, and 

- enable entrainment in surface water run-off from rainfall and increase leaching to 

groundwater; 

� use of plant and equipment on the development site which could accidentally leak fuels and 

oils and introduce new contaminants into the ground; 

� storage of fuel, oils, chemicals and waste on the development site which could again leak 

spill and introduce new contaminants into the ground; 

� importation of fill (if required) which could include new contaminant (although it is noted that 

only demonstrably clean fill materials would be used); 

� placement of clean fill, foundations and hardstanding which would potentially act as direct 

pathway barriers to human and offsite property receptors and reduce the source of 

contamination (if present) to human, controlled waters and offsite property receptors; 

� foundation and construction methods which could potentially develop new pathways, such as 

piling to the Chalk which could not only push contaminants downwards, but potentially, create 

a new pathway for contaminants to reach groundwater in the Chalk aquifer or a conduit for 

ground gas to migrate to the surface (however, it is noted that the depth of piling is not 

expected to extend to the Chalk); 

� temporary dewatering of the excavations during construction which could potentially alter the 

groundwater flow direction for a short time and draw groundwater and contaminants into the 

excavation; 

� installation of service trenches which could act as preferential pathways for migration of 

vapours, ground gas and contaminants in groundwater; and 

� construction of temporary water containment areas, such as temporary reservoirs, sumps 

and wastewater storage which could increase loading and leaching of contaminants to the 

controlled waters receptors. 



Operation 

Operational Phase Conceptual Site Model 

7.72 An Operational Phase CSM has been developed to identify any changes to contamination 

sources, receptors and pathways and a qualitative contamination risk assessment has been 

carried out and compared with the baseline to identify potential impacts during the operational 

phase. The methodology has been described earlier in this Chapter. Operation of the proposed 

development could include the following potential changes to contamination sources, receptors 

and pathways: 

� changes to receptors: 

- human receptors will now comprise site occupants and visitors. 

- controlled waters and offsite receptors will remain the same as for the baseline, 

- the development itself will be a new (property) receptor by direct contact with 

contaminants in soil and shallow perched water groundwater (if present) and by 

accumulation of vapours and ground gas into buildings and enclosed spaces; 

� changes to contamination sources (if present) because of construction, which could include 

removal or volatilisation of contaminants (source removal); 

� importation of ‘clean’ material (if required) which would present pathway barriers to human 

and offsite property receptors and reduce infiltration of rainfall and likelihood of leaching of 

any contaminants already present from the unsaturated ground to the groundwater; 

� changes to pathways which would include placement of large areas of hardstanding acting as 

pathway barriers to human and offsite property receptors and reducing contaminant leaching 

and run-off to surface water and groundwater receptors, or introduction of any below ground 

storage areas which could form new pathways (it is noted that underground storage areas 

are not expected for the Dissolved Acetylene Project); 

� installation of passive or active ground gas solutions in infrastructure (if necessary) to prevent 

accumulation of vapours and ground gas removing pathways to human and property 

receptors; 

� storage, transport (including above and below ground pipework and manually) and handling 

of raw, intermediate, ancillary and waste materials (such as calcium carbide, sulphuric acid, 

sodium hydroxide, acetone, glycol, biocide, softeners, paints, thinners, oils, fuels, lime, 

chemically treated and wastewater etc.), which could leak spill be entrained in rainwater runoff, 

potentially introducing contaminants into the ground or discharge to surface water; 

� infiltration of any contaminated firewater to ground during an incident, potentially introducing 

contaminants into the ground; 

� leaking of contaminants from the Deluge lagoon to ground (following an incident); 

� use of plant and equipment on the development site which could accidentally leak fuels and 

oils and introduce new contaminants into the ground. 




Construction 

7.73 The land contamination impact assessment is based on the change in risk between the baseline 

and the construction phase. Construction activities by their very nature (and as described earlier) 

slightly increase the likelihood of exposure to contamination introduce potential sources. Good 

practice methods will be employed which will include measures to minimise the pathway and or 

reduce the source potential for exposure. A CEMP will be prepared and implemented, which will 

ensure that appropriate procedures will be in place to minimise risks and provide a means of 

monitoring their effectiveness. In addition, a construction waste management plan (WMP) will be 

developed and implemented as part of the CEMP. On the basis of the above, the construction 

phase contamination risk assessment is summarised as follows: 

� on site human receptors: the probability of the PPL is considered ‘low likelihood’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘mild’. Construction activities could increase the potential for 

exposure to contaminants in soil (if these are present) and vapour ground gas because 

construction activities involve the handling of soil and have the potential to encounter 

groundwater by excavation dewatering (potential sources). However, good practice methods 

are implemented to reduce such exposure and the risk identified as ‘low’; 

� offsite human receptors: the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘mild’. Construction activities could increase the potential for 

exposure to contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust (if contaminants are present) and 

migrating vapour ground gas because construction activities involve the handling of soil 

(potential sources) and potentially changing the vapour ground gas regime. However, good 

practice methods are implemented to reduce such exposure activities and the risk identified 

as ‘very low’; 

� controlled waters receptors (groundwater in the Superficial Deposits): the probability of the 

PPL is considered ‘low likelihood’ and the consequence is considered ‘mild’. Construction 

activities could increase the potential for mobilisation of contaminants, for example, increased 

infiltration and leaching, accidental spillage of pollutants, etc. but good practice methods are 

implemented to reduce this possibility and the risk identified as ‘low’; 

� controlled waters receptors (Humber Estuary): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘low 

likelihood’ and the consequence is considered ‘mild’. Construction activities could increase 

the potential for mobilisation of contaminants, for example, in surface water runoff, but good 

practice methods are implemented to reduce this possibility and the risk identified as ‘low’; 

� on site property receptors (crops): this PPL no longer exists as the on site crops will have 

been removed; 

� offsite property receptor (crops): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘minor’. Construction activities could increase the potential for 

mobilisation of contaminants in windblown, soil-derived dust, but good practice methods are 

implemented to reduce this possibility and the risk identified as ‘very low’; and 

� offsite property receptor (buildings): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘minor’. Construction activities could increase the potential for 

mobilisation of vapours ground gas but good practice methods are implemented to reduce 

this possibility and the risk identified as ‘very low’. 

7.74 Based on the above, the impact assessment is summarised in Table 7.3. 



Table 7.3 Land Contamination Impact Assessment for Construction Phase 

Receptor Baseline Risk Construction 

Phase 

Significance 

Human (on site) Very Low Risk Low Risk Minor Adverse 

Human (offsite) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Groundwater Very Low Risk Low Risk Minor Adverse 

Surface Water Very Low Risk Low Risk Minor Adverse 

Property (on site crops) Very Low Risk No Risk (not 

present) 

n/a (not present) 

Property (offsite crops) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Property (offsite buildings) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Operation 

7.75 As for the construction phase assessment above, the land contamination impact assessment for 

operation is based on the change in risk between the baseline and the operational phase. The 

potential effects of the operational phase activities will also be contained and or controlled by 

appropriate buildings design (e.g. selection of materials, appropriate bunding etc). 

7.76 Good practice methods will be employed which will include measures to minimise prevent creation 

of sources and pathways. The Dissolved Acetylene facility will be operated in line with BAT and 

the requirements of the EP. An operational EMP and WMP will be developed and implemented as 

part of the EMS for the site. On the basis of the above, the operational phase contamination risk 

assessment is summarised as follows: 

� on site human receptors (future site users): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ 

and the consequence is considered ‘mild’. Operational activities are unlikely to result in 

exposure to contaminants in soil (if these are present), or to vapour ground gas because of 

source removal pathway barriers. The risk identified is ‘very low’; 

� offsite human receptors: the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘mild’. Operational activities are unlikely to result in exposure to 

windblown soil-derived dust contamination (because of pathway barriers), or to migrating 

vapours ground gas (because of no source or source removal). The risk is identified as ‘very 

low’; 

� controlled waters receptors (groundwater in the Superficial Deposits): the probability of the 

PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the consequence is considered ‘mild’. Operational activities 

are unlikely to result in release of contaminants to ground groundwater because of pollution 

prevention measures, operating practices and management techniques. The risk is identified 


� controlled waters receptors (Humber Estuary): the probability of the PPL is considered 

‘unlikely’ and the consequence is considered ‘mild’. Operational activities are unlikely to 

result in release of contaminants to surface water (via groundwater) because of pollution 

prevention measures, operating practices and management techniques. The risk is identified 




� on site property receptors (buildings infrastructure): this is a new PPL because property was 

not present in the baseline. The probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘minor’. Appropriate building materials will be used to prevent 

derogation by contaminants (which, if present, may also have been removed). Vapour ground 

gas measures will have been implemented (if required). The risk is identified as ‘very low’; 

� on site property receptors (crops): this PPL no longer exists as the on site crops will have 

been removed; 

� offsite property receptor (crops): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘mild’. Operational activities are unlikely to result in exposure to 

windblown, soil-derived dust contamination (because of pathway barriers) or in migration of 

contaminants through groundwater (because of source removal, if present in the first 

instance). The risk is identified as ‘very low’; and 

� offsite property receptor (buildings): the probability of the PPL is considered ‘unlikely’ and the 

consequence is considered ‘mild’. Operational activities are unlikely to result in migration in 

groundwater or migration of vapours ground gas (because of source removal). The risk is 

identified as ‘very low’. 

7.77 Based on the above, the impact assessment is summarised in Table 7.4. 

Table 7.4 Contamination Impact Assessment for the Operational Phase 

Receptor Baseline Risk Operational Phase Significance 

Human (on site) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Human (offsite) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Groundwater Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Surface Water Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Property (on site 

buildings) 

No Risk (not 

present) 

Very Low Risk Minor Adverse 

Property (on site crops) Very Low Risk No Risk (Not Present) n/a (not present) 

Property (offsite crops) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 

Property (offsite buildings) Very Low Risk Very Low Risk Neutral 


Construction 

7.78 The assessment of construction impacts has been undertaken on the basis that good practice will 

be employed and that a comprehensive CEMP will be prepared. The significance of construction 

impacts has been assessed to be ‘Minor Adverse’ or ‘Neutral’. On this basis, no mitigation 

measures are required. 

Operation 

7.79 Operational process emissions will be controlled as a result of the Project design (e.g. the 

requirements of BAT), the implementation of good practice and regulation, monitoring and control 

measures (e.g. through the EP and the EMS). 

7.80 The significance of operational impacts has been assessed to be ‘Minor Adverse’ or ‘Neutral’. On 

this basis, no mitigation measures are required 




Construction 

7.81 No mitigation measures are required and the significance of construction impacts remains 

unchanged (i.e. as shown in Table 7.3). 

Operation 

7.82 No mitigation measures are required and the significance of operational impacts remains 

unchanged (i.e. as shown in Table 7.4). 


7.83 There are no recommendations resulting from this assessment. 

Summary 

7.84 The following presents the summary and conclusions from the assessment: 

� no potential baseline sources of contamination have been identified in the development area 

although this is to be confirmed on completion of the ESG site investigation; 

� although there is no evidence to suggest that the soil in the development area is 

contaminated; in the absence of quantitative data from the GI it has been assumed that 

contamination could be theoretically present. Therefore, the potential risk posed to baseline 

receptors (on and offsite humans, groundwater in the Superficial Deposits, the Humber 

Estuary and offsite property comprising crops and buildings) has been assessed as ‘very 

low’; 

� a Construction Phase CSM has identified new on site human receptors (construction workers 

visitors (change of receptor)). Offsite human, controlled waters and offsite property receptors 

remain the same as the baseline. On site property (crops) is no longer present. Potentially, 

new contamination sources have been identified from the construction activities themselves 

and pathways could be created or modified by construction activities. The construction phase 

contamination risk assessment has concluded a low risk for on site human receptors, 

groundwater and surface water and a very low risk for offsite humans and property receptors; 

� the potential impact of the construction phase for the on site human and controlled waters 

receptors is a minor adverse effect, offsite human and property receptors is a neutral effect 

and on site property is a minor beneficial effect (no receptor); 

� an Operational Phase CSM has identified on site human receptors as site occupants visitors 

and a new receptor in the form of property (the buildings infrastructure itself). Controlled 

waters and offsite human and property receptors remain the same as for the baseline. On 

site property (crops) is no longer present. Potentially, new contamination sources have been 

identified from the operational activities themselves and pathways could be created or 

modified by operational activities. The operational phase contamination risk assessment has 

concluded a very low risk to human, controlled waters and property receptors; and 

� the potential impact of the operational phase on human, groundwater and offsite property 

receptors is a neutral effect, together with a minor adverse effect for the (new) on site 

property receptor. 



8. Hydrology and Water Quality 

Introduction 

8.1 This Chapter describes and investigates potential impacts of the Dissolved Acetylene Project on 

surface water quality as a result of construction and operation. It includes a discussion of relevant 

legislation and policy, significance criteria, baseline description, receptors, impact assessment 

methodology and results, mitigation measures and residual effects. 

8.2 Potential impacts to groundwater are considered in Chapter 7. The effect of potential changes in 

water quality on ecological receptors is considered in Chapter 10. Cumulative and in-combination 

impacts are discussed separately in Chapter 16. 

8.3 The most significant surface water feature is the Humber Estuary to the north east of the proposed 

development. The flow of water in the Humber is driven mainly by the impact of tides on the sea 

water level, which varies on an approximately semi-diurnal cycle, with a tidal range of >4 m. 

8.4 There are no public foul or surface water sewers in the area. Middle Drain, which forms the north 

western boundary of the proposed development site, is operated by NELDB and takes treated 

effluent from a number of sites, including treated foul (domestic) waste water and surface water 

runoff from the existing BOC site. Middle Drain discharges to the Humber Estuary. 

8.5 There are no permanent surface water features on the development area itself. The land 

surrounding the development site is drained by a network of field drains which ultimately flow into 

larger drains which discharge to the Humber. There is no hydraulic connectivity between the 

development area and these drains. 


Criteria 


8.6 In particular this assessment has considered: 

� PPS 23 (Planning and Pollution Control); 

� Policy GEN8: Protection of Water Resources of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan; and 

� North East Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy including Development 

Management Policies November 2008: Policy SP2: Sustainable Development Principles. 




8.8 Consideration has been given to the Environmental Standards set under the Water Framework 

Directive (WFD). Guidance provided from the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) has also 

been considered throughout this assessment. 

8.9 Relevant legislation includes: 

� The Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD) (76/464/EEC and Daughter Directives); 

� The Water Resources Act (1991). 

� EA General Quality Assessment (GQA) standards (2008); and 

� EIGA, Code of practice for Acetylene 15 . 



Consultation 

8.10 No specific consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this Chapter. Most of the 

responses to the Scoping Report did not relate to water quality. The EA noted that the site is 

considered to be of relatively low sensitivity with respect to groundwater issues but the proximity 

of surface waters to the site warranted the proposed GI works (see Chapter 7). The EA also noted 

that the Scoping Report addressed the potential environmental risk to surface water and pointed 

out that the EA is already in discussions with BOC in relation to this issue and the EP. 


8.11 The data sources used to develop the Scoping Report 3 have also been used to develop this ES 

chapter. 

8.12 Water quality data have been obtained from the EA to improve the understanding of the baseline 

condition of the study area. The data relating to the sampling locations described in Table 8.1 and 

illustrated on Figure 8.1 were deemed the most appropriate for the water quality assessment for 

the Dissolved Acetylene Project. No water quality data are available for the Middle Drain. 

8.13 Additional water quality data have been provided by the EA for sampling sites further upstream 

and downstream of the Middle Drain discharge point into the Humber Estuary. These datasets 

have not been considered in this assessment, as their value is limited due to the dilution capacity 

of the Humber. Therefore only data in proximity to the discharge is used to inform the baseline 

assessment. 

Table 8.1 Water Quality Sampling Locations and Duration 

Site ID Name NGR Monitoring 

Start Date 

Monitoring 

End Date 

14 R.Humber Courtaulds H/Water +2 (100m) TA2445513362 05/03/2008 12/04/2011 

15 R.Humber Courtaulds H/Water +2 (250m) TA2458813293 05/03/2008 12/04/2011 

16 R.Humber Courtaulds H/Water -1 (100m) TA2426913459 05/03/2008 12/04/2011 

17 R.Humber Courtaulds H/Water -1 (250m) TA2413613528 05/03/2008 12/04/2011 

18 R.Humber Doverstrand H/Water +1.5 TA2361313824 05/03/2008 12/04/2011 

19 R.Humber Doverstrand H/Water -2 TA2331614005 05/03/2008 12/04/2011 

24 R.Humber Millenium Ebb Lw -1.5 (100m) TA2232915198 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

25 R.Humber Millenium Ebb Lw -1.5 (250m) TA2244415102 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

26 R.Humber Millenium-Flood Lw+1.5(100m) TA2217515326 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

27 R.Humber Millenium-Flood Lw+1.5(250m) TA2206015422 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

30 R.Humber Novartis Ebb Lw -2.5 (100m) TA2582613100 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

31 R.Humber Novartis Ebb Lw -2.5 (250m) TA2595213019 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

32 R.Humber Novartis-Flood Lw+2(100m) TA2565813208 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

33 R.Humber Novartis-Flood Lw+2(250m) TA2553213289 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

35 R.Humber Tioxide Ebb Lw -1 (100m) TA2633314044 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

36 R.Humber Tioxide Ebb Lw -1 (250m) TA2646513974 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

37 R.Humber Tioxide Flood Lw +1 (100m) TA2615714138 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 

38 R.Humber Tioxide Flood Lw +1 (250m) TA2602514208 08/01/2008 11/04/2011 



N 

Middle Drain 


Figure 8.1 Water Quality Sampling Locations 

8.14 The first step of the assessment will involve an analysis of the baseline water quality of Middle 

Drain and the Humber Estuary, directly upstream and downstream of the discharge from Middle 

Drain. This information will be viewed in the wider context of water quality information for the River 

Humber and Humber Estuary area. The final outcome of the baseline conditions analysis will be 

an assessment of the sensitivity of the Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary immediately 

upstream and downstream of the Middle Drain discharge. This assessment will be based on the 

criteria set out in Table 8.2. 

Sensitivity Description 

Table 8.2. Sensitivity of Baseline Features 

Very High Attribute with a high quality and rarity on a regional or national scale 

with limited potential for substitution. 

High Attribute with a high quality and rarity on a local scale with limited 

potential for substitution, or attribute with a medium quality or rarity 

on a regional or national scale with limited potential for substitution. 

Medium Attribute with a medium quality and rarity on a local scale with 

limited potential for substitution, or attribute with a low quality and 

rarity on a regional or national scale with limited potential for 

substitution. 

Low Attribute with a low quality and rarity on a local scale with limited 

potential for substitution. 



8.15 An impact assessment will be undertaken to determine what, if any, effect the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project could have on the baseline environment. The assessment will based on 

relevant guidelines and regulations and will be considered separately for the construction and 

operational phases of the project. The magnitude of any effects will be determined in accordance 

with the criteria set out in Table 8.3. The sensitivity of the baseline and the magnitude of effects 

will be combined based on the matrix outlined in Table 8.4, to generate a level of impact 

significance. The assessment will also take account of the nature of impact in terms of the 

duration and permanence (e.g. short term, medium term or long term). 


8.16 The criteria that will be used to describe the severity of any effects that the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project may have on water quality are provided in Table 8.3. 

Magnitude of 

Effect 

Table 8.3 Assessment Criteria for Magnitude of an Effect 

Definition 

Major Significant change in environmental conditions causing breaches of 

legislation or the exceeding of statutory objectives. Likely to affect sites 

designated national or international importance. Likely to affect a large 

scale area or a large number of people on frequent or permanent basis. 

May be an irreversible decline. 

Moderate Unlikely to cause a breach of legislation but likely to effect a site of 

regional or local environmental importance. Likely to affect a small 

number of residents/visitors on a permanent basis. 

Minor Likely to effect an area or feature of local interest or importance. Likely to 

have a temporary effect on a small number of people, or be a recoverable 

effect. 

Neutral No discernable effect predicted. 

Magnitude of 

Effect 

Table 8.4 Matrix for the Assessment of Significance of Impact 

Sensitivity of Baseline feature 

Very High High Medium Low 

Major Major Major Major Moderate/ Minor 

Moderate Major Major/ Moderate Moderate Minor 

Minor Major/ Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor Neutral 

Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 




Overview 

8.17 The most significant surface water feature in the vicinity of the proposed Dissolved Acetylene 

Project is the Humber Estuary; approximately 1 km to the north east of the development site. 

8.18 Middle Drain, which is operated by NELDB, forms the north western boundary of the development 

area and discharges to the Humber Estuary. Oldfleet Drain is located approximately 900 m to the 

south east of the development site and discharges into the Humber Estuary at a distance of 

approximately 1.8 km to the south east of the development site. North Beck Drain is approximately 

1.6 km to the north west of the development site and it discharges to the Humber Estuary 

approximately 1.9 km from the proposed site. The location of Middle Drain, Oldfleet Drain and 

North Beck Drain are illustrated in Figure 8.2. 

8.19 Other than Middle Drain where it will be crossed by the new bridge, there are no permanent 

surface water features on the site. There is a ditch along part of the northern verge of South 

Marsh Road, in the Anglian Water easement area. The former route of Middle Drain, in the north 

west corner of the development area, is now a depression with steep banks. Both of these 

features are seasonal and regularly dry out. 

8.20 There is a south east to north west running drain, which is parallel to (and on the other side of) 

Hobson Way and which drains into Middle Drain. There is a ditch (standing water) which runs 

along part of the southern verge of South Marsh Lane. There is a south east to north west running 

drain, which is parallel to (and on the far side of) the Grimsby Light Railway and which discharges 

into Middle Drain. 

8.21 The fields to the south east, south and south west are drained by a series of predominantly south 

east to north west running ditches which discharge into Middle Drain. The land to the north east is 

drained by a series of predominantly south west to north east running ditches which discharge into 

a drain that runs adjacent to and parallel to the Humber Estuary. This drain discharges into Middle 

Drain. Land to the north and north west is drained by ditches which discharge predominantly into 

Middle Drain. 

8.22 In the wider area, the land surrounding the development site is drained by a network of field drains 

which ultimately flow into the larger drains which discharge to the Humber. 

8.23 The location of the smaller drains and ditches within 2 km of the development area is illustrated in 

Figure 10.1 in the ecology chapter. 

8.24 None of the field drains enters the proposed development area and there is no hydraulic continuity 

between the development area and these drains. 

8.25 There are no public foul or surface water sewers in the area. 

8.26 Thus, the surface water receptors for the Dissolved Acetylene Project are Middle Drain and the 

Humber Estuary and these are described in more detail in the following sections. 



Middle Drain 

Figure 8.2 Location of Main Drains in the Vicinity of the Development Site 

8.27 Middle Drain flows towards the north east and discharges into the Humber Estuary via a pumping 

station and outfall, approximately 1 km from the proposed acetylene facility. Sluice gates and the 

pumping station prevent the tide moving upstream towards the site. Thus, during high tides, the 

drain is discharged via a pumping station, with free drainage during ebb tides. 

8.28 Middle Drain is maintained by NELDB. It is assumed that all surface water runoff eventually drains 

into Middle Drain, either through existing land drainage, perched groundwater or sub-surface flow. 

8.29 As water quality data are not available for the Middle Drain, a quantitative baseline water quality 

description cannot be provided for this watercourse. 

8.30 Five consents to discharge to surface water are reported within 1 km 9 of the development site. 

Four of these are for discharges into Middle Drain and one discharge is to a tributary of the Middle 

Drain. Of these five discharges, three are classed as ‘Sewage Discharges Final/Treated Effluent 

Not Water Company’, one as ‘Trade Discharge Process Water’ and one as ‘Discharge of Other 

Matter Surface Water’. Four of the discharge consents (sewerage, trade and other discharges) are 

held by BOC for the existing site. The other consent is for Katoen Natie, a logistics company, 

(NGR 522263, 413652) to discharge treated sewage. 

8.31 Data searches have not identified any current, licensed surface water abstractions within 1 km of 

the development site. 



8.32 The WFD classifies water bodies based on the ecological and physio-chemical status of the water 

body, with classification ranges from High Status to Bad Status. Due to its small size, Middle Drain 

has not been classified. In terms of ecology, Middle Drain supports Water Voles; no other 

protected species that would be directly affected by changes in water quality have been identified 

at this receptor. 

8.33 Taking into consideration the discharges received, the size of the water body and the presence of 

ecological receptors which may be vulnerable to changes in water quality (i.e. water voles), Middle 

Drain is considered to be an attribute with ‘a low quality and rarity on a regional or national scale 

with limited potential for substitution’ and is hence deemed to be of medium sensitivity. 

Humber Estuary 

8.34 The flow of water in the Humber is driven mainly by the impact of tides on sea water level, which 

varies on an approximately semi-diurnal (twice-daily) cycle. The tidal range of the Humber is 

macro tidal, i.e. its tidal range is greater than 4 m. 

8.35 Water quality data for the sampling sites on the Humber, as identified in Table 8.1, were grouped 

together in terms of sampling programmes as follows: 

� Millennium (approximately 1 km upstream of Middle Drain confluence with Humber Estuary); 

� Doverstrand (approximately 0.5 km downstream of Middle Drain confluence with Humber 

Estuary ); 

� Courtalds (approximately 1.5 km downstream of Middle Drain confluence with Humber 

Estuary); 

� Novartis (approximately 3 km downstream of Middle Drain confluence with Humber Estuary); 

and 

� Tioxide (approx 3.5 km downstream of Middle Drain confluence with Humber Estuary). 

8.36 Average and maximum values for these data sets were compared against relevant WFD 

environmental quality standards (EQS). This assessment is only used to provide a benchmark for 

water quality and not as an assessment of “compliance/ failure” of the water body. Due to the 

nature of the monitoring undertaken, data were only available for a selection of metals, 

trichlorobenzenes and dissolved oxygen. No data were available for sanitary determinands (e.g. 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)). 

8.37 Determinands were assessed against long and short term WFD EQS values. A number of 

additional standards, derived from Directives which are being repealed under the WFD (such as 

the DSD), were considered alongside the UKTAG-proposed WFD EQS. Table 8.5 presents an 

overview comparison of the monitoring results with the EQSs. 

8.38 Data are available for a number of metals, analysed as dissolved metals, these being: cadmium 

iron, mercury, lead, zinc and nickel. The EQS requires assessment for these metals as total 

metals; therefore it is not possible to provide a direct assessment against the EQS in this case. 

However, a comparison between the average dissolved data against the EQS shows that for the 

majority of the metals concentrations are considerably lower than the EQS (i.e. the EQS is 

generally an order of magnitude greater than the available data). It is likely, therefore, that the 

water quality at these sampling points within the Humber is within that expected from WFD EQS. 



Table 8.5 Comparison of Monitoring Results with WFD EQS Values 

Determinand EQS & Source Short Term EQS Long Term EQS Comments 

pH Between 6-9 (DSD) 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(% Saturation) 

60% 1 / 70% 2 / 80% 3 

(Shellfish Directive) 

Arsenic (proposed) AA4 0.6 µg/l 

MAC 5 1.1 µg/l (WFD) 

Arsenic (existing) AA 25 µg/l (DSD) 

Chromium (VI) 

(proposed) 

Chromium (VI) 

(existing) 

Iron (dissolved) 

(proposed) 

AA 0.6 µg/l 

MAC 32 µg/l (WFD) 

AA 15 µg/l (DSD) N/A 

AA 0.0016 mg/l 

MAC -0.0041 mg/l 

(WFD) 

Copper (dissolved) AA 5 µg/l (DSD) N/A 

Cadmium (total) MAC 0.2 µg/l (DSD) 

Mercury (total) 

Tri-chloro 

benzenes 

AA 0.05 µg/l 

MAC 0.07 µg/l (DSD) 

0.4 µg/l (WFD) N/A 

All sites have a pH between 6 

and 9. 

All sites meet guideline and 

imperative EQS. 

Maximum values for all three 

sites with data exceed EQS. 


sites with data are below EQS. N/A 

Maximum values for all sites 

are below EQS. 


sites with data exceed EQS. 

The maximum value for the 

one site, Millennium, with total 

metal data below EQS. 

The maximum value for the 

one site, Millennium, with total 

metal data below EQS. 

All sites have a pH between 6 and 9. 

All sites meet the minimum dissolved 

oxygen requirements. 

Average values for all three sites with 

data exceed EQS. 

Tioxide average value exceeds EQS, 

remaining sites are below EQS. 

Average values for all sites are below 

EQS. 

Average values for all three sites with 

data exceed EQS. 

Average values for all sites are below 

EQS. 

N/A 

The average value for the one site 

with total metal data is below EQS. 

Average values for the two sites with 

data were below the EQS. 

No estuarine EQS available so freshwater 

pH range used as a guideline. 

Dissolved oxygen levels should be greater 

than the EQS value. Imperative and 

Guideline values available. 


- 

Existing EQS as Maximum Allowable 

Concentration only. 

- 

Existing EQS as Annual Average only. 

Existing EQS is for Total iron (only dissolved 

iron data are available). 

Existing EQS as Annual Average only. 

Data are available for dissolved cadmium at 

the other three sites. 

Existing EQS as Maximum Allowable 

Concentration only. 

Data are available for dissolved mercury 

only at the other three sites. 

All data were below the limit of detection.


Table Notes: 

Green highlighted cells are generally compliant with determinand standard, red highlighted cells indicate exceedence of standard 

1 Annual Average, imperative. 

2 Minimum, Imperative. 

3 Annual Average, guideline. 

4 Annual Average (AA). 

5 Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC). 



8.39 The results of this assessment indicate that although the majority of determinands analysed meet 

the requirements of the relevant EQS, not all do. It should be noted that these data are specific to 

monitoring requirements of discharge consents and can only provide an overview of the water 

quality in the vicinity of the discharge point of the Middle Drain into the Humber. As discussed, the 

Humber Estuary has a large tidal range, this large flow of water increases the dilution capacity of 

the water body and reduces site sensitivity. 

8.40 To supplement the water quality data used here, a short literature search was conducted to 

provide further information on the water quality within the Estuary; the results of which are 

summarised here. 

8.41 The Humber Estuary is one of the largest estuaries in the UK, with a catchment draining around 

one fifth of England 49 . The Rivers Ouse and Trent contribute an average daily flow of 246 m 3 /s to 

the Humber, of which about 14 m 3 /s are sewage effluent and 12 m 3 /s are trade effluent. A further 

2.5 m 3 /s of sewage and 3.1 m 3 /s trade effluent are discharged directly into the Humber Estuary 50 . 

8.42 The Humber Estuary is designated as an SAC, SPA Ramsar Site and SSSI see Chapter 10 for 

more details. 

8.43 As the Humber Estuary has been identified as a ‘Heavily Modified Water Body’ under the WFD, its 

WFD status is described an ‘ecological potential’ rather than ‘good ecological status’. The WFD 

requires that all water bodies meet ‘good ecological status potential’ by 2015. The Humber 

Estuary would currently fail to meet this requirement and is classified as having ‘moderate 

ecological potential’. In terms of chemical status under the WFD, the Humber Estuary also fails to 

achieve ‘good chemical status’. 

8.44 Dissolved oxygen (percentage saturation) levels in the middle and outer Estuary very rarely drop 

below 50% 50 . The EA, as part of requirements under the Habitats Directive, has identified that 

certain substances (such as copper and zinc) would fail the relevant EQS in parts of the Estuary 51 . 

In terms of nutrients, the Humber Estuary has been identified as hypernutrified but not eutrophic 

and is not designated as a ‘Sensitive Area’ under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 

(UWWTD) 52 . 

8.45 Although water quality throughout the Humber Estuary varies, and fails WFD requirements to 

meet ‘good ecological potential’ and chemical status, it has been designated under the Habitats 

Directive as a site of international importance in which habitat quality should be, as a minimum, 

maintained. Therefore the Humber Estuary is considered to be a site with very high sensitivity. 


Construction 

8.46 Codes of good working practice, as described in various PPGs 53 (as relevant) should be followed 

during all construction activities, especially when working close to or in water (PPG 5 54 ). Use of 

good practice measures are assumed to be an inherent part of the construction phase and thus 

are not considered as mitigation measures. All construction activities will be undertaken in 

accordance with a CEMP, which will be developed and implemented by the appointed 

Construction Contractor. The CEMP will include, for example, procedures for control of pollution 

(including prevention of contaminants entering water courses and groundwater) and good site 

practice. 

8.47 The following activities have been identified as potential risks that may cause deterioration in 

water quality of the receptor water bodies during the construction phase. 



� accidental spillages: 

- spillages could potentially occur during use and transport of materials, wastes and fuels 

to or from storage areas on the site. Spills can occur as a result of inappropriate storage 

facilities, or because of poor construction practices on the site. Depending on the volume, 

location and nature of the spillage, contaminants could reach Middle Drain and bind to 

sediment or be discharged to the Estuary. Substances that bind to sediment can 

potentially be released at a later time in a more biologically active soluble form, or be 

dispersed in the water and reach receptors further downstream i.e. the Humber Estuary. 

These spillages could also be harmful to aquatic ecology and affect the aesthetic water 

quality of the receptor water bodies. The installation of bunded areas to store liquids (e.g. 

oils, diesel, paint and cleaning chemicals) will minimise the possibility of uncontained 

spills. 

� use and maintenance of plant equipment: 

- the use and maintenance of plant, vehicle and equipment can result in fuel leaks etc. 

Depending on the volume, location and nature of the release, contaminants could reach 

Middle Drain and bind to sediment or be discharged to the Estuary (as described above). 

� aqueous waste streams discharges: 

- aqueous wastes water streams may include, for example, those arising from vehicle plant 

washing, dewatering activities (if applicable) and on site facilities for personnel. If 

discharged, such releases could potentially increase the concentrations of pollutants in 

Middle Drain and subsequently in the Humber Estuary. Discharge of any waters 

(including silted waters) would require permission from the EA, which must be requested 

well in advance of the start of construction activities. 

� migration of contaminants from contaminated land: 

- if soils are contaminated, soil stripping and vegetation removal can increase the potential 

for, and volume of, contaminated surface water runoff. As discussed in Chapter 7 there is 

no evidence to suggest that the site is contaminated (this will be confirmed once the GI 

survey results are available). 

� delivery of higher loads of fine sediment: 

- increased traffic on site, movement of construction machinery, excavation activities, soil 

stripping and or temporary stockpiling of dusty material could result in the generation and 

deposition of windblown dust and or water containing elevated levels of sediment. If 

these sources were to reach Middle Drain, the increased sedimentation would lead to a 

higher suspended solids load in the Middle Drain (and subsequently the Humber 

Estuary), which could eventually cause silting, restrict flow and cause damaging effects 

(smothering) to aquatic organisms. 

� litter accumulation in waterbodies: 

- increased activity on site may potentially cause litter accumulation in the Middle Drain 

affecting the aesthetics of the waterbody and causing harm to any aquatic ecology. Litter 

may subsequently be washed downstream to the Humber Estuary. 

8.48 In general, the application of good practice during construction should ensure that the significance 

of any effect would be limited to Minor at worst. Numerous examples of good practice are 

provided in PPG 5 54 and PPG 6 55 . These will be taken into consideration in the development of 

the CEMP. 



Operation 

Water Use and Potential Sources of Pollution 

8.49 The proposed development will use two new water supplies from Anglian Water’s mains water 

supply on Hobson Way. The two supplies will be potable and non potable water. The potable 

water is a secure supply, whereas the non-potable supply cannot be guaranteed. The water use 

philosophy will be to use the non-potable water supply when and where possible. The Anglian 

Water supplies will be supplemented by water that is recycled from the process. In addition, (as 

described in Chapter 3) a rainwater harvesting system will collect clean surface water runoff to 

augment the supply of process water. 

8.50 There will be no discharge of process water from the manufacturing process to surface water. 

Some water is taken offsite as part of the lime slurry product. Small quantities of waste water will 

be generated from the scrubbing system and the cooling water systems; however, these aqueous 

wastes will be tankered offsite for appropriate treatment disposal. 

8.51 The aqueous discharges from the site will be the same in nature and source as those that are 

currently released to Middle Drain from the existing site, i.e.: 

� clean surface runoff water from the drainage system (as described in Chapter 3, the Site 

Drainage System network incorporates an OWS to reduce hydrocarbon pollution and catch 

pits to capture silt particles); 

� clean water from the OWSs for the gas air compressors (if this is not recovered for re-use); 

� clean water from regenerating the dryers (if this is not recovered for re-use); 

� hard salty water that is produced from the twice month regeneration of the water softener 

(approximately 25 t/yr); and 

� treated domestic effluent. 

8.52 Water from deluge systems and fire-fighting activities will be collected by the site’s Drainage 

System and discharged to a Deluge Lagoon for recycling or treatment prior to discharge to Middle 

Drain offsite disposal (as appropriate). 

8.53 There will be a single discharge point into Middle Drain for all aqueous discharges. All water 

discharged from the site to Middle Drain will need to be pumped (as described in the previous 

Section on Drainage Systems). The discharges will require consent from the EA and or NELDB. 

8.54 The area beneath the Lime Storage Tanks will be at a lower elevation than the rest of the site and 

will have a valved connection to the Drainage System. The valve will be controlled locally. Under 

normal circumstances the valve will be open but when loading is taking place the valve will be 

automatically closed to prevent any spillages from entering the Drainage System and to enable 

containment of any spillages. 

8.55 Any rainwater runoff from the Carbide Turnbin Storage Areas will be diverted to the area below 

the Lime Storage Tanks. Any rainwater runoff from the Designated Area for Solid Waste (where 

the unreacted carbide coke waste will be stored) will be diverted to the Lime Sump. 

8.56 The following areas will be bunded (to 110% of the capacity of the largest tank): 

� Acid and Lye Store; 

� Acetone Tank; 

� Lime Sump; and 

� Waste Liquor Tanks. 



8.57 Clean rainwater that collects in the bunds will drain to the Drainage System. Any spills will collect 

in the bund until they can be removed and disposed of offsite. 

Potential Operational Impacts 

8.58 The operation of the acetylene facility will be closely monitored and managed by means of an EP 

and an ISO 14001 accredited EMS. The following are identified as activities that could potentially 

result in deterioration in water quality of the receptor water bodies during the operation phase: 

� increasing potential for contaminates, including hydrocarbons, to reach receptor waterbodies: 

- inappropriate materials handling, transfer and storage (e.g. accidental spillages) may 

cause release of contaminates to the Middle Drain with subsequent release to the 

Humber Estuary. BAT and the EIGA Code of Practice for acetylene 15 will be followed with 

regards to the storage of all chemicals, wastes and products. 

� use and maintenance of plant equipment: 

- the use and maintenance of lifting equipment and vehicles could result in fuel leaks etc. 

Depending on the volume, location and nature of the release, contaminants could reach 

Middle Drain and bind to sediment or be discharged to the Estuary (as described above). 

� aqueous discharges (clean surface water runoff, treated domestic effluent, water from 

regenerating the water softener, clean water from regenerating the dryers and clean water 

from the OWS for the gas and air compressors) to Middle Drain; 

- Discharges into Middle Drain and subsequent flow into the Humber Estuary could 

theoretically cause deterioration in water quality of these water bodies. However, the 

discharges will be essentially clean water and will require consent from the EA and or 

NELDB. These discharges would have to have negligible impact in order to be 

consented. 

� increased area of hardstanding: 

- the development will introduce an area of 1.5 ha of hard standing, which will potentially 

cause increased surface water runoff and higher sedimentation rates higher suspended 

solids load in the receptor water bodies. The drainage network will incorporate catch pits 

to capture silt from surface water runoff prior to discharge. 

� delivery of higher loads of fine sediment: 

- increased traffic on site could result in the generation and deposition of windblown dust 

and or water containing elevated levels of sediment. If these sources were to reach 

Middle Drain, the increased sedimentation would lead to a higher suspended solids load 

in the Middle Drain (and subsequently the Humber Estuary), which could eventually 

cause silting, restrict flow and cause damaging effects (smothering) to aquatic 

organisms. The drainage network will incorporate catch pits to capture silt from surface 

water runoff prior to discharge. 


8.59 This impact assessment is undertaken using the baseline descriptions of the two receptors, and 

the duration and permanence of the impact. The impact assessment is presented in Table 8.6 for 

the construction phase and Table 8.7 for the operational phase. The assessment takes into 

consideration the high dilution capacity of the Humber Estuary which would reduce the impact of 

any pollutants entering the watercourse. 



Impact 

Construction 

Middle Drain (Medium Sensitivity) 

Table 8.6 Construction Impact Assessment 

Magnitude of 

Effect 

Significance of 

Impact 

Duration & 

Permanence 

Contamination due to accidental spillages. Minor Minor Short term 

Contamination resulting from use and maintenance of vehicles, plant and equipment. Minor Minor Short term 

Contamination resulting from waste water discharges. Minor Minor Short term 

Contamination resulting from exposure of contaminated soils and subsequent surface water runoff 

mobilisation and migration through groundwater. 

Neutral Neutral Short term 

Increased sedimentation due to construction activities. Minor Minor Short term 

Deterioration in aesthetic quality due to accumulation of litter. Minor Minor Short term 

Humber Estuary (Very High Sensitivity) 

Contamination due to accidental spillages. Neutral Neutral Short term 

Contamination resulting from use and maintenance of vehicles, plant and equipment. Neutral Neutral Short term 

Contamination resulting from waste water discharges. Neutral Neutral Short term 

Contamination resulting from exposure of contaminated soils and subsequent surface water runoff 

mobilisation and migration through groundwater. 


Increased sedimentation due to construction activities. Neutral Neutral Short term 

Deterioration in aesthetic quality due to accumulation of litter Neutral Neutral Short term 



Operation 

Table 8.7 Operational Impact Assessment 

Impact Consequence of 

Effect 

Middle Drain (Medium Sensitivity) 

Deterioration in water quality because of the increase in potential for contaminants from 

inappropriate materials waste handling, transfer and storage (e.g. accidental spillages) to reach 

the receptor water bodies. 

Significance of 

Impact 

Duration & 

Permanence 



Deterioration in water quality resulting from aqueous discharges. Neutral Neutral Long term 

Deterioration in water quality because of an increase in hard standing areas, causing increased 

runoff, higher sedimentation rates and higher suspended solids load in the receptor water bodies. 

Neutral Neutral Long term 

Increased sedimentation due to increased traffic. Neutral Neutral Long term 

Humber Estuary (Very High Sensitivity) 

Deterioration in water quality because of the increase in potential for contaminants from 

inappropriate materials handling, transfer and storage (e.g. accidental spillages) to reach the 

receptor water bodies. 



Deterioration in water quality resulting from aqueous discharges. Neutral Neutral Long term 

Deterioration in water quality because of an increase in hardstanding areas, causing increased 

runoff, higher sedimentation rates and higher suspended solids load in the receptor water bodies. 

Neutral Neutral Long term 

Increased sedimentation due to increased traffic. Neutral Neutral Short term 




Construction 


expected that there will be no significant water quality impacts during the construction phase of 

the development. Therefore no specific mitigation measures are considered to be necessary. 

Operation 

8.61 Operational discharges will be controlled as a result of the Project design (e.g. through the 

requirements of BAT and appropriate drainage design), the implementation of good practice and 

regulation, monitoring and control measures (e.g. through the EP and the EMS). On this basis, the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project is expected to have a neutral impact on Middle Drain and the Humber 

Estuary and specific additional mitigation measures are not proposed. 


8.62 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated water quality the 

significance of impacts does not change from that described above. 


8.63 The CEMP should include a method statement detailing the proposed techniques for ensuring that 

the water quality of Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary will be protected. It is recommended 

that this is submitted and agreed with NELC prior to commencement of development. 

Summary 

8.64 This Chapter has assessed the potential for the Dissolved Acetylene Project to affect surface 

water features. Potential impacts to groundwater are considered in Chapter 7. The effect of 

potential changes in water quality on ecological receptors is considered in Chapter 10. Cumulative 

impacts and potential combinations of various effects due to other planned developments are 

discussed separately in Chapter 16. 

8.65 The most significant surface water feature is the Humber Estuary. Middle Drain forms the north 

western boundary of the proposed development site. There are no public foul or surface water 

sewers in the area. There are no permanent surface water features on the development area 

itself. The land surrounding the development site is drained by a network of field drains which 

ultimately flow into the Humber Estuary; there is no hydraulic connectivity between the 

development area and these drains. An assessment of baseline conditions concluded that in 

relation to water quality the Middle Drain is considered to be of medium sensitivity and the 

Humber Estuary to be of very high sensitivity. 

8.66 A number of potential impacts on water quality were identified for both the construction and 

operational phases of the development. Construction impacts will be controlled through the 

application of good practice and the development and implementation of a CEMP. 

8.67 The aqueous discharges that will arise from the operation of the site will be effectively the same 

as those current discharged to Middle Drain from the existing site, i.e. clean water from the OWSs 

(for the site drainage system and the compressors), treated domestic waste water, clean water 

from regenerating the dryers and hard salty water (from regenerating the water softener). The new 

aqueous discharges will also discharge to Middle Drain. All other waste water streams will be 

collected for offsite disposal. It is noted that the facility will need an EP to operate and that the site 

will operate in accordance with an EMS, accredited to ISO 14001. 



8.68 Based on this impacts from construction were assessed to be of minor or neutral significance and 

operational impacts were assessed as neutral significance. Overall the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project is not considered likely to result in significant adverse effect on the water quality of Middle 

Drain and or the Humber Estuary and specific mitigation measures have not been proposed. 



9. Flood Risk 

Introduction 

9.1 This Chapter presents a summary of the flood risk assessment (FRA) for the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project (the full FRA is presented as Appendix 9A). It includes the relevant legislation and policy, 

assessment methodology and significance criteria, baseline description, identification of potential 

impacts, impact assessment, mitigation measures, residual impact assessment and 

recommendations. Cumulative impacts and potential combinations of various effects due to other 

planned developments are discussed separately in Chapter 16. 


Criteria 


9.2 The EA is the regulatory authority that has the responsibility for controlled waters. The EA has 

developed advice to assist NELC with determining planning applications. The Department for 

Communities and Local Government is responsible for the planning system, which aims to prevent 

inappropriate new development in flood risk areas and to direct development away from areas at 

highest risk from flooding. 

9.3 The responsibility for assessing flood risk in the planning process lies with the LPA as they 

prepare local development plans. LPAs are responsible for ensuring developers assess flood risk 

for their development proposals. 

9.4 The current planning policy guidance is PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk, was published in 

March 2010. PPS 25 advises LPAs on how to manage flood risk as part of the planning process. It 

has its basis in sustainable development and the precautionary principle. PPS 25 introduced a risk 

based approach to the assessment of flood risk and the ‘Sequential Test’ to the allocation of land 

for development. The broad aim of the planning guidance is to reduce the number of people and 

properties at risk of flooding within the natural and built environment. To achieve this aim, LPAs 

are required to ensure that flood risk is properly assessed during the initial planning stages of any 

development. 

9.5 The North East Lincolnshire Development Framework is currently being prepared. This consists of 

Development Plan Documents consisting of a Core Strategy, Site Specific Allocations, Adopted 

Proposals Map and Area Action Plans. On adoption the LDF will replace the North East 

Lincolnshire Local Plan (2003) and the Structure Plan for Lincolnshire (2006). 

9.6 The North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 

provides appropriate policies for the management of flood risk to be included within the 

Development Plan Documents and informs the Sustainability Appraisal process to ensure that 

flood risk is taken into account when considering options and the preparation of strategic land use 

policies. 

9.7 The Shoreline Management Plan 56 for Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point is currently in draft 

format and when finalised it will form a high-level policy document from which the organisations 

that manage the shoreline set their long term plan for actions and investment in managing flood 

risk to the people, property and the environment. The intent of management for the East 

Immingham to Cleethorpes policy area is that the defences will be held in their current position 

and their function will be to maintain protection to the significant industry, port and residential 

areas present in the coastal hinterland. 



9.8 The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy 57 provides strategic flood risk management options 

for the Humber Estuary taking into consideration proposed sea level rise and the EU Habitats 

Directive. The Strategy sets out a long term programme of the works needed to manage the flood 

defences within the Estuary over the next 100 years. In general, the EA’s approach to flood 

defence in the vicinity of Immingham (Flood Area 24 Immingham to West Grimsby) is to improve 

the current system where necessary and avoid locating new developments immediately behind 

the current flood defences in case the defence line needs to move in future years. The description 

of works and proposed option is ‘Hold the line: Sheet pile toe protection to prevent channel 

movements undermining bank and affecting its stability to the north of Middle Drain and local crest 

raising. Sheet pile toe protection works with local crest raising and outfall refurbishment to the 

south of Middle Drain’. The EA will seek to supplement public funds with contributions from major 

beneficiaries and from developers, who will be expected to pay the full cost of any new works 

needed to protect their development. 




Consultation 

9.10 A considerable amount of consultation has been undertaken with NELC and the EA in relation to 

the proposed development and the issues associated with flood risk. Some of the key components 

of the consultation process are listed below: 

9 th March 2011: Meeting (NELC, EA, BOC and Atkins) to present the Project to the EA and 

to discuss potential flood risk and planning issues. 

23 rd March 2011: Issue of Scoping Report 3 to NELC. 

27 th April 2011: Receipt of Scoping Opinion 4 from NELC (see Appendix 5.A). 

23 rd May 2011: Meeting (NELC, BOC and Atkins) to discuss PPS 25 and classification of 

the development. 

10 th June 2011: Submission of a letter from Atkins to NELC setting out further information in 

relation to BOC’s position regarding PPS 25 and the classification of the 

development as essential infrastructure (see Appendix 9.D). 

16 th June 2011: Submission of a letter from NELC to the EA setting out further information 

in relation to BOC’s position regarding PPS 25 and the classification of the 

development as essential infrastructure. 

9.11 The Scoping Report 3 received the following comments from the EA regarding the FRA, which 

have been taken on board in the production of this Chapter: 

� ‘The lifetime of the development will need to be confirmed. The flood risk to the development, 

including an appropriate allowance for climate change, will then need to be considered over 

the lifetime of the development. If the development is required to remain operational during a 

flood event the 0.1% annual probability, plus an allowance for climate change flood event, 

should be considered for determining the level at which flood sensitive equipment and areas 

of safe refuge are set. Also, other parts of the development will need to be shown to be flood 

resilient easily recoverable following a flood. 

� The proposal should be accompanied by a robust Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan. As 

part of this plan we recommend registration with the Environment Agency’s free Floodline 

Warnings Direct service.’ 



9.12 In addition, ongoing consultation with the Development Control section at the EA has been 

undertaken to identify the EA’s key issues and requirements for the purpose of this FRA. More 

latterly (July 2011) NELC forwarded the Draft FRA and associated documentation (which form 

Annex 9) to the EA. The EA provided comments (see Table 5.3 for a summary of the comments 

and for the original letter Appendix 5B) on the Draft FRA on the 4 th August 2011. The Final FRA 

has been updated as a result of the EA’s comments and subsequent consultation 20, 21 . 



development (Chapter 3). Other data sources include: 

� EA Flood Map; 

� Admiralty Chart tide data; 

� historical flooding records; 

� coastal flood defence details; 

� spot levels for the proposed development site; 

� Lidar DTM data for the proposed development site and surrounding area; 

� Northern Area Tidal Modelling Pilot Study Commission No AN645 (2007); 

� Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy, Planning for the Rising Tides (2005); and 

� North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire SFRA (2007). 


9.14 This assessment of flood risk is primarily a desk-top study collating information on the current 

flood risk and the existing drainage systems for the proposed development site. The results from 

this work have been used to inform the baseline and the assessment of impacts associated with 

the proposed. 

9.15 A FRA has been undertaken in accordance with PPS 25 and this is included as Appendix 9A. The 

objectives for the FRA of the proposed development site are to establish: 

� the impacts of flooding on the development; 

� the impacts of the development on flood risk elsewhere; and 

� whether appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the 

development to minimise risks to people and property on the site and elsewhere. 

9.16 The assessment covers the potential risk of flooding from the prime sources i.e. the Humber 

Estuary (tidal) and Middle Drain (fluvial) and from other possible sources such as groundwater, 

rainwater (pluvial) and sewers. 


9.17 There is no standard methodology for assessing the magnitude of impacts of development on the 

water environment. A methodology for assessing the significance of any impacts identified has, 

therefore, been developed in the context of the Water Act (2003), the Land Drainage Act (1991) 

and the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). 

9.18 The significance of the potential impacts of the development on flood risk have been categorised 

using the criteria outlined in Table 9.1. 



Significance 

Criteria 

Table 9.1 Assessment of Impacts 

Description of Criteria Example of Criteria 

Major adverse The development has a high probability of 

flooding. 

The proposal will have severe detrimental 

effects upon local watercourses estuary. 

Moderate 

adverse 

The development has a medium probability 

of flooding. 

The proposal may result in moderate 

detrimental effects upon local 

watercourse/estuary. 

Minor adverse The development has a low probability of 

flooding. 

The proposal may result in temporary and 

minor detrimental effects to local 

watercourses estuary. 

Negligible The proposal results in no appreciable impact 

on watercourses estuary. 

Minor beneficial The proposals may result in minor reduction 

in flood risk. 

Moderate 

beneficial 

The proposals may result in moderate 

reduction in flood risk. 

Permanent flooding or 

change to flow 

characteristics of 

watercourses. 

Severe temporary flooding or 

change to flow 

characteristics of 

watercourses. 

Moderate localised flooding. 

Any minor effects are 

reversible. 

Minor reduction in flood risk. 

Moderate reduction in flood 

risk. 

Major beneficial Major reduction in flood risk. Moderate to significant 

localised/regionalised 

reduction in flood risk. 

9.19 In applying the above impact assessment, if a major moderate adverse impact is identified, 

mitigation measures will be developed to reduce or mitigate that impact. It is likely that any major 

impacts would be a material consideration in the decision making process for the development. 

However, minor or negligible significance of impacts are unlikely to represent a constraint on the 

development. 

9.20 The impact of flood risk on the proposed development has been undertaken primarily through the 

assessment of breach and overtopping Flood Hazard Ratings provided by the EA for the site. The 

methodology used to assess the impact of the development on flood risk is described in more 

detail in the impact assessment sections. 


Introduction 

9.21 This section outlines the baseline conditions for the site in terms of the tidal environment; the 

fluvial environment; the groundwater environment; coastal defences and tidal flooding; fluvial 

flooding and drainage. A detailed FRA has been provided in Annex 9 and this should be referred 

to alongside this Chapter. 



Environment Agency Flood Map 

9.22 The Environment Agency Flood Map is provided in Figure 9.1 and shows that the proposed 

development site is located within Flood Zone 3, High Risk within a 0.5% annual exceedence 

probability (AEP) of tidal flood risk (equivalent to a return period of 1 in 200 years) but is defended 

from the Humber Estuary by embankments. 

Figure 9.1 Flood Map (derived from Environment Agency Website 2010) 

9.23 The Environment Agency Flood Map is based on still water tide levels and does not take into 

account surge or waves (except the component of these that is inherently embedded in the tidal 

gauge data around the Humber Estuary). Also the Environment Agency Flood Map does not 

distinguish between the tidal and fluvial flood risk of Middle Drain; however, as the discharge from 

Middle Drain is pumped into the Humber Estuary at high tides it is assumed that the flood risk 

from Middle Drain is fluvial. 

Tidal Flood Risk 

9.24 The flow of water in the Humber Estuary is driven mainly by the impact of tides on sea water level, 

which varies on an approximately semi-diurnal (twice daily) cycle. The tidal range of the Humber is 

macro tidal, i.e. its tidal range is greater than 4 m (see Table 9.2 below). 

9.25 The Humber Estuary is the principal source of flood risk at the site, through a combination of high 

tides, storm surges and wind-generated waves. Two potential mechanisms of tidal flooding have 

been considered and include overtopping during high tides in combination with storm surge and 

the breach of coastal defences. 



9.26 For the Humber Estuary, the standard reference station is Immingham where the Proudman 

Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) operates two full-tide bubbler gauges. Table 9.2 58 summarises 

the main tidal characteristics for the site. 

Table 9.2 Predicted Tide Levels 

m above Chart 

Datum (CD) 

Immingham 

m above Ordnance 

Datum Newlyn (ODN) 

Highest Astronomical Tide HAT 7.97 4.07 

Mean High Water Springs MHWS 7.19 3.29 

Mean High Water Neaps MHWN 5.74 1.84 

Mean Sea Level MSL 4.13 0.23 

Mean Low Water Neaps MLWN 2.58 -1.32 

Mean Low Water Springs MLWS 1.00 -2.90 

Lowest Astronomical Tide LAT 0.11 -3.79 

Ordnance Datum Newlyn ODN -3.9 - 

Tidal Range 

Peak Range (HAT LAT) 7.86 

Spring Range (MHWS MLWS) 6.19 

Neap Range (MHWN MLWN) 3.16 

9.27 Extreme sea level analysis 59 has been undertaken for the EA for Immingham for the 0.5 and 0.1% 

annual exceedence probability (AEP) using the POL methodology. The results for extreme sea 

level analysis are provided in detail within Appendix 9A and are summarised in Table 9.3. 

Return 

Period (year) 

Table 9.3 Extreme Sea Levels 

AEP (%) Still water level (m 

AOD) 

Still water level with climate 

change to 2063 (m AOD) 

200 0.5 5.05 5.449 

1,000 0.1 5.34 5.739 

9.28 Studies 60 suggest that increased rates of sea level rise are resulting from climate change. The rise 

in sea levels will change the frequency of occurrence of high water levels relative to today’s sea 

levels, assuming no change in storminess. There may also be secondary impacts such as 

changes in wave heights which would increase the risk from tidal flooding. The predicted effect of 

climate change on extreme sea levels is provided in detail within Appendix 9A and is summarised 

in Table 9.3. 



Fluvial Flood Risk 

9.29 Middle Drain (see Figure 9.2) is maintained by the NELDB. Sluice gates and the pumping station 

prevent the tide moving upstream towards the site, so during high tides the drain is discharged via 

a pumping station, with free drainage during ebb tides. Detailed hydrological and hydraulic 

modelling has not been undertaken for Middle Drain; however, NELDB has examined the 

conditions in Middle Drain in the past to assess the drainage implications of large industrial 

developments. As a result, Middle Drain is understood to have a capacity of 1% AEP and up to 

0.1% AEP combined with flood storage and the pumping station. 

Figure 9.2 Photographs of Middle Drain and the Pumping Station 

9.30 Investment has been made at Middle Drain to assist in the development of the area. The pumping 

station has the capacity to pump approximately 6,300 litres per second 61 . 

9.31 Studies suggest that increases in rainfall are resulting from climate change and will result in an 

increase in peak flow in the watercourses. Guidance within PPS 25 (based on the Defra 

‘FCDPAG3’ report 62 ) suggests an increase in peak river flow of 20% should be considered and in 

peak rainfall intensity of up to 30%. The proposed development site is not considered to be at risk 

from fluvial flooding and there is no change to the baseline condition when climate change is 

taken into account. 

Groundwater Flood Risk 

9.32 The development site is underlain by Estuarine Alluvium and Glacial Till which extend to between 

18.2 m and 18.4 m bgl. These are underlain by the Cretaceous White Chalk Formation (Bedrock). 

9.33 Groundwater in the top one metre of soils is understood to be controlled largely by land drains. 

Below this, shallow groundwater in the Superficial Deposits is understood to flow towards the 

Humber Estuary. Deeper groundwater is present in the Chalk Principal Aquifer; however this is 

isolated from the shallow groundwater by the thick layer of clay. 

9.34 Prolonged periods of rainfall in the surrounding catchment and high tides in the Humber Estuary 

can lead to an increase in groundwater levels and contribute to groundwater flooding. As the 

groundwater is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the Humber Estuary the main influence on 

groundwater levels within the development site will be the tidal levels. 

9.35 The British Geological Survey Groundwater Flooding Susceptibility Map (see Appendix 9A) 

suggests that the site is at moderate to high risk of groundwater flooding. However, there is no 

record of any groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the proposed development site. 



Pluvial Surface Water Flood Risk 

9.36 Very heavy, high intensity rainfall may result in high surface water flows on the site and areas of 

ponding. This may be as a result of rainfall intensity exceeding infiltration capacity or water logging 

of the ground beneath. 

9.37 At present there is no formal surface drainage system in place draining the area within the 

proposed development site. Thus, prior to development, rainwater that ponds on the site will 

ultimately percolate into the ground and flow to the Humber Estuary. Once the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project is operational, surface water runoff will enter the site drainage system and will 

be discharged to Middle Drain. 

9.38 The proposed development will increase the impermeable area of the site by approximately 1.5 ha 

and will result in an increase in surface water runoff. Climate change is considered to result in an 

increase in up to 30% peak rainfall over the next 100 years and this will have a direct impact on 

the surface water flood risk to the proposed development site. 

Sewer Flood Risk 

9.39 There are no public sewers or drainage systems outside the proposed development that could 

cause a risk of flooding to the site and sewer flood risk is not considered further herein. 

Flood Defences 

Defences 

9.40 The provision and maintenance of coastal defences protecting the development are primarily the 

responsibility of: 

� the EA; 

� North East Lincolnshire Unitary Authority; and 

� riparian owners. 

9.41 The entire shoreline of the Humber Estuary to the north east of the site is artificially defended. The 

site is protected from marine flood events by sea defences (see Figure 9.3) which consist of an 

earth embankment with a concrete slab on the crest, a concrete wave wall and a revetment on the 

front face. The average defence crest level of these coastal defences is 6.0 m AOD. 

Figure 9.3 Coastal Defence 



9.42 A visual inspection of the condition of the coastal defences was undertaken by Black and Veatch 

Ltd. in 2005. This was performed in accordance with the EA’s National Sea and Flood Defence 

Survey Condition Assessment Guide, which provides a grading system to describe the various 

properties attributed to the asset condition. The grading system for the condition of the defences is 

Grade 1 Very Good, Grade 2 Good, Grade 3 Fair, Grade 4 Poor and Grade 5 Very Poor. The 

conclusion of the inspection identified that the overall condition of the defences is fair to good. 

9.43 The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy notes that the foreshore is being eroded along this 

frontage and the EA has therefore recommended that in future no permanent buildings should be 

located immediately behind the defences. A width of 200 m has been suggested for this buffer 

zone, which would provide space for the defences to be moved if this becomes necessary in the 

future. This requirement does not, however, affect the proposed BOC development site. 

9.44 The standard of protection of the coastal defences is illustrated in Figure 9.4, which shows that the 

site is protected for an extreme sea level of at least a 0.1% AEP. 

Figure 9.4 Humber Standard of Protection 

9.45 Taking into consideration the impact of climate change on sea level rise the future baseline 1 in 

1,000 year extreme sea level to 2063 xiii is 5.739 m AOD and thus the current flood defences would 

offer more than a 1 in 1,000 year standard of protection in the future (i.e. at least up to 2063). 

Whilst this level of flood protection would be considered high the site will be at risk from more 

extreme events and from wind generated wave action in combination with storm surge and high 

tide levels. There is also a risk from the breach of the flood defences. The EA has considered 

climate change to the year 2115. The 1 in 1,000 year extreme sea level plus climate change to 

2115 is 6.453 m AOD. 


9.46 The assessment of the impacts is based on the baseline information and the results of various 

studies that have been carried out in relation to specific elements of the development. Potential 

flood risk to the site during construction and operation has been considered along with the 

potential impact of the development of the site on flood risk within the vicinity. 

Construction 

9.47 As the coastal defence currently provides a 1 in 1,000 year standard of protection there is not 

considered to be a risk of flooding from extreme sea levels to the Dissolved Acetylene Facility 

during construction from overtopping of the defences. There is, however a residual risk from the 

breach and overtopping of the coastal defences. 

9.48 Middle Drain is considered to have a capacity of 1% AEP and up to 0.1% AEP combined with 

flood storage and the pumping station. There is, however, a residual risk from the failure of the 

pumping station. 


can lead to an increase in groundwater levels and contribute to groundwater flooding. 

xiii This is highly conservative as the design life of the plant is only 25 years. 



9.50 During construction, the operation of machinery may result in compaction of the soil which will 

reduce the infiltration capacity. This could result in an increase in surface water runoff and could 

lead to localised flooding and runoff into Middle Drain. 

9.51 It is unlikely that any effects will be realised as a result of climate change during the 9 month 

construction phase (due to the relatively short timescale). It is, therefore, considered that no 

significant change in flood risk at the site will occur during the construction period. 

Operation 

9.52 PPS 25 sets out the recommended contingency allowances for sea level rise as a result of climate 

change. The potential increase in sea level rise to 2063 xiii is 0.399 mm; this will increase the risk of 

flooding to the site, especially from the overtopping of the coastal defences. 

9.53 There is a potential flood risk to the staff and equipment from extreme events in Middle Drain 

coinciding with tide-locking due to a failure of the pumping station. 


can lead to an increase in groundwater levels and contribute to groundwater flooding. 

9.55 The proposed development will increase the impermeable area of the site and will result in an 

increase in surface water runoff. Any surface water flooding is likely to have an adverse impact on 

the operation of the site and may increase the risk of flooding at the proposed development site or 

on land within the surrounding area. 

9.56 Earth embankments (2 m high) will be constructed on three sides of the main process area; these 

may result in displacement of flood water and changes to surface water runoff pathways 

increasing flood risk to the surrounding area. 


Construction 

Tidal 

9.57 The existing flood defences for the current situation are high enough to prevent overtopping such 

that the site is defended from coastal flooding to at least a 1 in 1,000 year standard of protection. 

There is, however, a risk of flooding from breach of these defences and overtopping from more 

extreme scenarios. 

9.58 The existing coastal defences are considered to be fair or good condition and the risk of failure of 

these defences (i.e. a breach) is considered to be minimal. The EA have provided flood hazard 

outputs from a two dimensional model built to simulate the coastal flooding and the overtopping of 

the existing defences at the proposed development site for a 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1,000 year 

event current day scenario (2006). The results of this modelling are provided in Appendix 9E. 

9.59 The results of the modelling show that using the Defra report FD2320 63 the flood hazard rating is 

greater than 2. The velocities and depth represent a severe flood hazard which is considered to 

be dangerous for all as the breach of the defences results in deep or fast flowing water. The 

impact would be considered to be of major adverse significance. 

9.60 The modelling of the overtopping of the coastal defences for a 0.1% AEP present day scenario 

indicates that there is no risk to the proposed development site. The impact of overtopping is 

therefore considered to be of negligible significance. 



9.61 The EA operates a flood warning service in areas at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea. Using 

the latest available technology staff monitor rainfall, river levels and sea conditions 24 hours a day 

and use this information to forecast the possibility of flooding. The site is situated within a larger 

geographical area from Immingham to Pyewipe where the EA provides a general Flood Watch 

early alert to possible flooding as shown in Figure 9.5. The forecasting of storm surges in the 

North Sea increases the likelihood that flood warnings will result in the successful warning of 

endangered people prior to the onset of flooding. During construction and throughout its 

operation, the proposed development site will be listed on the EA flood warning register. 

Figure 9.5 Flood Warning Area (EA 2011) 

9.62 A flood warning and emergency evacuation plan will be prepared and submitted to the LPA for 

approval before construction of the plant is completed. The emergency evacuation plan will 

include the following: 

� how the flood warning should be provided and disseminated; 

� what will be done to protect the critical infrastructure of the development and how easily 

damaged items will be relocated; 

� the availability of staff and time taken to respond to a flood warning; 

� the use of high level refuges for staff within the plant; 

� the time needed to evacuate the site; 

� provision of safe access to and from the development; 

� the ability to maintain key operations during a flood event; and 

Proposed Development Site 

� expected time taken to re-establish normal operation following a flood event. 

9.63 To ensure the effects of flood risk are minimised during construction, the work will be undertaken 

when flood events are unlikely and not predicted. Should a storm with flood potential be predicted 

then measures will be put in place to reduce the impacts of flooding, e.g. remove machinery from 

low-lying areas. With the measures outlined above, the construction impact from tidal flooding is 

considered to be reduced to negligible. 



Fluvial 


coinciding with tide-locking due to a failure of the pumping station. The pumping station operates 

with duty and standby pumps with sufficient pump capacity to provide a standard of protection of 

0.1% AEP for Middle Drain. The pumping infrastructure is in good condition and the risk of failure 

of the duty and standby pumps could therefore be considered minimal. The impact of failure is 

considered to be minor adverse significance. 

Groundwater 

9.65 As the groundwater is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the Humber Estuary the main 

influence on groundwater levels within the development site will be the tidal levels. Thus the 

measures described above for tidal flooding would also protect against this form of groundwater 

flooding. 

9.66 With the control measures described for tidal flood risk (discussed above) and surface water 

runoff (discussed below), the construction impact for groundwater could be considered to be 

negligible. 

Pluvial Surface Water 

9.67 During construction, the operation of machinery may result in compaction of the soil which will 

reduce the infiltration capacity. This may result in an increase in surface water runoff and could 

lead to localised flooding. As part of the CEMP, surface water runoff will be managed such that it 

will not increase the risk of flooding at the proposed development site, or to land within the 

surrounding area. Any surface water flooding is considered to have, at worst, a minor adverse 

impact. 

Operation 

Tidal 

9.68 There is a potential flood risk to the staff and equipment during the operation phase of the 

Dissolved Acetylene Facility from extreme events which would overtop the flood defences or from 

a breach of the coastal defences. 

9.69 The primary flood protection measure consists of an earth embankment with a concrete slab on 

the crest, a concrete wave wall and a revetment on the front face. The average defence crest level 

of these coastal defences is 6.0 m AOD. 

9.70 The existing coastal defences are considered to be fair or good condition and the risk of failure of 

these defences could therefore be considered minimal. 

9.71 The existing flood defences beyond the proposed lifetime of the development (50 years to 2063) 

are high enough to prevent overtopping such that the site is defended from coastal flooding to at 

least a 1 in 200 year standard of protection. There is, however, a risk of flooding from breach of 

these defences and overtopping from more extreme scenarios. 

9.72 The EA has provided flood hazard outputs from a two dimensional model built to simulate the 

coastal flooding and the overtopping of the existing defences at the proposed development site for 

a 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1,000 year event plus an allowance for climate change to 2115. The 

results of this modelling are provided in Appendix 9E. 

9.73 The results of the modelling show that using the Defra report FD2320 63 the flood hazard rating is 

greater than 2. The velocities and depth represent a severe flood hazard which is considered to 

be dangerous for all as the breach of the defences results in deep or fast flowing water. The 

impact is considered to be of major adverse significance. 



9.74 The modelling of the overtopping of the coastal defences for a 0.1% AEP climate change scenario 

to 2115 indicates that there is considerable risk to the proposed development site. However, up to 

2063 the climate change 0.1% AEP water level is below the crest level of the flood defences. The 

impact of overtopping is therefore considered to be minor adverse significance. 

9.75 The Electrical Switch Room will be protected from flooding by flood doors. The design and 

operation of the doors has not been finalised; however, they will either remain closed (unless 

access is needed), or will be automatically closed in the event of a flood warning being received. 

9.76 Two refuge areas providing a Safe Haven for staff during an extreme tidal event with breach or 

overtopping of the coastal defences will be provided within the Generator Building. The layout of 

the refuge areas are provided in Appendix 9F and shows the elevations of the areas to be 

6.61 mAOD on the first floor and 8.88 mAOD on the second floor Both of these refuge areas are 

well above the 1 in 1,000 year (0.1% AEP) extreme sea level plus climate change to 2115 of 

6.45 m AOD. 

9.77 All other areas will be allowed to flood and in doing so should not pose a risk to site personnel or 

to the continuing operation of the site. 

9.78 The site is designed to hold two weeks supply of product. When the flood waters have receded, 

and it’s safe to return to the site, a portable generator will be used to provide the site’s power 

requirements and enable manufacturing to recommence. 

9.79 As discussed for the assessment of construction impacts, a flood warning system and flood 

evacuation procedures will be implemented for the site. 

9.80 With the application of measures outlined above, the significance of the operation impact of tidal 

flooding will be reduced to negligible. 

Fluvial 


coinciding with tide-locking due to a failure of the pumping station. The pumping station operates 

with duty and standby pumps with sufficient pump capacity to provide a standard of protection of 

0.1% AEP for Middle Drain. The pumping infrastructure is in good condition and the risk of failure 

of the duty and standby pumps could therefore be considered minimal. The impact of failure is 

considered to be minor adverse significance. 

Groundwater 

9.82 As the groundwater is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the Humber Estuary the main 

influence on groundwater levels within the development site will be the tidal levels. Thus the 

measures described above for tidal flooding would also protect against this form of groundwater 

flooding. 

9.83 Consideration will be given to controlling groundwater by land drains to prevent the Deluge 

Lagoon from being filled by a high groundwater table in the winter months. Groundwater control 

might involve a small pumping station which would discharge into the surface water drainage 

network. 

9.84 With the control measures described for tidal flood risk (discussed above) and surface water 

runoff (discussed below), the construction impact for groundwater could be considered to be 

negligible. 



Pluvial Surface Water 

9.85 Land raising is proposed as part of the development, especially in relation to the ramping up of the 

bridge crossing over Middle Drain. This may result in displacement of flood water and changes to 

surface water runoff pathways increasing flood risk to the land adjacent to the facilities and 

increasing flood risk in the development site. Flooding is not considered to affect neighbouring 

areas of land and the impact would be considered to be of minor adverse significance. 

9.86 The land raising and contouring of the site has been engineered to ensure runoff is directed 

towards existing drainage channels and outfalls to Middle Drain to ensure there is no flood risk 

from surface water runoff and overland flow. Consideration has also been given to reducing the 

residual risk to buildings by providing flow paths which divert flows away from the buildings. 

9.87 The proposed development will increase the impermeable area of the site by approximately 1.5 ha 

and will result in an increase in surface water runoff. In the absence of control measures surface 

water flooding would be considered to have a moderate adverse impact on the operation of the 

site and may increase the risk of flooding at the proposed development site or on land within the 

surrounding area. Appendix 9A provides an assessment of the likely increases in surface water 

runoff resulting from the increase in impermeable area. 

9.88 The rainwater from the Cylinder and Bundle Filling and Generator Building roofs will be collected 

and then stored within an above ground Rainwater Harvesting Tank for use in the manufacturing 

process. The remaining rainwater will be collected by the Site’s Surface Water Drainage System. 

Paved areas (i.e. roads and hardstanding) have been designed so that rainwater will fall away 

from buildings and be collected by gullies and channels prior to entering the underground network 

of surface water drains. 

9.89 The Drainage System will discharge to Middle Drain via a pumping station. The pumping station 

will contain three pumps with variable speed drives capable of discharging to Middle Drain at flow 

rates between 25 l/s and 300 l/s. The peak flow rate from the site during a 100 year storm, with 

20% allowance for climate change, is approximately 409 l/s. Flows in excess of 300 l/s will 

overflow into the Deluge Lagoon and ultimately be returned to the pumping station via a low level 

return. 

9.90 The standards of service relating to flooding used in the design of the surface water drainage 

network are based on a storms of a 1 in 30 year (3.33 AEP) return period and a 1 in 100 year (1% 

AEP) return period (the latter with 30% allowance for climate change). There will be no flooding 

from the drainage system during a 1 in 30 year (3.33% AEP) storm. 

9.91 Any on site flooding caused by storms with return periods longer than 30 years (3.33% AEP) will 

be contained on site. The water will be allowed to flood the paved surfaces in a controlled manner 

such that water is shed away from buildings. Any floodwater will either be stored locally to return 

to the drainage system when the storm abates, or will be allowed to flow through the site towards 

the outfall and will be routed to avoid buildings. The system will be designed in such a way as to 

prevent flooding of adjacent agricultural land up to the 100 year return period (1% AEP) storm 

(with 30% allowance for climate change) and for storms of longer return period if it is practicable to 

do so. 

9.92 Outputs of the models developed to design the Drainage System are provided in Appendix 9G. 

9.93 With the application of the control measures described above, the operation impact for pluvial 

surface water is considered to be negligible. 




Construction 


expected that there will be no significant flood risk impacts during the construction phase of the 


Operation 

9.95 Flood risk will be managed through providing safe refuges above the breach water level within the 

Generator Building; providing secondary flood protection to electrical equipment through water 

tight doors; providing a flood warning system; safe evacuation routes; and evacuation procedures. 

Consideration has been given to reducing the risk to buildings by providing flow paths which divert 

flows away from the building. Surface water runoff will be managed through an appropriately 

designed surface water drainage system and pumping station which outfalls into Middle Drain. 

9.96 Thus, flood risk to, or resulting from, the operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project is not 

expected to be significant and specific additional mitigation measures are not proposed. 


9.97 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated with flooding the 

significance of impacts during construction and throughout the operation of the site does not 

change from that described above. 


9.98 BOC should continue to liaise with the EA to ensure they are informed of any changes to the 

standard of protection provided by the coastal defences and any changes to the flood warning 

system provided. 

9.99 BOC should continue to liaise with NELDB to ensure they are informed of any changes to the 

standard of protection provided by the pumping station on Middle Drain. 

Summary 

9.100 An assessment of the flooding issues associated with the existing site and the construction and 

operational phases of the proposed Dissolved Acetylene Facility has been completed. 

9.101 There is no knowledge of flooding to the proposed development site to date from all potential 

identified sources, including, tidal, fluvial, groundwater, surface water and sewer flooding. 

9.102 The site is at high risk from tidal flooding but the site of the proposed Dissolved Acetylene Facility 

is currently protected to at least a 1 in 1,000 year tidal (0.1% AEP) event by coastal defences. 

During the construction and operation phases, the site has a residual risk from overtopping of the 

defences during more extreme tidal events (above 0.1% AEP) and from a breach of the coastal 

defences. 

9.103 The risk from the breach of the coastal defences will be managed by providing a flood warning 

system; safe evacuation routes; and evacuation procedures. During operation, safe refuges will be 

provided at 6.61 and 8.88 mAOD (above the breach water level of 6.45 mAOD) within the 

Generator Building and secondary flood protection to electrical equipment will be provided through 

water tight doors. On this basis the tidal flood risk is considered to be negligible for both 

construction and operation. 



9.104 There is a risk of flooding from Middle Drain in the event of failure of the pumping station. 

However, the station operates with duty and standby pumps and overall the risk is considered to 

be minor for the construction and operational phases. 

9.105 The site is at moderate to high risk of flooding from groundwater but the main influence on 

groundwater levels within the development site will be the tidal levels. The measures incorporated 

into the design of the site to manage the tidal and surface water flood risk are suitable for 

managing the groundwater flood risk such that the significance of the impact is considered 

negligible for both construction and operation. 

9.106 There is an increase in compacted soils and or impermeable areas associated with the proposed 

development, and, therefore an increase in surface water runoff. As part of the CEMP, surface 

water runoff will be managed such that it will not increase the risk of flooding at the proposed 

development site, or to land within the surrounding area during construction. During operation, this 

will be managed through an appropriately designed surface water drainage system and pumping 

station which outfalls into Middle Drain. The site is considered to be at minor risk of flooding from 

pluvial surface water during construction and negligible risk of pluvial surface water flooding during 

operation. 



10. Ecology 

Introduction 

10.1 This chapter describes the potential effects of the Dissolved Acetylene Project on the nature 

conservation interest of the proposed development area. It details the approach to the ecological 

assessment, the methodologies used and identifies potential ecological impacts associated with 

the construction and operation of the proposed development. It also presents the measures 

incorporated into the scheme design to avoid or reduce ecological impacts. Potential cumulative 

and in-combination impacts on nature conservation receptors due to planned developments are 

discussed in Chapter 16. 

10.2 This Chapter has been prepared based on the Project description information provided in 

Chapter 3. Information from Chapters 6 (relating to air quality), 7 (relating to land quality), 8 

(relating to water quality) and 11 (noise) has also been used in undertaking this assessment. 

10.3 The key sensitive ecological features in the vicinity of the proposed development area are the 

statutory designated sites of the Humber Estuary including the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and 

Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site), which support a range of habitats and species, 

and which are particularly notable for the presence of internationally important populations of birds 

as well as a wide range of foreshore habitats. The SPA, SAC and Ramsar site is underpinned by 

the Humber Estuary SSSI. 

10.4 Information to support a HRA Screening (required by Regulation 61 of The Conservation of 

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) on the likely significant effects of the proposed 

development on the Humber Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar site by the competent authority 

(NELC) has been produced separately 6 . A HRA Stage 2 AA 7 to determine whether there is the 

potential for adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar site has also been prepared 

and is presented in Appendix 10A. 


Criteria 


10.5 The design of the proposed development and the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) takes 

account of the following legislation: 

� The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; 

� Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); 

� The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW Act) 2000; and 

� The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 

10.6 The EcIA also takes into account the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and PPS 9 Biodiversity 

and Geological Conservation 64 . 






Consultation 

10.8 An informal consultation exercise with Natural England, the NELC Ecologist, and the Humber 

Industry Nature Conservation Association (INCA) was undertaken by telephone in February 2011 

to discuss the potential ecological issues relating to the proposed development area. Consultees 

indicated that the main ecological receptors were likely to be the internationally important 

population of birds associated with the SPA and Ramsar site. Consultees also indicated that there 

were records of water voles on Middle Drain which runs adjacent to the development area. 

10.9 The scope of the ecological assessment was determined following the informal consultation 

exercise, an ecological walkover survey carried out on 1 st March 2011 and a desk study 

undertaken during February and March 2011. 

10.10 An environmental Scoping Report 3 was issued in March 2011, consultees included NE, the EA, 

the HA, LWT and the NELC Ecologist. Relevant responses to the initial Scoping request from the 

main consultees received in April 2011 are included in Appendix 5A. Responses received from the 

Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and Natural England are summarised in Table 5.2. No other consultees 

made any comments on the ecology section of the Scoping Report. 

10.11 A meeting was held between representatives from BOC, Atkins, NELC (planning), NE and 

Humber INCA on 8 th April 2011 to introduce the details of the project and to discuss potential 

nature conservation issues relating to the project. 

10.12 Consultation has also been undertaken on the Information to support a HRA Screening 6 and 

Stage 2 AA 7 Reports. Relevant consultation responses are provided within the HRA Stage 2 AA 7 

report in Appendix 10A. 


10.13 Ecological information has been collated for this assessment from a combination of desk study 

and field surveys undertaken during February and March 2011. 

Desk Study 

10.14 Gathering of ecological information has been undertaken to inform the EIA. Information sources 

are shown in Table 10.1. 

10.15 A desk study was carried out in February and March 2011 to identify the presence of any statutory 

designated sites of nature conservation importance associated with bird populations within 10 km 

of the proposed development area. The 10 km distance was chosen due to the known bird 

interest in the area. Although impacts are unlikely to extend 10 km from the proposed 

development, information was gathered on statutory sites associated with bird populations for this 

distance for contextual information and due to the highly mobile nature of birds. 

10.16 Statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance not associated with bird populations, 

and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation importance and notable species xiv 

records were identified within 2 km of the proposed development area. 

xiv 

Notable species are those which are legally protected or have some conservation significance such as priority species in the UK or 

Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan 



10.17 Ordnance Survey base plans were searched for water bodies within 500 m of the proposed 

development area which great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), a European Protected Species xv , 

could use for breeding. Great crested newts can use suitable terrestrial habitat up to 500 m from a 

breeding pond (Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines 65 ) although latest research suggests 

that newts are likely to travel no more than 250 m from ponds where suitable habitats for foraging 

and hibernation exist 66 ; in this instance a 500 m search radius was used as a precaution. 

10.18 The Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for Lincolnshire contains action plans for a number of 

habitats and species; this, together with the UK BAP, was reviewed for relevant habitats and 

species which could be present within or adjacent to the proposed development area. 

10.19 Additional information sources to aid in the assessment of impacts on the internationally important 

populations of birds associated with the Humber Estuary are detailed in the HRA Stage 2 AA 

Report 7 in Appendix 10A. 

Table 10.1 Ecological Information Sources Used to Inform the Assessment 

Information Data Source 

Statutory designated sites of nature 

conservation importance within 10 

km of the proposed development site 

associated with bird populations. 

Statutory designated sites of nature 

conservation importance not 

associated with bird populations, 

non-statutory designated sites of 

nature conservation importance and 

notable species records within 2 km 

of the proposed development site. 

Information on the Humber Estuary 

designated sites: SSSI, SAC, SPA 

and Ramsar site. 

Water bodies within 500 m of the 

proposed development site (which 

could support breeding populations 

of great crested newt, a European 

Protected Species). 

Information on habitats and species 

within, and adjacent to, the proposed 

development site. 

� MAGIC website 67 . 

� MAGIC website 67 ; 

� Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership (Lincolnshire 

Environmental Records Centre); 

� Humber Environmental Records Centre; 

� National Biodiversity Network Gateway 68 ; and 

� discussions with Humberside INCA, NELC Ecologist 

and Natural England, February 2011. 

� Joint Nature Conservation Committee website 69 ; 

� Natural England website 70 ; 

� SPA Review 2001 71 ; 

� The Humber Estuary: A comprehensive review of its 

nature conservation interest, Allen et al. (2003) 72 ; 

and 

� Ramsar sites information service 73 . 

� Ordnance Survey base maps; and 

� Extended Phase 1 habitat walk-over survey 

undertaken by Atkins in March 2011 following the 

‘Extended Phase 1’ methodology (see below). 

� Extended Phase 1 habitat walk-over survey 

undertaken by Atkins in March 2011; and 

� Flash Earth aerial photography and satellite 

imagery 74 . 

xv 

European Protected Species are protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (see Appendix 10B for 

a summary of wildlife legislation). 



Extended Phase 1 Survey 

10.20 A walkover survey of the land within 250 m of the development field was undertaken on 1 st March 

2011 by two Atkins ecologists, the lead ecologist being a full member of the Institute of Ecology 

and Environmental Management (IEEM) with over seven years professional experience. 

10.21 The survey broadly followed the ‘Extended Phase 1’ methodology as set out in Guidelines for 

Baseline Ecological Assessment 75 . The extended Phase 1 habitat survey provides information on 

the habitats in the survey area and assesses the potential for notable fauna to occur in or adjacent 

to the application site. Plant names follow New Flora of the British Isles 76 . The survey area and an 

approximation of the redline boundary are shown on Figure 10.1. 

10.22 During the Extended Phase 1 survey, the following preliminary investigations were undertaken in 

respect of the presence of notable species: 

� assessment of habitats for roosting, commuting and foraging bats; 

� assessment of suitable habitats for nesting birds, and loafing birds associated with the 

Humber Estuary SPA/Ramsar site; 

� a search for signs of badger (Meles meles) activity including setts, tracks, snuffle holes and 

latrines; 

� assessment of habitat potential for reptiles and amphibians, in particular great crested newts 

within the network of ditches and drains (see great crested newt surveys below); 

� assessment of water courses for potential to support water vole (Arvicola amphibious), whiteclawed 

crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) or otter (Lutra lutra); and 

� assessment of suitable habitats for dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) and other notable 

species that could be present. 

10.23 The list of invasive plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 

(as amended see Appendix 10B) is extensive and these plants are found in a range of different 

habitats, including aquatic habitats. The Extended Phase 1 survey checked, in particular, for the 

presence of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), giant knotweed (Fallopia sachalinensis), 

hybrid knotweed, giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum), Rhododendron spp. and 

Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera). In addition, because of the location and types of 

habitat found on the application site, the survey also checked for the presence of cotoneaster 

species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 

Water Vole Survey 

10.24 During early consultation and as a result of desk study records, water vole was identified as a key 

potential receptor. As such a detailed survey of Middle Drain and the surrounding ditches within 

the Extended Phase 1 survey area was carried out on 1 st March 2011 following Strachan and 

Moorhouse 77 methodology. The banks of Middle Drain from water level to 5 m from the top of the 

banks were searched for any evidence of water voles including burrows, latrines, runs and feeding 

stations and any evidence was marked on an OS base map. 

10.25 Further detailed water vole surveys were not considered necessary as good access to the banks 

of Middle Drain was available and evidence was found and mapped clearly. It is noted that there is 

a requirement for a 7 m maintenance strip and that no works will be undertaken within 5 m of the 

tops of the banks of Middle Drain. On the basis of both of these factors, it was considered that 

further surveys would add no additional value. 



Great Crested Newt Surveys 

10.26 An assessment of aquatic habitat potential for great crested newts within the network of ditches 

and drains within 500 m of the boundary was undertaken using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) 

(Oldham et al. 78 ) on 1 st March 2011. The HSI is quantitative measure of habitat quality for great 

crested newt. The HSI is a numerical index between 0 and 1, derived from an assessment of ten 

habitat variables known to influence the presence of newts such as geographic location, water 

body size and permanence, the presence of predatory fish and wildfowl, availability of suitable 

terrestrial habitat and proximity to other ponds. The HSI provides a score for each factor based on 

its level of suitability. An HSI of 1 is optimal habitat (high probability of occurrence), while an HSI 

of 0 is very poor habitat (minimal probability of occurrence). The HSI is calculated on a single 

pond basis, but takes into account surrounding terrestrial habitat and local pond density. If a pond 

has a very low HSI score (


10.34 The nature conservation value or potential value of an ecological feature is determined within the 

following geographic context: 

� international importance (e.g. SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites); 

� national importance (e.g. SSSIs); 

� county (i.e. Lincolnshire, containing the unitary authority areas of ‘modern’ Lincolnshire, North 

Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire) e.g. Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) or Local Wildlife 

Sites (LWSs) xvi ; 

� local (parish) importance this area is considered to be within the vicinity of the site, 

approximately bordered by Healing and Great Coates to south, Immingham to the west and 

the Humber Estuary to the north/east. (e.g. undesignated ecological features such as old 

hedges, woodlands, ponds); 

� important within the development area and immediate environs only e.g. habitat mosaic of 

grassland and scrub; and 

� negligible importance would usually be applied to areas such as built development or areas of 

intensive agricultural land where these were not supporting notable species. 

10.35 It should be noted that it is usual to consider habitats and species together when ascribing a value 

to a feature using this geographic context. However, there are circumstances where an ecologist 

may feel it necessary to assign a value to a particularly valuable species. In assigning value to 

species it is necessary to consider the species distribution and status including a consideration of 

trends based on available historical records and to make use of any relevant published evaluation 

criteria. For instance, the presence of a significant population of European protected species such 

as bats and great crested newts may be worth separate consideration. 

Impact Assessment Criteria 

10.36 This impact assessment has been undertaken with reference to current best practice and in 

particular the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom 80 . 

10.37 The assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development takes into account both onsite 

impacts and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts 

can be positive or negative. Negative impacts can include: 

� direct loss of wildlife habitats; 

� fragmentation and isolation of habitats; 

� disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli; 

� changes to key habitat features; and or 

� changes to habitats as a result of changes to the local hydrology, water quality and or air 

quality. 

xvi North East Lincolnshire is a unitary authority forming part of the very large County of Lincolnshire. Although Local Wildlife Sites are 

selected, designated and protected at the unitary authority level they are considered to be the most important places for wildlife in the 

county. They have substantive nature conservation value, and make a significant contribution to the maintenance of biodiversity. They 

may also have an important role in contributing to public enjoyment and understanding of nature. With the publication of Local Wildlife 

Sites, Guidelines for their Identification and Selection in the Historic County of Lincolnshire, in 2006, management of the LWS system 

became a responsibility of the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership. 



10.38 Negative and positive impacts on nature conservation features have been characterised based on 

predicted changes as a result of the proposed activities. In order to characterise the impacts on 

each feature, the following parameters are taken account of: 

� the magnitude of the impact; 

� the spatial extent over which the impact would occur; 

� the temporal duration of the impact; 

� whether the impact is reversible and over what timeframe; and 

� the timing and frequency of the impact. 

10.39 The assessment identifies those positive and negative impacts which would be ‘significant’, based 

on the integrity and the conservation status of the ecological feature. Impacts are unlikely to be 

significant where features of local value or sensitivity are subject to small scale or short term 

impacts. However, where there are a number of small scale impacts that are not significant alone, 

it may be that, cumulatively, these may result in an overall significant effect. Impacts have been 

assessed as being either negative or beneficial and significant or not significant. Following current 

guidance, this assessment identifies whether the described impacts are significant, based on the 

integrity and the conservation status of the ecological feature. 

10.40 The integrity of ‘defined’ sites is described as follows and has been used in this assessment to 

determine whether the impacts of the proposed development on a designated site are likely to be 

significant: 

The integrity of a site is the coherence of the ecological structure and function across its whole 

area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and or the levels of populations of 

the species for which it was classified 80 . 

10.41 The conservation status of habitats and species within a defined geographical area is described 

as follows and has been used in this assessment to determine whether the impacts of the 

proposed development on non-designated habitats and species are likely to be significant: 

For habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the habitat and 

its typical species, that may affect its long term distribution, structure and functions as well as the 

long term survival of its typical species within a given geographical area; 

For species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species 

concerned that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its population within a 

given geographical area 80 . 

10.42 In addition to determining the significance of an impact on any ecological features, this 

assessment also identifies any requirements for measures to minimise the risk of committing legal 

offences. 


Designated Sites and Associated Species 

10.43 The development area lies approximately 1 km to the south west of five statutory designated sites 

of nature conservation importance: Humber Estuary SSSI, Humber Estuary SAC, Humber Estuary 

SPA, Humber Estuary Ramsar site, and Humber Estuary European Marine Site (see Figure 10.2). 

Information on the legal protection afforded to these designations is given in Appendix 10B. 



10.44 The Humber Estuary European Marine Site encompasses the marine areas of the SSSI, SAC, 

SPA and Ramsar site and incorporates all aspects of the qualifying features for these 

designations. The reasons for designation are given in Table 10.2. The SAC, SPA, Ramsar site 

and EMS are all considered to be of international importance for nature conservation. The SSSI is 

of national importance for nature conservation. 

10.45 The Humber Estuary is the one of the largest estuaries in the UK, covering approximately 24,470 

ha. Habitats associated with the Estuary include intertidal and subtidal muds and sands, and salt 

marsh and fringing reed beds which support a large number of rare or threatened mammals, fish, 

invertebrates and plants. 

10.46 The Humber Estuary (and therefore the associated statutory designated sites) is directly 

connected to the site via Middle Drain (although the discharge from the site Drainage System to 

Middle Drain is pumped and can be stopped). Terrestrial habitats between the proposed 

development area and the designated sites comprise arable and industrial land, with the only 

main road being Hobson Way to the north east of the proposed development area. 

10.47 There are no other European sites within 10 km of the proposed development. There are currently 

no candidate SACs or proposed SPAs within 10 km of the proposed development area. North 

Killingholme Haven Pits SSSI (of national importance for nature conservation), 8 km north west of 

the development site, is a saline lagoon which supports birds for which the Humber Estuary is 

designated and forms part of the habitat used by foraging and roosting birds particularly at hightide. 

10.48 There are no other statutory designated sites within 10 km that are designated for their bird 

interest. However, 1 km north east of the proposed application site is the Humber Flats, Marshes 

and Coast Important Bird Area (IBA), a non-statutory designated site identified and monitored by 

Birdlife International, a global partnership of conservation organisations. Birdlife International has 

developed criteria for the selection of IBAs in Europe based on a site’s international importance for 

threatened and congregatory bird species, assemblages of restricted-range bird species and for 

assemblages of biome-restricted bird species. The Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast IBA is 

designated because of its international importance for supporting a significant number of 

threatened bird species, its exceptional numbers of migratory species and because the site 

supports many bird species with restricted ranges. In the European Union IBAs often form the 

basis for the designation of SPAs and the internationally important value for nature conservation 

assigned to the SPA is, for the purposes of this assessment considered to include the IBA. 

10.49 Details of non-statutory designated sites within 2 km of the proposed development are given in 

Table 10.3 and are shown on (see Figure 10.2). 

10.50 The LWSs are of county value for nature conservation as they represent habitat types which are 

of particular nature conservation importance within Lincolnshire. Many Sites of Nature 

Conservation Importance (SNCI) were transferred over to LWSs to ensure full protection in 

2010 81 . North Moss Lane Meadow SNCI was not transferred to LWS status at this time and 

therefore this site is assumed to be of only local importance. 

10.51 The desk study identified that the nearest UK BAP habitat (as indicated on MAGIC 67 ) is an 

undesignated area of lowland calcareous grassland approximately 800 m north of the proposed 

development area. 



Site Name 


SPA 

Table 10.2 Statutory Designated Sites within the Desk Study Area and Reasons for Designation 

Distance & Direction 

from Proposed 

Development Area 

1 km north east 

Reasons for Designation 

The Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA covers virtually the same area as the Humber Estuary SAC. 

Designated under the Birds Directive due to its importance in protecting and conserving certain European 

wild bird populations and their habitats, as well as protecting migratory birds and those considered rare or 

vulnerable. The SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive by supporting populations of 

European importance of the following Annex 1 species: 

During the breeding season 

Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 63 pairs representing at least 2.6% of the breeding population in Great Britain 

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, 11 pairs representing at least 6.9% of the breeding population in Great 

Britain (Count as at 1995) 

Over winter 

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, 1,593 individuals representing at least 3.0% of the wintering 

population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

Bittern Botaurus stellaris, 2 individuals representing at least 2.0% of the wintering population in Great 

Britain (5 year mean 91/2-95/6) 

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, 29,235 individuals representing at least 11.7% of the wintering 

population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus, 20 individuals representing at least 2.7% of the wintering population in Great 

Britain (5 year peak mean 1984/5-1988/9) 

The SPA also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive by regularly supporting passage and 

wintering populations of European importance of the following migratory species: 

On passage 

Redshank Tringa totanus, 5,212 individuals representing at least 2.9% of the Eastern Atlantic wintering 

population (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

Sanderling Calidris alba, 1,767 individuals representing at least 1.8% of the Eastern Atlantic/Western & 

Southern Africa wintering population (2 year mean May 1993-1994) 

Over winter 

Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, 23,605 individuals representing at least 1.7% of the wintering Northern 



Site Name 


Ramsar Site 


from Proposed 




Siberia/Europe/Western Africa population (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

Knot Calidris canutus, 33,848 individuals representing at least 9.7% of the wintering Northeastern 

Canada/Greenland/Iceland/Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

Redshank Tringa totanus, 4,452 individuals representing at least 3.0% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic 

wintering population (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, 4,083 individuals representing at least 1.4% of the wintering Northwestern 

Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2-1995/6) 

The area qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by regularly supporting at least 20,000 

waterfowl. Over winter, the area regularly supports 187,617 individual waterfowl (5 year peak mean 

1991/2-1995/6) including: Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, Bar-tailed Godwit 

Limosa lapponica, Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, Knot Calidris canutus, Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, 

Redshank Tringa totanus, Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla 

bernicla, Bittern Botaurus stellaris, Teal Anas crecca, Curlew Numenius arquata, Pochard Aythya ferina, 

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula, Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, Ringed Plover Charadrius 

hiaticula, Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Sanderling Calidris alba, Blacktailed 

Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, Wigeon Anas penelope. 

The Ramsar site qualifies under Ramsar criteria 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8; a summary is given below: 

Ramsar criterion 1: The site is a representative example of a near-natural estuary with various 

component habitats (similar to those listed within the SAC citation); 

Ramsar criterion 3: The site supports a breeding colony of grey seals at Donna Nook and the dune slacks 

at Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe on the southern extremity of the Ramsar site are the most north easterly 

breeding site in GB of the natterjack toad Bufo calamita; 

Ramsar criterion 5: Support of an assemblage of waterfowl population of international importance 

(153,934 waterfowl, non-breeding season, five year peak mean 1996/97 2000/01); 

Ramsar criterion 6: bird species populations occurring at levels of international importance including 

common shelduck, golden plover, red knot, dunlin, black-tailed godwit, bar-tailed godwit and common 

redshank; and 

Ramsar criterion 8: The Humber Estuary acts as an important migration route for both river lamprey and 

sea lamprey between coastal waters and their spawning areas. 



Site Name 


SAC 


European 

Marine Site 


SSSI 

North 

Killingholme 

Haven Pits SSSI 


from Proposed 





8 km north west 


Designated under the Habitats Directive 82 . Annex 1 Habitats that are a primary reason for selection of the 

SAC are: estuaries; and, mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, both of which are 

adjacent to the proposed development. 

Annex 1 Habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of the SAC include: 

sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time; 

coastal lagoons; 

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; 

Atlantic sea meadows (Glauco-Puccinallietalia maritimae); 

embryonic shifting dunes; 

shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (‘white dunes’); 

fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (‘grey dunes’); and 

dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides. 

Annex II species that are present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection, 

includes sea lamprey, river lamprey and grey seal. 

The boundaries of the SAC, SPA and Ramsar site are co-incident. The Humber Estuary EMS 

encompasses the marine areas of the SAC, SPA and Ramsar site (i.e. land covered continuously or 

intermittently by tidal waters) and incorporates all aspects of the qualifying features for the SAC, SPA and 

Ramsar site. 

The SSSI is designated for its habitats including mudflats, sandflats and salt marsh, as well as saline 

lagoons, dunes and standing water there are also nationally important numbers of 22 wintering wildfowl 

and nine passage waders, and a nationally important assemblage of breeding birds of lowland open 

waters and their margins. It is also nationally important for a breeding colony of grey seals Halichoerus 

grypus, river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis and sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, a vascular plant 

assemblage and an invertebrate assemblage. 

Saline Lagoons with an exceptionally rich fauna specifically over wintering birds. Amongst these are 

nationally important numbers of black-tailed godwits, which have visited the site in increasing numbers 

since the late 1980’s. There are also occasional visits by large flocks of roosting redshank. 



Site Name 

North Moss Lane 

Meadow SNCI 

Humber Flats, 

Marshes and 

Coast IBA 

Stallingborough 

Fish Ponds LWS 

Laporte Road 

Brownfield Site 

LWS 

Table 10.3 Non-Statutory Designated Sites within 2 km of the Proposed Development Site 

Distance & 

Direction from 

Proposed 



800 m south west. No citation available, described as unimproved grassland. 


1.08 km north west 

1.25 km south west 

Designated because of its international importance for supporting a significant number of threatened bird 

species, its exceptional numbers of migratory species and because the site supports many bird species 

with restricted ranges. 

Main habitats: Plantation woodland, Standing water. 

Additional habitats: Wet woodland, Damp grassland, Marsh Fen, Ruderal. 

Main habitats: Brownfield mosaic. 

Additional habitats: Semi-improved neutral grassland, Scattered dense scrub, Reedbed. 

Habitat features: Anthills. 



Figure 10.1 Phase 1 Habitat Map 

Figure Notes: The two drainage ditches in the top right hand corner of the map are a continuation of D10. 



Figure 10.2 Designated Sites within 2 km of the Development Area 


BOC Immingham Dissolved Acetylene Project Environmental Statement 

Undesignated Habitats 

10.52 During the Extended Phase 1 Survey, habitats within and around the proposed development area, 

where access was available from public highways, were mapped and are shown in Figure 10.1, 

with target notes (TN) highlighting features of ecologist interest listed in Table 10.4. Land to the 

south east of the application site (proposed for development of a new Bio-ethanol plant by 

Abengoa) was fenced off and therefore could not be surveyed directly but was viewed from the 

fence line. 

10.53 The development area comprises part of an agricultural field bordered to the north west by Middle 

Drain, to the north east by Hobson Way, and to the south east by South Marsh Road to the south 

west by a railway line and overland pipelines. There is small ditch (field drain) on the northern 

verge of South Marsh Road (D6 in Figure 10.1). The former in route of Middle Drain, in the north 

west corner of the development area, is now a depression with steep banks. Both of these 

features are seasonal and regularly dry out. Other than Middle Drain and the drainage ditch there 

were no other water bodies within or adjacent to the survey area. Surface water bodies are 

described in more detail in Chapter 8). 

10.54 Due to use by water vole and the potential for use by otters (see Notable Species Section below), 

and the fact that it is one of the few large water courses continually running with water throughout 

the year within the vicinity of the development area, Middle Drain is considered to be of local value 

to nature conservation. Drains and ditches providing comparable habitat are widespread 

throughout North East Lincolnshire, which limits the nature conservation value of Middle Drain in a 

wider geographical context. 

10.55 The majority of land within the redline boundary area is arable and was ploughed at the time of 

survey. This habitat is abundant in the local area with very little intrinsic value to nature 

conservation; however arable land is known to be of importance as high-tide roosting habitat for 

birds associated with the SPA and Ramsar site (discussed further below in the Notable Species 

Section). There are narrow strips (1 m 2 m) of field margin around the field, some of which are 

within the redline boundary primarily comprising sterile brome, cleavers and wild oat; however, 

these are not shown due to the scale of mapping used (see TN 5 in Table 10.4). 

10.56 Overall the majority of the habitat within the redline boundary is of value for nature conservation 

within the context of the development area and immediately environs only. The wildlife corridor of 

Middle Drain is considered to be of local value to nature conservation. 

Target 

Note 

(TN) No. 

TN1 

Habitat Description 

Table 10.4 Phase 1 Habitat Map Target Notes 

Amenity grassland with patches of scrub; a barn owl nest box is present in the south 

corner. 

The amenity grassland is regularly mown and is dominated by perennial rye grass 

(Lolium perenne), daisy (Bellis perennis), red clover (Trifolium pratens) and creeping 

buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Four patches of scrub occur in each corner of the 

amenity grassland these comprise immature goat willow (Salix caprea), alder (Alnus 

glutinosa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), silver birch (Betula pendula) and sycamore 

(Acer pseudoplatanus) with a field layer of creeping thistle (Cirsium vulgaris) and 

cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvatica). 



Target 

Note 

(TN) No. 

TN2 

TN3 

TN4 

TN5 

TN6 

TN7 

TN8 

Habitat Description 

Middle Drain: a moderate flowing water course, flowing along the northern border of 

the application site. The drain is approximately 4 m wide and 0.5 m to approximately 

2 m deep. This drain is linked directly to the estuary and is tidally affected. 

Common reed (Phragmites australis) is emergent at the bank side and abundant 

along the northern bank. 

Mammal runs are present throughout the sward and the reeds at the water’s edge, 

some of which are large enough to have been made by water vole. 

Water vole faeces and a very small amount of water vole feeding signs were 

identified (these were reed stems cut into sections around 10 cm long with 45 o cuts 

at either end which were hollowed via a split along the stem). 

Habitat as for TN2; the habitat changes very little along the northern bank. At this 

point a fresh water vole latrine was found. 

Hole was found in bank of Middle Drain at water level, size and shape typical of 

water vole burrow. 

The margins of the arable field, which comprise the bulk of the application site and 

immediately surrounding area to the east, are approximately 1 2 m in width and 

comprise rough grassland on a shallow earth bank. The field margin mostly 

comprises cock’s foot grass (Dactylis glomerata), false oat grass (Arrhenatherum 

elatius), dandelion (Taraxacum officinalis), cleavers (Galium aparine) and arable 

escapees such as wheat. The target note specifically denotes a pile of dead wood in 

this rough grassland area, dead wood can provide habitat for invertebrates and can 

also act as sheltering habitat for amphibians and reptiles. 

This rough grassland area with the dead wood feature has low potential to support 

reptiles for both basking and refuge and low potential to support great crested newts 

in their terrestrial phase. 

Large pile of dead wood associated with the top of the southern bank of Middle 

Drain. Dead wood features near rough grassland or water features are of use as 

places of shelter for reptiles and amphibians and for invertebrates. 

Former route of Middle Drain and an associated bridge beneath the railway. The 

area is now a depression with steep banks of common reed and rosebay willowherb 

(Chamerion angustifolium) and scrub including bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and 

common hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). 

The area was wet at the time of survey but is expected to dry out very frequently, no 

aquatic vegetation was noted. Rainfall had occurred within 48 hours prior to the 

survey. 

A large area of semi-improved species-poor grassland with tall ruderals (weedy 

opportunistic plants often associated with disturbed ground) throughout. 

Species within the grassland include red rescue (Festuca rubra), cock’s foot, false 

oat grass, curled dock (Rumex crispus), common ragwort (Senecio jacobea) and 

common reed. Bulrush (Typha latifolia) occurs in a small localised area within one of 

the drains. 

The dense unmanaged sward contains anthills and some patches of bramble; along 

with the water bodies in the adjacent field to the south and the adjacent railway 

ballast, this area is considered to provide excellent habitat for common reptiles and 

terrestrial habitat for amphibians. 



Notable Species 

10.57 A summary of relevant legislation relating to habitats and species is provided in Appendix 10B. 

Records received from the various suppliers of biological data are presented in Appendix 10C. 

Water Voles 

10.58 Six records of water vole were returned from the data search, all between 2002 and 2007, these 

included records in the field to the south of the development area. 

10.59 There are records of water vole along Middle Drain from 2002, these records are within 500 m of 

the development area but no records were returned for the stretch of Middle Drain that is adjacent 

to the development area. 

10.60 The water vole survey conducted on 1 st March 2011 confirmed water vole presence on Middle 

Drain with two latrines, a low level of feeding signs and a suitable burrow being identified (see 

Target Notes in Table 10.4 within the survey area indicating a relatively small population. No signs 

of water vole were found elsewhere within the survey area. 

10.61 Water vole is a UK BAP and a Lincolnshire BAP species. The current national trend for water 

voles is fluctuating, but with a probable increasing trend overall. The estimated Lincolnshire water 

vole population appears to be stable, with a widespread distribution. 

10.62 Once common and widespread, the water vole has suffered a long term decline since 1900. 

Formerly the most rapidly declining of all the priority vertebrate species in the UK BAP, its national 

status now appears more stable and the species is slowly expanding its range overall. This is due 

to localised range expansions enabled by concerted habitat creation, enhancement and 

management, in combination with sustained catchment-scale mink control. 

10.63 The Lincolnshire population is significant to the persistence of the water vole nationally, because 

in Lincolnshire they are widespread and the population is one of the most successful in the UK. 

Recent work on distribution and densities in England has identified two Regional Key Areas in 

Lincolnshire; one in the Lincolnshire Coastal Grazing Marshes (within which the development area 

lies) and the other in the Welland and Deeping area. Extensive colonies are often found adjacent 

to and within urban and residential areas where human disturbance probably affects predators 

more than it affects the water vole. 

Great Crested Newts and Other Amphibians 

10.64 No records for great crested newts occur within 2 km of the development area; three records of 

common toad were received, the nearest of which was approximately 200 m to the south (from 

2006) recorded as being on the field to the west of the Power Station. Two records of common 

frog were also received the nearest of which was 1.1 km south, from 2008. 

10.65 An ecological assessment undertaken for the proposed Abengoa Bio-ethanol Plant (to the south 

east of South Marsh Road) concluded, from ecological surveys undertaken in May 2005 and 

November 2006 that the presence of great crested newts was unlikely. This conclusion was based 

on the presence of fish within the main drains (Oldfleet Drain and local drains along South Marsh 

Road) which can predate amphibian larvae and young, and the ephemeral nature of the 

watercourses combined with the general fluctuation of water levels. The land within the proposed 

Bio-ethanol Plant development area was also considered to have little suitable terrestrial habitat 

for this species. However, this assessment was undertaken based on general surveys 3-4 years 

ago and no detailed amphibian surveys have been carried out within either proposed development 

area. 



10.66 An assessment of the potential of land within the development area to support amphibians was 

undertaken during the Extended Phase 1 survey in March 2011. Small areas of sub-optimal 

terrestrial habitat for great crested newts were identified within and near to the development area; 

these being the arable field margins, these areas were considered to be of low suitability due to 

the lack of places for amphibians to seek shelter and the limited area available. 

10.67 A summary of the results of the HSI survey are given in Table 10.5. The raw data from the HSI 

assessment is given in Appendix 10D. All of the identified ditches and the former Middle Drain 

route in the north west corner (TN7) within the application site are considered unsuitable for newts 

as described within Table 10.5. All areas considered suitable for great crested newt during the 

initial assessment in March 2011 had dried out to such a degree by 6 th April 2011 that they were 

no longer suitable to support breeding amphibians. Due to the drying out of the ditches they do 

not support sufficient depth of water or aquatic plant material to provide egg-laying habitat for 

great crested newt or other amphibians. D7 and Middle Drain were considered unsuitable to 

support breeding populations of great crested newts and other amphibians due to water flow 

rates. 

10.68 Given the lack of suitable aquatic habitat within 500 m of the development area, and the low 

suitability of terrestrial habitat within the development area it is considered highly unlikely that 

great crested newts, or other amphibians would be present and they are not considered further in 

this assessment. 

Table 10.5 HSI Results for Water Bodies within 500 m of the Proposed Development Site 

Water Body 

Reference on 

the Phase 1 

Plan 

Middle Drain 

TN7 former 

Middle Drain 

HSI rating Habitat Description 

N/A due to 

water flow 

Poor 

D1 Good 

D2 Good 

Moderate flow, 4 m wide and approximately 2 m deep. With 

common reed emergent and on banks. 

Considered to be unsuitable to support a breeding 

population of newts due to flow and potential for fish to enter 

the drain from the Humber Estuary. 

A shallow ponded area formerly part of Middle Drain now cut off 

from the drain. Although common reed is present around the 

pond the water level did not exceed 20 mm and is likely 

regularly to dry out, the area is considered unsuitable to 

support a breeding population of newts. 

Field drain almost entirely within an arable field, bare scraped 

banks and no evident aquatic vegetation. 

Considered unsuitable to support a breeding population of 

newts due to heavy management and lack of vegetation for egg 

laying. 

Field drain almost entirely within an arable field, bare scraped 

banks, common water starwort (Callitriche stagnalis) and fool’s 

watercress (Apium nodiflorum) present within water. 

Considered unsuitable to support a breeding population of 

newts due to heavy management and lack of vegetation for egg 

laying. 



Water Body 

Reference on 

the Phase 1 

Plan 

D3 Good 

D4 Good 

D5 Good 

D6 Poor 

D7 

HSI rating Habitat Description 

N/A due to 

water flow 

D8 N/A dry 

D9 N/A dry 

D10 Average 

Field drain predominantly in arable field but with approximately 

50 m in the grassland area to north of field. Only the section to 

the north was assessed for the HSI due land access restrictions. 

Dominated by common reed and bulrush in the semi-improved 

area with only lesser duckweed (Lemna minor) in the arable 

area to the south. 


population of newts as the ditch was dry by early April. 

Field drain predominantly in arable field but with approximately 

50 m in the grassland area to north of field. Only the section to 

the north was assessed for the HSI due to land access 

restrictions. 

Dominated by common reed in the semi-improved area. 



Roadside ditch to the south of South Marsh Road 10 m from the 

application site. Approximately 100 m of the ditch was wet with 

approximately 200 mm of water present. Common reed 

emergent throughout the ditch. 



Roadside ditch to the north of South Marsh Road, within the site 

boundary. Only a very low level of water (< 50 mm) was present 

at the time of survey and rapid desiccation is likely; unsuitable 

to support a breeding population of newts. 

Steep mud and grass banks with a moderate flow 1.5 m wide 

and approximately 1 m in depth. Discounted as potential newt 

habitat due to flow. Unsuitable to support a breeding 

population of newts. 

Dry at the time of survey. Unsuitable to support a breeding 


Dry at the time of survey. Unsuitable to support a breeding 


Wet ditch with a dry section to the east of Hobson’s Way 

approximately 150 m from the application site. Approximately 

0.5 m deep and 1 m wide with a slow northward flow and some 

pooled areas. 





Otter 

10.69 There are no otter records within 2 km of the development area. Although Middle Drain is 

considered suitable habitat for foraging or commuting otters, no evidence of otter was found 

during the Extended Phase 1 survey or during the detailed water vole survey of Middle Drain. 

Reptiles 

10.70 One record of a common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) was received from the Lincolnshire Biodiversity 

Partnership, recorded 1.5 km to the south in 1999 in what is now an arable field; the habitat type 

in 1999 is not recorded. No other reptile records were received. 

10.71 The Railway Line to the south west of the development area comprises primarily ballast which 

may provide hibernacula for reptile species. On the far side of the railway is a defunct, 

unmanaged hawthorn hedgerow over a wet drain (D7) which may also provide refuge and 

foraging opportunities for reptiles. These areas are not within the BOC development area. 

10.72 Small areas of poor quality reptile habitat exist within or immediately adjacent to the development 

area in the arable field margins and piles of dead wood as detailed in the Target Notes (TN5 and 

TN6) in Table 10.5. However, the majority of the development area is arable land and of low 

suitability for reptiles and it is considered unlikely that reptiles will be present. Further surveys for 

reptile species were not considered necessary. 

Badgers 

10.73 Two records of badger setts were returned in the desk study information, one active outlier sett 

1.1 km from the development area recorded in 2009 and one inactive outlier sett recorded in 2009 

1 km from the development area; both of these setts were located in a woodland. 

10.74 No evidence of badgers was found during the Extended Phase 1 survey. 

10.75 Whilst there is some sub-optimal potential for badgers to create setts in the banks of Middle Drain, 

the tidal nature of this water course and the frequent inundation make it unlikely. In conjunction 

with this the open nature of the proposed development area and the lack of structured vegetation 

such as woodlands and well developed hedgerows in the immediate vicinity make it generally 

unsuitable for sett building. 

Bats 

10.76 Eight bat records were returned, all dating between 1997 and 2007, of these, three were roost 

records with four figure grid references given; two pipistrelle roosts (undetermined Pipistrellus 

species) and one unidentified bat species, the grid references for these records were not detailed 

enough to determine habitat types. All of the grid references given were at least 1 km from the 

development area. 

10.77 More detailed records of two noctule (Nyctalus noctula) bats and a common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus 

pipistrellus) bat were returned from a location 1.5 km to the north west of the application site, 

these were not labelled as specific types of record or roost, they appear to be over farm land. 

10.78 Habitats within the application site and immediate surrounds are not suitable to support roosting 

bats, no large trees with suitable cracks or crevices were present and no buildings or other 

structures are present within the development area. 

10.79 Features which may have some value to bats as foraging or commuting habitats comprise, Middle 

Drain, the Railway Line and the semi-improved grassland in areas adjacent to the development 

site. However, given the open and windswept environment around the application site and the 

limited vegetation structure these features are unlikely to be of value to bat populations. 



Birds 

10.80 No notable bird species were recorded during the Extended Phase 1 survey. 

10.81 Small areas of scrub in areas adjacent to the proposed development area have the potential to 

support common nesting birds. Specifically this habitat occurs to the south of the entrance to the 

current BOC facility (to the north east of the proposed development area). 

10.82 The main bird interest for the area lies with the internationally important bird populations 

associated with the Humber Estuary. Whilst the designation boundary of the Humber Estuary SPA 

and Ramsar site is associated with the Estuary itself, including the intertidal mudflats and sand 

dunes (foreshore) habitats, it is recognised that there is a functional link with undesignated 

terrestrial habitats within a few kilometres of the shore. These are generally arable and pasture 

fields used by birds as high-tide roost sites (also used for foraging) within the passage and 

wintering period. 

10.83 A detailed description of the existing baseline data for birds associated with the Humber Estuary 

SPA and Ramsar site within the proposed development site and in the surrounding area is given 

within the HRA Stage 2 AA Report 7 which is provided in Appendix 10A. The bird species for which 

the Humber Estuary SSSI and North Killingholme Haven Pits SSSI are designated are part of the 

population of birds for which the Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site is designated and 

therefore the information within Appendix 10A is also relevant to these SSSIs. 

Other Species 

10.84 A number of other records of notable species were received within the search area including 

hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) which is a UK BAP priority species and brown hare (Lepus 

europaeus) which is a UK and Lincolnshire BAP priority species (five records each, all from 1977). 

These records did not contain details of the habitats in which the animals were found. Brown hare 

may use the proposed development area for foraging but no suitable hedgerows or grassland 

areas for forms were located within the application site. No evidence of hares or hedgehogs was 

observed during the Extended Phase 1 survey. 

10.85 There are records of butterflies and moths over the last 17 years from the coast and non-statutory 

designated sites within the search area including Wall Lasiommata megara), small-heath 

(Coenonympha pamphilus) and white-letter hairstreak (Satyrium w-album) butterflies and cinnabar 

moth (Tyria jacobaeae). However, habitats within the development area are not considered 

suitable for these species or other notable invertebrates and are not considered further. 

10.86 No invasive plant species listed under schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended) were identified within the survey area. 

10.87 No other field signs of, or habitats suitable to support notable species were identified during the 

Extended Phase 1 survey. 


Construction 

10.88 The activities and resultant potential impacts associated with the construction of the Project, which 

could result in effects on ecological receptors, are summarised below: 

� permanent land take within the construction footprint loss of habitat and injury to individual 

animals such as reptiles and nesting/roosting birds; 

� construction of bridge over Middle Drain temporary disturbance of water voles; 

� foundation works (piling) auditory disturbance to species; particularly of wintering, autumn 

passage and breeding birds for which the Humber Estuary is designated; 



� delivery and use of materials, plant, equipment temporary increase in traffic volumes, leading 

to generation and deposition of airborne pollutants leading to changes to sensitive habitats 

(e.g. salt marsh) within the receiving environment; 

� delivery and use of materials, plant, equipment temporary increase activity, leading to 

increase in visual disturbance, particularly of wintering, autumn passage and breeding birds 

for which the Humber Estuary is designated; and 

� delivery and use of materials, plant, equipment temporary increase in traffic volumes, leading 

to increase in vibration and noise resulting in auditory disturbance, particularly of wintering, 

autumn passage and breeding birds for which the Humber Estuary is designated; and 

� ground preparations and inappropriate use, handling and storage of construction 

commissioning materials and wastes, potentially resulting in: 

- dust and litter generation (and smothering of sensitive habitats), and 

- leaks and spills leading to temporary contamination of habitats. 

Operation 

10.89 The potential activities and impacts associated with the operation of the Project, which could result 

in effects on ecological receptors, are summarised below: 

� operation of the plant and movement machinery noise generation resulting in auditory 

disturbance to species, particularly wintering, autumn passage and breeding birds for which 

the Humber Estuary is designated; 

� operation of the plant light generation and movement of people and machinery resulting in 

visual disturbance to species particularly wintering, autumn passage and breeding birds for 

which the Humber Estuary is designated; 

� operation of the plant generation and deposition of airborne pollutants leading to changes to 

sensitive habitats (e.g. salt marsh) within the receiving environment; 

� increased traffic generation resulting in vehicle emissions with generation and deposition of 

airborne pollutants leading to changes to sensitive habitats (e.g. salt marsh) within the 

receiving environment; and, 

� spillage leakage from inappropriate storage and handling of raw materials, chemicals and 

wastes, resulting potential contamination of habitats within the Estuary via Middle Drain and 

or groundwater. 


Construction 

10.90 Table 10.6 provides a discussion of potential impacts on the qualifying interest features of the 

statutory designated Humber Estuary (incorporating all aspects of the qualifying features for the 

SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar site) based on whether the qualifying features are likely to be within 

the zone of influence of the proposed development during construction and whether impacts could 

result in a significant effect. 

10.91 This information has been adapted from the information to support a HRA Stage 1 Screening 

Report 6 . 

10.92 Table 10.7 discusses potential construction impacts on non-statutory designated sites, notable 

habitats and notable species together with the significance of effect on ecological receptors. 



10.93 The assessment of significance of effect takes into account measures which have already been 

included within the design to avoid or reduce ecological impacts. 

10.94 General measures which will be implemented during construction will be formalised through the 

preparation of the CEMP. Measures to avoid or reduce impacts on wildlife will include: 

� when if lighting is necessary, its use will be directed away from adjacent habitat through the 

use of hoods or similar; in particular light spill would be avoided to Middle Drain, and the 

Railway Line; 

� all trenches, pits, excavations, sewers and manholes will be covered overnight to prevent 

animals entering these holes. Where if these cannot be covered (or filled) on a nightly basis, 

a plank should be placed into the excavation so that an animal can use this as a means of 

escape if necessary; and 

� site plans illustrating the locations of ecologically sensitive areas will be included in the site 

induction pack and all operatives will sign a briefing sheet to indicate their understanding of 

the measures they are expected to adhere to. 



Designated Site 

SSSI xvii , SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, SAC 

Table 10.6 Potential Construction Impacts on Qualifying Features within the Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site 

Qualifying Interest 

Features 

Estuaries 

Mudflats and sandflats not 

covered by seawater at 

low tide 

Presence of Qualifying Feature in Relation to Proposed Development 

and Likelihood for Impacts to Occur 

The proposed development lies approximately 1 km from the Estuary. The 

only links between the proposed development and the Estuary are the 

surface water within Middle Drain, immediately adjacent to the proposed 

development which flows into the Estuary, and groundwater which is in 

hydraulic continuity with the Estuary. 

No changes to surface water or groundwater quality or levels during 

construction are likely to change the nature, setting or functioning of the 

Humber Estuary. 

Due to the nature and scale of the proposed development, any accidental 

contamination of surface waters or groundwater would be unlikely to cause 

significant impacts on the Estuary due to dilution effects within this huge 

body of water. However, there would be controls in place throughout 

construction of the development which would prevent contamination of 

surface water or groundwater. 

For construction control measures will be fully described within the CEMP 

which will include procedures for control of pollution including prevention of 

contaminants entering water courses and groundwater. 

With these procedures in place there are no significant effects anticipated 

upon this qualifying interest feature. 

The closest intertidal mudflats are the Pyewype Mudflats; present along 

the southern edge of the Estuary and approximately 1 km from the 

proposed development. These mudflats are particularly productive, 

supporting a range of benthic communities, and are important for a range 

of feeding and loafing water birds, including those which are primary 

qualifying reasons for the designation of the SPA and Ramsar site, in 

particular for golden plover. 

There are no construction activities associated with the proposed 

development that would lead to any loss or damage of this habitat. 

Development activities will be restricted to within the application site, 

Impact 

Significance 

No significant 

negative effect 



xvii The vascular plant and invertebrate assemblages associated with the Humber Estuary SSSI are contained within the SSSI designated habitats and therefore, as there are no anticipated 

impacts on habitats within the SSSI, it is considered that further, separate assessment of these assemblages is necessary. 




SSSI, SAC 


Features 

Sandbanks, which are 

slightly covered by 

seawater all the time 

SSSI, SAC Coastal lagoons 

SSSI, SAC 

Salicornia and other 

annuals colonising mud 

and sand 



approximately 1 km from the Pyewype Mudflats and there will be controls 

in place to avoid any accidental contamination reaching the mudflats via 

surface or groundwater (see above). 

The air quality assessment (Chapter 6) has concluded that: 

� the impact arising from construction activities would be negligible; and 

� the impact arising as a result of construction traffic would be negligible 

(and there are no sensitive receptors within 200 m of the proposed 

construction haul routes). 

No observable effect is anticipated on habitats within 1 km as a result of air 

quality changes relating to construction of the proposed development. 

The main sub-tidal sandbanks occur in the Lower Estuary, east of 

Grimsby. 

The proposed development is approximately 1 km from the Estuary and 

there are no pathways through which any impact could affect this habitat 

feature. 

There are no saline lagoons within the footprint of the proposed 

development or in the vicinity of the proposed development. 

The closest of these are North Killingholme Haven Pits SSSI on the south 

bank of the Humber over 8 km from the proposed development. There are 

no pathways between the proposed development site and the lagoons 

which could lead to negative impacts on this habitat. 

These species, which are predominantly found in pioneer salt marsh, are 

primarily found in the outer Humber and often form the lowest and most 

seaward zone of a salt marsh, where they are frequently flooded by the 

tide. There are two sub-features of this habitat type: Annual Salicornia 

(samphire) saltmarsh community and the Suaeda maritima (sea-blite) 

saltmarsh community. The annual samphire community is found within the 

Humber Flats and Marshes near Pyewipe but largely toward the mouth of 

the estuary and along the coast around Cleethorpes, Spurn head and the 

North Lincolnshire Coast). The sea blight community is uncommon and is 

found within the Humber Flats, at Spurn Head and along the coast 

however the total extent is minimal. 

Impact 

Significance 










SSSI, SAC 


Features 

Atlantic sea meadows 

(Glauco-Puccinallietalia 

maritimae) 

SSSI, SAC Embryonic shifting dunes 

SSSI, SAC 

SSSI, SAC 

Shifting dunes along the 

shoreline with Ammophila 

arenaria (‘white dunes’) 

Fixed dunes with 

herbaceous vegetation 




the closest mud and salt marsh communities. The habitat associated with 

this qualifying feature is predominantly associated with the mouth of the 

Estuary and along the coast. Due to the distance of the proposed 

development from this habitat, the lack of pathways for negative impacts 

(including changes to air quality see above under Mudflats) there are no 

anticipated impacts on this habitat type. 

This habitat encompasses salt marsh vegetation containing perennial 

flowering plants that are regularly inundated. This habitat is predominantly 

ungrazed along the Humber. The presence of grazing marsh within the 

Humber has been constrained by morphological modification, in particular 

by the presence of flood protection embankments, often on land designed 

for flood storage and alleviation. 

There are no known fields of this habitat type in the vicinity of the proposed 

development. The South Humber Bank area has abundant industry along 

the estuary and there is existing industry between the proposed 

development and the estuary. There would be no development outside the 

application boundary. 

Sand dunes are a feature of the outer Humber most notably at Spurn 

Peninsula and along the North Lincolnshire coast from Donna Nook to 

Mablethorpe. 

There are no dune systems in the vicinity of the proposed development 

and there are no pathways through which any impact would result changes 

to the dune systems in the outer Humber (including changes to air quality 

(see above under Mudflats)). 

These habitats are found on the outer Humber particularly at Spurn Head 

and north of Cleethorpes; the Spurn peninsula being a key site. 





Impact 

Significance 







This habitat type is present in the outer Humber with key sites being Spurn No significant 




SSSI, SAC 

SSSI, SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, SAC, 

Ramsar site 


Features 



(‘grey dunes’) peninsula and the North Lincolnshire coast. 

Dunes with Hippophae 

rhamnoides 

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon 

marinus) 

River lamprey (Lampetra 

fluviatilis) 

Grey seal (Halichoerus 

grypus) 





This habitat type is present in the outer Humber with key sites at 

Cleethorpes and the Spurn peninsula. 





The Humber Estuary is the migration route for this species from coastal 

waters to the River Derwent which is recognised at a national and 

international level as an important spawning river. Suitable habitats for this 

species within the Humber include silt and sand beds at the river margins 

and in the main river channel. The proposed development, which is 

approximately 1 km from the Estuary, would have no affect on either the 

habitats for, or the migration route of, this species. 

The Humber Estuary is the migration route for this species from coastal 

waters to the River Derwent which is recognised at a national and 

international level as an important spawning river. Suitable habitats for this 

species within the Humber include silt and sand beds at the river margins 

and in the main river channel. The proposed development, which is 

approximately 1 km from the Estuary, would have no affect on either the 

habitats for, or the migration route of, this species. 

The second largest grey seal population breeding in England is found at 

Donna Nook on the coast (over 20 km from the proposed development). 

Grey seals remain off the surrounding coast throughout the year and 

although they can be found throughout the Humber, activity is centred on 

the coast with the peak sensitivity between October and December 

inclusive when the species mate and pup. Tagging studies have shown 

that most feeding activity of seals occurs within 50 km of the haul out site 

(Donna Nook). 

Impact 

Significance 













SSSI, Ramsar 

site 

SSSI, SPA, 

Ramsar site xviii 


Features 

Natterjack toad (Epidalea 

calamita) 

Breeding populations of 

birds of European 

Importance, populations of 

birds on passage and 

populations of wintering 

birds. 




there are no pathways through which an impact could affect the grey seal 

population. 

This species is known to use the dune slacks at Saltfleetby Theddlethorpe 

(over 30 km from the proposed development), which is the most north 

easterly breeding site for the species in Great Britain. Given the distance of 

the known breeding population of this species from the proposed 

development and the lack of habitat for this species in the vicinity there are 

no pathways through which an impact could affect the species or its 

habitat. 

A detailed assessment of the potential disturbance from noise levels, 

vibration and visual disturbance during construction is given in the 

Information to Support a HRA Stage 2 AA Report 7 presented in Appendix 

10A. A summary of this assessment is given below. 

There are a number of bird species which are qualifying features of the 

Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. Areas of the South Humber Bank 

are particularly important as a high tide roost for water birds associated 

with the SPA and Ramsar site such curlew, golden plover, redshank and 

lapwing. The development site has not previously been used by significant 

numbers of the important bird population and is not adjacent to any fields 

within the South Humber Bank that have been previously found to support 

significant numbers of SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site birds (with the exception of a 

field directly to the south which already has planning permission for a new 

development). 

The proposed development will not result in the loss of any habitat within 

the SPA or Ramsar site during construction and is approximately 1 km 

from the SPA/Ramsar boundary (and underlying SSSIs). 

No disturbance to birds within the SPA/Ramsar boundary is anticipated. 

There is the potential for disturbance of birds using high-tide roost sites 

away from the Estuary during construction from noise and visual 

disturbance (presence of people, machinery, and lighting). This will be of 

Impact 

Significance 





xviii The internationally important bird population is designated under the SPA, Ramsar site and the IBA. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, any impacts on the internationally important 

bird population, which are described in this ES as SPA birds, will be considered to have the same impacts on the Ramsar site and IBA. 





Features 



temporary duration with the most likely disturbing activity, piling, only 

taking ~3 weeks to complete. Worst case noise predictions, which are 

unlikely to be a reality, indicate that birds are unlikely to be disturbed such 

that they would be displaced from the surrounding high-tide roosts. 

Although significant negative impacts as a result of construction activities 

are not predicted, a Construction Ornithological Monitoring Programme 

(COMP) has been proposed (as described in Appendix 10A). This will be 

part of the CEMP. In brief, the COMP would enable determination of 

whether working practices on site require amending to reduce the number 

of disturbance events and thus minimise negative impacts (as / if 

applicable). 

The assessment has predicted that the proposed Dissolved Acetylene 

Project will not result in a negative effect upon the conservation objectives 

of the Humber Estuary SPA or Ramsar site either alone or in-combination 

with other projects and no adverse effects upon the integrity of the Humber 

Estuary SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site is anticipated. 

Impact 

Significance 



Table 10.7 Potential Construction Impacts on Non-Statutory Designated Sites, Notable Habitats and Notable Species 

Features Potential Impacts 

Non-Statutory Designated Sites 

Non-statutory designated sites 

for nature conservation 


Lowland Calcareous grassland 

UK BAP habitat 

Arable field and margins 

Middle Drain and ditches 

surrounding the application site 

Non-statutory designated sites include North Moss Lane Meadow SNCI, Stallingborough 

Fish Ponds LWS and Laporte Road Brownfield Site LWS. 

There would be no habitat loss within these sites. No indirect impacts are predicted on 

these sites due to their distance from the development area and lack of connecting 

habitats (i.e. there are no identified pathways from the site to these sites through which 

impacts could occur). 

There would be no loss of this habitat. No effect on this habitat is expected due to the 

distance of over 800 m from the development area; the existing BOC site also lies in 

between the development site and the grassland. There are no connecting habitats or 

identified pathways through which impacts could occur. 

The land take will include permanent irreversible loss of arable land (~2 to 4 ha). Arable 

land has very little intrinsic value for nature conservation and this habitat type is common 

in the UK and in the local area. The loss of this habitat within the redline boundary would 

not lead to any significant ecological effects (see also birds below). 

For the most part arable field margins would be retained due to the 7 m maintenance 

strip along Middle Drain and the 18 m Anglian Water easement along South Marsh Road. 

A very small area of field margin along the boundary with the Railway Line to the west of 

the application site could be lost temporarily during construction but ultimately this area 

will be managed for the benefit of wildlife in the long term. The temporary loss would not 

result in negative impacts on the conservation status of the habitat (see also reptiles 

below). 

A bridge (two lanes wide) is to be constructed over Middle Drain. The bridge will have a 

carriageway of 8.2 m, plus 1.5 m for a footpath to one side only, plus 1 m each side for 

the structure, so overall width would be approximately 11.7 m. 

There will be a 7 m maintenance strip along the top of the bank of Middle Drain and no 

construction activities will occur within this zone, other than in the immediate vicinity of 

the bridge footings landings. The bridge footings landing area will be at least 5 m from the 

top of the banks and construction activities will not occur within 5 m of the top of the 

Impact 

Significance 












Notable Species 

Water vole 

bank. No direct loss of either aquatic habitats within the drain or terrestrial bank-side 

habitat within 5 m of the channel would occur. The potential for temporary water pollution 

impacts from construction activities will be managed through the implementation of 

pollution control measures which will be detailed within the CEMP. Due to pollution 

control, retention of bank side habitats and lack of in-channel structures, no significant 

ecological effects on Middle Drain are anticipated (see also water vole below). 

A small section of ephemerally wet ditch (field drain) to the south of the development 

area will be culverted for the emergency access road resulting in a very small permanent 

loss; however this drain is dry throughout summer and does not support any species of 

note. The loss would not result in negative impacts on the conservation status of the 

habitat. 

There will be a 7 m maintenance strip along the top of the bank of Middle Drain and no 

construction activities will occur within this zone, other than in the immediate vicinity of 

the bridge landings. The bridge landings will be at least 5 m from the top of the banks and 

construction activities will not occur within 5 m of the top of the bank. Therefore no water 

vole burrows, commuting or foraging habitat would be lost directly. A 5 to 7 m 

demarcation from Middle Drain would be erected to prevent encroachment into the area 

and prevent accidental damage of bank side habitat and prevent destruction of burrows 

through soil compaction. Measures to avoid water pollution would be detailed within the 

CEMP. 

Water voles could be temporarily disturbed by piling activities which will result in an 

increase in noise levels; a worst case scenario would see noise levels raised temporarily 

from background daytime noise levels with the noisiest activity being piling of the bridge 

foundations. Vibration may also occur which could disturb water voles although the 

vibration will not be at levels that could cause damage to bank side habitats. 

There is little research available on disturbance impacts to water voles and it is possible 

that high levels of disturbance could lead to abandonment of burrows immediately 

adjacent to the site. These impacts would only occur during construction of the bridge 

and piling activities. The piling activities would last approximately one week. The length of 

time required to construct the bridge is not known but it is likely to be a small proportion 

of the overall construction period. Water voles displaced through disturbance could 

relocate to other locations along Middle Drain. Due to the good quality habitat along the 

drain and the low number of burrows in the vicinity of the site it is unlikely that the drain 

Impact 

Significance 


negative effect. 




Otter 

Bats 

Nesting birds (not part of the 

internationally important 

population associated with the 

Humber Estuary) 

has reached its carrying capacity for water vole populations. 

Disturbance impacts would be temporary during construction and reversible following 

completion of construction activities within the immediate vicinity of the drain (i.e. 

following bridge construction). 

Therefore although there would be a temporary negative impact (through disturbance 

during bridge construction), no negative effect on the longer term conservation status of 

the local water vole population is anticipated. 

No records of otter were returned and no evidence of otter was found during the survey. 

While there is potential for otters to use Middle Drain for foraging or commuting there is 

no current evidence of usage and disturbance is considered highly unlikely. No negative 

impacts on the conservation status of otter are anticipated. 

No suitable sites for roosting bats are present on or adjacent to the development area. 

Areas considered suitable for foraging or commuting activity are Middle Drain and the 

light railway, these areas will not be affected by construction. Construction will occur 

within normal working hours (i.e. 08:00 16:00) and therefore construction activities would 

not affect night-time bat activity (the peak of bat activity occurs in the period between 

dusk and dawn). The linear features of Middle Drain and the Railway Line would be 

available for bats to use as foraging or commuting features throughout the construction 

period. Construction lighting, where essential, would be minimised and directed away 

from features such as Middle Drain and the Railway Corridor. 

It is unlikely that the proposed works would have negative impacts on the conservation 

status of any local bat populations. 

No notable nesting bird species are likely to occur within the zone of influence of the 

construction activities. Site preparation works are expected to occur in Q1 2012, before 

the breeding bird season. There are no trees to be felled and there is no scrub that is 

likely to require clearance. The bird nesting season is dependent upon weather but the 

core nesting season is March to July. 

Therefore most, if not all suitable bird nesting vegetation within the construction site will 

be cleared outside the nesting bird season. As the construction works will have begun 

prior to the bird nesting season it is extremely unlikely that ground nesting birds will use 

the land within the development area. 

Small areas of scrub in areas adjacent to the development area have the potential to 

Impact 

Significance 










Reptiles 

support nesting common passerine birds. However, this habitat type would not be lost as 

a result of the development and there is abundant similar habitat available in the vicinity. 

There is the potential for temporary auditory and visual disturbance to nesting birds 

during the construction phase, particularly during the increased noise associated with 

piling. However, the areas proposed for piling are within the arable field which is unlikely 

to be used by nesting birds. The development area is already adjacent to the extant BOC 

site and subject to certain levels of disturbance; therefore it is unlikely that increased 

disturbance from other construction activities would result in abandonment of nests or 

failure to nest. There are no negative impacts anticipated on the conservation status of 

local nesting bird populations. 

If construction is delayed, avoidance of damage to birds’ nests (a legal offence) can be 

avoided through pre-construction checks of the construction site prior to any vegetation 

clearance within the nesting season. In this case a detailed inspection for nesting birds 

would be carried out no more than 24 hours prior to any works being undertaken. This 

minimises opportunities for nest building between the survey and the start of works. Any 

nest in use or being built during this inspection would be left undamaged, with an 

appropriate buffer of surrounding vegetation, for the entire nesting period and alternative 

approaches to the works proposed. 

There is the possibility of enhanced nesting habitat within the area that will be available 

for nature conservation (the NEA) in the western part of the development area (see 

Figure 3.4). 

The arable field margins have low suitability to support reptiles in numbers; this loss 

could result in loss of habitat for these fauna. However, this would represent a very small 

scale and temporary habitat loss, the habitat is sub-optimal for these species. Given the 

nature of the habitat, the proposed works are not anticipated to cause negative impacts 

on the conservation status of any reptile populations. 

Injury or killing of individual animals as a result of construction activities (a legal offence) 

can be avoided through pre-construction checks of the development area. Should any 

field margins or habitat other than arable land need to be cleared a Precaution Method of 

Working (PMW) will be adopted for reptiles (and ground nesting birds for any clearance 

within the bird nesting season) in order to reduce the risk of individual animals being 

injured or killed during the construction operations and would involve a staged approach 

to vegetation clearance including a hand search by a suitably experienced person within 

the arable field margins and any other non-arable/ploughed habitats within the 

Impact 

Significance 






Brown Hare 

development area. The hand search would be followed immediately by removal of the 

vegetation using strimmers, prior to the commencement of construction work, in order to 

discourage animals from using the site and reducing the risk of harm from construction 

personnel/vehicle movement on site. 

There is the possibility of enhanced reptile habitat within the area that will be available for 

nature conservation (the NEA) in the western part of the development area (Figure 3.4). 

Brown hares may use the field for foraging but no hedgerows or grassland suitable for 

forms were located within the development area. The total land take is small (2 to 4 ha of 

permanent habitat loss within the development area) compared to the large arable areas 

surrounding the development. There are no anticipated impacts on the conservation 

status of local hare population. 

Impact 

Significance 





Operation 

10.95 Table 10.8 provides a discussion of potential impacts on the qualifying interest features of 

the statutory designated Humber Estuary (incorporating all aspects of the qualifying 

features for the SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar site) based on whether the qualifying features 

are likely to be within the zone of influence of the proposed development during operation 

and whether impacts could result in a significant effect. 

10.96 This information has been adapted from the information to support a HRA Stage 1 

Screening Report 6 . 

10.97 Table 10.9 discusses potential operational impacts on non-statutory designated sites, 

notable habitats and notable species together with the significance of effect on ecological 

receptors. 

10.98 The significance of effect takes into account measures which have been included within the 

design to avoid or reduce ecological impacts. In addition, it is noted that management of the 

site would be accredited under the ISO 14001 EMS, the new plant will require an EP from 

the EA to operate (and as a consequence will be required to demonstrate the application of 

BAT) and discharges to Middle Drain will be consented. 

5100935.404 Environmental Statement August 2011



SSSI xvii , SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, SAC 

Table 10.8 Potential Operational Impacts on Qualifying Features within the Humber Estuary SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site 


Features 

Estuaries 

Mudflats and sandflats not 

covered by seawater at 

low tide 

Presence of Qualifying Feature in relation to proposed development 


The proposed development lies approximately 1 km from the Estuary. The 

only links between the proposed development and the Estuary are the 

surface water within Middle Drain, immediately adjacent to the proposed 

development which flows into the Estuary, and groundwater which is thought 

to be in hydraulic continuity with the Estuary. 

There will be no discharge of process water although clean surface water, 

water from regeneration of the water softener (hard, salty water) and treated 

domestic effluent will be discharged to Middle Drain. 

Changes to surface water or groundwater quality or levels that would be 

likely to result in changes to the nature, setting or functioning of the Humber 

Estuary are not likely to occur (see Chapters 7 and 8). 

Due to the nature and scale of the proposed development, any accidental 

contamination of surface waters or groundwater would be unlikely to cause 

significant impacts on the Estuary due to dilution effects within this huge 

body of water. However, there would be controls in place throughout the 

operation of the development which would prevent contamination of surface 

water or groundwater. 

Management of the plant would be accredited under the ISO 14001 EMS 

and the new plant will require an EP from the EA to operate, and as a 

consequence will be required to demonstrate the application of BAT. 

There are no significant effects anticipated for this qualifying feature. 

The closest intertidal mudflats are the Pyewype Mudflats; present along the 

southern edge of the Estuary and approximately 1 km from the proposed 

development. These mudflats are particularly productive, supporting a range 

of benthic communities, and are important for a range of feeding and loafing 

water birds, including those which are primary qualifying reasons for the 

designation of the SPA and Ramsar site, in particular for golden plover. 

There would be no emissions of nitrogen oxides or sulphur dioxide from the 

development. 

The air quality assessment (Chapter 6) has concluded that: 

Impact 

Significance 


negative 

effect 


negative 

effect 





Features 



� operational traffic flows are expected to be lower than those during 

construction and the impact arising as a result of operational traffic would 

be negligible; and 

� process emissions from the facility were assessed for their effects on air 

quality. In all cases the emissions were found to be insignificant, at less 

than 1% of the ecological based assessment criteria. Given the distance 

to the nearest sensitive receptors, the effect of process emissions will be 

negligible. 

Emissions to atmosphere will primarily consist of acetylene, acetone, 

ammonia, phosphine and hydrogen sulphide. As part of the EIA scoping a 

screening calculation following the methodology described in Annex F of the 

Environment Agency’s H1 guidance was carried out. On the basis of this 

screening assessment, both short term and long term releases to air from 

the proposed facility were considered insignificant and air dispersion 

modelling was not required. 

The EA has set EALs for phosphine, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide on 

account of their potential health effects, and an EAL for ammonia for the 

protection of vegetation. There are no such EALs for acetylene, which is 

essentially non-toxic 83 . The long-term PC for ammonia of 0.02 µg/m 3 is less 

than 1% of the relevant EAL for vegetation and just 2% of the existing 

background of 1 µg/m 3 . The PEC therefore remains well below the EAL. On 

this basis, the potential for any effects on sensitive ecological sites can be 

considered insignificant. Consequently the potential for any effect on 

nitrogen deposition at salt marsh habitats within the Humber Estuary SAC, 

approximately 1 km away, is considered to be negligible. 

The APIS does not have any information on the habitat types or species 

within the SAC listed under ammonia; nor does APIS have any information 

on phosphine or hydrogen sulphide. Emissions of these pollutants are 

anticipated to be extremely small and there are unlikely to be any ecotoxicological 

effects. 

No observable effect is anticipated on habitats within 1 km as a result of air 

quality changes relating to the proposed development. 

Impact 

Significance 




SSSI, SAC 


Features 

Sandbanks which are 

slightly covered by 

seawater all the time 

SSSI, SAC Coastal lagoons 

SSSI, SAC 

SSSI, SAC 

Salicornia and other 

annuals colonising mud 

and sand 

Atlantic sea meadows 

(Glauco-Puccinallietalia 

maritimae) 

SSSI, SAC Embryonic shifting dunes 

SSSI, SAC 

SSSI, SAC 

SSSI, SAC 

SSSI, SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, SAC, 

Ramsar site 

SSSI, Ramsar 

site 

Shifting dunes along the 

shoreline with Ammophila 

arenaria (‘white dunes’) 

Fixed dunes with 

herbaceous vegetation 

(‘grey dunes’) 

Dunes with Hippophae 

rhamnoides 

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon 

marinus) 

River lamprey (Lampetra 

fluviatilis) 

Grey seal (Halichoerus 

grypus) 

Natterjack toad (Epidalea 

calamita) 



As for construction 

Impact 

Significance 


negative 

effect 




SSSI, SPA, 

Ramsar site xviii 


Features 

Breeding populations of 

birds of European 

Importance, populations of 

birds on passage and 

populations of wintering 

birds. 



A detailed assessment of the potential disturbance from noise levels, 

vibration and visual disturbance during operation is given in the Information 

to Support a HRA Stage 2 AA Report 7 presented in Appendix 10A. A 

summary of this assessment is given below. 

There are a number of bird species which are qualifying features of the 

Humber Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. Areas of the South Humber Bank are 

particularly important as a high tide roost for water birds associated with the 

SPA and Ramsar site such as curlew, golden plover, redshank and lapwing. 

The development site has not previously been used by significant numbers 

of the important bird population and is not adjacent to any fields within the 

South Humber Bank that have been previously found to support significant 

numbers of SSSI SPA Ramsar site birds (with the exception of a field directly 

to the south which already has planning permission for a new development). 

Due to the lay-out of the proposed facility and low level of structures there 

are no impacts on bird flight lines anticipated. An operational noise limit will 

be in place for Poplar Farm. Earth bunds will screen visual disturbance of 

birds. Birds are likely to habituate to operational activities within the 

development as evidenced by birds using high-tide roosts immediately 

adjacent to existing similar industrial sites within the South Humber Bank. 

The assessment has predicted that the proposed Dissolved Acetylene 

Project will not result in a negative effect upon the conservation objectives of 

the Humber Estuary SPA or Ramsar site either alone or in-combination with 

other projects and no adverse effects upon the integrity of the Humber 

Estuary SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site is anticipated. 

Impact 

Significance 


negative 

effect 



Table 10.9 Potential Operational Impacts on Habitats and Notable Species 

Features Potential Impacts Impact Significance 

Non-Statutory Designated Sites 

Non-statutory sites for 

nature conservation 


Lowland Calcareous 

grassland UK BAP 

habitat 

No impacts are predicted on the non-statutory sites of nature conservation 

due to the distance from the application site and lack of direct links through 

connective habitat. No pathways for impacts upon these sites exist. 

No effect on this grassland is expected due to the distance from the 

application site and the fact that the existing BOC site lies in between the 

application site and the grassland. No emissions which could have an 

impact upon this habitat are predicted and no connective habitats link the 

application site to this habitat. 

Middle Drain There may be localised reduction in productivity of both in-stream and 

marginal habitats through the effects of shading on marginal and wetland 

plants directly under the bridge deck as a result of light attenuation. It is 

anticipated that a limited vegetation community would be able to persist at 

the bridge deck margins, where there would be no continuous shading, 

albeit one eventually replaced by more shade tolerant species. These 

effects would only be seen at a local scale (i.e. beneath the new bridge) and 

would be unlikely to affect the conservation status of Middle Drain or its use 

as a wildlife corridor. 

There will be no discharge of process water (clean surface water, water 

from regeneration of the water softener (hard, salty water) and treated 

domestic effluent will be discharged to Middle Drain). All discharges will 

require consent. 

Management of the site would be accredited under the ISO 14001 EMS, the 

new plant will require an EP from the EA to operate (and as a consequence 

will be required to demonstrate the application of BAT) and discharges to 

Middle Drain will be consented. 

Protected Species 

Water vole The presence of the new bridge and additional traffic/noise in the area as a 

result of the facility’s operation may cause increased auditory and visual 

No significant negative effect 







disturbance to water voles using the drain. As the drain was not heavily 

used at the time of survey with only one identified burrow and two latrines 

there does not appear to be a large population using Middle Drain in the 

vicinity of the proposed bridge. Extensive water vole colonies are often 

found adjacent to and within urban and residential areas where human 

disturbance probably affects predators more than it affects the water vole 84 . 

There may be some limited reduction in marginal vegetation due to shading 

from the bridge but this is unlikely to affect the use of Middle Drain as a 

wildlife corridor by water voles as this will only have a local effect under the 

bridge where there would be some cover for commuting water voles 

provided by the bridge itself. It is extremely unlikely that the bridge structure 

would lead to any habitat fragmentation impacts (i.e. preventing water voles 

crossing from one side to the other). 

There will be no discharge of process water into Middle Drain and so no 

pathways for the process water to have an impact upon water vole using 

the Drain. 

Any external lighting used to illuminate the facility will generally be polemounted 

and directed downwards (similar to streetlamps). It is intended to 

minimise light spill to adjacent areas with the use of appropriate hoods and 

diffusers. Lighting will be specifically directed away from Middle Drain to 

reduce disturbance to water voles. Any lighting in this area would be for 

safe pedestrian and vehicle movement and this would be designed to 

reduce light spill along Middle Drain. 

Consideration will be given to planting low level scrub between the 

development and the maintenance strip on Middle Drain to minimise 

disturbance to water voles and any other animals using Middle Drain. 

Operation of the facility is not likely to have negative impacts on the 

conservation status of the local water vole population. 

Otter No records of otter were returned and no evidence of otter was found during 

the survey. While there is potential for them to use Middle Drain for foraging 

or commuting there is no current evidence of usage and disturbance is 

considered highly unlikely. Otter will use habitats within urban areas and the 

operational use of the proposed development is unlikely to deter otters from 

using Middle Drain in future. 





Bats No suitable sites for roosting bats are present on the site. Areas considered 

suitable for foraging or commuting activity were Middle Drain and the 

Railway Line, these areas will not be affected during the operation of the 

dissolved acetylene facility. 

The presence of the new bridge over Middle Drain should not deter bats 

from using Middle Drain as a foraging or commuting feature. The proposed 

height of the bridge deck is 3.1 m above site datum, with the base of the 

deck at approximately the level of the bank plus a 300 mm freeboard 

allowance. Due to the depth of the channel this would allow bats to fly 

underneath the bridge. Bats could also fly over the bridge. Any lighting in 

this area would be for safe pedestrian and vehicle movement and this would 

be designed to reduce light spill along Middle Drain. 


conservation status of the local bat populations. 

Nesting birds 

(not part of the 

internationally 

important population 

associated with the 

Humber Estuary) 

Small areas of scrub in areas adjacent to the application site have the 

potential to support nesting common passerine birds. Nesting birds are 

already adjacent to the extant BOC site and therefore it is unlikely that the 

routine operation of the proposed development will results in high levels of 

disturbance of nesting birds such that birds would either abandon nests or 

that birds would be deterred from nesting adjacent to the site. Most 

common nesting birds can tolerate a high degree of noise, demonstrated by 

nesting birds being present in scrub on the edge of motorways. 


conservation status of the local nesting bird populations. 



Reptiles No negative impacts on reptiles during operation of facility are anticipated. No significant negative effect 

Brown hare No negative impacts on reptiles during operation of facility are anticipated. No significant negative effect 




Construction 


expected that there will be no significant ecological impacts during the construction phase of the 


Operation 

10.100 Potential operational impacts will be controlled as a result of the Project design and the 

implementation of good practice and regulation, monitoring and control measures (e.g. through 

the EP, discharge consents and the EMS). 

10.101 No significant effects on ecological receptors as a result of operation of the facility are anticipated 

and specific additional mitigation measures are therefore not proposed. 


10.102 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated with ecological 

receptors the significance of impacts does not change from that described above. 


10.103 Subject to the results of the GI, it is recommended that selection of the type of piling equipment 

should take noise levels into consideration, with the aim of minimising the level of disturbance to 

the internationally important population of birds and water voles using Middle Drain. 

10.104 The exact requirements and design of the lighting scheme have not yet been finalised. 

Finalisation of the lighting scheme should take into consideration design features that would 

reduce light spill onto offsite areas and minimise the impact of lighting on sensitive species. 

Factors that should be considered include the height, angle and intensity of lighting. 

10.105 Any areas within the proposed development site which are not proposed to be developed could be 

planted with a suitable species-rich grassland mix and any landscape planting within the 

application site will make use of native species of local provenance where possible. 

10.106 Consideration will be given to planting low level scrub between the development and the 

maintenance strip along Middle Drain (i.e. at a point at least 7 m from the top of the southern bank 

of Middle Drain). This would help to reduce disturbance to water voles and any other animals 

using Middle Drain and could generally improve the biodiversity of the site. 

10.107 As an additional wildlife enhancement bird boxes and bat boxes could be erected on buildings and 

structures. 

10.108 The western section of the application site will be available as a NEA for nature conservation 

purposes (Figure 3.4). Habitat suitable for this area would include an area of standing water for 

amphibians, reptiles and water voles and refugia for amphibians and reptiles such as log piles. A 

mosaic of species rich grassland and low level scrub, including berry or nut bearing species such 

as hawthorn, blackthorn and hazel to encourage wildlife, would be suitable for the planting 

scheme. Detailed design of this area will be finalised in discussion with Humber INCA, Natural 

England and the NELC Ecologist. 



Summary 

10.109 No habitats of importance to nature conservation are to be lost as a result of proposed works. The 

development area consists primarily of arable land with a negligible value to nature conservation. 

The land take will be minimal with site compounds constructed within the redline boundary; with 

only one additional access route constructed off South Marsh Road. 

10.110 Key potential nature conservation receptors are: 

� the wildlife corridor along Middle Drain (the main habitat linking the application site to the 

Humber Estuary) and water vole using Middle Drain; and 

� the internationally important populations of birds associated with the Humber Estuary SPA and 

Ramsar site (and also the nationally important populations of birds associated with the 

Humber Estuary SSSI and North Killingholme Haven Pits SSSI which form part of the 

internationally important population of birds). 

10.111 Water pollution would be controlled during construction and no process water will be discharged 

into Middle Drain. There would be no direct habitat loss within Middle Drain, although there would 

be some loss of marginal and aquatic vegetation under the bridge due to shading. Construction 

works, specifically bridge construction over Middle Drain would result in temporary disturbance of 

water voles. However, this disturbance would not result in long term displacement of water voles. 

Operation of the facility is unlikely to cause a significant negative impact on water voles. 

10.112 There would be no habitat loss within any designated sites. The only potential negative impacts 

on designated sites would be to the nationally and internationally important populations of birds 

associated with the Humber Estuary using the surrounding arable fields at high tide. There is the 

potential for disturbance of these birds from noise and visual perturbation (presence of people, 

machinery, and lighting). This will be of temporary duration with the most likely disturbing activity, 

piling, only taking in the region of three weeks to complete and worst case noise predictions, 

which are unlikely to be a reality, indicate that birds are unlikely to be disturbed such that they 

would be displaced from the surrounding high-tide roosts. 

10.113 Although significant negative impacts as a result of construction activities are not predicted a 

COMP is proposed which would be part of the CEMP. The COMP would monitor and record 

behavioural changes of birds associated with the Humber Estuary SPA as a result of hydraulic 

hammer piling or rotary piling using a large rig (if these piling methods were used). A statement of 

intent for the COMP is included within the HRA Stage 2 AA provided in Appendix 10A. The 

contents of the COMP would be agreed with NE, Humber INCA and the NELC Ecologist. 

10.114 An operational noise limit has been set for Poplar Farm (at a distance of 550 m from the 

development site), and earth bunds will screen visual disturbance of birds. Birds are likely to 

habituate to operational activities within the development as evidenced by birds using high-tide 

roosts immediately adjacent to existing similar industrial sites within the South Humber Bank. 

10.115 The key findings of the ecological assessment are that given the measures within the project 

design, no significant negative ecological effects are predicted. 



11. Noise and Vibration 

Introduction 

11.1 This Chapter presents the noise and vibration assessment for the Dissolved Acetylene Project. It 

includes the relevant legislation and policy, assessment methodology and significance criteria, 

baseline description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment, mitigation measures, 

residual impact assessment and recommendations. The potential for combined and cumulative 

effects as a result of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project are considered in Chapter 16. 

11.2 The Dissolved Acetylene Project has the potential to give rise to noise and vibration impacts on 

the local environment due to construction and operational activities and the associated traffic 

movements on the local road network. 


(e.g. chemical processing and manufacturing). There are both human and ecologically sensitive 

receptors in the local area that have the potential to be disturbed by noise. This Chapter focuses 

on the assessment of potential impacts at the nearest human receptors. Chapter 10 (Ecology) has 

utilised data from this Chapter to address the assessment of noise impacts on ecological 

receptors. 


Criteria 


Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 

11.4 The development falls under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 1 and therefore must follow 

the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulatory system. Specific guidance is 

given for noise and thus the operational assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the 

requirements of Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H3 Part 2. 

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

11.5 PPG 24 gives guidance to local authorities in England on how to use their planning powers to 

minimise the impacts of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into account in 

determining planning applications both for noise sensitive developments and for those activities 

which generate noise. 

11.6 Annex 3 provides detailed guidance on the assessment of noise from different sources. For noise 

from industrial developments it advises that impacts on residential receptors should be assessed 

in accordance with British Standard (BS) 4142 and for noise from construction sites it advises 

assessment in accordance with BS 5228. 

11.7 BS 4142 and BS 5228 have been updated since PPG 24 was written; the latest versions have 

been used in this assessment. 






Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (as amended by the Noise and 

Statutory Nuisance Act 1993) 

11.9 The EPA 1990 provides local authorities with the powers to enforce action to prevent or to secure 

the abatement of any noise which either constitutes or is likely to cause a statutory nuisance. The 

act defines what a statutory nuisance is, and, where the occurrence or recurrence of such a 

nuisance has been established, the local authority can serve an abatement order on the 

appropriate person or persons. 

Control of Pollution Act (COPA), 1974 

11.10 Section 60 of COPA 1974 gives local authorities the power to serve a notice imposing 

requirements which dictate the way in which construction works are to be carried out. BS 5228 

provides guidance to enable compliance with Section 60 and is applicable throughout the UK. 

11.11 Under Section 61 of COPA, the person intending to carry out works may apply in advance to 

agree the methods and timetabling of the works to be carried out. 

Consultation 

11.12 NELC’s EHO was contacted 85 to discuss the results of the noise survey, potential operational and 

construction noise impacts, piling noise impacts, the appropriate assessment methodology and 

suitable rating noise limits targets for the site. 

Other Data Sources 

11.13 The assessment is based on the data and information presented in the Project Description for the 

development (Chapter 3). Road traffic data have been obtained from the transport assessment 

(Chapter 12). Baseline noise levels in the area were obtained through baseline noise surveys 

detailed later in this Section. All other data sources are discussed as and when relevant in the 

subsequent Sections of this Chapter. 


Construction Activities 

11.14 The construction noise and vibration impacts at residential receptors associated with on site 

activities from the proposed development have been assessed in accordance with the guidelines 

given in BS 5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and 

Open Sites, Part 1 Noise and Part 2 Vibration. This method was also used to provide the relevant 

information to the ecology specialist for assessment of the impacts on ecological receptors. 

11.15 Part 1 of BS 5228 provides guidance on the methods that can be used to predict and measure 

noise from construction activities and how to assess the impact on those exposed to it. In 

particular Annex F sets out the methods of estimating noise from construction sites which take into 

account distance, ground effects, reflections from surfaces, and screening by obstacles. Annex E 

gives guidance on the significance of noise effects from construction works. It advises that the 

predicted noise levels are added to the existing ambient levels and then assessed in terms of the 

increase to the existing ambient levels. At sites where ambient noise levels are high, the increase 

in noise levels due to the construction works is generally deemed to be significant if it is greater 

than 3 dBA. BS 5228 advises that noise with impulsive or tonal characteristics may be more 

disturbing than continuous noise of the same level, therefore a difference of 0 dBA may cause 

disturbance. Annexes C and D of Part 1 of the Code of Practice provide generic source noise data 

for various items of plant used on open sites which can be used in the absence of measured data. 



11.16 Part 2 of BS 5228 gives guidance on methods for measuring vibration and how to assess its 

effects on the environment and people. The main vibration impacts are likely to arise from piling 

activities or heavy construction vehicle movements near sensitive receptors. Annex B gives 

guidance on the significance of vibration effects in terms of human response to vibration (see 

Table 11.1) and structural response to vibration (see Table 11.2). 

Vibration 

Level 

Table 11.1 Guidance on Effects of Vibration Levels Perceptible to Humans 

Effect 

0.14 mm/s Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most 

vibration frequencies associated with construction. At lower frequencies, people 

are less sensitive to vibration. 

0.3 mm/s Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments. 

1.0 mm/s It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause 

complaint, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to 

residents. 

10 mm/s Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this 

level. 

Table 11.2 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage 

Type of Building Peak Component Particle Velocity in 

Frequency Range of Predominant Pulse 

Reinforced or framed structures 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and 

Industrial and heavy commercial buildings 

above 

Unreinforced or light framed structures 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 

increasing to 20 mm/s 

Residential or light commercial buildings 

at 15 Hz 

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above 

50 mm/s at 4 Hz and 

above 

20 mm/s at 15 Hz 

increasing to 50 mm/s 

at 40 Hz and above 

11.17 Annex D of Part 2 of BS 5228 provides some historical measured vibration levels for various piling 

methods and Annex E gives empirical formulae for the prediction of the resultant peak particle 

velocity vibration levels for various types of piling. The formulae found in Annex E can be used to 

estimate the vibration levels when detailed information about the piling method is known. If only 

general information is known about the piling activities then a range of levels can be obtained from 

the historical data presented in Annex D. 

Operational Activities 

11.18 The guidance documents used for assessing the potential impacts of fixed and mobile noise 

sources within the development, once it is operational, are described below. 

Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H3 Part 2 Noise Assessment and Control, 2002 

11.19 The Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H3 Part 2 outlines the noise and vibration impact assessment 

requirements for new and existing industrial sites. The aim of the guidance is to assist in 

determining noise related BAT for a given installation. 



11.20 Section 2 of the guidance note outlines the measurement and evaluation procedures that should 

be followed. It describes the key components of a noise assessment which include: identification 

of the sensitive receptors; review of complaint history; risk assessment; impact assessment; and 

implementation of noise control measures if required. It advises the use of: 

� BS 4142: Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas 

for determining the impact of the installation; and 

� BS 7445: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise, Parts 1 to 3, for guidance 

on the measurement of environmental noise. 

11.21 Section 3 gives guidance on noise control techniques and technologies. 

11.22 The guidance refers to the possibility that vibration may need to be assessed and recommends 

that specialist advice is sought where impacts from vibration are considered to be a risk. 

BS 4142 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial 

Areas, 1997 

11.23 BS 4142:1997 describes methods for determining and assessing noise levels from fixed plant with 

a view to determining the likelihood of complaints. 

11.24 The likelihood of complaints about noise from the occupiers of nearby residential properties can 

be assessed using the method described in BS 4142:1997. This method compares the rating 

noise level to the measured background noise level in the absence of the source. Rating noise 

level is defined as the noise level from the source, adjusted for certain acoustical features. It is 

measured in terms of dB LAeq which is an energy based acoustic indicator. The standard defines 

the ‘specific noise level’ as the LAeq of the source, and the ‘background level’ as the LA90 level 

without the source operating. 

11.25 Guidance on how to measure the background noise level, LA90, is also provided in the standard. 

The length of measurement should be sufficient to obtain a representative value for the 

background noise level and should cover all periods when the specific noise will operate. 

11.26 The standard states that certain acoustic features can increase the likelihood of complaint over 

that expected from a simple comparison between the specific noise level and the background 

noise level. Where present at the assessment location, such features are taken into account by 

adding +5 dBA to the specific noise level to obtain the rating noise level. A +5 dBA correction is 

applied if one or more of the following features occur, or are expected to be present for new or 

modified noise sources: 

� the noise contains a distinguishable, discrete, continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum, 

etc); 

� the noise contains distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, or thumps); or 

� the noise is irregular enough to attract attention. 

11.27 The standard then rates the likelihood of complaints by comparing the rating noise level with the 

background noise level: 

� where the rating noise level is more than 10 dB above the background level, then complaints 

are likely; 

� where the rating noise level is more than 10 dB below the background noise level, then this is 

a positive indication that complaints are unlikely; and 

� where the rating noise level is 5 dB above the background noise level, then this is of marginal 

significance. 



BS 7445: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise, Parts 1 to 3, 2003 

11.28 BS 7445: 2003 provides detailed information on environmental noise measurement procedures 

and the reporting of environmental noise levels. Guidance is given on how to measure and assess 

noises with a tonal component. It also provides specific information on suitable weather conditions 

for noise measurements. 

Road Traffic Noise 

11.29 The impacts of road traffic noise generated during the construction and the operation of the 

development on the existing road network would be assessed in accordance with the methods in 

the DMRB which uses calculation procedures from the Department for Transport Memorandum 

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 86 . 

11.30 The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise provides methods for measuring and calculating noise 

levels from road traffic, which are assessed over an 18 hour period from 06:00 to 24:00, using 

annual average weekday traffic (AAWT) flows. The basic noise level for a road segment can be 

calculated using the traffic flow, traffic speed and percentage heavy vehicles for a road segment. 

The traffic data will be based on the construction methods that are to be employed and 

information from the traffic assessment. 

11.31 The DMRB details the assessment methodology relating to noise and nuisance exposure. It 

provides guidance on the significance of changes in road traffic noise, identifying that changes in 

noise smaller than 1 dBA are not perceptible. An increase in traffic volume of 25% is required to 

alter the noise levels by 1 dBA. 


Construction Noise 

11.32 Construction noise impacts are temporary in nature and hence a higher level of noise impact is of 

lesser significance than would be the case for permanent noise changes. 

11.33 Example method 2 of BS 5228 sets out that noise levels generated by construction activities are 

deemed to be significant if the total noise (pre-construction ambient plus construction noise) 

exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise by 5 dB or more, (subject to the total noise threshold 

values of 65 dB, 55 dB and 45 dB LAeq,period for the daytime, evening and night-time periods 

respectively). These criteria are applicable to residential receptors and other community education 

health buildings. 

11.34 For a public open space, which is more akin to the nature of Humber Estuary, the significance 

criteria recommended by BS 5228 remain the same but with no lower cut-off values i.e. a 

significant effect is deemed to occur if the total noise exceeds pre-construction ambient noise by 

5 dB or more. There is no guidance as to the degree of significance of noise changes above this 

level. 

Operational Noise Impacts at Residential Receptors 

11.35 Noise limits due to the operation of the facility have been derived taking into account the 

recommendations provided by the NELC EHO and also the guidance provided in BS 4142. 

11.36 The EHO 85 has advised that a rating noise level that does not exceed the existing background 

noise level at the nearest residential receptors should be acceptable. In accordance with BS 4142, 

applying this criterion is therefore likely to result in a less than marginal significance with regard to 

the likelihood of complaints. 



Operation and Road Traffic Noise 

11.37 Table 11.3 presents the significance criteria that will be used to assess the noise impacts of the 

operation of the facility and traffic noise changes at the various receptors. The significance criteria 

are based on the example given in Section 7.6 of the Institute of Environmental Management and 

Assessment (IEMA) Institute of Acoustics (IOA) draft document “Guidelines for Noise Impact 

Assessment” and Section 3.12 of DMRB. 

Table 11.3 Significance Criteria for Road Traffic Noise 

Change in Noise Level, dB Severity of Impact 


Overview 


Noise Measurement Positions and Conditions 

11.43 The noise survey measurement positions are described in Table 11.4 and shown in Figure 11.1. 

11.44 At each measurement position, the microphone was positioned at a height of approximately 1.5 m 

from the ground and at least 3.5 m from any other reflective surface. Measurements were deemed 

to be subject to free-field conditions. 

11.45 The weather conditions during the survey were generally clear, dry and warm with a light 

intermittent breeze (


Survey Equipment 

Figure 11.1 Noise Survey Measurement Positions 

11.46 A Norsonic 118 (Serial No. 31609) with a type 1225 microphone (Serial No. 52305) was used to 

perform the short-term satellite measurements. A BrÜel & Kjaer 2238 Mediator (Serial No. 

2381615) with a type 4188 microphone (Serial No. 2372203) was used to perform the continuous 

long-term measurements at Position A. 

11.47 Calibration of the sound level meters and microphones used for the measurements are traceable 

to UKAS accredited laboratories. The calibration of both sound level meters and microphones was 

checked using a 1 kHz tone at 114 dB prior to and following the measurements performed. No 

significant drift in calibration was observed. 

Short Term Noise Monitoring 

11.48 Table 11.5 presents a summary of results with regard to the short-term measured noise levels. 

Table 11.5 Results of Short-Term Noise Measurements 

Position Date Start Time LAeq,15min LA90,15min LAFmax,15min 

1 06/06/2011 13:35 52.0 47.8 71.4 

1 06/06/2011 13:50 53.0 49.8 72.3 

1 06/06/2011 21:15 51.0 45.9 73.9 

1 06/06/2011 23:40 49.5 43.9 61.3 

1 07/06/2011 10:50 55.4 52.1 73.5 



Position Date Start Time LAeq,15min LA90,15min LAFmax,15min 

2 06/06/2011 14:25 47.0 41.9 59.5 

2 06/06/2011 14:40 54.9 43.3 76.2 

2 06/06/2011 21:35 53.0 50.8 62.3 

2 07/06/2011 00:00 45.8 42.8 57.8 

2 07/06/2011 11:30 52.5 45.6 75.0 

3 06/06/2011 15:00 48.3 46.1 60.9 

3 07/06/2011 11:10 54.5 47.2 76.8 

4 06/06/2011 15:50 64.0 51.5 85.4 

4 06/06/2011 22:40 53.0 49.4 62.4 

4 07/06/2011 10:30 58.3 54.0 78.8 

5 06/06/2011 16:15 59.7 45.7 76.6 

5 06/06/2011 16:30 59.1 46.6 77.5 

5 06/06/2011 21:55 51.5 45.8 69.7 

5 07/06/2011 00:20 46.3 44.5 52.7 

5 07/06/2011 12:10 57.2 46.9 75.1 

6 06/06/2011 16:55 55.3 46.9 71.7 

6 06/06/2011 17:15 55.4 46.7 74.6 

6 06/06/2011 23:10 49.4 47.9 56.8 

6 07/06/2011 12:30 55.6 47.3 81.1 

7 06/06/2011 17:40 53.1 46.8 72.2 

7 06/06/2011 17:55 51.7 45.6 72.9 

7 06/06/2011 22:15 55.1 53.2 59.8 

7 07/06/2011 00:40 47.3 45.0 60.8 

7 07/06/2011 11:50 59.4 46.1 79.7 

8 06/06/2011 18:30 56.0 50.2 74.6 

8 07/06/2011 12:55 51.2 48.4 66.2 

Measured Noise Indices 

11.49 A brief description of the recorded noise indices is as follows: 

� LAeq,T is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level over a period of time, T. 

Representative of the ‘average’ sound pressure level over a given period; 

� LA90,T is the A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period 

and is indicative of the general minimum or background noise level; 

� LAFmax,T is the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level recorded over the period stated. 

Measurements are undertaken using the fast response on the sound level meter. 

Long Term Noise Monitoring 

11.50 Table 11.6 presents a summary of the measured 16-hour daytime and 8-hour night-time noise 

levels at the continuous monitoring position (position A). Results are given for both a weekday and 

weekend period. 



11.51 The results of the long-term noise monitoring are also shown graphically in Figure 11A.1 of 

Appendix 11A. 

11.52 It should be noted that the daytime and evening noise measurements recorded on Friday 3 rd June 

have been merged and averaged with the noise measurements conducted on Tuesday morning 

(7 th June) in order to represent a complete weekday daytime (07:00 23:00 hours) period. 

Table 11.6 Results of Continuous Long-Term Noise Monitoring 

Date Period Duration, T LAeq,T (dB) LA90,T (dB) 

Friday 3 rd & 

Tuesday 7 th 

(data merged) 

Friday 3 rd 

Saturday 4 th 

Sunday 5 th 

Monday 6 th 

Daytime 

(07:00 23:00hrs) 

Night-time 

(23:00 07:00hrs) 

Daytime 

(07:00 23:00hrs) 

Night-time 

(23:00 07:00hrs) 

Daytime 

(07:00 23:00hrs) 

Night-time 

(23:00 07:00hrs) 

Daytime 

(07:00 23:00hrs) 

Night-time 

(23:00 07:00hrs) 

Summary of Findings 

16 hours 53.2 44.2 

8 hours 47.6 44.7 

16 hours 51.0 44.5 

8 hours 48.4 44.2 

16 hours 53.4 44.5 

8 hours 51.0 46.5 

16 hours 52.9 46.1 

8 hours 50.3 43.8 

11.53 At position A, the average weekday daytime noise levels in terms of LAeq,16hour values were in the 

region 53 dB. Daytime background noise levels were in the region 44 to 46 dB (LA90,16hour). 

11.54 During the night-time period, the average weekday noise levels in terms of LAeq,8hour values were in 

the region 48 dB to 50 dB. Night-time background noise levels were in the region 44 to 45 dB 

(LA90,16hour). 

11.55 During the weekend period, the average daytime noise levels in terms of LAeq,16hour values were in 

the region 51dB to 53 dB. Daytime background noise levels were in the region 45 dB (LA90,16hour). 

11.56 During the night-time period, the average weekend noise levels in terms of LAeq,8hour values were in 

the region 48 dB to 51 dB. Night-time background noise levels were in the region 44 to 47 dB 

(LA90,16hour). 

11.57 The results of the long-term noise survey indicate that the daytime and night-time background 

noise levels (LA90) are very similar during the week and also at the weekend. In terms of average 

ambient (LAeq) noise levels, the daytime levels are slightly higher than the night-time levels and are 

very similar for both weekday and weekend period. 




Construction 

Noise 

11.58 During the construction phase, various activities will generate noise; the main noise impacts are 

expected to arise as a result of: 

� mobile plant and activities within the site; 

� fixed plant within the site (such as generators); and 

� construction traffic in the wider road network. 

11.59 The noise levels generated by the various items of plant and equipment could be expected to 

result in a notable increase in local ambient noise levels although the increases would be 

temporary in duration. Most construction related activities generate noise that is impulsive and or 

tonal. This type of noise can cause disturbance even if the overall ambient noise level is not 

increased. 

Vibration 

11.60 During the construction phase, the main activities which could be a source of significant vibration 

would be: 

� percussive piling activities; and 

� heavy vehicle movements. 

11.61 It is expected that piling work will be required during the construction phase and piling can 

potentially generate high vibration levels. The nearest residential properties are considered 

unlikely to be affected by piling vibration due to the large separation distances involved. 

11.62 HGV movements can potentially generate ground borne and airborne vibration at sensitive 

receptors when passing by. The magnitude of these impacts would depend on construction traffic 

routes, the number, size and speed of HGVs, the current conditions of the road network and the 

foundation types of buildings. 

Operation 

Noise 

11.63 The main sources of noise associated with the proposed development would include 

� fixed plant; 

� other on site activities; and 

� road traffic in the wider network. 

11.64 The proposed development would contain a number of fixed plant items that will generate noise, 

some of which will inherently generate continuous noise emissions. Fixed plant is likely to include 

compressors, pumps, condensers and low pressure generators. Noise will also be generated by 

typical on site activities and also by vehicle arrivals, departures, reversing alarms, 

loading/unloading of vehicles and manual handling of materials. 



Vibration 

11.65 It is anticipated that there will be negligible vibration impacts on local residential and commercial 

properties taking into account the likely plant and typical activities associated with the 

development and also the relatively large separation distances involved (i.e. 550 m to Poplar 

Farm). 


Construction 

Noise 

11.66 The construction of the facility is expected to take approximately nine months to complete. 

Standard construction hours are expected to be from 0800 to 1600 hours Monday to Friday, with a 


11.67 Details of the plant and equipment that will be used during the construction period and their 

relative phasing are not known at this stage. However estimates of plant equipment types, 

numbers and the corresponding noise levels are provided in Table 11.7. It should be noted that, in 

practice, there could be changes in the plant and equipment used due to variations in the 

preferred construction methods adopted by the appointed Construction Contractor. 

Table 11.7 Anticipated Plant and Associated Noise Levels 

Plant Equipment Assumed 

Number in 

Use 

BS 5228 Reference Noise level (dB) 

LAeq,T at 10 m (per 

unit) 

Dozer 1 Table C.2 12 81 

Dumper trucks 3 Table C.2 30 79 

Digger 2 Table C.4 63 77 

Towed roller 1 Table C.2 36 81 

Tandem roller 1 Table C.2 37 79 

Mini digger 1 Table C.4 67 74 

Submersible pumps 2 Table C.2 45 65 

Telehandler 1 Table C.2 35 71 

Piling (Hammer Rig (4 t)) 2 Table C.3 2 87 

6T Dumper 2 Table C.4 6 79 

55T Crane 1 Table C.4 45 82 

Concrete pumps 2 Table C.4 26 75 

Total noise for all items of plant operating together 93 



11.68 The nearest dwelling to the site is Poplar Farm located on South Marsh Road approximately 

550 m from the site boundary. Over these distances, noise levels would be reduced by 35 dBA to 

42 dBA, depending on ground type and characteristics. Assuming all items of equipment could be 

in operation during a typical assessment period (a working day) and be in use at least 50% of the 

time, the resulting construction noise levels at Poplar Farm would be between 48 and 55 dB LAeq. 

These levels would be commensurate with the ambient noise levels in the area, which were 

measured as 50 to 55 dB LAeq. 

11.69 Even if all items of plant equipment were in operation at the same time, the total noise levels 

(ambient noise and construction noise combined) would, at worst, be no more than 5 dBA higher 

than ambient noise levels. Considering the temporary nature of construction activities, this is 

considered an acceptable level of impact when assessed in accordance with BS 5228 (example 

method 2, E.3.3). Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that all items of plant would be in operation at 

the same time and therefore this assessment represents a worst-case scenario. On this basis, the 

actual impacts are likely to be less than those predicted. Overall, depending on the timing of 

activities and the coincident use of plant equipment, the severity of the temporary impact of 

construction noise on human receptors is considered to be Minor to Moderate. 

Piling Noise 

11.70 In addition to the above, a detailed piling noise assessment has been undertaken in order to 

inform the ecology assessment and determine the likely impacts on local bird populations. This 

assessment has been undertaken because the highest construction noise levels are anticipated to 

be during any piling works and therefore piling activities have the greatest potential to disturb bird 

populations. The potential impacts would depend on the type of piling method used, ground 

conditions, and the power rating and size of the piling rigs. 

11.71 The piling noise assessment has been undertaken in accordance with BS5228 guidelines and has 

utilised NoiseMap 5 calculation software to produce noise contour maps for different piling types. 

11.72 Piling has been assumed to have a source height of 5 m above ground level. The ground 

conditions between source and receiver are assumed to be soft. 

11.73 Four different piling types have been assessed with two different scenarios for each piling type. 

The first scenario is for two piling rigs operating simultaneously in the main area of the site where 

buildings are to be located and the other scenario is for a single piling rig operating near to the 

proposed bridge. 

11.74 The piling types assessed and the associated noise levels are shown in Table 11.8. 

Table 11.8 Piling Type and Associated Noise Level 

Equipment Piling Type BS 5228 Reference LAeq,T at 10 m (dB) 

Rotary bored piling large rig Table C.3 14 83 

Rotary bored piling mini rig Table C.3 17 76 

Continuous flight auger piling Table C.3 21 79 

Hydraulic hammer rig (5 tonne) Table C.3 1 89 

11.75 The noise contour maps for the different piling types and anticipated piling locations are provided 

in Appendix 11B. The noise contours represent noise levels at a receiver height of 0.1 m above 

ground level to represent bird populations residing in the surrounding fields. The results of the 

assessment and potential impact on birds are discussed in Chapter 10. 



Construction Traffic Noise 

11.76 The highest concentration of road traffic generated during construction is expected to be on 

Hobson Way and Kiln Lane, in which 62 additional vehicles have been estimated with 

approximately one-third (35%) of these being classed as HGVs. 

11.77 Compared with the baseline traffic flows plus construction traffic expected as part of other 

committed developments, the additional construction traffic generated by the proposed 

development will not be significant. The resulting noise changes will be less than 1 dBA and the 

impacts will be negligible. 

Construction Vibration 

11.78 The vibration levels from general construction activities and associated vehicles and plant are 

expected to be negligible at the nearest dwellings on the basis of the separation distances 

involved and also considering the likely ground conditions between source and receiver. 

11.79 The vibration levels from potential percussive piling activities will not be significant at the nearest 

dwellings, due to the distances involved. Depending on the ground conditions, foundation type of 

the building and the piling technique employed, the levels could be perceptible in adjacent fields. 

However, the levels of vibration would be well below those which could cause complaints in 

residential environments. 

11.80 Construction traffic is not expected to be at a sufficiently high level to result in significant vibration 

impacts on the wider road network. 

11.81 Thus, overall, the impact associated with vibration is considered to be negligible. 

Operation 

Hours of Operation 

11.82 Standard operating hours are 0600 to 2200 hours Monday to Friday. Thus the facility will typically 

operate for 16 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 50 weeks of the year. In the event of 

acetylene supply constraints, or abnormal demand, the facility may need to operate outside the 

standard operating hours for short periods. 

11.83 Although operations are not planned to take place at the weekend, this assessment has also 

compared the measured baseline weekend noise levels with the assessment results in order to 

determine what the potential impact would be in the event of abnormal operational hours. 

On site Noise Sources 

11.84 The principal sources of noise at the facility are anticipated to be: 

� gas compressors; 

� air compressors (for tools instruments); 

� cooling tower fan extract fans; 

� lime transfer pump; 

� tanker offloading pumps; 

� cylinder handling moving via forklift pallet truck; 

� generator hopper feeding carbide loading vibrating plate; 

� shot blasting operations; 

� Rotary Drum Filters, pump and motor noise; 

� refrigeration plant (compressors, pumps); 



� vehicles (lorries and vans) loading unloading lime handling tankers; and 

� general vehicle movements on site. 

11.85 There is currently insufficient design details and corresponding noise data available with regard to 

items of proposed plant equipment and therefore it is considered prudent to adopt a reverse 

assessment approach whereby appropriate noise limits are set at the nearest residential property 

and resulting noise levels are determined for the site taking into account noise attenuation due to 

distance separation. Buildings should then be constructed and noise mitigation implemented (if 

necessary) to ensure that the applicable noise limits are achieved. 

Operational Noise Limits (Poplar Farm) 

11.86 Poplar Farm is the nearest residential property to the development site (see Figure 11.1) and 

therefore this property has been used to set appropriate operational noise limits targets taking into 

consideration the guidance contained within BS 4142 and the recommendations of NELC’s EHO. 

11.87 Facilities and premises that are closer to the development site than Poplar Farm are not 

considered to be noise sensitive and are therefore not considered further in this assessment. 

11.88 The lowest background noise level (LA90,T) measured near to Poplar Farm (position 1) was 44 dB. 

Furthermore, the lowest background noise level measured at the continuous monitoring position 

(position A) was also 44 dB (LA90,T). It is considered prudent to use this background noise level to 

set the appropriate noise criterion since this will help ensure that the noise impacts and potential 

for noise disturbance are minimised. 

11.89 The EHO has recommended that the rating noise level from all fixed plant and equipment 

associated with the development does not exceed the existing background noise level at Poplar 

Farm. In accordance with BS 4142, applying this criterion is therefore likely to result in a less than 

marginal significance with regard to the likelihood of complaints. 

11.90 On this basis, all plant and equipment should not exceed a cumulative rating noise level of 44 dB 

(LAeq,T) at Poplar Farm for typical operation. 

11.91 This noise limit would also be suitable for night time and weekend working (should this be 

required) as the prevailing noise climate in the local area is typically similar for daytime, night time 

and the weekend. 

Noise Attenuation Due to Distance Separation 

11.92 Using standard acoustic principles for determining the attenuation of sound over distance for a 

point source, distance corrections in the order of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source 

have been used in our predictions. 

11.93 Sound attenuation due to ground absorption and atmospheric absorption is deemed negligible 

and this assessment is therefore considered to be a worst-case scenario. Furthermore, 

attenuation due to screening (such as that provided by the new earth embankments or other 

natural features) is also considered to be negligible in this assessment. 

11.94 Assuming a direct line of sight and a separation distance of 550 m between source and receiver 

results in noise attenuation in the region 55 dB (LAeq,T). 

11.95 Again, this is a worst-case scenario since this separation distance is to the nearest site boundary, 

as opposed to a specific plant activity location and therefore assumes that all plant and activities 

will take place at the site boundary. In practice, plant and activities are of separated by a greater 

distance than that used in the predictions and also various items of plant equipment will be 

housed within buildings that will provide a greater degree of noise attenuation via the building 

envelope construction. 



Permissible Site Boundary Noise Limits 

11.96 Taking into account the applicable noise criteria (44 dB (LAeq,T)) and the level of noise attenuation 

(55 dB (LAeq,T)) due to distance separation, the theoretical permissible site boundary noise level 

would be 99 dB (LAeq,T) for human receptors. 

Anticipated Noise Levels Due to Site Activities and Fixed Plant Equipment 

11.97 Site noise levels external to the proposed buildings (e.g. cylinder handling, outdoor equipment, 

vehicle movements and deliveries) are considered unlikely to exceed 75 dB LAeq,60min (taking into 

consideration the likely noise sources and also assuming that the various external noise sources 

may occasionally operate simultaneously). 

11.98 Similarly, assuming a worst-case internal noise level of 90 dB (LAeq,60min) within any of the 

proposed buildings and assuming the proposed building envelopes will achieve a minimum 

xix 

composite sound insulation performance of 25 dB Rw , the resulting external noise level will be in 

the region 65 dB (LAeq,60min). 

11.99 In practice, the proposed buildings should provide a greater composite sound insulation 

performance than 25 dB Rw (possibly up to 35 dB Rw) and exhaust extract points within buildings 

such as ductwork terminations and ventilation louvres should be appropriately attenuated to 

control noise levels locally within the site. 

11.100 As a worst-case scenario, assuming a noise level of 65 dB (LAeq,60min) is emitted from all buildings 

simultaneously and assuming an external site noise level of 75 dB (LAeq,60min) typically occurs, 

combining all of the noise levels still results with a site noise level in the region 77 dB (LAeq,60min) 

which would be approximately 22 dB below the theoretical permissible boundary noise level. 

11.101 It is therefore anticipated that the noise emissions from the operation of the site will easily satisfy 

the noise criterion at the nearest residential properties and in accordance with BS 4142 guidance, 

the assessment suggests that there is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely. 

11.102 Furthermore, combining the expected site operational noise levels with the existing ambient noise 

level at Poplar Farm, results in a noise level change of less than 1 dBA. Thus noise impacts 

associated with this noise level change are therefore expected to be negligible. 

11.103 Since the existing background noise levels at night time and at the weekend are of a similar 

magnitude to those during the daytime, the anticipated impacts above will be the same should the 

site operate over night or at a weekend. 

Operational Traffic 

11.104 An assessment of operational traffic has been undertaken with reference to the methodology of 

the DMRB. The assessment is based on the findings of the transport assessment, to determine 

whether a change in noise of 1 dBA or more is likely on any road links included in the transport 

assessment during the operational phase. This would be considered a significant noise change, 

which may be considered ‘perceptible’ by some people under well controlled conditions. 

11.105 A change in noise level of 1 dBA may arise from increases or decreases in traffic flow of plus 25% 

or minus 20%, respectively, or changes in average traffic speeds or proportion of HGVs on the 

existing road network. The 18-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT) flows ‘without’ and 

‘with’ the development are shown in Table 11.9 for the roads included in the transport assessment 

(see Chapter 12). 

xix 

Rw is the noise index used to quantify a constructions airborne sound insulation performance when measured under ideal conditions, 

e.g. within an acoustic test laboratory. 



Table 11.9 18-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT) Flows 

Road 18-hr AAWT 

Base + Committed 

18-hr AAWT 

Base + Committed + 

Development 

Hobson Way 2068 2139 

Kiln Lane 3880 3951 

A1173 14563 14623 

A180 South of A1173 33791 33836 

A180 North of A1173 / A180 Roundabout 24680 24695 

11.106 Compared with the baseline traffic flows plus traffic expected as part of other committed 

developments, the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not be significant. 

The resulting noise changes will be less than 1 dBA and the impacts will therefore be negligible. 


Construction 


expected that there will be no significant noise and vibration impacts during the construction 

phase of the development. Therefore no specific mitigation measures are deemed necessary. 

Operation 

11.108 Operational noise will be controlled as a result of the Project design (e.g. the requirements of BAT 

and occupational health considerations), the implementation of good practice and regulation, 

monitoring and control measures (e.g. through the EP and the EMS). It is expected that external 

noise levels will not exceed 75 dB (LAeq,60min), that the worst-case internal noise level will be 90 dB 

(LAeq,60min) and that the proposed building envelopes will achieve a minimum composite sound 

insulation performance of 25 dB Rw (resulting in a noise level external to the buildings that will be 

in the region 65 dB (LAeq,60min)). 

11.109 On this basis, the operational noise and vibration resulting from the Dissolved Acetylene Project is 

expected to have a negligible impact on human receptors and specific additional mitigation 

measures are not proposed. 

11.110 The noise and vibration impacts from road traffic generated by the development will be negligible 

and no specific mitigation measures are required. 


11.111 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated with noise and 

vibration the significance of impacts does not change from that described above. 



Summary 

11.112 The key findings of the noise and vibration assessment on human receptors are as follows: 

� the results of the long-term noise survey indicate that the daytime and night-time background 

noise levels (LA90) are very similar during the week and also at the weekend. 

� the noise impacts on human receptors during the construction phase are expected to be at 

an acceptable level given the temporary nature of the works involved; 

� an appropriate noise target (44 dB (LAeq,T)) has been set at the nearest human noise sensitive 

receptor (Poplar Farm) in relation to operational noise; 

� general operational noise from the development site should easily satisfy the recommended 

noise target (44 dB (LAeq,T)) and the associated impacts on human receptors are expected to 

be negligible. In accordance with BS 4142, the assessment suggests that there is a positive 

indication that complaints are unlikely; 

� traffic noise impacts during the construction and operation of the facility are expected to be 

negligible; 

� no adverse vibration impacts are expected at nearby properties during the construction and 

operation of the proposed facility; 

� since the existing background noise levels at the weekend are of a similar magnitude to 

those during the week, the anticipated impacts will be the same should the site operate over 

a weekend period; 

� no specific mitigation measures are deemed necessary in relation to construction noise and 

vibration, operational noise or development generated road traffic; and 

� the assessment and potential impacts of construction and operational noise on ecological 

receptors are discussed in Chapter 10. 



12. Transport 

Introduction 

12.1 This Chapter presents the transport assessment for the Dissolved Acetylene Project. It includes 

the relevant legislation and policy, assessment methodology and significance criteria, baseline 

description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment (including cumulative impacts), 

mitigation measures, residual impact assessment and recommendations. The potential for 

cumulative and in-combination impacts is also discussed in Chapter 16. 

12.2 Data from this assessment have been used to inform the Air Quality, Noise and Vibration and 

Ecology Chapters of this ES. 

12.3 The location of the development field is shown on Figure 1.2. A full description of the site and its 

surroundings is provided in Chapter 2. The site is well served by existing highway infrastructure. 

The site is connected to the strategic road network (the A180) and benefits from having good 

transport links to Immingham Dock. 

12.4 A Transport Statement (TS) has been prepared for the Dissolved Acetylene Project and is this 

presented as Appendix 12A. 


Criteria 


Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport (PPG 13) 

12.5 PPG 13 sets out the Government’s policies on transport and informs regional planning bodies and 

LPAs in preparing regional planning guidance and development plans. The guidance is based 

upon recognition of the importance of land use planning in achieving the Government’s aim of an 

integrated transport system. The judicious siting of new development, together with opportunities 

to rebalance existing land uses through redevelopment, have an important role to play in reducing 

the need to travel (particularly by car) and in creating environments where it is safer and easier to 

access jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by modes of transport other than the private 

car. The main objectives of the guidance are to: 

� promote more sustainable transport choices for people and for moving freight; 

� promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, 

walking and cycling; and 

� reduce the need to travel, especially by car. 




Department for Transport Circular 02/07: Planning and the Strategic Road 

Network 

12.7 Circular 02/07 is aimed at ensuring that national and regional aims and objectives can be aligned 

and met and is applicable to the whole strategic road network in England. As the A180 is a Trunk 

Road the content of this note is applicable to the assessment of the Dissolved Acetylene Facility. 



12.8 The circular identifies that the efficient movement of people and goods on the strategic road 

network has a key part to play in supporting the economy. Demand management measures are 

encouraged to be incorporated in development proposals. 

Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local 

Government Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) 

12.9 GTA is intended to assist stakeholders in determining whether an assessment may be required 

and, if so, what the level and scope of that assessment should be. It provides guidance on the 

content and preparation of a TS. 

12.10 A TS is a comprehensive and systematic process that sets out transport issues relating to a 

proposed development. This form of assessment is suitable when the proposed development is 

expected to generate relatively low numbers of trips or traffic flows, with minor transport impacts. 

The TS for the Dissolved Acetylene Project is thus presented as Appendix 12A. 

Institute of Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Environmental 

Assessment of Road Traffic 

12.11 To assist the assessor in determining the geographical boundary of environmental assessment, 

the EIA guidance proposed two broad rules to be used as a screening process to delimit the scale 

and extent of assessment: 

� rule 1 include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the 

number of HGVs will increase by more than 30%); and 

� rule 2 include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 

10% or more. 

Consultation 

12.12 A scoping meeting was held with NELC to discuss the scope of the ES and TS. The meeting took 

place with Terry Worth (Highway Development Engineer, NELC) on the 8 th February 2011. Further 

discussions were also held with Joanna Heweth (Principal Development Management Officer, 

NELC) on the 17 th March 2011. 

12.13 NELC was contacted in relation to whether a Framework Travel Plan (FTP), Freight Management 

Plan (FMP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would be required for the 

Planning Application. NELC replied 87 to say that these would not be required xx . 

12.14 Whilst no direct contact was made with the HA, the HA were consulted on the Scoping Report 3 . 

The Scoping Opinion 4 is presented as Appendix 5A. In addition, Table 5.2 provides a summary of 

Scoping Opinion 4 responses, along with an indication of how and where these have been 

addressed within the ES. The main points that the HA raised were: 

� the construction phase is unlikely to be of significant concern in terms of the strategic road 

network; however the LPA may wish to request a traffic management plan to minimise any 

impact on the local and strategic road networks; 

� the impact of staff travel to from work during operation is not expected to be material to the 

operation of the strategic road network; and 

� the most significant aspect is the implication of moving large amounts of hazardous materials 

(raw materials and product) via the strategic road network, in particular acetylene cylinders. 

xx 

Even though NELC did not request these documents, as a precautionary approach, the TS (provided in Appendix 12A) includes a 

FMP and a Framework CTMP is provided in Appendix 12B). 



12.15 As a result of the Scoping Opinion 4 : 

� a framework CTMP has been prepared and is presented in Appendix 12B (this will be 

amended and updated in due course by the Construction Contractor); and 

� BOC met with representatives from the HA on 15 th July 2011 to discuss the issues that the 

HA had raised in the Scoping Opinion 4 . The HA’s primary concern related to the movement of 

large amounts of hazardous waste via the strategic road network. At the meeting between 

BOC and HA it was noted that: 

- BOC has not had any of its own vehicles recorded in incidents resulting in road closures; 

and 

- in the event of an offsite incident involving acetylene or carbide, the HA’s tactical 

diversion route strategy will be deployed (as appropriate). 

Other Information/ Data Sources 

12.16 The assessment is based on the data and information presented in the description of the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project (Chapter 3). In addition, C Spencers 88 provided some indicative 

construction workforce and transport data for the first phase of construction works (preparation of 

the site and construction of site infrastructure). BOC supplied construction workforce and transport 

data for the second phase (process plant fit out, testing and commissioning). 

12.17 Nationwide Data Collection was commissioned to undertake Manual Classified turning Counts 

(MCCs) at six sites, Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) at three locations and queue length surveys 

during May 2011. 

12.18 The Traffic Flow Data System (TRADS) was used to obtain traffic flow information from England’s 

motorway and major trunk road network. 


General Method 

12.19 The impacts of development traffic have been assessed with regard to the following 

characteristics: 

� volume of traffic; 

� traffic speeds and operational characteristics, and 

� traffic composition, the percentage of HGVs. 

12.20 The perception of changes in traffic by people, and the impact of traffic changes on various 

ecological systems will vary according to such factors as: 

� existing traffic levels; 

� location of traffic movements; 

� time of day; 

� temporal and seasonal variation of traffic; 

� design and layout of the road; 

� land-use activities adjacent to the route; and 

� ambient conditions of adjacent land-uses. 

12.21 Impacts have been assessed by undertaking quantitative analysis of traffic flow changes, and 

qualitative analysis of the potential significance of changes. The methodology used in the impact 

of each aspect is described in more detail in the subsequent impact assessment sections. 



12.22 In line with discussions held with NELC, other committed developments have also been 

considered in the assessment. 

Data used in the Assessment 

Construction Staff Numbers and Shift Patterns 

12.23 It is expected that the construction period will see the peak of vehicular activity at the site. 

Construction is anticipated to take approximately 9 months commencing in Q1 of 2012. 

12.24 Standard construction hours are expected to be from 0800 to 1600 hours Monday to Friday, with a 


12.25 The construction period will comprise of two phases. The first phase relates to preparation of the 

site and construction of site infrastructure. The second phase relates to the process plant fit out, 

testing and commissioning. It is likely that Phase 2 will run in parallel with the last two to three 

months of Phase 1. For the purpose of this assessment it has been assumed that Phase 1 will run 

in parallel to Phase 2 during months 7, 8 and 9 of the construction phase. 

12.26 At present it is understood that there will be varying degrees of staffing levels across the nine 

month construction period. The Phase 1 construction workforce is expected to peak during the 

middle of the construction period, with an average workforce at this time of 22 and a maximum of 

26 construction workers being present on the site. The Phase 2 construction workforce will be at 

its highest during the last month, with an estimated average workforce of 23 construction workers 

on the site. If Phase 1 runs in parallel with Phase 2 there could be a maximum of 38 workers on 

site. 

Construction Vehicle Movements 

12.27 The daily trip generation figures for both the construction and plant fit out phases are provided in 

Table 12.1 and Table 12.2. 

Table 12.1 Daily Trip Generation Construction: Phase 1 

Daily Trips (One-way) 

Month Cars Minibus HGVs Total 

1 5 0 6 11 

2 6 0 7 13 

3 5 1 6 12 

4 6 2 8 16 

5 7 2 11 20 

6 6 2 9 17 

7 6 1 9 16 

8 4 1 7 12 

9 3 0 5 8 



Type of Plant 

Traffic 

Table 12.2 Daily Trip Generation Construction: Phase 2 

Vehicle Type Daily Trips (One-way) 

Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Total 

Site deliveries Arctic or rigid 2 1 1 4 

BOC Contractor Car or light van 16 18 22 56 

Total Trips 18 19 23 60 

12.28 The total trip generation for the duration of the nine month construction period has been estimated 

by combining trip generation figures for Phase 1 with Phase 2 (see Table 12.3). 

Table 12.3 Daily Trip Generation Construction Period (Overall) 

Month Phase 1 Phase 2 Total 

Cars/ LGVs HGVs Cars/LGVs HGVs All Vehicles 

1 5 6 - - 11 

2 6 7 - - 13 

3 6 6 - - 12 

4 8 8 - - 16 

5 9 11 - - 20 

6 8 9 - - 17 

7 7 9 16 2 34 

8 5 7 18 1 31 

9 3 5 22 1 31 

12.29 The maximum number of daily trips is predicted to occur during month 7 when there will be 34 

one-way daily trips, of which 23 would be car/ light van trips and 11 would be HGV movements. 

12.30 It is understood that there will be no abnormal loads brought to the site by road during 

construction of the facility. 

Operational Staff Numbers and Shift Patterns 

12.31 Standard operating hours are 0600 to 2200 hours Monday to Friday. The acetylene facility will 

employ between 15 and 20 permanent staff. One of these will work a standard day, (for example 

from 0830 to 1700 hours); the remaining staff will be split across two day shifts (0600 to 1400 

hours and 1400 to 2200 hours). 

Operational Vehicle Movements 

12.32 In addition to staff arriving and leaving the site, it is expected that there will be two maintenance 

trips per month. In addition, the movements outlined in Table 12.4 are anticipated. 



Table 12.4 Operational Vehicle Movements 

Activity Frequency of Activity 

Collection of acetylene cylinders 6 deliveries/ collections per day 

Deliveries of calcium carbide 2 deliveries per week 

Delivery of sodium hydroxide/ sulphuric acid 1 delivery per fortnight 

Collection of lime by-product 3 collections per day 

Collection of scrubber effluent for disposal 1 collection per month 

Delivery of acetone nitrogen 1 delivery per month 

Delivery of biocide and corrosion inhibitor 1 delivery per month 

Collection of unreacted carbide and coke 2 collections per week 

Collection of scrap cylinders 2 collections per annum 

Collection of cooling tower waste water 1 collection per annum 

12.33 The peak hour trip generation figures once the site is operational are provided in Table 12.5. An 

explanation of how these figures have been derived is provided in the TS (Appendix 12A). 

Table 12.5 Peak Hour Trip Generation Operational Phase 

Vehicle Type AM Peak PM Peak 

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures 

Cars Light vans 1 0 0 1 

HGVs 8 8 8 8 

Total 9 8 8 9 


12.34 The following criteria will be applied when assessing the magnitude of effects of the Project: 

� high significant increases in traffic volumes (+30%) and percentage of HGVs, and or 

dangerous increases in traffic speeds; 

� moderate increases in traffic volumes and percentage of HGVs in excess of 10%; 

� minor increases in traffic volume and percentage of HGVs of up to 10%, and 

� negligible no real increase in traffic volume and percentage of HGV, and no real change in 

traffic speeds. 

12.35 The identification of receptors and the level of sensitivity to traffic flow changes are discussed in 

the following section, but the significance of impacts will be judged according to the magnitude of 

effects and the sensitivity of receptors, as shown in Table 12.6. 



Sensitivity 

of Receptor 

Table 12.6 Significance of Impacts 

Magnitude 

High Medium Low Negligible 

High Major Moderate Moderate Minor Not significant 

Medium Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Not significant 

Low Moderate Minor Minor Not significant Not significant 


12.36 This section provides a baseline description of the local environment, receptors and their 

sensitivity. The assessment area comprises of Hobson Way, Kiln Lane, the A1173 and the A180. 

Baseline Surveys 

12.37 Nationwide Data Collection was commissioned to undertake MCCs, ATCs and queue length 

surveys during May 2011. The MCC and queue length surveys were undertaken on Tuesday 10 th 

May encompassing the AM and PM periods 07:00 to 10:00 and 15:30 to 18:30 respectively. The 

ATC surveys were carried out between Friday 6 th May and Tuesday 24 th May. 

12.38 MCCs and queue length surveys were undertaken at the following six sites across the immediate 

local highway network: 

� junction 1 A180 A1173; 

� junction 2 A1173 Kiln Lane; 

� junction 3 Kiln Lane North Moss Lane Trondheim Way; 

� junction 4 Kiln Lane Laporte Road Hobson Way; 

� junction 5 Hobson Way Existing BOC Access; and 

� junction 6 Hobson Way South Marsh Road. 

12.39 The three ATCs were placed at the following locations: 

� Hobson Way; 

� Kiln Lane; and 

� the A1173 

12.40 The TRADS system (the online traffic information database supplied by the HA) was used to 

obtain traffic flow information for the A180 as follows: 

� A180 (westbound) Site 8852/1; and 

� A180 (eastbound) Site 8851/1. 

Road Safety 

12.41 Accidents occurring along the A180, the A1173, Kiln Lane as well as Hobson Way over the three 

year period from 1 st March 2007 to 28 th February 2011 are illustrated in Table 12.7, Table 12.8 

and Table 12.9 respectively. 



Table 12.7 Number of Accidents A180 (Route A) 

Location Number of Casualties Number of 

Accidents 

Slight Serious Fatal Total 

A180 (westbound) 3 0 0 3 2 

A180 (eastbound) 3 0 0 3 1 

Total 6 0 0 6 3 

Table 12.8 Number of Accidents A1173 (Route B) 


Accidents 


A1173 (between the A180 and Kiln 

Lane) 

1 1 0 2 2 

A1173 Kiln Lane roundabout 1 0 0 1 1 

Total 2 1 0 3 3 

Table 12.9 Number of Accidents Kiln Lane Hobson Way (Route C) 


Accidents 


Kiln Lane 3 0 0 3 3 

Kiln Lane Hobson Way roundabout 1 0 0 1 1 

Hobson Way 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 4 0 0 4 4 

12.42 The calculated accident rate for the study area, as compared against the national average 

accident rate, for each designated road type is provided in Table 12.10. 

Table 12.10 Comparison to National Average Accident Rates 

Route Name Calculated 

Accident Rate 

(PIA/mvkm) a 

National Average 

Accident Rate 

(PIA/mvkm) 

DMRB Road Type 

Classification 

A180 (westbound) 0.100 0.131 Modern D2 Roads with 

HS (50 60 70 mph) 

A180 (eastbound) 0.050 0.131 Modern D2 Roads with 

HS (50 60 70 mph) 

A1173 0.104 0.293 Modern S2 Roads (50 

60 70 mph) 

Kiln Lane Hobson Way 0.209 0.844 Other S2 Roads (30 40 

mph) 

Table Notes: 

a personal injury accidents (PIA) per million vehicle kilometres (mvkm) 



12.43 The calculated accident rates for all routes are lower than the national average, and therefore 

based on this information the surrounding highway network does not appear to have any inherent 

safety concerns. 

12.44 The severity ratio of accidents is calculated using the equation below: 

12.45 During the three year period, Routes A and C did not experience any serious or fatal accidents 

and, as such, the severity ratio is 0. There was however one serious accident on Route B, 

therefore the severity ratio is 0.33. 

Highway Network and Receptors 

Overview 

12.46 The proposed development would be located on land adjacent to the existing BOC facility that is 

located off Hobson Way, near Immingham. The site is well served by the existing highway 

infrastructure as shown in Figure 12.1 overleaf. The site is connected to the strategic road 

network, the A180, either via Kiln Lane to the north west or South Marsh Road to the south east; 

both roads link on to the A1173 before joining the A180. 

Figure 12.1 Road Network in Vicinity of Development Site 



Hobson Way 

12.47 Hobson Way is a single carriageway road which is subject to a 40 mph speed limit. 

Kiln Lane 

12.48 Kiln Lane is a single carriageway road which is subject to a 40 mph speed limit. There is also a 

signalised level crossing part way along Kiln Lane which passes over the Grimsby Light Railway 

Line. 

A1173 

12.49 The A1173, which connects through to the A180 via a grade separated roundabout, is a single 

carriageway road subject to the national speed limit. 

A180 

12.50 The A180 (T) is a two lane dual carriageway trunk road managed by the HA, and is subject to the 

national speed limit i.e. 70 mph. The A180 (T) is the principal highway in the local area. It joins the 

A16 to the east on the outskirts of Grimsby and the A15 and M180 to the west in the vicinity of 

Scunthorpe. 

Sensitivity of Receptors 

12.51 Table 12.11 presents the receptors to be used in the transport assessment, and their level of 

sensitivity. 

Table 12.11 Identification of Receptors 

Location Sensitivity Justification 

Hobson Way Low Single-carriageway road through predominantly 

industrial areas and carrying high numbers of HGVs. 

Kiln Lane Low Single-carriageway road through predominantly 


A1173 Low Single-carriageway road through predominantly 


A180 (southbound) Low Dual-carriageway road carrying high numbers of HGVs. 

A180 (northbound) Low Dual-carriageway road carrying high numbers of HGVs. 

Sustainable Modes of Travel 

12.52 There is no formal cycling infrastructure within the vicinity of the site, although there are a number 

of paved footways and public bridleways which connect Hobson Way to the residential areas of 

Stallingborough and Immingham. 

12.53 A bridleway, bridleway 34, runs along two of the boundaries of the field adjacent to Hobson Way 

and South Marsh Road, and there is also a public footpath, footpath 35, that runs from the corner 

of Hobson Way and South Marsh Road to the Humber Estuary. 

12.54 A lit footway lines the western side of Hobson Way in the vicinity of the site and connects into a 

wider network of footways on the local highway network. 

12.55 There are no bus services operating in the immediate vicinity of the development site. The closest 

services are the 45 45M and 46 which operate along Kiln Lane and Laporte Road near 

Immingham. The coverage and frequency of these services are included within Table 12.12. It is 

noted that these services are not within an acceptable walking distance of the development site. 



Service 

Number 

Table 12.12 Bus Service Details 

Service Coverage Frequency of Service 

45 45M Immingham Grimsby Cleethorpes (45M 

serves the Immingham MIC Plant on a 

limited frequency) 

Every 20-30 mins Mon to Sat 

Every 60 mins on Sun 

46 Immingham Grimsby Cleethorpes Every 60 mins during the evening 

Mon to Sat and all day on Sun 

12.56 Discussions with the NELC Transport Accessibility Officer also highlighted that there is a Council 

run demand responsive service called ‘Phone ‘n’ Ride’ that operates in the area surrounding the 

development. It was also advised during the correspondence with the Transport Accessibility 

Officer that the proposed Dissolved Acetylene facility could make a small contribution towards the 

service in order to maintain continued levels of accessibility. 

12.57 The closest passenger rail facilities to the proposed development are located in Stallingborough. 

Stallingborough station is located on the main Grimsby Line that connects Barton-on-Humber in 

the west to Grimsby and Cleethorpes in the east. The Grimsby Line then connects to a number of 

other destinations including Lincoln and Manchester Piccadilly. It is understood that an average of 

40 passenger services operate on the Grimsby line throughout the day from Grimsby Town. 

12.58 In addition to the main passenger line, the nearby Grimsby Light Railway Line also provides the 

potential for the movement of freight to and from the Port of Immingham. The line connects to the 

main Grimsby Line to the west of Immingham at Ulceby railway station and to the east of Great 

Cotes Railway Station (located on the western outskirts of Grimsby). Part of the line forms the 

south west boundary of the field that houses the proposed development area. The line is 

operational but is not currently used. 

12.59 Humberside Airport, which is located approximately 13 km to the west of the proposed 

development, provides services for both passenger and freight movements. Both scheduled and 

chartered passenger services are catered for, with these dominating the type of travel that passes 

through the airport. 

Committed Developments 

12.60 Initially, it was discussed with NELC at the scoping meeting on the 8 th February 2011 that there 

are four developments that would need to be treated as ‘committed developments’ for the 

transport assessment namely: 

� Abengoa Bio-ethanol Plant (DC/1147/10/IMM); 

� RWE Npower Renewables Bio-Power Fuel Electricity Generated Station (DC/303/07/IMM); 

� Magna Holdings (DC/730/07/IMM); and 

� ABP B1, B2 and B8 industrial park with ancillary A3, A4 and A5 units (DC/511/10/IMM). 

12.61 Since this meeting there have been further discussions between Atkins and NELC. As a result of 

these a definitive list of committed developments has been compiled. This encompassed an 

additional three committed developments, as listed below: 

� C.A.T.C.H Training Centre (DC/1114/09/IMM); 

� Aeolian Stallingborough Ltd: Two 3 MW Wind Turbines (DC/827/08/IMM); and 

� Vireol PLC: Bio-ethanol Production Facility (DC/225/10/WOL). 



12.62 Committed developments were then considered in the context of the construction and operational 

phases of the development in order to understand the potential for cumulative impacts on the local 

highway network. Further details on the vehicular trip rates generated by the committed 

developments are provided within the TS (Appendix 12A). Table 12.13 summarises which 

committed developments have been given consideration within the context of the TS and this 

Chapter of the ES. 

Planning 

Reference 

DC/1147/10/IMM 

Abengoa 

DC/303/07/IMM 

RWE 

DC/730/07/IMM 

Magna Holdings 

DC/511/10/IMM 

ABP 

DC/827/08/IMM 

Aeolian 

DC/1114/09/IMM 

C.A.T.C.H 

DC/225/10/WOL 

Vireol 

Table 12.13 Committed Developments 

Construction Reason for 

Inclusion 

Exclusion 

x Considered 

highly unlikely 

that construction 

will commence 

during the same 

To be Considered During: 

Operation Reason for Inclusion 

Exclusion 

� Will be operational at 

the same time as BOC 

x � Will be operational at 

the same time as BOC 

x 

x 

time period as 

BOC 

development 

x 

x 

Only an outline planning 

application and, as 

such, development 

details would not allow 

for quantification of 

impacts 

x x Operational traffic for 

two wind turbines will be 

negligible. 

� End of 

construction 

period likely to 

coincide with 

BOC 

construction 

phase 

� Construction 

could possibly 

start during the 

BOC 

construction 

phase 

x Nature of development 

means that there is 

unlikely to be 

cumulative impacts 

� Could be operational at 

the same time as BOC. 

12.63 Further detail in relation to committed developments (including a location plan) and the 

requirement to considered cumulative impacts is provided in Chapter 16. 




12.64 This section identifies the potential impacts of the construction and operational phases of the 


Construction 

Pedestrian and Cyclist Delay and Amenity 

12.65 Changes in the volume, composition, or speed of traffic may affect the ability of people to cross 

roads. However in general, increases in traffic levels are unlikely to lead to greater increases in 

delay for pedestrians and cyclists as, the nature of the site (i.e. being remote) means that these 

modes of transport are low. Similar factors affect the pleasantness of a journey for pedestrians 

and cyclists. The construction phase of the facility and the increase in vehicle movements does 

however have the potential to impact on the amenity of pedestrian and cyclists’ journeys. 

Accidents and Safety 

12.66 The analysis of accident data (as provided in the ‘Baseline Description’ Section) demonstrates 

that there are no existing accident issues on the surrounding highway network. However, an 

increase in vehicles generated by the scheme has the potential to increase the number of 

personal injury and collision accidents, and to present a threat to road safety. 

Driver Delay 

12.67 The construction phase could potentially increase driver delay due to the increased volume of 

traffic on local roads; including the increased composition of HGVs, however due to the low 

volume of predicted traffic it is believed that the increase in delay will be minimal. 

Operation 

12.68 The operational phase of the facility could potentially result in the same impacts that have been 

described above for the construction phase. 


Introduction 

12.69 This section provides an assessment of the significance of the transport impacts on the 

environment. The magnitude of impacts has been based on quantitative analysis of traffic flow 

changes. 

12.70 The assessment of significance has been undertaken following consideration of quantitative flow 

changes and the qualitative impact on receptors, as set out in within the Assessment Criteria 

Section of this Chapter. 

Construction 

Magnitude of Effects 

12.71 The magnitude of the effect that construction vehicles are predicted to have on the specified study 

area is established in Table 12.14. Calculations have been based on the annualised number of 

construction vehicles predicted to occur during the nine month construction period, compared to 

the annualised baseline survey information. 



Scenario 

Table 12.14 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Flows Construction Peak (2012) 

Hobson Way Kiln Lane A1173 A180 (southbound) A180 (northbound) 

All Vehicles 

HGVs 

All Vehicles 

Base Traffic Flows 1,173 301 2,689 802 12,553 1,863 31,518 3,287 23,016 3,598 

Committed Development Flows 0 0 0 0 10 4 638 103 632 101 

DA Facility Development Flows 62 22 62 22 51 22 37 16 13 6 

Base plus Committed 1,173 301 2,689 802 12,563 1,867 32,156 3,389 23,648 3,699 

Base plus Committed plus Development 1,236 323 2,752 824 12,614 1,889 32,193 3,406 23,662 3,705 

Percentage Increase on Baseline 5.28% 7.31% 2.30% 2.74% 0.40% 1.18% 0.11% 0.47% 0.05% 0.16% 

Magnitude of Impact Low Low Negligible Negligible Negligible 


HGVs 

All Vehicles 

HGVs 

All Vehicles 

HGVs 

All Vehicles 

HGVs



12.72 Whilst there will be an increase in the volume of traffic using the designated route, the increase is 

not significant (i.e. less than a 30% increase) and is therefore unlikely to have any effect on the 

level of delay experienced by pedestrians and cyclists. 


12.73 As the traffic speeds of vehicles accessing the site during the construction phase are not expected 

to vary from baseline traffic speeds, there is not expected to be any associated increase in 

accidents resulting from speeding. The baseline analysis of accident records demonstrated that 

there are no significant accident clusters in the vicinity of the site, and therefore there is no reason 

to consider that the incidence or seriousness of accidents will be affected. 

Driver Delay 



level of delay experienced by other road users. 

Significance of Impacts during Construction 

12.75 The significance of the construction period on the local highway network has been determined in 

accordance with the definitions in Table 12.6. A summary of the results of this process is 

presented in Table 12.15. 

Table 12.15 Significance of Impacts Construction Peak (2012) 

Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude 

Hobson Way Low Moderate 

Minor 

Kiln Lane Low Moderate 

Minor 

A1173 Low Moderate 

Minor 

A180 (southbound) Low Moderate 

Minor 

A180 (northbound) Low Moderate 

Minor 


Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

12.76 Table 12.15 shows that there would be no significant impacts on the study area during the 

construction period. 

Operation 

Magnitude of Effects 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

12.77 The magnitude of the effect that vehicles are predicted to have during the operational phase on 

the specified study area is established in Table 12.16. Calculations have been based on the 

annualised number of operational vehicles predicted to occur during the year of opening, 

compared to the annualised baseline survey information plus nearby committed development 

traffic. 



Scenario 

Table 12.16 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Flows Operational Peak, Opening Year (2012) 

All Vehicles 

Hobson Way Kiln Lane A1173 A180 (southbound) A180 (northbound) 

HGVs 

All Vehicles 


HGVs 

Base Traffic Flows 1,173 301 2,689 802 12,553 1,863 31,518 3,287 23,016 3,598 

Committed Development Flows 803 431 789 431 686 431 993 556 561 295 

DA Facility Development Flows 71 34 71 34 60 34 45 26 15 8 

Base plus Committed 1,977 732 3,478 1,233 13,239 2,294 32,511 3,843 23,577 3,893 

Base plus Committed plus 

Development 

All Vehicles 

2,047 766 3,549 1,267 13,299 2,328 32,556 3,869 23,592 3,901 

Percentage Increase on Baseline 3.58% 4.64% 2.03% 2.76% 0.45% 1.48% 0.14% 0.68% 0.06% 0.21% 

Magnitude of Impact Low Low Negligible Negligible Negligible 

HGVs 

All Vehicles 

HGVs 

All Vehicles 

HGVs





level of delay experienced by pedestrians and cyclists. 


12.79 As the traffic speeds of vehicles accessing the site during the operational phase are not expected 

to vary from baseline traffic speeds, there is not expected to be any associated increase in 

accidents resulting from speeding. The baseline analysis of accident records demonstrated that 

there are no significant accident clusters in the vicinity of the site, and therefore there is no reason 

to consider that the incidence or seriousness of accidents will be affected. 

Driver Delay 



level of delay experienced by other road users. 

Significance of Impacts during Construction 

12.81 The significance of the construction period on the local highway network has been determined in 

accordance with the definitions in Table 12.6. A summary of the results of this process is 

presented in Table 12.17. 

Table 12.17 Significance of Impacts Operational Peak, Opening Year (2012) 

Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude 

Hobson Way Low Moderate 

Minor 

Kiln Lane Low Moderate 

Minor 

A1173 Low Moderate 

Minor 

A180 (southbound) Low Moderate 

Minor 

A180 (northbound) Low Moderate 

Minor 


Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Minor Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

Not 

Significant 

12.82 Table 12.17 shows that there is no significant impact during the operational period for all roads 

within the study area. 


12.82.1 This chapter of the ES has identified that the transport impact of the development on the 

surrounding highway network is minimal, and therefore as no significant adverse impacts have 

been identified, no mitigation measures are proposed. 

12.83 Nonetheless, it is noted that a framework CTMP and FMP have been produced (see Annex 12) in 

order to identify and minimise the predicted low volume of construction traffic as well as HGVs 

once the site is fully operational. 



Summary 

12.84 The significance of the key environmental impacts identified in the study area during the 

construction and operational phases are: 

� Hobson Way No Significant Effect; 

� Kiln Lane No Significant Effect; 

� the A1173 No Significant Effect; and 

� the A180 No Significant Effect. 

12.85 Notwithstanding this, a framework CTMP and FMP have been prepared (see Annex 12). As the 

precise nature of construction works and programming will be determined following the 

appointment the Construction Contractor, the framework CTMP is an organic document that will 

be updated as new information becomes available. The framework FMP has been prepared to 

provide potential measures to reduce freight on the road network (see Appendix 12A). Subject to 

granting of Planning Consent (and prior to the start of operations on site) the FMP will be updated 

in line with prevailing good practice. 



13. Landscape and Visual 

Introduction 

13.1 This Chapter presents the landscape and visual assessment for the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 

It includes the relevant legislation and policy, assessment methodology and significance criteria, 

baseline description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment, mitigation measures, 

residual impact assessment and recommendations. The potential for cumulative and incombination 

impacts is discussed in Chapter 16. 

13.2 The location of the development field is shown on Figure 1.2. There are minimal landscape 

features present on the site, which is predominantly arable. There are no TPOs associated with 

the development area. In addition, there are no established hedgerows on the site; however there 

are some patches of scattered scrub along the railway line and along Middle Drain. 


(e.g. chemical processing and manufacturing). There are a number of existing works, industrial 

estates, and commercial premises within 1 km of the proposed acetylene facility. Within the 

surrounding landscape, vertical manmade structures such as pylons, cooling towers and stacks 

dominate the skyline. 

13.4 The nearest residential dwelling is a cottage (Poplar Farm) approximately 650 m to the south west 

of the proposed development site, on South Marsh Road (see Figure 11.1). A bridleway runs 

along two of the boundaries of the field (Hobson Way and South Marsh Road) and there is a 

public footpath that runs from the corner of Hobson Way and South Marsh Road to the Humber 

Estuary. 

13.5 A full description of the site and its surroundings is provided in Chapter 2. Site layout and 

appearance is described in more detail in Chapter 3 (see also Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3). 


Criteria 


13.6 General protection is afforded to landscapes that are designated for their exceptional quality in 

policies set out in PPS 7. However, the Dissolved Acetylene Project is not located in an area 

designated for its landscape quality and the local plan (Policy GEN3: Development and 

Landscaping) provides the planning context for the development. 

13.7 GEN 3 requires applicants to prepare a landscaping scheme, which is expected to: 

� make use of hard and soft landscaping as appropriate; 

� make use of existing features such as ponds, hedgerows, trees and walls; 

� be designed for minimum maintenance; and 

� be established at an early stage in the site’s development. 

13.8 In addition, several PPSs require careful attention to be paid to the design of development, citing 

integration and enhancement of various aspects of the built and natural environment as the 

rationale. Further details of relevant planning policies at national, regional and local levels are 

discussed in Chapter 4 and are summarised in Appendix 4A. The conformity of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project with plans and policies is discussed in Chapter 17. 



Consultation 

13.9 Consultations with NELC were undertaken in May 2011 to confirm that a study area of 5 km for 

the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was applicable for this Project 89 and to confirm the 

presence of any TPOs, Conservation Areas, Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) and sensitive 

receptors. 



development (Chapter 3) and consideration of the Project details as illustrated on the following 

drawings: 

� AL (20) 010 P1 Site Plan Sheet 1; 

� AL (20) 011 P1 Site Plan Sheet 2; 

� AL (20) 013 P1 Site Plan Overall; 

� AL (20) 014 P1 Building and Equipment Heights; 

� AL (20) 015 P1 Proposed Site Levels; 

� AL (20) 020 D Amenity Building; Plans, Elevations and Section; 

� AL (20) 021 C Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building: Plans, Elevations and Section; 

� AL (20) 022 C Generator Building; Plans, Elevations and Section; 

� AL (20) 023 C Cylinder Exam Shop Building; Plans, Elevations and Section; 

� AL (20) 030 A Site Section 1; 

� AL (20) 031 A Site Section 2; 

� AL (20) 032 A Site Section 3; and 

� AL (20) 033 A Site Section 4. 

13.11 A desk study has been undertaken and this included a search for landscape character 

assessments. Landscape designations on a national, regional and local basis were made using 

both MAGIC 67 and relevant planning policy documents. 

13.12 Information in respect of PRoWs has also been obtained from OS Explorer Maps 284 and 292 

(detailed below) and data supplied by NELC 90 . 

13.13 Reference has been made to the following Ordnance Survey (OS) Explorer Maps: 

� 284 Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Immingham (2006); ISBN 9780319238257; and 

� 292 Withernsea and Spurn Head (2008); ISBN 9780319238295. 

13.14 Aerial photographs were also reviewed as part of the assessment to identify changes in land 

cover and also potential screening by vegetation features. 

13.15 ZTV modelling has been undertaken using Geographical Information System (GIS) software to 

establish the extent of the potential visibility of the Project (this is discussed further in subsequent 

Sections and in Appendix 13A). 



13.16 A field survey was undertaken by experienced Chartered Landscape Architects to verify and 

supplement the desk study and ZTV modelling. Site survey work was carried out during June 

2011. The survey further identified key PRoW, residential properties, public highways and other 

public amenity areas that contribute to the landscape character of the area, or that would have 

potential views of the development. Representative photographs were taken during the site visits. 

The photographs were taken with a digital camera with an equivalent of a 50 mm lens at a height 

of approximately 1.6 m. These are presented as a series of viewpoints (see Appendix 13B) and 

have been used for illustrative purposes for both the landscape and visual assessment. 


Overview 

13.17 The approach for the landscape and visual impact assessment is based on a methodology 

developed in accordance with guidance set out in the Landscape Institute and the Institute of 

Environmental Management Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 91 . 

Reference was also made to Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and 

Scotland 92 , prepared on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) in 

2002. 

13.18 The assessment considers potential impacts on landscape character and visual receptors that 

may arise as a result of the Dissolved Acetylene Project. Potential impacts have been considered 

for the construction and operational phases and for daytime and night time. 

13.19 To assist with the assessment, Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) modelling has been undertaken 

to establish the extent of the potential visibility of the Project. ZTVs were calculated for the overall 

facilities and for the main elements xxi of the Project in order to provide an understanding of the 

extent and degree of intervisibility between the proposed Project and receptors within the study 

area (see Figures 13A.1 to 13A.10 in Appendix 13A). 

13.20 The ZTV forms a useful tool in identifying areas of the landscape from which views of the 

development might be experienced. It is however theoretical and views may not be possible from 

all points illustrated by the ZTV. Furthermore, where views are available these may only include a 

part of the development (e.g. upper sections of new buildings). The ZTV is included as an 

illustrative tool to help refine the study area and also to support the use of aerial photos, OS 

mapping, site survey visits and site survey photography. 

13.21 Full details of the methodology used for the production of ZTV modelling are contained within 

Appendix 13A. 

13.22 In order to make an assessment of the significance of an impact, the sensitivity of the receptor has 

been determined and the magnitude of the effect has been evaluated (see following Section on 

Assessment Criteria). These two factors are then combined (Table 13.2) to derive the likely 

significance of an impact. 

Landscape Character 

13.23 Landscape impacts are those that relate to the effects of the Project upon the physical 

characteristics or components of the landscape (which together form the character of the 

landscape). 

xxi Amenity Building; Generator Building, Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building, Cylinder Examination Shop, Deluge Tanks; Lime Storage 

Tank and vents on the top of the Generator Building, Cylinder and Bundle Filling Building and Cylinder Examination Shop. 



13.24 The scale or magnitude of the impact on the landscape is based upon consideration of the 

following elements: 

� nature of the change effect; 

� spatial extent of the area affected (subject to the introduction or removal or alteration of 

landscape elements); 

� degree to which the change effect is compatible with the existing landscape character (i.e. 

whether it is consistent with, detracts from or enhances the existing landscape); and 

� duration of the effects. 

13.25 These elements can largely be quantified, with more weight generally given to effects that are 

greater in scale, longer term and irreversible. 

13.26 The establishment of the significance of an impact upon a landscape resource is the classification 

of a receiving landscape’s ability to accommodate change effects (sensitivity) as a result of a 

development 91 . 

Visual Receptors 

13.27 Visual impacts relate to the changes /effects arising from the development to the individual 

receptor’s view of that landscape. The following are considered as part of the assessment of 

potential impacts: 

� the distance of the viewpoint from the proposed site; 

� the scale and degree of the proposed change effect in terms of loss addition and also in 

composition (the greater the portion of the view that would be taken up by the proposed 

feature the greater the impact); 

� the degree of contrast or integration of the proposed development with features within the 

current landscape; 

� the compatibility of the development with the existing view; 

� the elevation of the proposed Project element from the viewpoint (if the proposed element 

would be viewed against the sky then generally the impact would be greater than if the 

feature would be viewed against a more solid backdrop such as hillsides, woodland or other 

built development); and 

� the duration of any effects. 

13.28 The sensitivity of visual receptors in principally based on the following; 

� the receptor’s function whilst exposed to the view; 

� the degree of exposure to the view; and 

� the period of exposure to the view (for example transient receptors i.e. vehicles, walkers and 

cyclists will be exposed to a view only for the period of time for which they are travelling along 

the route; the greater the speed at which the receptor is travelling the lower the opportunity 

for the viewer to experience and perceive an effect change). 

Limitations of Assessment 

13.29 This assessment is based on site survey work from a representative and diverse range of publicly 

accessible receptors. Every effort has been made to visit sensitive receptors and viewpoints within 

the study area. However it was not considered necessary to visit all those locations from which the 

Project may be visible and therefore a representative selection has been taken and studied (which 

is in accordance with standard practice). 



13.30 Where comments have been made in relation to receptors located on private land, such as 

residential properties, these are based on professional judgement as to the extent and nature of 

what could be viewed from the property. Where possible the site survey work included visiting 

areas as close to any private receptors as possible. The judgements also draw on the review and 

understanding of the desk study. 

13.31 Landscape character is a dynamic and transitional concept; NELC’s assessment was completed 

in 2010 and some conditions may have changed, although these changes are unlikely to be 

significant. 

13.32 Owing to timing constraints, the site survey work has been undertaken during the summer months 

(June 2011), when vegetation is in leaf and the level of screening is at its greatest. However, 

judgements on magnitude and significance have taken this into account as an integral part of the 

assessment and the assessment has considered predicted changes brought about to views 

during the winter months, when screening would be reduced. 

13.33 The ZTV modelling is based on what would be visible from a height of 1.6 m 93 . The ZTVs indicate 

the potential extent of visibility of specific components of the development, but do not indicate 

whether all or part of a structure would be visible. This judgement has been made by experienced 

Landscape Architects based on desk study information and field study observations. 


Receptor Sensitivity 

13.34 An assessment of the receptor sensitivity value within the study area has been determined using 

the criteria in Table 13.1. 

Landscape 

and Visual 

Sensitivity 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Table 13.1 Landscape and Visual Receptor Sensitivity 

Criteria 

Description Example 

� high importance and rarity; 

� international scale; and 

� very limited potential for 

substitution. 

� medium importance and rarity; 

� national scale; and 

� limited potential for 

substitution. 

� medium to low importance and 

rarity; 

� regional scale; and 

� limited potential for 

substitution. 

� internationally or nationally recognised 

designations (e.g.: World Heritage Sites, 

National Parks and Area of Outstanding 

Natural Beauty (AONB)); and 

� long distance or national recreation 

routes. 

� nationally and regionally recognised site 

(e.g. part of National Park or AONB); 

� all (or great majority) of other nonstatutory 

landscape designated areas; 

� routes used for recreational purposes; 

� users of footpaths and footpaths used for 

recreation purposes; 

� residential properties. 

� regionally and locally recognised land 

(e.g. local landscape designation area); 

� all or great majority of area of local 

landscape importance; and 

� users of recreational locations (whose 

main objective is not the appreciation of 

views achievable). 



Landscape 

and Visual 

Sensitivity 

Minimal 

Criteria 

Description Example 

� low importance and rarity; and 

� local scale. 

Magnitude Classification 

� areas identified as having some 

redeeming features and or features 

identified for improvement; 

� properties used for commercial and 

industrial uses; and 

� users whose attention is focused on work 

or other activity. 

13.35 Changes to the baseline can be either adverse or beneficial. The magnitude of that change (or 

effect) has been classified using the following criteria: 

� major (adverse) total loss of, or a major alteration to key elements of the baseline (i.e. predevelopment) 

landscape or view and or introduction of elements considered to be totally 

uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape character of current 

setting. The overall character of the scene would be changed. Development would form a 

dominant and immediately apparent part of the scene; 

� moderate (adverse) partial loss of, or alteration to one or more key elements of the baseline 

landscape or view and or introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not 

necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes 

of the receiving landscape. Development would form a visible and recognisable new element 

within the scene and would be readily noticed by the observer; 

� minor (adverse) minor loss of or alteration to one key element of the baseline landscape or 

view and or introduction of elements that may not be considered uncharacteristic when set 

within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Development would be a minor component of 

the wider view and scarcely appreciated or missed by the observer, awareness of the 

proposals would not have a marked effect on the view; 

� negligible (adverse) very minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements of the baseline 

landscape or view and or introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic with the 

surrounding landscape. No part of the scheme would be discernable or the changes would 

be balanced within the view; 

� major (beneficial) large scale or major improvement restoration of key elements; 

� moderate (beneficial) partial improvement addition of one or more key elements; 

� minor (beneficial) minor improvement addition of one key element; and 

� negligible (beneficial) very minor improvement of one or more elements; change would be 

barely perceivable. 

Significance of Impact 

13.36 The significance of potential impacts is assessed by combining the value sensitivity of the asset or 

receptor and the anticipated magnitude of the effect change. Table 13.2 shows the outcomes of 

these combinations. Table 13.2 is not prescriptive and a degree of professional judgement is 

required when assigning a level if significance to an impact. 



Sensitivity 

Table 13.2 Impact Significance Matrix 

High Neutral Slight Slight Moderate Moderate Large 

Medium Neutral Slight Slight Slight Moderate Moderate 

Low Neutral Neutral Slight Slight Slight /Moderate 

Minimal Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight Neutral Slight 


Introduction 

Negligible Minor Moderate Major 

Magnitude of Effect 

13.37 As confirmed by NELC, a study area with a 5 km radius from the centre of the development site 

has been considered for this assessment. The desk study 94 has identified that no landscape 

designations are applicable to the site or study area. It has been confirmed in consultations with 

NELC that there are no TPOs 89 within or immediately adjacent to the proposed site. It was also 

confirmed that the site does not lie within a Conservation Area (as designated within the Local 

Plan). There are minimal landscape features present on the site. 

Landscape 

National Landscape Character Areas 

13.38 The Character of England’s Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features map produced in 2005 by 

NE, with support from English Heritage, is an update to that produced by the Countryside 

Commission in 1996. This map subdivides England into 159 National Character Areas (NCAs). It 

provides a picture of the differences in landscape character at the national scale. 

13.39 Two NCAs relate to the study area; NCA 41 The Humber Estuary and NCA 42 Lincolnshire 

Coasts and Marshes 95 . 

13.40 The proposed Project site lies within NCA 41 The Humber Estuary landscape character area. This 

NCA covers the urban areas of Grimsby and also extends across the Humber Estuary. The 

characterising features are identified as “the expansive, flat and low-lying estuarine landscape 

which is dominated by the ever changing Humber. Surrounding the Humber there is a terrestrial 

landscape of very low-lying, flat farmland combined with urban and industrial development”. 

Further details on the key characteristics as included in Table 13.3. 



Table 13.3 NCA 41 Key Characteristics 

Key Characteristics of NCA 41 The Humber Estuary 95 

� Expansive, flat, low-lying, sometimes remote estuarine landscape dominated by the 

Humber and with an ever changing character due to tidal influences. 

� Dominance of sky and open views over the Estuary, mudflats and salt marshes, where 

flood embankments allow. 

� A predominantly reclaimed former inter-tidal landscape of rectilinear fields with 

boundaries formed by dykes, drains and embankments. 

� A landscape of predominantly arable farming with some conspicuous areas of market 

gardening, particularly around Hull. 

� Internationally important coastal mudflats and other wetland and coastal habitats, 

including the Spurn peninsula. 

� Urban and industrial influences especially around Hull and on the south bank. 

13.41 The southern and south western limits of the study area (those areas extending to the south of the 

A180) are covered by NCA 42 Lincolnshire Coasts and Marshes 95 . This coastal area is bounded 

by the mouth of the Humber Estuary and the North Sea and stretches from Grimsby in the north to 

the coastline of Gibraltar Point at the edge of the Wash. The western boundary is marked by the 

edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds. In contrast to NCA 41, this area is described as being a more 

enclosed landscape with a greater number of woodland and hedgerows present. Further details 

on the key characteristics as included in Table 13.4. 

Table 13.4 NCA 42 Key Characteristics 

Key characteristics of NCA 42 Lincolnshire Coasts and Marshes 95 

� Flat coastal plain to east, rising gradually in west to more undulating land at foot of the 

Lincolnshire Wolds. 

� Predominantly open, medium-scale agricultural landscape. Tendency to smaller farm 

units with pasture in east. Some remnant areas of ridge and furrow, and mixed arable 

to west. 

� Woodland and hedge cover sparse yet increasing to west at foot of the Wolds. 

� Dispersed settlement pattern through most of area. Concentration of larger settlements 

towards the coast. 

� Land drained to coast by combination of irregular ditches, streams and dykes. Louth 

Canal is major man-made watercourse. 

� Coastline experiencing both erosion and accretion. Major coastal dune systems and 

salt marshes and artificial sea defences along the coastline. Extensive shallow beach. 

� Brick and pantile vernacular architecture to the west. Coastal strip significantly altered 

by discordant 20th century development including seaside resorts, theme parks, 

bungalows, caravan parks and industry. 

Local Landscape Character and Types 

13.42 NELC produced a Landscape Character Assessment in 2010. The aim of this assessment and its 

guidelines is for it to be used as a basis for ensuring landscape considerations to be taken into 

account in the development of LDF policy and in the allocation of sites. It is also stated that it will 

be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. 



13.43 A series of guidelines are included within the Landscape Character Assessment, these have 

varying objectives. Humber Estuary (Industrial Landscape) Guidelines: 2, 7 and 9 have particular 

significance in relation to the Project. 

13.44 In line with the NCA, this local Landscape Character Assessment identifies three Landscape 

Character Areas (LCAs) within the NELC administration area. The Dissolved Acetylene Project 

site lies within LCA A: Humber Estuary. 

13.45 LCA A: Humber Estuary is described as; having a strong sense of the Estuary in terms of it being 

the dominant natural geo-morphological feature; however in terms of visual influence, the 

Estuary’s dominance is limited as a result of the presence of flood alleviation berms. This LCA is 

then broken down into Local Landscape Types (LLTs). 

13.46 The following LLTs are identified within the study area and their boundaries are marked on Figure 

13C.1 (in Appendix 13C): 

� Ai: industrial landscape; 

� Bi: open farmland; and 

� Bii: wooded open farmland. 

13.47 The site lies within LLT Ai: Industrial Landscape (South Humber Bank) and it is stated within the 

published character assessment that the dominance of built elements (such as pylons, industrial 

complexes and infrastructure) combine significantly to degrade the otherwise local rural landscape 

structure. The Character Assessment recognises that the scale of the development within this 

area cannot be practicably screened however landscaping can be designed to soften the local 

scene. It makes suggestion on the implementation of strategies to restore landscape structure, 

including improving the overall impression of the area. 

Overview of Project Site and Immediate Surroundings 

13.48 It is proposed to build and install the acetylene plant within the area outlined in red (‘the 

development area’) as shown on the Location Plan (Figure 1.2). The approximate centre of the 

development area is OS Grid Reference TA 221 134 (NGR 522105 413465). 

13.49 The field that houses the Dissolved Acetylene Project is 9.4 ha in area. The development area 

takes up less than half the field and is approximately 4.2 ha in area. Within this overall footprint of 

the development (i.e. buildings, roads, tanks, hard standing etc.) is estimated at


13.53 There is no formal cycling infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, although there are a number of 

paved footways and public bridleways which connect Hobson Way to the residential areas of 

Stallingborough and Immingham. A bridleway (bridleway 34) runs along two of the boundaries of 

the field (Hobson Way and South Marsh Road) and there is a public footpath (footpath 35) that 

runs from the corner of Hobson Way and South Marsh Road to the Humber Estuary. 

13.54 There are minimal landscape features present on the site, which is predominantly arable (currently 

planted with wheat). There are no TPOs associated with the development area. There are no 

trees on the site that would be affected by the development. There are no established hedgerows 

on the site; however there are some patches of scattered scrub along the railway line and along 

Middle Drain. Adjacent to the north western corner of the site there is an area of dense scrub; 

however, this is not considered to be of any significant value in landscape terms. A defunct and 

unmaintained hedgerow is present on the other side of the railway line. Where present, this 

provides a visual barrier to the existing and proposed site. In landscape terms, the value of this 

hedgerow is associated with its presence as a boundary demarcation only. 

13.55 There are some isolated areas of coppice scattered throughout the wider area. Also present 

throughout the wider area are boundary hedgerows, usually located along drainage ditches as a 

demarcation of the field boundaries. The on site planting of the existing BOC site adds to the 

landscape character and contributes to the landscape structure. Figure 13.1 illustrates the 

effectiveness of the assimilation provided by this planting and the ‘softening’ of the local scene. 

Figure 13.1 Photograph Taken from Hobson Way, Looking Towards the Current BOC Site 

13.56 It has also been noted that the ‘defunct’ hedgerow and scrub vegetation located adjacent to the 

railway line provides some landscape structure. However at some locations along this stretch 

there is the absence of vegetation, as illustrated on Figure 13.2. 



Figure 13.2 Photograph Taken from North Moss Lane Looking Towards the Site 

13.57 The Project site is located within a wider area of large scale dockland and industry. The area 

immediate around the site is agricultural land mixed with high levels of industrial use (e.g. 

chemical processing and manufacturing). Currently, fields are present immediately beyond 

Hobson Way, South Marsh Road and the railway line. However, a Planning Applications have 

been submitted for consent to build a Bio-ethanol plant and two wind turbines in nearby fields (see 

Chapter 16 for further details and a map showing the location of these (and other) proposed 

developments). 

13.58 There are a number of existing works, industrial estates, and commercial premises within one km 

of the proposed acetylene facility. A large industrial plant and power station are located to the 

north west and north east of the site respectively. This major industrial complex includes a number 

of highly prominent features. These vertical man-made structures such as pylons and stacks are 

experienced in many views from the surrounding area and in some instances form the skyline. 

Figure 13.3 illustrates a typical view of the landscape in the vicinity of the Project site. 

13.59 A variety of building and structure forms and finish increases the visual interest and texture of 

Estuarine development. 

13.60 Lighting is present near the proposed site (including that associated with the existing BOC site) 

and is extensive within the locality (primarily associated with the industrial development and 

highway corridors). At night the lighting along the Estuary exerts considerable influence on the 

character of the locality (see Figure 13.4). 



Figure 13.3 Photograph Illustrating Prominent Industrial Features of the Landscape 

Figure 13.4 Night Time View Looking Down Hobson Way Toward the Existing BOC Site 

13.61 The topography is generally very flat within the wider estuary area, with some localised and minor 

variations created by the presence of flood defence features that run along the river’s edge 

(Figure 13.5). Generally as the distance from the estuary increase so do ground levels. At a 

greater distance in a southerly direction the land begins to rise considerably to form the 

Lincolnshire Wolds. 



Figure 13.5 Photograph Taken from the Flood Defence Embankment (West of the Site) 

13.62 A full description of the site and its surroundings is provided in Chapter 2. Site layout and 

appearance is described in more detail in Chapter 3 (see also Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3). 

Landscape Condition 

13.63 Landscape condition is an indication of the physical state of the elements that make up the 

landscape, for instance; trees, hedges, woodlands, crops, field boundaries and walls. It is an 

assessment that considers their appearance, health, life expectancy as well as state of 

management xxii . The assessment also includes reference to policy and designations within 

national and local planning policy and published character assessments. 

13.64 Landscape condition has been considered for the development site and immediate surrounding 

only, as beyond this there are unlikely to be any direct impacts as a result of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project (e.g. removal or loss of landscape features). 

13.65 Observations were made during the site visits and overall, the conditions of the landscape 

elements within the site are considered to be ‘low’. Furthermore the wider landscape character is 

considered to be degraded (as identified by NELCs Landscape Character Assessment, 

undertaken in 2010). 

xxii 

As ecology is considered in its own right as part of this EIA (Chapter 10), landscape condition within this chapter does not include 

the ecology value of the landscape in its condition assessment. 



Views and Visual Receptors 

Overview 

13.66 This Section provides an understanding of the nature and extent of the existing views towards and 

between the site and the surrounding area. It also includes reference to specific locations that 

could be subject to impacts as a result of the scheme. 

13.67 The extent of visibility within the study area varies (as shown on the ZTVs prepared for this 

assessment - see Figures 13A.1 to 13A.10 in Appendix 13A). In some locations extensive 

panoramic views are available due to the flat and low lying nature of the topography. In these 

views vertical man-made features form strong reference points and create a varied skyline. 

13.68 Views along and across the Estuary are also common, with long distance and panoramic views of 

the existing landscape experienced from numerous points along the edge of the Estuary. 

However, at a more local level the large scale of the built structures and the industrial context, 

provide visual containment, restricting views in some instances. 

13.69 For the purpose of this assessment the potential visual receptors have been grouped as follows: 

� recreational users, including PRoW, public open space and areas of open access land; 

� residential properties; 

� vehicle routes and other major transport corridors; and 

� other uses including industrial, retail leisure and business uses. 

13.70 In some instances receptors located in close proximity to each other are grouped together (e.g., 

for scattered residential properties where effects are anticipated to be of the same extent). The 

locations of all the representational visual receptors are shown on Figure 13B.1 (see 

Appendix 13B) and are referenced throughout the following text with their receptor identification 

number. The sensitivity of the identified receptors is contained in the Visual Impact Table 

(Table 13D.1 in Appendix 13D). The extent of the baseline visibility and views within the study 

area are summarised below. 

Existing Views from Settlements and Residential Properties 

13.71 There are several settlements (Immingham, The Willows and Wybers Wood on the edge of 

Grimsby, Healing, Stallingborough and Little London) and numerous scattered houses and 

farmhouses within the 5 km study area that could potentially experience effects as a result of the 


13.72 During the summer months the foliage of intervening vegetation limits views from the residential 

locations (R3, R4 and R9). Existing industrial elements are visible in the far distance but the 

prominence of the pylons and the associated cables dominate the view across the sky as 

illustrated by Figure 13.6. 

13.73 At a greater distance from residential properties (R10, R14 and R15) the foreground of the view is 

dominated by the flat open character of the agricultural land. The developments within 

Stallingborough Industrial Estate and Immingham Dock, together with the pylons, form strong 

vertical elements in the composition of these views and often form a continuous backdrop. The 

fragmented vegetative features (formed by boundary delineations) provide some visual ‘break up’ 

of the industrial aspect of the view and also screening of the lower limits of these developments in 

some locations. 



Figure 13.6 Photograph from South Moss Lane 

13.74 From the edge of Wybers Wood (R12) and Pyewipe Farm (R13) off Aylesby Road, the foreground 

of the view is characterised by flat agricultural land with boundary vegetation and coppices. The 

industrial elements within Stallingborough Industrial Estate and Immingham Dock are visible in the 

far distance between the intervening vegetation. Figure 13.7 shows a view of pylons and the 

Power Station off Hobson Way from a vantage point located to the southeast of the Project site. 

The photograph illustrates how the pylons and the stacks from the Power Station are also visible 

in the mid and far distance and form strong vertical elements in the composition of this view. 

Figure 13.7 View of Pylons and the Power Station off Hobson Way 



13.75 Properties within and around the Hamlet of Little London (R16 and R17) currently have views of 

the Estuary and adjacent industrial development. The foreground of these views is generally 

characterised by flat agricultural land, with boundary vegetation and coppices also present. The 

upper limits of industrial elements within Stallingborough Industrial Estate and the Power Station 

can be seen where they visually break the vegetation line. The pylons and cables are viewed as a 

continuous element across the view and are generally above the other elements in the view. 

13.76 From the west and especially from locations within Immingham (R18, R19) the tipping activities 

currently under operation off the A1173 Kings Road form a screen to the industrial development 

located on the Estuary (Figure 13.8). The existing views towards the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

site are characterised by flat agricultural land. The upper limits of industrial elements within 

Stallingborough Industrial Estate and the majority of the Power Station are visible in the far 

distance. The pylons and cables are viewed as a continuous element across the view, generally 

above the other elements in the view. 

13.77 Views of the existing estuarine development are limited from within Stallingborough due to the 

localised topography. 

Figure 13.8 Tipping Activities to the North of Kings Road 

Existing Views from Strategic Recreational Trails, PRoWs and Public Open Space 

13.78 Recreational trails are considered as being highly sensitive to visual change brought about by 

developments, as they are used by people partly because of their scenic value and attractive 

views. There are no strategic recreational trails within 5 km of the site. The following recreational 

trails are located within the study area and these are likely to have views that are affected by the 


13.79 From the public footpath and bridleway (R1) (an elevated location) existing views are achievable 

in all directions over long distances, especially out over to the north and east, as illustrated by 

Figure 13.9. In a southerly direction views are across the flat low lying agricultural land in the 

foreground, industrial area (including the existing BOC operations) and settlements of 

Immingham, Stallingborough, Healing and Grimsby towards the backdrop of the Lincolnshire 



Wolds. Pylons and infrastructure associated with the Power Station and other industrial works are 

prominent vertical elements in the landscape. 

Figure 13.9 View over the Estuary from PRoW along the Flood Defence Embankment 

13.80 Currently views experienced from the PRoW located to the east and north east (R2 and R7) of the 

site at close distance are generally from lower lying ground and the visibility of features at a 

greater distance (Lincolnshire Wolds) are restricted by intervening features such as field boundary 

planting, industrial developments and pylons. As illustrated in Figure 13.10 the flat agricultural 

land and column lighting on Hobson Way are prominent elements in the foreground of the views. 

Figure 13.10 Photograph from Junction of Hobson Way and South Marsh Lane, Looking Towards the 

Existing BOC Site. 



13.81 At a greater distance, of nearly 3 km, current views from a public footpath (R11), located on an 

bridge over the A180, are dominated by the flat open character of the locality. The developments 

within Stallingborough Industrial Estate, including the Power Station, and Immingham Dock 

together with the Pylons all form strong vertical visual elements in the composition of this view and 

form a continuous backdrop. The coppice and fragmented vegetated features formed by boundary 

demarcation do provide some visual break-up of the industrial aspect of the view and also provide 

screening to the lower limits of these developments in some locations. 

13.82 Located just to the north of Healing, a public footpath runs adjacent to the railway line (R14). The 

foreground of this view is characterised by the flat agricultural land with boundary vegetation and 

coppices. The railway corridor and highway (A180) corridor are visually influential on the views 

from this location. Within this view the movement of vehicles across the composition results in a 

moderate degree of visual distraction. The industrial elements within Stallingborough Industrial 

Estate and Immingham Dock are visible and form the skyline. The pylons and the stacks of the 

Power Station in the mid and far distance all form strong vertical elements in the composition of 

this view. At this location there is also a sports ground (cricket pitch) and whilst the views are the 

same as that described above, due to the participation of the receptor (whose attention is 

concentrated on the activity they are undertaking), the sensitivity of the receptor is lower. 

13.83 On the other side of Healing, from a PRoW that links Healing with Stallingborough (R15), the 

views experienced are similar to those experienced from the footpath identified as R14, however 

from this location they are not as influenced by the highway corridor of the A180. 

13.84 A publicly accessible route (R21) that follows the flood defence embankment is located at the 

north eastern edge of the study area. The existing views from this footpath route are characterised 

by the estuarine industrial development located around the Project site (see Figure 13.11). Figure 

13.11 presents a photograph taken from just beyond the boundary of the study area from a 

location on the northern side of the Estuary, which demonstrates that the industrial nature of the 

area (in which the Dissolved Acetylene Project sits) is visible in the distance. 

Figure 13.11 Characteristic Views of Estuarine Industrial Development 



Existing Views from Roads and other Sequential Receptors 

13.85 Sequential receptors include users of highways, railways and other modes of transport. They are 

transient in nature and are usually travelling at a speed, which reduces the perceptibility of 

changes in views. 

13.86 A representational viewpoint (R20) has been taken from the A180, as a significant highway 

corridor within the study area. In this view the foreground of the view is characterised by the flat 

agricultural land. In the mid-distance boundary vegetation breaks up an otherwise continuous 

industrial tract, with the upper limits of industrial elements within Stallingborough Industrial Estate 

and the majority of the Power Station being visible in the far distance. The pylons and cables are 

seen, generally above the other elements in the view, as a continuous element across the view. 

13.87 From the representative viewpoint R21 it is expected that expansive views of the Estuary and 

development located to the north and south of the Estuary are possible from ferry and boat users 

of the Estuary (R22); it should be noted that these views would be transient as the receptors move 

along the river. 

13.88 Representation viewpoint R14, discussed above, is considered illustrative of the views currently 

gained by railway users. 


Overview 

13.89 The purpose of this Section is to identify the aspects of the development that could potentially give 

rise to impacts on landscape character and view points. The assessment considers both the 

construction and operational phases; however, the focus of assessment is the longer term impacts 

that the presence of the facility would result in during the operational phase. 

Construction 

13.90 Impacts on landscape elements during the construction phase are not anticipated to be 

significant; however, changes in patterns and structure of the landscape can occur as a result of 

the introduction of new temporary features (e.g. parking and storage facilities, laydown areas, 

vehicles, and plant). Visual disturbance may occur as a result of the construction activities owing 

to the presence of moving features such as construction vehicles plant. Thus, the potential 

impacts during the construction phase are considered to include: 

� presence and use of on site vehicles and equipment (excluding cranes) with potential 

impacts as a result of: 

- effects on physical attributes elements and pattern of the landscape, 

- increase in on site activity, potentially resulting in some loss of tranquillity, and 

- effects on views; 

� presence and use of cranes (cranes are considered separately from other construction 

equipment as they are tall and can be visually prominent): 

- effects on physical attributes elements and pattern of the landscape, and 

- effects on views; 

� construction of access roads: 


- effects on views; and 



� presence of storage areas, construction facilities etc.: 


- effects on views. 

Operation 

13.91 The identification of potential impacts is based on the information available to date in relation to 

the design of the proposed development and any assumptions in relation to the appearance and 

layout of the site as described in Chapter 3. 

13.92 Once the Dissolved Acetylene Project has been constructed, landscape and or visual impacts 

could arise as a result of the presence and operation use of the following elements of the Project: 

� the physical presence of the new facilities, including: 

- the main manufacturing plant and buildings, 

- new access roads, 

- the new bridge over Middle Drain, 

- earth embankments, 

- the Deluge Lagoon, and 

- boundary fencing; 

� operation of the new facilities, including: 

- lighting, 

- change increase in activities; and 

� change in land use. 

13.93 The increase in traffic on the road network as a result of the operation of the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project will be minimal (see Chapter 12) and would not be perceivable (in the context of visibility 

and alterations to landscape character) against the existing use of the road network. Thus, this is 

not expected to result in any notable effects to views or landscape character and is not considered 

further. 


Construction 

13.94 In terms of landscape and visual issues, the construction phase is not considered likely to result in 

any significant impacts (as construction would be completed within a short time span 

(approximately 9 months) and any impacts will be temporary, transient and or not discernible). 

13.95 The nature and scale of the construction works for the Project would be set within the context of 

the existing site and the wider setting of a heavy industrial and agricultural landscape. Here 

disturbance of land is common place within the dynamics of the industrial activity carried out and 

seasonal work undertaken on the agricultural land. 

13.96 Table 13.5 provides a summary of the assessment of construction impacts on landscape and 

visual amenity. 

13.97 Overall, the construction phase is anticipated to result in slight adverse landscape and visual 

impacts that would be of a temporary nature. 



Aspect of the 

Development 

Presence and 

use of on site 

construction 

vehicles and 

equipment 

(excluding 

cranes piling 

rigs). 

Presence and 

use of cranes 

piling rigs. 

Construction of 

access roads. 

Storage areas 

including 

compound with 

stockpiles of 

materials 

Table 13.5 Summary of Landscape and Visual Construction Impact Assessment 

Impact Magnitude 

� no notable effect on 

physical attributes 

elements and pattern of 

the landscape; 

� increase in on site 

activity, potentially 

resulting in some loss of 

tranquillity; and 


views. 


physical attributes 

elements; 

� temporary effect on 

skyline patterns where 

views are available; and 

� limited (temporary) 

effect possible on some 

views. 

� small loss of land; 

� introduction of new 

elements in pattern, 

limited effect upon rural 

character; and 


views. 

� new incongruous 

elements obvious but 

contained within existing 

pattern; 

� localised alteration to 

the land form resulting 

in limited effect upon 

industrial agricultural 

character; and 


views. 

Minor 

Adverse 

Minor 

Adverse 

Minor 

Adverse 

Timescale 

(Relative to 

Construction 

Programme) 

Significance 

Long term Slight Adverse 

Short term Slight Adverse 

Long term Slight Adverse 

Negligible Short term Neutral 



Operation 

Overview 

13.98 This section presents the landscape and visual impact assessment for the operational phase of 

the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 

13.99 The main building fabrication materials are likely to be metal, insulated panels. Due to the nature 

of the development, material selection is limited and needs to be based on process requirements 

(insulation, fire proofing, sound reduction etc.). The colour scheme and finish will be the same as 

those of the existing BOC site (i.e. greys with a low sheen finish). 

Landscape Impact Assessment 

13.100 The main impacts on existing landscape structure and pattern could occur through the overall 

presence of the facilities (e.g. addition of landscape elements including new vertical structures), 

from increased illumination and activity within the site and from change in land use. 

13.101 As discussed previously, the landscape condition for the development site, and its immediate 

surroundings, is considered to be of low sensitivity. Furthermore the wider landscape character is 

considered to be degraded within published character assessments. 

Presence of Facilities, Change in Land Use and Increased Activity 

13.102 The presence of the new facilities would result in the addition of landscape elements congruent 

with those already present in the area. The existing character would be intensified by the addition 

of another large scale industrial development within an already industrial and active landscape. 

No significant effects on landscape character are anticipated as the development is situated within 

an existing industrial commercial area. 

13.103 The increases in development would be visible from surrounding identified character areas, 

however, it is not anticipated that the Project would adversely impact on the character of these 

areas. The Project would be viewed within the context of the existing active and industrial area. 

13.104 The current landscape character of the Project site and its setting is dominated by industrial and 

agricultural land use. Thus the character of the development reflects the current and established 

patterns of land use. 

13.105 The magnitude of the effect is anticipated to be minor adverse. Overall the significance of the 

impact on landscape character is anticipated to be neutral. 

Lighting 

13.106 Levels of illumination would increase as a result of the proposed lighting scheme; however, this 

would be seen in the context of the existing, highly illuminated industrial development located 

along the edge of the Estuary. The existing level of illumination exerts considerable influence on 

the night time visual amenity currently experienced. It is anticipated that the impact upon the 

current levels of ‘skyglow’ xxiii would be neutral. 

13.107 Impacts arising as a result of ‘point source’ illumination are anticipated to be minor adverse, in 

locations in close proximity to the Project. At a greater distance from the site it is anticipated that 

the use of lighting may increase the level of visibility of the Project compared to that experienced 

during the daytime. However it is considered that in the context of the existing levels of 

illumination within the landscape this would be barely discernible and of slight adverse 

significance at worst. 

13.108 The above impacts, relating to illumination, refer to impacts on landscape character only and 

illumination is considered as part of the assessment on visual receptors in the following section. 

xxiii ‘Skyglow’ is the function of both direct and indirect upward light and atmospheric particles. 



Summary 

13.109 Table 13.6 summarises the assessment of the operation of the development on landscape 

character. 

Aspect of the 

Development 

Presence of 

Facilities 

Increase in 

site activity 

Change of 

land use 

Lighting 

Table 13.6 Summary of Landscape Impacts (Operation) 

Impact Magnitude Timescale 

� introduction of new 

structures (including 

vertical elements) 

adding to the existing 

strong industrial pattern 

and leading to changes 

to the character of the 

site itself. 

� very small loss of 

elements and no change 

to existing pattern, scale 

is not affected and the 

surrounding land use in 

the immediate vicinity 

remains unchanged. 

� small changes to the 

wider landscape 

character that would be 

barely discernible. 

� introduction of additional 

localised activity within a 

existing active 

landscape. 

� agricultural use replaced 

by industrial use. 

� increased skyglow and 

point source illumination 

leading to changes to 

the character of the site 

itself; and 

� changes to the visual 

amenity of the wider 

landscape that would be 

barely discernible. 

Visual Impact Assessment 

Overview 

Minor 

Adverse 

Minor 

Adverse 

Minor 

Adverse 

Minor 

Adverse 

Impact 

Significance 

Long term Neutral 



Long term Slight 

Adverse 

13.110 The general pattern of visibility of the Project has been established using a series of ZTV 

drawings. Viewpoints have been used to provide a representative assessment of the visual effects 

of the scheme on local receptors (the locations of these receptors are identified in Figure 13B.1 in 

Appendix 13B). The viewpoints are presented as a series a photographs in Appendix 13B 

(Figures 13B.2 to 13B.6) and form the basis for the following assessment. 



13.111 The assessment of visual impact has sought to ascribe sensitivities to different receptors in line 

with Table 13.1. The effect brought about by the proposal on each viewpoint or receptor has been 

assigned a level of magnitude. The significance of the impact is derived by combining the 

magnitude of change effect with the sensitivity of the receptor. 

13.112 A detailed visual impact assessment has been carried out and provided as Table 13D.1 in 

Appendix 13D. A summary of the anticipated impacts on representational visual receptors 

identified within this assessment is provided below. 

13.113 In all instances changes in view would occur due to the addition of industrial features that are 

congruent with the scale and nature of features already present immediately around the Project 

site. Furthermore, current views of the site and surrounding area include the existing industrial 

context and the proposed development would be therefore be seen as a intensification and infilling 

of this built industrial form. From many locations the proposed development would form only 

a small portion of the wider panoramic views. 

Visual Impacts on Settlements and Residential Properties 

13.114 The most significant visual effects of the scheme would be experienced in settlements and houses 

within 5 km of the site, all of which are judged to have medium sensitivity. The ZTV and analysis 

of viewpoints has indicated that some properties in the villages and hamlets would be affected by 

the proposals. The extent of change for the affected settlements and properties varies as a result 

of topography, vegetation cover and proximity of other development. This is discussed further 

below. 

13.115 Visibility of the entire Project is not anticipated from the dwellings of Poplar Farm (R3), Grassmere 

(R4) and Eleanor House (R9), due to the screening by intervening vegetation. However, it is 

anticipated that the taller elements such as the roof vents stacks would be visible above the 

intervening vegetation. In the context of the existing view these additional features would not be 

incongruous. Furthermore it is considered that the Project would not have visual significance for 

views from within the dwelling of Poplar Farm (due to the primary orientation of this dwelling not 

being towards the Project). Therefore the impact is anticipated to be neutral for this receptor. For 

the other two dwellings the effect is assessed to be greater, however it is only anticipated to result 

in a slight adverse impact. 

13.116 The project would be visible and perceived by the visual receptors Primrose Cottage and Cress 

Farm (R10), seven dwellings on Meadow Drive, Healing (R14) and dwellings on the western edge 

of Healing (R15). However when viewed in the existing industrial context at these distances the 

Project would appear as an extension of the existing BOC development. It is likely that only the 

taller elements of project would be visible from these locations; however, it is anticipated that, 

when viewed in the existing industrial context, the Project would be not be greatly perceived within 

the existing character of the view. A long term slight adverse impact is predicted for these 

receptors. 

13.117 Elements of the Project would be visible from locations within Little London (R17), however when 

viewed in the existing industrial context the Project would not be greatly discernible within the 

existing character of the view. 

13.118 Tipping activities, currently under operation off the A1173 Kings Road, form a screen to the 

industrial development located on the Estuary from the majority of Immingham. However on the 

eastern edge the ZTV indicates that there would be some visibility of the Project from one dwelling 

located on Mull Way (R18) and from Mauxhall Farm (R19). In both these instances the Project is 

considered to have a slight adverse impact. This assessment is connected with only the upper 

limits of the taller Project elements being visible and viewed in the existing industrial context. 



13.119 For the remainder of the residential receptors identified, Stallingborough Windmill off Riby Lane 

(R16), Properties at Wybers Wood Aylesbury Road (R12) and Pyewipe Farm off Aylesby Road 

(R13), it is anticipated that only the taller elements of the Project would be visible. When viewed in 

the existing industrial context, and at these greater distances, the Project would be barely 

perceived within the existing composition of the view and therefore neutral impacts are attributed. 

Visual Impacts on Strategic Recreational Trails, PRoWs and Public Open Space 

13.120 Recreational trails can have high sensitivity to visual change brought about by developments such 

as that proposed as they are used by people partly because of their scenic value and attractive 

views. 

13.121 There are two PRoWs, represented by receptor viewpoints R1, R2 and R7, within one km of the 

site. These are considered to have a medium sensitivity. The Project would be visible from these 

locations but it would not form an incongruous element or breach the skyline when seen within the 

current composition of the view. It is anticipated that the new development site would be seen as 

being part of the existing BOC site. The magnitude of the effects is considered to be moderate, 

resulting in a slight adverse impact upon these receptors. 

13.122 At a greater distance from the site between 2 km and 3 km sections of the footpath within and 

adjacent to Healing have been identified as potential receptors on the ZTV. It is anticipated 

(through the use of representational viewpoint locations R14 and R15, with medium sensitivity) 

that, whilst a minor adverse effect is predicted, the potential length over which the view could be 

experienced is such that the impact is assessed as slight adverse. 

13.123 At a similar distance to R14 and R15, it is anticipated that the Project would be visible from the 

public footpath on the bridge over the A180 (R11). This receptor is considered to have medium 

sensitivity. In this instance however, due to the small section of footpath affected, the effect is 

considered to be negligible and therefore the impact would be neutral. 

13.124 At a distance of greater than 5 km views of the Project are anticipated from the publicly accessible 

route along the flood defence (R21 medium sensitivity). These would be seen as part of the 

already continuous industrial development along the edge of the Estuary and would not be greatly 

perceived within the existing character of the view and wider industrial landscape. However due to 

the continuous stretch of pedestrian route and the nature of the receptor it is assessed that an 

impact of slight adverse significance would occur. 

Impacts on Views from Roads and other Sequential Receptors 

13.125 Sequential impacts arise along a series of views from a receptor to the proposal, taking account of 

the angle of view and screening vegetation or landform such as cuttings. Generally, sequential 

receptors are roads or railways which have minimal or low sensitivity to the visual change. 

13.126 It is anticipated that parts of the majority of the Project elements would be visible from the A180 

(representational viewpoint R20). However, it is anticipated that when viewed in the existing 

industrial context the Project would be not be greatly perceived within the existing character of the 

view and changes would result in a negligible adverse effect. Therefore due to the low sensitivity 

of the receptor it is assessed that an overall neutral impact would occur on users of the A180. 

13.127 A neutral impact is also anticipated for the other two receptors identified has having the potential 

for sequential views, the railway (representational viewpoint R14) and ferry and boat users on the 

Estuary (R22). 



Summary of Impacts on Views 

13.128 The most significant visual effects of the scheme would be experienced in settlements and houses 

within 5 km of the site, all of which are judged to have medium sensitivity. The predicted impact 

significance ranges between neutral and slight adverse. 

13.129 Impacts on PRoWs and footpaths are assessed to be of neutral to slight adverse significance. 

13.130 Impacts on views from roads, the railway and ferry boat users are assessed to be of neutral 

significance. 


13.131 Mitigation measures do not include measures that are inherent within the design, measures 

required by law or measures that would be considered to be standard good practice. This 

assessment is made on the assumption that these measures controls will be implemented. 

13.132 Construction activities are not likely to result in any significant impacts (as the works would be 

completed within a short time span and any effects will be temporary, transient and or not 

discernible. No specific mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase. 

13.133 Overall the significance of the impact on landscape character is anticipated to be neutral and 

therefore no specific mitigation measures are proposed. 

13.134 The significance of visual impacts associated with the development have been assessed to range 

from neutral to slight adverse and therefore no specific mitigation measures are proposed. 


13.135 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to landscape character and visual impacts, 

the significance of impacts does not change from that described above. 


Landscape Treatment 

13.136 The ‘defunct’ hedgerow and scrub vegetation located adjacent to the disused railway to the 

southwest of the site has the potential to provide some low level screening of the Project. 

However at some points along this stretch there is an absence of vegetation. If achievable within 

operational and safety requirements (and subject to ecological requirements) consideration of 

vegetative planting should be included as part of the detailed design. 

Illumination and Lighting Design 

13.137 Methods of reducing illumination levels, such as the use of cut off lanterns, lantern tilt angles and 

the choice of lighting colours should be explored to minimise the effects of ‘skyglow’ and the 

strength of the illumination of the point sources. 

Policy, Guidance and Designations 

13.138 It is recommended that the SPG: Landscape Design (2005) and NELC Landscape Character 

Assessment (2010) guidelines, or subsequent policies, be referred to and their objectives 

considered in relation to each other and in relation to other environmental aims during the detailed 

design stages where relevant. This would ensure compliance with adopted North East 

Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy. 



Summary 

13.139 The landscape within the 5 km study area is generally low-lying and flat. Intervisibility between 

locations within the study area generally reduces with distance between the Project and the 

receptor as a result of an increase of intervening screening features such vegetation and urban 

and industrial development. 

13.140 Lighting is present and extensive within the locality, especially along the Estuary, within the 

industrial areas and along vehicle routes. At night the lighting within the industrial area exerts 

considerable influence on the landscape character of the locality. 

13.141 Construction is not likely to result in any significant impacts (as the works would be completed 

within a short time span and any effects will be temporary, transient and or not discernible). No 

specific mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase. 

13.142 The Project would result in the addition of landscape elements congruent with those already 

present. The existing character would be intensified by the addition of another large scale 

industrial development within an already industrial and active landscape. Overall the impact on 

landscape character is anticipated to be neutral. 

13.143 The general pattern of visibility of the Project has been established using a series of ZTV 

drawings. Viewpoints have been used to provide a representative assessment of the visual effects 

of the scheme on local receptors. Boundary vegetation and coppices provide screening and 

landscape assimilation for the existing industrial elements, reducing the degree in which they are 

discernible. Where intervisibility is achievable changes in view would occur due to the addition of 

partial views of industrial features that are congruent with the scale and nature of features already 

present immediately around the Project site. Furthermore current views of the site and 

surrounding area include the existing industrial context and the proposed development would be 

therefore be seen as a intensification and in-filling of this built industrial form. Also from many 

locations the proposed development would form a small portion of the wider panoramic views. 

Visual impacts associated with the development have been assessed to be neutral to slight 

adverse (see Appendix 13D). 

13.144 No mitigation measures are proposed, however recommendations have been made relating to 

lighting design, consideration of policies in finalisation of design details and landscape planting. 



14. Historic Environment 

Introduction 

Overview 

14.1 This Chapter presents the assessment of the historic environment for the construction and 

operational phases of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project. It gives regard to relevant legislation 

and policy and sets out the assessment methodology and significance criteria used. This Chapter 

includes a baseline description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment, mitigation 

measures and residual impact assessment. The potential for combined and cumulative effects as 

a result of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project are considered in Chapter 16. 

Background and Scope 

14.2 In the Scoping Report 3 , it was determined that there would not be a requirement for the ES to 

address potential effects to Built Heritage Assets. This was primarily as a result of the relatively 

small scale of the development compared to the existing industrialised landscape and the location 

of the development (there are no designated undesignated historic buildings or structures on, or in 

the immediate vicinity of, the site). 

14.3 Thus, the scope of the historic environment assessment is as specified in the Scoping Report 3 , 

namely that it should address the: 

� identification and analysis of archaeological remains within the proposed development area 

and the subsequent assessment of the potential impact of development on these; and 

� assessment of the site’s historic landscape xxiv value and the proposed development’s impact 

on this. 


Criteria 


14.4 Key relevant planning policy is contained in PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment, which 

sets out the principles for conserving the historic environment. 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. Within this the key policy principles are: 

� Policy HE6 information requirements for applications for consent affecting heritage assets; 

� Policy HE7 policy principles guiding the determination of applications for consent relating to 

all heritage assets; 

� Policy HE8 additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for consent 

relating to heritage assets that are not covered by policy HE 9; and 

� Policy HE12 policy principles guiding the recording of information related to heritage assets. 

xxiv 

Visual impacts of the Dissolved Acetylene Project associated with the wider landscape are discussed in Landscape and Visual 

Impact Chapter (Chapter 13). 



14.5 These key policies clearly identify the need to take account of undesignated heritage assets, 

including archaeological remains, in the development process. Local planning policy reflects the 

guidance contained in PPS 5. 




Consultation 

14.7 The assessment has been undertaken in close consultation with NELC’s Archaeologist who has 

approved the survey methodology, reviewed the results of the geophysical survey (see 

subsequent Baseline Section) and agreed with the recommendation that no further work is 

required (as evidenced in Table 14.1). 

14.8 No specific comments relating to the historic environment were received within the Scoping 

Opinion 4 and so it has been assumed that methodology set out in the Scoping Report 3 was 

accepted. 

Date 

Table 14.1 Consultation Records for the Historic Environment Assessment. 

Form of 

Consultation 

7/2/11 Email AC HW 





Participants Main Discussion Points Key Outcomes 

Discussion of nature of 

archaeology in area and 

scope requirements for any 

archaeological works. 

Agreement of specification for 

Geophysical Survey 

Supply of Survey 5 results to 

NELC. 

NELC review of Survey 

results 5 . 

Discussion of survey results 

in relation to red line 

boundary (extra data 

supplied). 

Agreement that a 

Geophysical survey 

would be undertaken. 

Scope and methods 

agreed. 

None. 

Table Notes: 

(a) AC is Andrew Croft (Atkins’ Head of Heritage) and HW is Hugh Winfield (NELC’s Archaeologist). 


14.9 A range of information has been sourced to support this assessment, including: 

� Historic Environment Record (HER) data from NELC; 

Possible need for 

further work identified. 

Agreed that no need 

for further work as 

possible remains lay 

outside red line 

boundary. 

� The National Heritage List for England online database, maintained by English Heritage; 

� NELC website for details of Conservation Areas; and 

� historic maps including pre-ordnance survey and ordnance survey series maps. 




14.10 It terms of the assessment of archaeological aspects, the following has tasks have been 

undertaken: 

� review of readily available historic environment and other designated heritage assets data; 

� review of historic maps; 

� geophysical survey of development site and review of the findings; and 

� consultation with NELC’s Archaeologist (see Table 14.1). 

14.11 In terms of the assessment of historic landscape issues, the following tasks have been 

undertaken: 

� review of readily available historic environment data and secondary sources; 

� review of historic maps; and 

� site visit (April 2011). 


14.12 The assessment criteria and scoring mechanism for assessing the significance of effect are based 

on the concept that the environmental effect of the proposals, in relation to an individual asset, is 

determined through identifying the asset’s value and then assessing the impact that the proposal 

would have on the significance of that asset (i.e. the attributes that provide it with its value). This is 

a well established approach of combining value and impact to determine effect and it provides 

clear differentiation between significant and insignificant environmental effects. It also reflects 

policy in PPS 5, which identifies that different scales of impact (i.e. Substantial Harm and Less 

than Substantial Harm) on assets of differing value have a different weighting in national policy 

terms. 

14.12.1 Table 14.2 sets out the criteria and definitions for determining the value of an asset. 

Table 14.2 Definitions of the Value of an Asset 

Value Description Example 

High 

Medium 

Low 

Nationally or internationally 

important heritage assets 

generally recognised through 

designation as being of 

exceptional interest and value. 

Heritage assets recognised as 

being of special interest, 

generally designated. 

Assets that are of interest at a 

local level primarily for the 

contribution to the local historic 

environment. 

World Heritage Sites, Grade I and II* Listed 

Buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks 

and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, 

Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Historic 

Battlefields, Conservation Areas with notable 

concentrations of heritage assets and 

undesignated assets of national or 

international importance. 

Grade II Listed Buildings, Grade II 

Registered Parks and Gardens, 

Conservation Areas and undesignated 

assets of regional or national importance. 

Undesignated heritage assets such as locally 

listed buildings, undesignated archaeological 

sites, undesignated historic parks and 

gardens etc. Can also include degraded 

designated assets that no longer warrant 

designation. 



Value Description Example 

Minimal 

Elements of the historic 

environment which are of 

insufficient significance to merit 

consideration in planning 

decisions and hence be classed 

as heritage assets. 

Undesignated features with very limited or no 

historic interest. Can also include highly 

degraded designated assets that no longer 

warrant designation. 

14.12.2 Table 14.3 sets out the definitions for determining the scale of change resulting from an impact. 

Scale of 

Change 

Large 

Adverse 

Medium 

Adverse 

Minor 

Adverse 

Table 14.3 Definitions of Assessment of Scale of an Impact 

Description of Nature of Change 

Substantial harm to, or loss of, an asset’s significance as a result of changes to 

its physical form or setting. 

For example, this would include demolition, removal of physical attributes critical 

to an asset, loss of all archaeological interest or the transformation of an asset’s 

setting in a way that fundamentally compromises its ability to be understood or 

appreciated. The scale of change would be such that it could result in a 

designated asset being undesignated or having its level of designation lowered. 

Less than substantial harm to an asset’s significance as a result of changes to its 

physical form or setting. 

For example, this could include physical alterations that remove or alter some 

elements of significance but do not substantially alter the overall significance of 

the asset, notable alterations to the setting of an asset that affect our appreciation 

of it and its significance, or the unrecorded loss of archaeological interest. 

Limited harm to an asset’s significance as a result of changes to its physical form 

or setting. 

For example, this could include physical changes that alter some elements of 

significance but do not noticeably alter the overall significance of the asset and 

small-scale alterations to the setting of an asset that hardly affect its significance. 

Neutral No appreciable change to an asset’s significance. 

Minor 

Beneficial 

Medium 

Beneficial 

Large 

Beneficial 

Limited improvement of an asset’s significance as a result of changes to its 

physical form or setting 

For example, this could include physical changes that reveal or conserve some 

elements of significance but do not noticeably alter the overall significance of the 

asset, or small-scale alterations to the setting of an asset that improve our ability 

to appreciate it. 

Notable enhancement of an asset’s significance as a result of changes to its 


For example, this could include physical alterations that conserve or restore 

elements of significance, notable alterations to the setting of an asset that 

improve our appreciation of it and its significance, or changes in use that help 

safeguard an asset. 

Substantial enhancement of an asset’s significance as a result of changes to its 


For example, this could include major changes that conserve or restore elements 

of high significance, alterations to the setting of an asset that very substantially 

improve our appreciation of it and its significance, or changes in use that 

safeguard an asset e.g. by taking it off the At Risk Register. 



14.12.3 The level of the environmental effect (severity) is determined through a combination of the value 

of the asset and the scale of the change, as set out in Table 14.4. This table does not provide a 

formulaic assessment and professional judgement is used at all stages in the process. 

Value 

Table 14.4 Matrix for Determining Impact Significance Severity 

High Neutral 

Slight 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Major 

Major 

Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Moderate Major 

Low Neutral Neutral slight Slight Moderate Slight 

Minimal Neutral Neutral Neutral Slight 


Archaeological Remains 

Neutral Minor Medium Large 

Change (Adverse or Beneficial) 

14.13 No known archaeological sites are recorded on the HER, or other data sources, within the 

boundary of the proposed development site. Historic maps from the 18 th, 19 th and 20 th centuries 

also contain no evidence of historical activity within the development site. However, there are 

known archaeological remains within the vicinity of the proposed site, including: 

� an undated cropmark that could indicate the presence of archaeology (HER number 

0553/1/0); 

� a Roman period enclosure which has been subject to past archaeological investigations and 

evaluation (HER Number 0040/1/0); and 

� a probable former sea defence bank (HER Number 0647/2/0). 

14.14 Whilst these remains lie outside the development area it was considered possible that other 

remains may lie within the development site. A Geophysical Survey 5 of the development field was 

undertaken by GSB in May 2011. The methodology and scope of the survey was agreed with 

NELC’s Archaeologist (see Table 14.1). 

14.15 The Geophysical Survey Report is provided in Appendix 14.A. As indicated in Figure 14.1, the 

survey identified five features of interest (numbered 1 to 5), only one of these (number 5) is within 

the development area. This feature is thought to be a modern non-ferrous service trench or drain. 

The Survey did not identify any other features of interest or any archaeological remains within the 

development area. The Geophysical Survey Report 5 was shared with NELC’s Archaeologist and, 

following discussion, NELC confirmed (see Table 14.1) that they concurred with the 

recommendation that no further archaeological evaluation was required for the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project development site. 

14.16 In terms of deeper deposits below the range of the geophysical survey, the preliminary findings of 

the recent GI works (see Chapter 7 Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality) indicate that there 

are peat deposits and or peat with clay at 7.0 to 8.4 m bgl. These deposits may contain palaeoenvironmental 

remains. 



Historic Landscape 

Figure 14.1 Geophysical Survey Results 

14.17 The proposed development site lies on flat, open, agricultural land adjacent to and largely 

surrounded by relatively large-scale modern industrial developments. The site is bounded to the 

south east and north west by a historic drains which forms part of the wider landscape. The land 

was reclaimed from the Estuary by a combination of sea walls. The exact date for the reclamation 

of the landscape is currently undetermined, but it probably occurred during the post-medieval 

period; possibly in the 17 th and 18 th centuries. The 1794 John Cary map clearly shows the area to 

be reclaimed. The local landscape remained agricultural and rural in character until the latter half 

of the 20 th century when the large scale industrialisation of the Immingham area commenced. This 

industrial development is now the dominant characteristic of the area. Much of that development 

has occurred within the structure of the historic landscape i.e. within land parcels defined by 

historic drains and roads. 

14.18 The local historic landscape is not unusual, nor does it represent any particularly significant 

characteristics, it has also been substantially transformed in the 20 th century and is of minimal 

value. 




Construction 

Archaeological Remains 

14.19 The Scoping Report 3 identified that the proposed development site had the potential to contain 

archaeological remains and that any such remains could be truncated or removed by the 

construction of the proposed development which could substantially harm their archaeological 

interest. As set out in the baseline section above, a Geophysical Survey 5 has been undertaken 

and this has indicated that there are no such remains within the development area and 

consequently there would be no impact on archaeology. 

14.20 The deep peat deposits identified by the GI works would not be substantially affected by the 

proposed development. There would be a limited number of localised impacts as a result of piling 

(see Figure 3.1) but these would not significantly disturb or harm any palaeo-environmental 

deposits that may be present. 

Historic Landscape 

14.21 The construction and subsequent presence of the proposed development could have an impact 

on the fabric and character of the local historic landscape. 

Operation 

14.22 Other than the presence of the new plant and its potential to impact on the local historic 

landscape, which has been addressed for construction impacts, no additional operational impacts 

have been identified. 


Construction 

14.23 The scheme would have no impact on archaeological remains within the footprint of the 

development area. It would also not significantly affect any deep palaeo-environmental deposits (if 

they are present). 

14.24 The construction and subsequent presence of the new facilities would involve further industrial 

development in a local historic landscape of minimal value, and which is already characterised by 

a mix of post-World War II industrial development. The loss of a small area (4.2 ha) of a field and 

presence of the proposed development would only constitute a minor adverse change on a 

landscape with minimal value; in combination this would be considered to be an effect of neutral 

significance. 

Operation 

14.25 Beyond the presence of the new plant and its potential to impact on the local historic landscape 

(assessed above for the construction phase) no additional operational impacts have been 

identified. 


14.26 The only impact to the historic environment (relating to the effect of the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project on the local historical landscape) was assessed to be of neutral significance and no 

mitigation is required. 




14.27 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated with the historic 

environment the significance of impacts does not change from that described above. 

Summary 

14.28 There are no Built Heritage Assets on or close to the site. A Geophysical Survey has not identified 

any archaeological remains within the development area and it has been agreed with NELC’s 

Archaeologist that no further archaeological investigation is required. The scheme would not 

substantially affect any deeply buried potential palaeo-environmental deposits or the local historic 

landscape. Thus, in summary, the proposed development would have no significant impact on the 

historic environment. 



15. Socio-economics 

Introduction 

15.1 This Chapter presents the socio-economic assessment for construction and operational phases of 

the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project. It gives regard to relevant legislation and policy and sets 

out the assessment methodology and significance criteria used. This Chapter includes a baseline 

description, identification of potential impacts, impact assessment, mitigation measures, residual 

impact assessment and recommendations. 

15.2 Combined impacts as a result of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project are considered in 

Chapter 16, as are cumulative impacts arising as a result of the Project and other proposed 

developments. 

15.3 BOC has operated in the UK for over 100 years, since 1886, and has operated at its Immingham 

site since 1990. BOC is an important employer in the local area and beyond (there are currently 

140 employees at the existing Immingham site). The Dissolved Acetylene Project is of importance 

to the local community and the local economy. The Project will create sustainable private sector 

jobs and creating jobs in an area that is over reliant on the public sector. The plant design utilises 

highly skilled engineering resources and sets the standards globally in engineering and 

operational excellence for Linde’s future acetylene plants. The project will also address issues 

with the extended European supply chain to the benefit of the 160,000 fabricators in the UK. 

15.4 The key socio-economic impacts of the proposed Project relate to the potential to provide new 

jobs, both at the plant and within its supply chains, and to stimulate new temporary employment 

during construction. 

15.5 Impacts on residents associated with air quality, noise, transport and visual impacts are 

addressed in Chapters 6, 11, 12 and 0 respectively. This chapter only addresses the potential 

impacts associated with the Dissolved Acetylene Project proposals in terms of the potential for job 

creation and the possible effects on local communities in relation to additional stress. 


Criteria 


15.6 Statutory requirements and Government advice have been taken into account to assess socioeconomic 

impacts of the Project. These include: 

� Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment, Department for the Environment, 

Transport and the Regions, 1999; 

� Environmental Impact Assessment: Guide to Procedures, Department for Communities and 

Local Government, 2000; 

� Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures: A Consultation 

Paper June 2000, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2000; 

� Amended Circular on Environmental Impact Assessment: A Consultation Paper, June 2006, 

Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006; and 

� Additionality guide: A Standard Approach to Assessing the Additional Impact of Interventions, 

Third Edition, English Partnerships (HCA), 2008. 






Consultation 

15.8 No specific external consultation has been undertaken by the EIA team as part of the socioeconomic 

impact assessment. None of the comments from consultees in the Scoping Opinion 

related to socio-economic issues. 

15.9 BOC has consulted NELC on socio-economic issues regarding the potential impact that the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project would have in relation to BOC’s application for funding under the 

Regional Growth Fund (RGF). 


15.10 Establishing the baseline has been primarily a desk-top exercise, drawing on national, regional 

and local economic data and sources such as the Census, Office of National Statistics (ONS), 

Labour Force Survey and Indices of Deprivation, as well as publications from local and regional 

sources. Most of the information on the local level relates to the administrative area of North East 

Lincolnshire. 

15.11 The assessment is based on the information provided in Chapter 4. 


15.12 The socio-economic assessment includes three main components: 

� development of a socio-economic baseline; 

� identification and quantification of impacts during the construction and operational phases; 

and 

� assessment of potential effects and their appropriate mitigation measures (as relevant). 

15.13 Impacts are considered through a qualitative assessment of the effects of the Project as indicated 

by changes relative to baseline socio-economic conditions. Key indicators used to measure 

potential changes include: 

� economic status, including employment; 

� population and community welfare; and 

� recreation and leisure. 

15.14 For the purposes of the study, a range of geographical areas will be identified for which socioeconomic 

effects of the proposed development will be measured. These include: 

� local area: defined as the area within the administrative boundaries of North East Lincolnshire 

Unitary Authority; 

� regional area: defined as the English region of Yorkshire and Humberside; and 

� national area: defined as Great Britain. 




15.15 The significance of the socio-economic effects has been based on defined assessment criteria. 

These criteria reflect the spatial areas identified above and have regard to the local and regional 

context. The effects are classified in terms of being adverse, negligible or beneficial according to 

the criteria listed below: 

� major beneficial positive effect on economic or social activity at national, regional and local 

levels; 

� moderate beneficial positive effect on economic or social activity at both a regional and local 

level; 

� minor beneficial temporary or permanent positive effect on economic or social activity at a 

local level; 

� negligible little or no effect on economic or social activity; 

� minor adverse temporary or permanent adverse effect on economic or social activity at a local 

level; 

� moderate adverse negative effect on economic or social activity at both a regional and local 

level; and 

� major adverse negative effect on economic or social activity at all national, regional and local 

levels. 

15.16 The above definitions are not prescriptive and a degree of professional judgement is required 

when assigning these to the severity of an effect. 


15.17 This section provides an analysis of key socio-economic baseline conditions including population, 

economic activity and employment, education, deprivation and amenities. 

15.18 Chapter 2 provides a full description of the development site and its surroundings. Of relevance to 

this Chapter, it is noted that 

� the proposed site is located in an area of agricultural land mixed with high levels of industrial 

use (e.g. chemical processing and manufacturing); 

� the nearest settlements are Stallingborough (~1.8 km to the south west), Healing (~2.3 km to 

the south south west) Immingham (~3 km to the north west) and Grimsby (~3 km to the south 

east); and 

� the nearest residential dwelling is a Poplar Farm approximately 650 m to the south west of the 

proposed site (see Figure 11.1), on South Marsh Road (there are only two residential 

dwellings within 1 km of the centre of the proposed development site). 

Population 

15.19 The population change over the past two decades has been very different at the local and at the 

regional levels. The population of North East Lincolnshire has gradually been decreasing since 

the early 1980s. Total population for the local area in 1989 was 161,600 decreasing to 158,000 by 

1999 (2.2% decrease). Although this trend has slowed down in the last decade, the population is 

still decreasing and reduced from 158,000 in 1999 to 157,100 in 2009 (0.6 % rate of decrease). 

This trend compares unfavourably with the regional population change. By comparison, the total 

population of Yorkshire and Humberside grew by approximately 6% between 1999 and 2009. This 

compares favourably with national trends. 



15.20 Local, regional and national population data96 for the period from 1999 to 2009 are provided in 

Table 15.1 and illustrated in Figure 15.1. 

Table 15.1 Population (1999 & 2009) 

North East 

Lincolnshire 

Yorkshire and 

Humberside 

Great Britain 

1999 158,000 4,956,300 57,005,400 

2009 157,100 5,258,100 60,003,100 

Change (%) -0.6 6.1 5.3 

Figure 15.1 Population Growth 1981-2009 

Economic Activity and Employment 

15.21 Based on 2010 data on labour supply 97 (provided by ONS), North East Lincolnshire has a slightly 

higher proportion of economically active residents compared to the regional and national areas 

(see Table 15.2), however, unemployment rates are higher for the local area than for Yorkshire 

and Humberside. 

Table 15.2 Profile of Economic Activity (2005 & 2010) 

Economically Active (%) Unemployed (% of 

economically active) 

2005 2010 2005 2010 

North East Lincolnshire 75.6 77.9 6.7 12.3 

Yorkshire and 

Humberside 

75.8 75.0 4.5 8.8 

Great Britain 76.4 76.3 4.9 7.8 

15.22 In common with the regional and national areas, the highest percentage of jobs in the local area is 

in the health sector (see Table 15.3). There are a relatively higher proportion of jobs in the 

manufacturing sector (13.5%) when compared to regional (11.4%) and national (9.0%) data 98 , 

demonstrating a relatively higher reliance of the economy on manufacturing activities in the local 

area when compared to that at regional and national levels. 



Table 15.3 Employment by Sector (% of Total in 2010) 

Sector North East 


Yorkshire and 

Humberside 

Great Britain 

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 0.1 0.6 0.8 

Mining, quarrying & utilities 0.8 1.1 1.2 

Manufacturing 13.5 11.4 9.0 

Construction 4.3 4.4 4.8 

Motor trades 2.4 1.7 1.7 

Wholesale 3.9 4.6 4.1 

Retail 11.8 11.0 10.5 

Transport & storage (inc postal) 7.4 4.7 4.6 

Accommodation & food services 5.7 6.4 6.7 

Information & communication 1.2 2.7 3.7 

Financial & insurance 1.4 3.7 3.9 

Property 1.3 1.4 1.5 

Professional, scientific & technical 3.4 4.9 7.0 

Business administration & support 

services 

6.3 7.2 7.7 

Public administration & defence 4.6 6.1 5.7 

Education 10.6 10.3 9.5 

Health 17.1 14.2 13.1 

Arts, entertainment, recreation & 

other services 

4.1 3.8 4.5 

Total 100 100 100 

15.23 Table 15.4 presents data 97 on the proportion of employment by occupation type at a local, 

regional and national level. The local area has a higher proportion of employees that hold ‘process 

plant & machine operatives’ occupations (14.5%) than the proportion for the same occupations 

found in Yorkshire and Humberside (8.5%) and Great Britain (6.6%). This supports the higher 

manufacturing activity found locally compared to regionally and nationally. Similarly, there is a 

slightly higher proportion of ‘skilled trades’ occupations in North East Lincolnshire (12.4%) 

compared to Yorkshire and Humberside (10.2%) and Great Britain (11.0%). There is a lower 

percentage of ‘managerial’ and ‘professional’ occupations held in the local area (20.2%) 

compared to those regionally (26.8%) and nationally (29.6%). 



Occupation North East 


Managers and senior 

officials 

Professional 

occupations 

Associate prof & tech 

occupations 

Administrative and 

secretarial 

occupations 

Skilled trades 

occupations 

Personal service 

occupations 

Sales and customer 

service occupations 

Process, plant and 

machine operatives 

Elementary 

occupations 

Table 15.4 Occupation (2010) 

Yorkshire and 

Humberside 

Great Britain 

12.3 14.3 15.7 

7.9 12.5 13.9 

12.4 13.3 14.7 

8.5 10.2 11.0 

12.4 10.2 10.3 

9.6 9.2 8.9 

9.5 8.1 7.4 

14.5 8.5 6.6 

12.4 13.1 11.1 

Total 100 100 100 

Qualifications 

15.24 Table 15.5 presents data 96 on the proportion of the population with qualifications at a local, 

regional and national level. North East Lincolnshire has a lower proportion of population reaching 

NVQ4 level qualifications (17.3%) compared to regional (26.6%) and national levels (29.9%). 

Table 15.5 Qualifications (2009) 

North East 


Yorkshire and 

Humberside 

Great Britain 

NVQ4 17.3 26.6 29.9 

NVQ3 37.5 47.0 49.3 

NVQ2 57.6 63.5 65.4 

NVQ1 77.0 78.6 78.9 

Other qualifications 10.1 8.5 8.8 

No qualifications 12.9 12.8 12.3 



Deprivation 

15.25 In terms of deprivation, North East Lincolnshire was ranked 49 th out of 354 Local Authorities on 

the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (where 1 is the most deprived and 354 is the least 

deprived). Out of 107 ‘Lower Level Super Output Areas’ in North East Lincolnshire, 26 are ranked 

amongst the 20% most deprived in England. 

Recreation Leisure and Amenity Use 

15.26 There are no significant amenity facilities in the vicinity of the proposed site. However, a bridleway 

(bridleway 34) runs along two of the boundaries of the field (Hobson Way and South Marsh Road) 

and there is a public footpath (footpath 35) that runs from the corner of Hobson Way and South 

Marsh Road to the Humber Estuary. 


Construction 

15.27 The construction of the BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project could result in both adverse and 

beneficial impacts including: 

� temporary employment associated with the construction programme; 

� indirect and induced employment which comprises: 

- employment arising offsite in response to the demand generated by the proposed 

development in relation to construction materials and supplies, and 

- employment arising from employee’s (including contractors’) expenditure on local goods 

and services; 

� stress as a result of poor communication consultation and or stress associated with 

construction activities; 

� interruption to the use of (or limited access to) local amenities, which could affect for example 

leisure activities; and 

� potential changes to land property values. 

Operation 

15.28 The potential impacts associated with the operational phase of the Project are largely the same as 

those listed above for the construction phase, i.e.: 

� employment associated with the operators of the completed development and the introduction 

of new skills training opportunities; 

� indirect and induced employment which comprises: 

- employment arising offsite through the increased demand for goods and services by the 

operators of the development, and 

- employment arising from employee’s (including the operators’) expenditure on local 

goods and services; 

� stress to residents and business resulting from increased industrial activity; 

� inconvenience to residents as a result of interruption to the use of (or limited access to) local 

amenities; and 

� potential changes to land property values. 




Overview 

15.29 This section provides the assessment of the significance of the potential impacts, identified above, 

for the construction and operational phases of the project. 

Construction 

Employment Impacts 

15.30 The main construction works are expected to be carried over an approximately 9 month period 

which would require short term and temporary construction employment. Based on estimates 

provided by BOC there will be approximately 40 jobs at the peak of the construction process. 

During this time there will be limited indirect and induced employment generated of a short term 

nature which would be of minor beneficial significance. 

Stress Impacts 


addressed in Chapters 6, 11, 12 and 0 respectively. This section focuses on potential impacts to 

local receptors in relation to concerns and stress associated with the construction of the Project. It 

is considered that, at worst, only minor adverse effects would be observed in relation to a 

potential increase in levels of stress due to changing circumstances, such as new construction 

activity in the area. 

Leisure Amenity Impacts 

15.32 The access to and use of the Footpath and Bridal Way are not expected to be affected as a result 

of construction activities, thus it is considered that there will be a negligible impact on amenity 

facilities leisure activities. 

Land and Property Values 

15.33 It is considered that there will be a negligible impact on residential and commercial land and 

property values as the construction period is relatively short and the site is already suitably located 

within an area of industrial land use. Furthermore, the nearest settlement is 1.8 km away and 

there are only two properties within 1 km of the development. 

Operation 

Employment Impacts 

15.34 According to estimates provided by BOC, there would be some 15-20 people directly employed by 

the Project throughout its operation. Assuming that 20 personnel are employed, and accounting 

for indirect and induced employment (see Table 15.6), the Dissolved Acetylene Project would 

create in the region of17 jobs within the local area, 26 jobs regionally and 30 jobs nationally. 

Given the economic, occupational and skills profile of the local and regional areas, it is expected 

that the creation of employment would benefit the local and wider population. This is assessed to 

result in a permanent, beneficial impact of minor significance. It is expected that the type of jobs 

created would match the profile of available skills in the local and regional areas. The creation of 

permanent jobs would also contribute towards reducing unemployment levels in the local and 

regional areas, whilst demand for knowledge and experience specific to the project’s needs would 

bring new skills in the area. 



Table 15.6 Direct and Indirect Employment Generated during Operation 

Assumptions Jobs 

Local Regional National Local Regional National 

Gross direct employment - - - 20 20 20 

Leakage 25% 0% 0% 5 0 0 

Displacement and substitution 0% 0% 0% - - - 

Net direct employment - - - 15 20 20 

Indirect and induced 

employment multiplier 

1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 6 10 

Total net employment - - - 17 26 30 

Stress Impacts 


addressed in Chapters 6, 11, 12 and 0 respectively. It is assessed that once the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project is operational any effects observed in relation to a potential increase in levels of 

stress due to increased industrial activity would be negligible. 

Leisure Amenity Impacts 

15.36 The access to and use of the Footpath and Bridal Way are will not be affected as a result of 

operational activities, thus it is considered that the Dissolved Acetylene Project will have a 

negligible impact on amenity facilities leisure activities. 

Land and Property Values 

15.37 It is considered that there will be a negligible impact on residential and commercial land and 

property values as the site is already suitably located within an area of industrial land use, and is 

adjacent to an existing (BOC) industrial works. Furthermore, the nearest settlement is 1.8 km 

away and there are only two properties within 1 km of the development. 


15.38 Mitigation is not a requirement for beneficial impacts or for those assessed to be of negligible or 

minor significance. Thus, no specific mitigation measures are proposed for the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project in relation to impacts associated with key socio-economic factors. 


15.39 Since no mitigation measures are proposed in relation to impacts associated with key socioeconomic 

factors the significance of the identified impacts does not change from that described 

above. 


15.40 It is recommended that BOC maintains close links and communication with the local communities 

and businesses in relation to the planned construction works and that early warning of potentially 

disturbing activities is given to existing businesses and nearby residents. This should help to 

minimise the effects of disturbance. 



15.41 No recommendations are proposed in relation to socio-economic impacts that may arise during 

the operational phase. 

Summary 

15.42 Overall, the Dissolved Acetylene Project is likely to result in positive socio-economic impacts at 

both the local and regional levels. It is expected that operation of the facility will create a small 

number of permanent jobs, while limited adverse impacts are anticipated on the economic and 

social level related to stress associated with construction activities. Table 15.7 provides a 

summary of the socio-economic impact assessment for the Project. 

Table 15.7 Summary of Socio-Economic Impacts 

Description Nature of Impact Significance 

Construction 

Employment Beneficial; temporary Minor 

Impacts on businesses and 

residents relating to stress 

Adverse; temporary Minor 

Impact on leisure activities Negligible Negligible 

Impact on land and property 

values 

Operation 

Negligible Negligible 

Employment Beneficial; permanent Minor 

Impact on businesses and 

residents relating to stress 


Impact on leisure activities Negligible Negligible 

Impact on land and property 

values 




16. Cumulative and In-combination Impacts 

Introduction 

16.1 For impacts associated with the Dissolved Acetylene Project that are assessed to be of an 

adverse nature, this Chapter addresses, so far as is possible, the potential for combined and 

cumulative impacts. The assessment of combined and cumulative impacts is an integral part of 

the EIA process and ensures that all aspects of potential impacts from the proposed development 

have been addressed to ensure minimum overall impact on communities and the natural 

environment. 

16.2 Cumulative impacts can arise when an impact from one project occurs at the same time as an 

impact from another project in the vicinity (for example, two concurrent construction projects). The 

cumulative impacts of existing operational facilities are accounted for through the baseline studies 

(as described in Chapters 6 to 15). Thus, only proposed developments are considered in the 

assessment of cumulative impacts. Proposed developments have been identified through 

consultation with NELC and only include ‘known’ developments (i.e. those that have already 

applied for Planning Consent). 

16.3 In-combination (or ‘combined’) impacts may occur when an operation (or operations) associated 

with a development gives rise to several types of impacts on a single receptor (e.g. the 

combination of air quality, noise and traffic impacts at a particular residential property). 

16.4 It is noted, that none of the phases of the Dissolved Acetylene Project has been predicted to result 

in significant adverse residual impacts and, as such, the probability of cumulative and incombination 

impacts is considered to be low. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Identification of Other Developments 

16.5 For the purpose of the cumulative assessment, consideration has been given to proposed 

development schemes that will be under construction in operation at the same time as the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project. The Dissolved Acetylene Project construction works are due to take 

place over a 9 month period from Q1 of 2012, with operation commencing before the end of 2012. 

The design life of the process plant is 25 years; thus it is expected that the site will operate until 

2037. 

16.6 Planning Applications have been submitted for seven industrial developments within the locality of 

BOC site (see Nos. 2 to 8 in Table 16.1 and on Figure 16.1). In addition, a new Biomass power 

plant (No. 9 in Table 16.1 and on Figure 16.1) has been proposed by Real Ventures at 

Immingham Docks; however, a Planning Application has not yet been submitted and detailed 

information is not available. It was agreed with NELC that Real Ventures will need to account for 

the potential cumulative impacts of their development and the BOC development in their ES. 

16.7 Table 16.1 provides summary details and a description of the proposed developments as well as 

commentary on whether each development has the potential for cumulative impacts with the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project. The approximate locations of the proposed developments are 

indicated on Figure 16.1. 



Figure 16.1 Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 



Map 

Ref. 

No 

1 BOC 

Developer Development Description NELC Planning ID 

and Application Date 

Construction of a plant to 

manufacture acetylene. 

2 C.A.T.C.H. Erect two storey extension to 

existing office block, 

proposed process unit, 

proposed canteen with 

support facilities, proposed 

scaffold training centre, 

proposed workshop with new 

car park facility. 

3 Aeolian Erection of two 3 MW wind 

turbines (maximum height of 

150 m) with ancillary 

development including new 

access. 

DC/247/11/IMM 

Scoping report 

submitted 23/03/11 

Planning Application 

due to be submitted in 

August 2011. 

DC/1114/09/IMM 

20/12/2009 

DC/827/08/IMM 

23/7/2008 

Table 16.1 Proposed Developments 

Notes Potential for Cumulative Effects 

Construction due to 

commence Q1 2012 with 

completion by end of Q3 

2012. 


40 week construction 

programme due to complete 

in early March 2012. Thus 

the latter stages of the 

development could overlap 

with the first 1-3 months of 

the BOC development in Q1 

2012. 

Works during this time are 

expected be mostly internal, 

with some external finishing 

works and site clearance. 

NELC confirmed that ‘there 

were no objections on 

transport grounds and the 

anticipated construction 

traffic was not seen to be 

significant.’ 

No decision as yet. 

12 month construction phase 

employing 15 people. 

Operational phase will result 

in 1 full time equivalent job. 

Construction Operation 

n/a (this 

development) 

n/a (this development) 


Yes. 

No it is understood 

that construction is 

unlikely to take place 

during the same time 

period as the BOC 

The nature of the 

C.A.T.C.H and the BOC 

developments are such 

that they are unlikely to 

result in cumulative 

impacts and these will 

not be considered in the 

EIA. 

Yes


Map 

Ref. 

No 



4 Abengoa 

Bioenergy 

UK 

5 RWE 

Npower 

Renewable 

s 

6 Associated 

British ports 

(ABP) 

Construction of a bioethanol 

plant with associated power 

plant, access, parking and 

office building. 

Section 36 (S.36) Application 

for integrated 65MWE 

electricity generating station 

fuelled by Biomass 

processing & refinery and 

S.36 Application 

Supplementary Statement 

and amendments to the 

proposal for the 65MWe 

Biomass Power Station 

Outline application to form an 

Employment Business Park 

Class B1, B2 and B8 uses 

DC/1147/10/IMM 

21/12/10 

Application for a new 

planning permission to 

replace extant 

application 

DC/70/07/IMM in order 

to extend time limit for 

implementation. 

DC/303/07/IMM 

20/2/2007 and 

DC/151/10/IMM 

25/2/2010 

DC/511/10/IMM 

7/6/2010 

(Application to replace 

an extant planning 

permission 

DC/1258/06/IMM) 


Consent to extend the period 

given 12/4/11 for a further 3 

years. 

The developers are 

committed to start but the 

scheme is currently 'frozen'. 

Construction phase is 

expected to take 24 months. 

No decision from the 

Secretary of State yet over 

the amendments to the 

scheme; however, it is 

understood that this scheme 

was frozen earlier this year 

by the developer. 

Decision pending. 

It is understood that there are 

no plans to undertake any 

works in the near future and 

that the land may be up for 

sale. 


development. 

No considered highly 

unlikely that the 

construction will 

commence during 

the same time period 

as the BOC Project. 





the same time period 

as the BOC Project. 





the same period as 

the BOC Project. 


Yes 

Yes. 

The Planning 

Application is in outline 

form only and the 

development will be 

speculative. Details of 

the development are 

therefore not fully known 

and it is not feasible to 

quantify cumulative 

impacts at this time.


Map 

Ref. 

No 



7 Vireol PLC Development of a Bioethanol 

production facility, 

associated structures and 

pipes including a feed stock 

reception and storage 

facilities, process plant and 

equipment, and ethanol 

storage tanks, the re-use of 

existing buildings for 

administration, operation and 

control buildings, by-product 

storage and distribution, with 

access from Fifth Avenue. 

8 Magna 

Holdings 

9 Real 

Ventures 

Outline application with 

access and layout details for 

mixed B1, B2, B8 industrial 

park with ancillary A3, A4, A5 

units 

Biomass power station, 49 

MW, burning clean wood. 

DC/225/10/WOL 

22/3/2010 

DC/730/07/IMM 

21-06-2007 


n/a 

due to submit in 

August 2011 


Decision pending. 

Construction phase due to 

last 30 months with a peak 

workforce of 700. 

Operational phase will 

require 70 staff. 

It is noted that the 

development is in Grimsby 

rather than Stallingborough 

and so vehicles accessing 

the development are likely to 

use a different road network. 

It is understood that there are 

no plans to undertake any 

works in the near future and 

that the land may be up for 

sale. 

Project due to be announced 

on 10/6/11, with Planning 

Application due to be 

submitted in August 2011 

and construction 

commencing in Q1 2012. 


Yes. 

Construction is not 

likely to start in 2011. 

The developers are 

still trying to secure 

funding. However it 

is possible that 

construction could 

start during the BOC 

construction phase 

and therefore, as a 

worst case, 

cumulative impacts 

will be considered. 





the same period as 

the BOC Project. 


Yes. 

The Planning 

Application is in outline 

form only and the 

development will be 

speculative. Details of 

the development are 

therefore not fully known 

and it is not feasible to 

quantify cumulative 

impacts at this time. 

Possible for certain EIA topic areas, however the 

project is at an early stage of development. 

Details are not yet available and are not likely to 

be available for inclusion in the BOC project EIA. 

Thus, the Biomass developers will need to 

account for the potential cumulative impacts of 

their development and the BOC development in 

their EIA.


16.8 Each of the proposed developments was discussed with NELC in terms of its potential for 

cumulative impacts with the Dissolved Acetylene Project. As a result of this process it was 

determined that there are only two projects whose construction phase is considered possible or 

likely to coincide with the construction of the BOC Project. These are the expansion of C.A.T.C.H 

(an educational collage) and Vireol Bio-ethanol plant (see Nos. 2 and 7 in Table 16.1 and on 

Figure 16.1). 

16.9 The developments that have been identified (with NELC) as having the potential to give rise to 

cumulative impacts during operation are: 

� Aeolian Stallingborough wind turbine development (No 3); 

� Abengoa Bio-ethanol plant (No 4); 

� RWE Npower Renewables (No. 5); and 

� Vireol Bio-ethanol plant (No 7). 

16.10 The remainder of the Chapter considers the potential for cumulative impacts for construction and 

operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project on a topic by topic basis. 

Cumulative Impacts During Construction 

Overview 

16.11 The construction phase of each of the two proposed developments (expansion of C.A.T.C.H and 

the Vireol Bio-ethanol plant) has the potential to result in the same (or very similar) types of 

activities and types of impacts as the Dissolved Acetylene Project construction phase; for 

example, construction dust, noise and vibration from piling, emissions and noise from increased 

road traffic and use of plant, and material, leaks spills from material waste transport, storage and 

handling, visual disturbance etc. 

16.12 In the main, construction impacts are most keenly felt in the immediate vicinity of a construction 

site. C.A.T.C.H is 1.9 km to the west of the Dissolved Acetylene Project and the Vireol Bio-ethanol 

plant is approximately 1.5 km to the south east. It is expected that (as for the BOC Project), the 

other two developments will be constructed in accordance with relevant legislation, regulation, 

policy and general good site practices and that this will ensure that construction impacts are 

appropriately managed, controlled and minimised. 

16.13 It is noted that only the latter stages of the C.A.T.C.H. Project will overlap with the initial stages of 

the Dissolved Acetylene Project construction works. Activities at C.A.T.C.H. will be limited to 

internal works (e.g. plastering), external finishes (e.g. painting and stoning up) and site clearance, 

which are unlikely to give rise to significant impacts. 

16.14 It is understood that the developers of the Bio-ethanol Project are still trying to secure funding. It is 

considered unlikely that construction would start during the BOC construction phase; however, it is 

possible and so, as a worst case, it has been considered in the cumulative impact assessment. 

Air Quality 

16.15 The main potential sources of impacts on air quality from the construction of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project are dust from construction activities and vehicle emissions resulting from 

increased traffic (deliveries, workers etc). The AQ assessment concluded that construction 

impacts of the Dissolved Acetylene Project on air quality would be of negligible significance. On 

the basis of this, and given the distance between the Dissolved Acetylene Project and the other 

proposed developments, is it concluded that there will be no significant cumulative impacts on air 

quality arising from construction activities. 



Geology, Hydrogeology and Land Quality 

16.16 The land quality impact assessment for the construction of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

concluded that there would be: 

� a very low risk of contamination to human receptors offsite and to offsite property receptors, 

resulting in impacts of neutral significance; and 

� a low risk of contamination to human receptors on site, groundwater and surface water 

receptors, resulting in adverse impacts of minor significance. 

16.17 On the basis of this, and given the distance between the Dissolved Acetylene Project and the 

other proposed developments, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative impacts 

on land quality during construction. 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

16.18 The two main water quality receptors considered for the Dissolved Acetylene Project are Middle 

Drain and the Humber Estuary. 

16.19 The nature of the construction activities at C.A.T.C.H, and the distance of the development from 

the BOC site, means that there are not likely to be any cumulative water quality impacts as a 

result of the concurrent construction activities. The location of the Vireol development (and local 

topography) means that impacts to Middle Drain are not expected. 

16.20 The assessment of the Dissolved Acetylene Project concluded that construction impacts on the 

Humber Estuary would be of neutral significance. Given this and that the location of the Vireol 

development is on the far side of Old Fleet Drain, it is not considered likely that there would be 

any cumulative water quality impacts as a result of these concurrent construction activities 

16.21 In summary, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative impacts on water quality 

during construction. 

Flood Risk 

16.22 The risk from tidal, groundwater, pluvial surface water flooding at the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

site will not be affected by the other two proposed developments. Neither of the other 

developments will discharge to Middle Drain, or increase the risk of fluvial flooding. On this basis 

and given the relative location and the nature of the other two proposed developments there will 

be no significant cumulative impacts in terms of flood risk during construction. 

Ecology 

Construction 

16.23 The Ecological Impact Assessment that was carried out for the C.A.T.C.H. development 99 did not 

identify any significant ecological effects. This ES however was lacking in detail regarding the 

distribution of high tide roosting sites in relation to the C.A.T.C.H. site and the impact assessment 

section makes no attempt to assess the impact of disturbance on SPA birds from the 

development. It is not known whether a separate assessment under the HRA has been completed 

for this scheme. However, given the small scale nature of the proposals within an existing 

developed site and the distance between the developments, no cumulative effects are likely. 



16.24 The ES for the Vireol 100 development (Chapter 8 Ecology), which also included a statement to 

inform an AA, concluded that the development would have no significant impact on birds 

associated with the SPA. Surveys undertaken to inform the ES found small numbers of wintering 

and passage birds on the proposed development site, although no significant species or numbers 

of birds were recorded. It was considered that the site footprint is located far enough away from 

the SPA Ramsar site and other areas supporting SPA Ramsar qualifying species during the tidal 

cycle to not have a significant effect upon them. The presence of existing industrial buildings 

between the position of the development and the SPA Ramsar site was also thought to limit 

potential impacts of the construction on the species associated with the SPA Ramsar, which have 

already become accustomed to relatively high levels of disturbance from industrial activity. The 

use of screening and silent pile-driving techniques has been proposed to further reduce the levels 

of disturbance as well as adherence to off-site noise targets. The use of silent piling techniques 

would also reduce any cumulative piling noise effects with the BOC proposed development to 

insignificant levels. 

16.25 Assuming that the C.A.T.C.H. and Vireol developments generate similar construction noise levels 

at the same time as those predicted for the proposed development, and given the very large 

separation distances involved and the resulting noise attenuation, the cumulative impacts on the 

internationally important bird populations of the Humber Estuary are expected to be no greater 

than those predicted for the Dissolved Acetylene Project alone. 

16.26 No loss of water vole habitat will occur as a result of the Vireol development. There is highly 

unlikely to be significant cumulative impacts even if construction occurs at the same time. 

16.27 The ecological assessment of the Dissolved Acetylene Project determined that although there 

could be negative impacts on ecological receptors as a result of the construction of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project, these would not be significant’. 

16.28 In summary, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative impacts on ecological 

receptors during construction. 

Noise and Vibration 

16.29 Assuming that the construction phase of the C.A.T.C.H development and Vireol Bio-ethanol plant 

generate similar construction noise levels at the same time as those predicted for the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project, given the very large separation distances involved and the resulting noise 

attenuation, the cumulative impacts are expected to be no greater than those predicted for the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project. Thus there would not be a cumulative effect. 

16.30 The cumulative vibration levels from general construction activities and associated vehicles and 

plant are expected to be negligible at the sensitive receptors given the large separation distances 

involved. 

Transport 

16.31 The Vireol development is in Grimsby rather than Stallingborough and so vehicles accessing the 

development are likely to use a different road network. 

16.32 The transport assessment in Chapter 12 has already assessed the effects of other committed 

developments. The assessment concluded that there would be no significant transport impacts 

during construction, even taking into account other committed developments. 



Landscape and Visual 

16.33 It has been identified within the landscape impact assessment that there is a frequent occurrence 

of large scale buildings and engineering elements within the landscape and that widespread 

movement within the existing landscape exerts influence on the character. It is considered that the 

landscape offers scope for multiple schemes to appear as just another recurring element in a 

heavily influenced landscape and would not result in a fundamental change to the local landscape 

character. 

16.34 Similarly for the visual aspect of the assessment it has been assessed that the large industrial 

elements present in the composition of views present prominent features. It is unlikely that all 

three developments (or even just the BOC development with one of the others) would be visible 

when viewed in one visual capture or static view. 

16.35 In summary, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative visual impacts, or impacts 

on landscape character as a result of construction of the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 

Historic Environment 

16.36 There are no Built Heritage Assets on or close to the Dissolved Acetylene Project site. Beyond the 

presence of the construction site and its potential to impact on the local historic landscape (an 

impact of neutral significance) the Dissolved Acetylene Project would not have any other effects 

on the historic environment. Thus it is considered highly unlikely that there could be any significant 

cumulative impacts as a result of the construction phases of the proposed developments. 

Socio-economics 

16.37 It is expected that the combined impacts of the BOC scheme during the construction phase would 

have a minor beneficial effect on employment in the local area. Given the current employment 

structure in the local area and that construction of the proposed projects will not be of a large 

scale, it is not envisaged that there will be a shortage of workforce. 

16.38 In terms of community impacts (e.g. stress; interference with leisure and amenity) and land and 

property impacts, the three proposed developments are considered to be located at sufficient 

distance from each other and to human receptors to result in any cumulative effects. 

In summary, on the basis of the above it is not considered likely that there would be any significant 

adverse cumulative socio-economic impacts as a result of the concurrent running of the 

construction phases of the three proposed developments. 

Cumulative Impacts during Operation 

Overview 

16.39 Cumulative impacts associated with the operation of the wind turbine development will be limited 

to noise, ecology (bird strike collision) and landscape and visual. 

16.40 The operation of the Bio-ethanol and Biomass plants would be expected to generate impacts that 

are similar in nature to any industrial plant and so the potential for cumulative impacts will be 

considered for each environmental topic area. However, it is noted that the operation of these 

facilities (as per the Dissolved Acetylene Project) will require an EP from the EA, which will 

necessitate compliance with BAT and the implementations of strict environmental management, 

monitoring and pollution control measures. This will limit the potential for impacts from each 

installation and subsequently the potential for cumulative impacts. 



16.41 Table 16.2 gives an indication of the distances between the other proposed developments and the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project site. Table 16.2 also attempts to provide an indication of the 

distances between each development and key sensitive receptors. Poplar Farm is the closest 

sensitive human receptor to the Dissolved Acetylene Project. The Humber Estuary SAC, SPA, 

Ramsar Site and SSSI (and its associated species) is the most significant and sensitive ecological 

receptor. 

Map 

Ref. 

No 

Table 16.2 Development with the Potential for Cumulative Effects during Operation 

Development Distance (a) & Direction from BOC 

development 

1 BOC Dissolved 

Acetylene 

Project 

3 Aeolian Wind 

Turbines 

4 Abengoa Bioethanol 

Plant 

5 RWE Npower 

Renewables 

Biomass Plant 

7 Vireol Bioethanol 

Plant 

Distance (a) 

from Poplar 

Farm 

Distance 

from Humber 

Estuary 

- 650 m 1,000 m 

250-500 m to the NW in the field 

adjacent to the SW boundary of the 

existing BOC site. 

100 to 500 m to the SE (depending 

on the exact location of the plant 

within the development site) in the 

field adjacent to the south east 

boundary of the Dissolved 

Acetylene site. 

650 m 1,150 m 

650 m 1,000 m 

1,400 m to the SE 1,900 m 250 m 

1,500 m to the SE, adjacent to the 

south bank of Old Fleet Drain 

1,800 m 500 m 

Table Notes: 

a The distances given in this Table are approximations as in many cases the exact location of the proposed plant 

within the overall development area is not known. 

Air Quality 

16.42 The atmospheric emissions resulting from operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project are 

reasonably specific to the process of manufacturing acetylene and will be different (in terms of 

type and potential effects) to those from a Bio-ethanol or Biomass Plant. Furthermore, the air 

quality assessment concluded that operational impacts of the Dissolved Acetylene Project on air 

quality would be of negligible significance. Thus it is considered highly unlikely that there could be 

any significant cumulative impacts as a result of the concurrent operational phases of the 

proposed developments. 


16.43 The land quality assessment of the Dissolved Acetylene Project concluded that that there would 

be: 

� a very low risk of contamination to humans on site and offsite, offsite property (buildings and 

crops), groundwater and surface water, resulting in impacts of neutral significance; and 

� a low risk of contamination to buildings on site, resulting in adverse impacts of minor 

significance. 



16.44 The Biomass Plant and the Vireol Bio-ethanol plant are considered to be too distant to result in 

cumulative impacts on land quality or groundwater. As noted previously, the two Bio-ethanol 

Plants and the Biomass Plant will operate under an EP, which will ensure that operations and 

emissions that could result in impacts to land and groundwater are suitably controlled and 

minimised. 

16.45 On the basis of all of these factors, it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant 

cumulative impacts on land quality or groundwater as a result of the concurrent operational 

phases of the proposed developments. 


16.46 The two main water quality receptors considered for the Dissolved Acetylene Project are Middle 

Drain and the Humber Estuary. The locations of the Abengoa, Vireol and RWE developments 

(and local topography) are such that impacts to Middle Drain are not expected from these 

developments. The water quality assessment of operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

determined that all of the identified impacts would be of neutral significance to the Humber 

Estuary. As noted previously, the two Bio-ethanol Plants and the Biomass Plant will operate under 

an EP, which will ensure that operations and emissions that could result in impacts to the Estuary 

are suitably controlled and minimised. 

16.47 On the basis of all of these factors, it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant 

cumulative impacts on water quality as a result of the concurrent operational phases of the 

proposed developments. 

Flood Risk 

16.48 The risk from tidal, groundwater, pluvial surface water flooding at the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

site will not be affected by the other proposed developments. 

16.49 The Aeolian development is upstream of the proposed Dissolved Acetylene Project consequently 

and any surface water runoff from the development could increase flow into Middle Drain, 

potentially increasing flood levels at the development site. It is assumed that, should it be 

necessary to discharge surface water to Middle Drain, that the discharge would be consented in 

agreement with NELDB and that this would ensure that the discharge could be managed within 

the existing channel and pumping capacity. None of the other developments will discharge to 

Middle Drain. 

16.50 On this basis of the above factors, and given the relative location of the other proposed 

developments there will be no significant cumulative impacts in terms of flood risk during 

operation. 

Ecology 

16.51 The operational effects of the wind turbines include potential collision risk of bird species with the 

turbines 101 , particularly gull species (including black-headed gull). Negligible impacts were 

predicted on the birds for which the internationally designated SPA and Ramsar sites are 

designated as they were not recorded using the site or the surrounding fields during the bird 

surveys detailed within the ES for this scheme. There would be no collision risk associated with 

the BOC development. 

16.52 Operational impacts on the birds using the SPA from the Abengoa development were only 

anticipated from noise disturbance and the residual impacts were not deemed to be significant 

due to the planting of hedgerows and small areas of woodland to attenuate the increase in 

background noise due to the operation of the plant. Therefore there are no cumulative effects 

anticipated from noise disturbance of the internationally important bird populations or other 

ecological receptors. The impacts of this development 102 on water vole will be countered by 

inclusion of the section of Old Fleet Drain within the site in the landscaping plans and 

management to benefit water vole. 



16.53 No residual operational impacts are predicted for the RWE Biomass Plant by the scheme due to 

habitat creation for water voles and birds 103 therefore no cumulative impacts are expected. The 

ES for the Vireol 100 development, which also included a statement to inform an AA, did not identify 

any significant ecological impacts from operation of the proposed facility and no cumulative 

impacts are expected. Considering the large separation distances involved and the associated 

noise attenuation, the operational noise levels from the RWE Biomass development and Vireol 

Bio-ethanol Plant are considered unlikely to notably increase the level of noise impact locally to 

Dissolved Acetylene facility. 

16.54 The ecological assessment of the Dissolved Acetylene Project determined there would be no 

adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar and that, although there could be negative 

impacts on ecological receptors as a result of the operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project, 

these would not be significant. 

16.55 Assuming that the Wind Turbine and Bio-ethanol developments generate similar operational noise 

levels as the Dissolved Acetylene Project, given the separation distances involved and anticipated 

noise attenuation, the cumulative impacts of noise on the internationally important bird populations 

of the Humber Estuary are expected to be no greater than those predicted for the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project alone. 

16.56 In summary, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative impacts on ecological 

receptors during concurrent operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project with the other proposed 

developments discussed herein. 


16.57 None of the proposed developments is expected to result in vibration impacts. 

16.58 Considering the large separation distances involved and the associated noise attenuation, the 

operational noise levels from the RWE Biomass development and Vireol Bio-ethanol Plant are 

considered unlikely to notably increase the level of noise impact locally to Dissolved Acetylene 

facility. 

16.59 The Aeolian Wind Turbine development and Abengoa Bio-ethanol plant are close to the proposed 

site and would be expected to increase the local ambient noise levels and corresponding impacts 

at the nearby local receptors such as Poplar Farm. Assuming that the Wind Turbine development 

and Abengoa Bio-ethanol Plant generate similar noise levels to the proposed BOC Project, the 

applicable noise limit set for Poplar Farm (for the Dissolved Acetylene Project) should still be 

satisfied at the local residential receptors. On this basis, in accordance with BS4142 guidance, the 

likelihood of complaints with regard to cumulative impacts would be of less than marginal 

significance. 

16.60 Furthermore, assuming all three developments generate similar noise levels simultaneously 

(which is highly unlikely in practice) and taking into account distance separation and the existing 

ambient noise levels at Poplar Farm, this would result in a noise level change of less than 1 dBA. 

The cumulative noise impacts associated with this noise level change are therefore expected to 

be negligible. 

16.61 In summary, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative noise or vibration impacts 

as a result of the concurrent operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project with the other proposed 

developments. 



Transport 

16.62 The Vireol development is in Grimsby rather than Stallingborough and so vehicles accessing the 

development are likely to use a different road network. 

16.63 The transport assessment in Chapter 12 has already assessed the effects of other committed 

developments. The assessment concluded that there would be no significant transport impacts 

during operation, even taking into account other committed developments. 


16.64 It has been identified within the landscape impact assessment that there is a frequent occurrence 

of large scale buildings and engineering elements within the landscape and that widespread 

movement within the existing landscape exerts influence on the character. It is considered that the 

landscape offers scope for multiple schemes to appear as just another recurring element in a 

heavily influenced landscape and would not result in a fundamental change to the local landscape 

character. 

16.65 Similarly for the visual aspect of the assessment, it has been assessed that the large industrial 

elements present in views present prominent features. From many receptor locations it is not 

anticipated that all elements that would form the proposed developments would be visible when 

seen from one static view point. The visibility of a greater proportion of development features is 

likely to be gained from those receptors which are travelling through the landscape and 

experiencing sequential views xxv or when successive views xxvi are achievable. The accumulation 

of changes brought about by the developments would be incremental and concentrated in an 

already visually ‘built up’ area. It is anticipated that this would result in a visual intensification of 

the presence of large scale built elements; however, this would not appear disproportionately 

dominant within the already distinctive skyline. 

16.66 It is considered that the landscape and visual cumulative impacts would be long term in nature. 

However, it is anticipated that the incremental introduction of the proposed developments 

considered for this cumulative assessment would not result in a significant impact in landscape or 

visual terms. 

16.67 In summary, it is concluded that there will be no significant cumulative visual impacts, or impacts 

on landscape character as a result of concurrent operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project with 

the other proposed developments considered. 


16.68 There are no Built Heritage Assets on or close to the Dissolved Acetylene Project site. Beyond the 

presence of the new facilities and its potential to impact on the local historic landscape (an impact 

of neutral significance) the Dissolved Acetylene Project would not have any other effects on the 

historic environment. Thus it is considered highly unlikely that there could be any significant 

cumulative impacts as a result of the operational phases of the other proposed developments. 

xxv The reoccurrence of visibility of a landscape feature during the passage through a landscape. 

xxvi Where the viewer has to turn their heads to view different elements within the view. 




16.69 It is expected that the combined impacts of the BOC scheme during the construction phase would 

have a minor beneficial effect on employment in the local area, particularly given the relatively 

high unemployment rates in the local area. The concentration of industrial activities in the local 

area is seen as a favourable effect on the employment prospects of the local population and an 

incentive to attract further industrial activities in the area. Given that there are no residential areas 

in the vicinity of the new BOC site, and that there are only two properties within 1 km, it is 

considered unlikely that local populations would see this industrial concentration as jeopardising 

their quality of life and or adversely affecting property values. 

In summary, on the basis of the above it is not considered likely that there would be any significant 

adverse cumulative socio-economic impacts as a result of the concurrent running of the 

operational phases of the proposed developments. 

In summary, and on the basis of the above it is not considered likely that there would be any 

significant adverse cumulative socio-economic impacts. 

In-combination Impacts 

Overview 

16.70 In-combination impacts can occur when an operation (or operations) gives rise to several types of 

impacts on a single receptor (e.g. the combination of air quality, noise and traffic impacts at a 

particular residential property). 

16.71 An overview of receptors (and the associated potential impacts on these receptors) that have 

been considered for the Dissolved Acetylene Project and which are considered to have the 

potential for in-combination effects are: 

� humans, which could be susceptible to the impacts associated with air quality, water quality, 

land quality, flooding, noise and vibration, transport; landscape and visual effects and socioeconomics; 

� land and groundwater, which could be susceptible to the impacts associated with air quality 

(via deposition), flooding and land quality; 

� surfaces water, which could be susceptible to the impacts associated with air quality (via 

deposition), flooding, land quality and water quality; and 

� ecological receptors, which could be susceptible to the impacts associated with air quality, 

water quality, land quality, flooding, noise and vibration and transport. 

16.72 Built heritage assets, archaeology and the ‘landscape’ are not considered to be susceptible to incombination 

effects as a result of the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 

16.73 Impacts associated with flooding are not considered further in the in-combination assessment, as 

flooding would be a one-off a-typical event. 

In-combination Impacts on Humans 

16.74 The nearest sensitive human receptor is approximately 650 m to the south west at Poplar Farm 

This receptor is considered to be representative of human receptors that could be affected by the 


16.75 The residents at the farm could experience in-combination effects as a result of air quality, noise, 

transport, landscape and visual and socio-economic impacts. It is unlikely that the farm (given its 

distance and location) would be affected by any land quality and water quality impacts associated 

with the Dissolved Acetylene Project. 



16.76 The results of the individual assessments for construction and operational impacts of the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project at Poplar Farm have been summarised as: 

� air quality all impacts are of negligible significance; 

� noise and vibration: 

- there is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely as a result of operational noise 

and the impact is expected to be negligible, 

- considering the temporary nature of construction activities, the construction noise impact 

is acceptable when assessed in accordance with BS 5228, 

- traffic noise impacts during construction and operation are expected to be negligible, and 

- no adverse vibration impacts are expected during the construction or operation; 

� transport no significant impacts during the construction or operational periods for all roads 

within the study area; 

� landscape and visual: 

- the impact on landscape character phase was assessed as neutral, and 

- visibility of the entire Project is not anticipated from the dwellings of Poplar Farm due to 

the screening by intervening vegetation and only taller elements such as the roof vents 

would be visible above the intervening vegetation. In the context of the existing view 

these additional features would not be incongruous. Furthermore the Project would not 

have visual significance for views from within the dwelling of Poplar Farm (due to the 

primary orientation of this dwelling). The overall impact on views for Poplar Farm is 

anticipated to be neutral; and 

� socio-economic: 

- job creation would be of minor beneficial significance (although this may not affect the 

residents of Poplar Farm directly) 

- minor adverse impacts may occur on related to stress inconvenience during the 

construction stage; 

- impacts associated with leisure and amenity and land and property values have been 

assessed to be negligible. 

16.77 Even when considered together, the various impacts (listed above) of the Dissolved Acetylene are 

not considered likely to result in significant adverse in-combination impacts on the nearest 

sensitive human receptor. 

In-combination Impacts on Land and Groundwater 

16.78 Land (and subsequently groundwater) is unlikely to be affected by deposition of atmospheric 

emissions as these are not expected to be significant (either during construction or operation). 

Thus in-combination effects to land and groundwater are not expected. 

In-combination Impacts on Surface Waters 

16.79 Surface waters are unlikely to be affected by deposition of atmospheric emissions as these are 

not expected to be significant (either during construction or operation). T 



16.80 Contamination (existing or new) of the soils beneath the site can subsequently affect groundwater 

and ultimately surface waters (via migration through groundwater). Chapter 8 assessed the effects 

of all potential activities (for operation and construction) that could adversely affect water quality in 

Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary. The assessment concluded that overall, impacts would be 

of neutral to minor significance at worst. 

In-combination Impacts on Ecological Receptors 

16.81 The ecological assessment (Chapter 10) has already considered combined effects and concluded 

that impacts on ecological receptors as a result of the construction and operation of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project not be significant. 



17. Conformity to Planning Policies 

Introduction 

17.1 This Chapter provides an evaluation of the proposed development in relation to pertinent national, 

regional and local planning policies. This evaluation draws upon the individual assessments for 

each environmental topic area and provides a judgement on the extent to which the Project 

delivers a sustainable development and contributes to environmental, social and economic 

objectives. This Chapter also provides comments in relation to how policies have influenced the 

development of the Project and to what extent the Project conforms to the policies. Further details 

of relevant planning policies at national, regional and local levels are discussed in Chapter 4 and 

are summarised in Appendix 4A. 

Air Quality 

Key Policies 

17.2 ‘PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control’ covers a number of environmental topics, with a core 

focus on contamination and the management of potentially polluting activities. The Annex to 

PPS 23 provides detailed guidance on exploring the impacts of new development on, amongst 

other matters, air quality. Emphasis is placed on exploring the potential impacts of development 

proposals in respect of existing and potential AQMA designations and achieving conformity to the 

Local Authority’s air quality action plan. Policy SP2: Sustainable Development Principles of the 

emerging LDF supports servicing and access to development that promotes sustainable 

communities, making specific reference to safeguarding and enhancing the quality of natural 

resources, including air quality. 

Conformity of Proposed Development 

17.3 The Project is not within or adjacent to an AQMA. The closest AQMA is in Immingham and was 

designated on the basis of particulate exceedences in 2004/05. The AQMA is 3 km to the north 

west of the site and encompasses properties near the junction of Kings Road and Pelham Road 

and some properties in Hawthorn Avenue. The potential revocation of the Immingham AQMA is 

currently under review. The next closest AQMA is some 6 km to the south east of the site along 

Cleethorpes Road in Grimsby, designated in September 2010 following an exceedence of the 

nitrogen dioxide objective 

17.4 The air quality assessment identified dust and transport emissions as the principal potential 

sources of impacts on air quality during the construction phase, and process emissions and 

transport as the primary operational sources of impacts (full details are provided in Chapter 6). 

17.5 The air quality assessment concluded it is unlikely that the construction or operation of the 

development would have a material effect on the AQMAs, which accords with the considerations 

required by PPS 23. 

17.6 Consideration has been given to the potential impacts of construction and operation on air quality 

experienced by sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include residential properties and 

locations where there are likely to be vulnerable occupants such as hospitals, nursing homes and 

schools; and designated ecological sites. The closest residential receptor is Poplar Farm (over 

500 m to the south west) and there are 5 other isolated properties within 1.3 km from the site). 

The nearest significant ecological receptor is the Humber Estuary which is approximately 1 km 

from the site. 



17.7 The air quality assessment demonstrated that construction dust emissions are unlikely to affect 

sensitive receptors, assuming adherence to good practice measures (which will be defined in the 

CEMP). In respect of transport emissions during construction and operation, the projected 

changes in traffic flows are insufficient to trigger the need for quantitative assessment of impacts 

on air quality (in accordance with the thresholds of the DMRB guidance). Process emissions were 

found to be insignificant (i.e. less than 10% of short term and less than 1% of the long term health 

and ecological based assessment criteria). Furthermore, process emissions will be managed and 

controlled through an ISO14001 and the EA’s permitting regime. 

17.8 In summary, impacts on air quality associated with the Project, for both the construction and 

operational phases were assessed to be of negligible significance and the Project is considered to 

conform to the relevant policy requirements. 


Key Policies 

17.9 ‘PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ reflects the requirement for the impact of 

development proposals on biodiversity and geological conservation assets to be considered. A list 

of geological matters that should be examined includes: 

� the baseline geological characteristics and their value; 

� the presence of any designated assets and their potential relationship with the proposed 

development; 

� the potential for development proposals to deliver enhancement to relevant geological 

features within the design of the development; and 

� any requirements for mitigation of adverse effects, which should be embedded in the 

proposals. 

17.10 PPS 9 includes a presumption against permitting development that may have an adverse effect 

upon a SSSI; and advises that sites of regional and or local geological interest should be 

maintained for their contribution to quality of life, research and education. 

17.11 PPS 23 advises LPAs to assume that the relevant pollution control regime for a given 

development will be properly applied and enforced; thus the primary concern is whether the 

Proposed Development is an appropriate use for the site in question. This requires consideration 

of whether contamination is present; whether the proposed development will give rise to 

contamination and or whether appropriate control measures have been considered; and reviewing 

the proposals in the context of potential cumulative effects with other existing or planned 

development. The guidance recommends the application of the phased approach of CLR 11 (see 

Chapter 7) to the identification of potential impacts upon and effects arising from contamination. 

17.12 The ‘Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy 

Environment’ outlines proposed planning policy on: biodiversity; geological conservation; 

landscape and soil protection; heritage coastline; open space; sport; recreation; green 

infrastructure; and floodlighting of sports and recreational facilities. Upon adoption, this document 

will replace sections of PPS 23 (amongst other PPSs). Part of the document states that protection 

will be given to the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a), stating 

that where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable, LPAs should seek to 

develop areas of poorer quality land (Grades 3b, 4 and 5) in preference to that of higher quality 

this updates the current policy (contained in PPS 7) as it adds an exception to this approach 

where protecting BMV land would be at variance with other sustainability considerations. 




17.13 The EIA process is mandatory for the Project and inherently addresses many of the requirements 

of PPS 9 in terms of assessing baseline geological characteristics and potential contamination 

(PPS 23); then systematically exploring the potential for the Project to give rise to adverse effects. 

A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) has been prepared to explore the potential effects of the Project 

in respect of land contamination from construction and operation. This is supported by hazard 

identification, risk estimation and evaluation, in accordance with the CLR approach advocated by 

PPS 23. 

17.14 Based on a combination of review of past and current activities on the site, site investigations for 

the adjacent (existing) BOC site and the initial findings of the GI for the proposed site, no potential 

sources of contamination have been identified to date. 

17.15 The Site is believed to fall within Grade 3 of the agricultural land classification. Pre-application 

discussions with the LPA in light of the implications in relation to PPS 7 indicate that the Local 

Plan has addressed this issue by allocating sites for specific non- agricultural related uses, such 

as the BOC site, as in certain areas NELC considers that such uses take priority over protecting 

the best farming land. The assessment has therefore focused principally on the likely effects on 

receptors arising from potential contamination sources associated with the Project construction 

and operational phases. 

17.16 The conclusions suggest very low risks during the construction phase. The CEMP will ensure 

implementation of good practice techniques. Operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project will be 

controlled through the EA permitting regime and operational impacts are assessed as varying 

from neutral to minor adverse at worst. Thus impacts of the Project in respect of Land Quality are 

considered to fall within acceptable levels. The processes undertaken in terms of the assessment 

and the resultant findings render the Project in conformity with the relevant policy requirements. 


Key Policies 

17.17 ‘PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control’ covers a number of environmental topics, with a core 

focus on contamination and the management of potentially polluting activities. The Annex to 

PPS 23 provides detailed guidance on exploring the impacts of new development on, amongst 

other matters, water quality. Policy GEN8: Protection of Water Resources of the Local Plan is 

designed to ensure that development proposals do not give rise to an unacceptable threat to the 

quality and or quantity of groundwaters or surface waters. The policy also seeks to ensure that 

adequate water resources exist or will be provided to serve the development; and measures for 

the conservation and recycling of water will be encouraged. 

17.18 The forthcoming LDF Policy DM10 indicates that development should be: 

� incorporating appropriate flood mitigation, and where necessary flood resilience measures; or 





during the construction and lifetime of the development;...’ 




17.19 The EIA has considered the potential impacts of the Project on the two key receptors in terms of 

water quality the Humber Estuary and Middle Drain. The Dissolved Acetylene Project will result in 

an aqueous discharge that will be pumped (after treatment) into Middle Drain. The generation of 

the proposals that form the Project have been informed by the policy requirements to safeguard 

water quality and safeguard against pollution incidents. In addition to the EA permitting regime, 

the Project will operate under an ISO 14001 EMS and the design includes the following measures 

to maximise water conservation and safeguard water quality: 

� water used in the manufacture of acetylene will be recycled as much as practicable; 

� a rainwater harvesting system will collect clean surface water run-off, which will be used to 

augment the supply of process water; 

� surface water runoff will be partially attenuated by rainwater harvesting, 

� the drainage network incorporates an OWS to reduce hydrocarbon pollution and catch pits to 

capture silt particles, prior to discharge to Middle Drain (via a pumping station); 

� a Deluge Lagoon is included within the design in the event of a fire, cooling water and or 

firewater run-off will be redirected to the Deluge Lagoon and contained on site. Depending on 

its nature, water that collects in the Lagoon would be recycled, treated appropriately and 

discharged to Middle Drain or be removed for offsite disposal. The Deluge Lagoon is also 

suitable for use to clean up accidental spillages that cannot be dealt with at source; 

� aqueous discharges associated with the site (which include clean surface water runoff, hard 

salty water from regeneration of the water softener system and clean water from the OWS for 

the compressors) will be consented by the EA through the EP; and 

� domestic waste effluent from the Amenity Building will be treated on site and disposed to 

Middle Drain in accordance with the requirements of a discharge consent. 

17.20 The specialist assessment (see Chapter 8) has concluded that the potential construction impacts 

of the Project on the water environment are minor or neutral and that potential operational impacts 

are neutral. Thus the overall impact of the Project on the water environment has been assessed 

as not significant. The processes undertaken in terms of the assessment, the integration of water 

quality considerations into the design and the resultant findings of the assessment render the 

Project in conformity with the relevant policy requirements. 

Flood Risk 

Key Policies 

17.21 ‘PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk’ aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all 

stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and 

to direct development away from the areas at highest risk in all but the most exceptional of cases. 

As part of this process, the PPS identifies a series of data that must be submitted to accompany 

Planning Applications, including Flood Risk Assessments, Sequential and Exceptions Tests, as 

appropriate. The PPS also supports the creation of flood resilient developments and a responsible 

approach to the conservation of water. The Yorkshire and Humber Plan reinforces the PPS 25 

approach in Policy ENV1: Development and Flood Risk and seeks development proposals that 

are produced in the context of strategic flood risk assessment, whilst also taking spatial, economic 

and environmental considerations into account. 



17.22 The forthcoming LDF reflects the PPS in Policy DM10, which reinforces the provisions of PPS 25 

in intending to steer development away from high risk flood areas, and providing appropriate 

mitigation in priority regeneration and strategic employment areas. It also states that ‘essential 

infrastructure will be permitted to locate within flood risk zones only where they satisfy the 

Sequential Test and are designed and constructed to remain operational and safe in times of 

flood’ and proposals should be: 

� ‘addressing flood risk by adopting a sequential approach to the identification, and 

development of sites in accordance with PPS 25; 

� contributing to appropriate flood defence works where applicable, in accordance with the 

Humber Flood Risk Management Plan; 



� incorporating sustainable drainage systems; and where appropriate, green infrastructure; and 



during the construction and lifetime of the development...’. 

17.23 Development of more than 10 dwellings or 1,000 m² (0.1 ha) of non-residential floor space will, as 

a minimum, be required to source 10% of their energy requirements from on site renewable or 

low-carbon energy sources unless it is demonstrated to be not feasible or not viable. 


17.24 In common with all of the designated employment sites within North East Lincolnshire, the site is 

within an area of known flood risk. In accordance with PPS 25, pre-application discussions and 

communications with NELC and the EA have been undertaken to explore the issues surrounding 

site selection and the operational requirements for the Project to be developed on the site. 

Agreement has been reached with NELC that the Project qualifies as a Highly Vulnerable 

Development that should be considered as Essential Infrastructure in accordance with the terms 

of exceptions within Table D.2 of PPS 25. The Sequential Test and Exception Test have been 

completed on the basis of this agreed classification and are included with the FRA that supports 

the Planning Application, in Annex 9 of this ES. This approach is consistent with the flood risk 

management processes set out in PPS 25 and supported by Policy ENV1 of the RSS. 

17.25 The design of the proposed development has been informed by specialist assessment of the flood 

risk at the site, based on consideration of tidal flooding from the Humber Estuary, flooding from 

Middle Drain and potential risks associated with pluvial (rainwater), sewers and groundwater (see 

Chapter 9). The assessment concludes that there is no knowledge of flooding to the proposed 

development site to date from any of the potential sources identified. The most significant risk of 

flooding is from tidal flooding. The site is currently protected to at least a 1 in 1,000 year tidal 

event by coastal defences; however there is a residual risk of tidal flooding as a result of 

breaching or overtopping of the flood defences. 

17.26 In order to minimise the risk of flooding during the construction stage, works will not be undertaken 

when there is a predicted increase in flood risk or tidal flood event and, should a prediction be 

made, the site will be cleared of machinery. In addition, the phasing of the development will 

ensure that the drainage systems (including surface water attenuation features, outlined in the 

previous sub-section), form part of the initial works, providing a safeguard for later construction 

phases. 



17.27 During operation, the Electrical Switch Room will be protected from flooding by flood doors. Two 

refuge areas providing a Safe Haven for staff during an extreme tidal event with breach or 

overtopping of the coastal defences will be provided within the Generator Building. The elevations 

of the refuge areas will be 6.61 mAOD on the first floor and 8.88 mAOD on the second floor Both 

of these refuge areas are well above the 1 in 1,000 year (0.1% AEP) extreme sea level plus 

climate change to 2115 of 6.45 m AOD. All other areas will be allowed to flood and in doing so 

should not pose a risk to site personnel or to the continuing operation of the site. Furthermore, the 

Dissolved Acetylene facility will be included on the EA flood warning register; and a flood warning 

and emergency evacuation plan will be prepared. 

17.28 Site selection and Project design have been developed in full awareness of the flood risk 

associated with the site and have been executed in accordance with PPS 25 and RSS policy 

ENV1. The EA has been consulted and the requisite tests have been passed, both of which are 

reported in Annex 9 that supports this ES. The Project design responds to the flood risk and 

reflects the requirements of emerging LDF Policy DM10. The residual tidal risk is recognised and 

there is evidence of proposed protocols that will be in place to manage this risk to acceptable 

thresholds. In this respect, the Project is considered to conform to the relevant policies. 

Ecology 

Key Policies 

17.29 ‘PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ reflects the requirement for the impact of 

development proposals on biodiversity and geological conservation assets to be considered. A list 

of biodiversity matters that should be examined includes: 

� the baseline biodiversity characteristics and their value; 

� the presence of any designated assets and their potential relationship with the proposed 

development; 

� the potential for development proposals to deliver enhancement to relevant biodiversity 

features within the design of the development; and 

� any requirements for mitigation of adverse effects, which should be embedded in the 

proposals. 

17.30 PPS 9 includes: a presumption against permitting development that may have an adverse effect 

upon a SSSI; sites of regional and or local biodiversity interest should be maintained for their 

contribution to meeting national biodiversity targets and contributing to quality of life; and the 

legislative framework for avoiding harm to Protected Species is supported by measures described 

in PPS 9. 

17.31 The ‘Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy 

Environment’ outlines proposed planning policy on: biodiversity; geological conservation; 

landscape and soil protection; heritage coastline; open space; sport; recreation; green 

infrastructure; and floodlighting of sports and recreational facilities. The biodiversity elements of 

this forthcoming policy document are linked to a strong policy commitment to the protection and 

delivery of green infrastructure network for a range of linked purposes (flood water storage; 

sustainable drainage; urban cooling; amenity space; habitats and green corridors for biodiversity 

networks; creation of attractive, sustainable communities; and sense of place, linking to the 

heritage of an area). 



17.32 Policy E2: Estuary Related Land of the Adopted Local Plan restricts the use of land subject to this 

designation, which includes the Application Site. The policy also emphasises the need for 

development within the estuarine area to deliver no adverse effects on the Humber Flats and 

Marshes, Pyewipe and Cleethorpes Coast SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site (as it was then titled now it 

is known as the Humber Estuary SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar site). The provisions of Policy E2 

are supported by Policy NH1: Sites of International and National Nature Conservation Importance, 

which delivers a presumption against development that would result in adverse effects (either 

directly or indirectly) on the conservation value of a designated or potential SSSI, a Ramsar site, a 

SPA or a SAC. It states that if adverse effects are predicted, the development will only be 

considered if the need outweighs the special interest of the site. It is also worth noting that the 

HRA that has been prepared to support the forthcoming LDF indicates that the development of 

new employment land is viewed as a source of risk for the Humber Estuary SSSI, SPA SAC and 

Ramsar site and that there remains ‘concern that there will be conflicts between the promotion of 

the expansion of employment land and the integrity of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar site.’ 

17.33 The requirement for development proposals to be mindful of potential effects on biodiversity is 

applicable to species and habitats across North East Lincolnshire. A series of policies includes 

reference for the need to build mitigation into proposals as part of the design process and 

incorporate mechanisms for enforcement (Policy NH2: Sites of Local Nature Conservation 

Importance and Value; Policy NH3: Protected Species and emerging LDF Policy DM9: 

Safeguarding and Enhancing the Natural and Built Environment). In addition, the forthcoming LDF 

includes policies that seek to safeguard and enhance the quality of the natural and built 

environment in a more general sense (Policy DM9: Safeguarding and Enhancing the Natural and 

Built Environment; Policy DM10: Adapting to Climate Change; Policy SO5: Built and Natural 

Environment; and Policy SP2: Sustainable Development Principles). 


17.34 The specialist assessment of potential ecological impacts arising from the Project is reported in 

Chapter 10 of this ES, supported by the preparation of a HRA Stage 2 AA Report 7 (see Appendix 

10A). The work undertaken indicates that the key designated features of relevance to this Project 

are the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site, all of which are underpinned by the Humber 

Estuary SSSI designation. 

17.35 Data have been sourced from records to identify the baseline characteristics of the Application 

Site, which have been explored further through the completion of an Extended Phase 1 Habitat 

Survey by suitably qualified ecologists in April 2011 (see Chapter 10 for full details). In summary, 

no protected SPA bird species were noted on the site; Middle Drain supports water voles; and 

although habitat suitable for great created newts was identified initially, by the time of survey the 

water bodies had dried up, rendering them unsuitable for the species and further surveys were 

aborted. 

17.36 No habitats of importance to nature conservation are to be lost as a result of proposed works. The 

development area consists primarily of arable land with a negligible value to nature conservation. 

The land take will be minimal with site compounds constructed within the redline boundary; with 

only one additional access route constructed off South Marsh Road. 

17.37 The ecological assessment concludes that there will be no adverse effects on the qualifying 

interest features of the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site, or on other habitats or 

notable species (see Chapter 10 for full details). 

17.38 Although significant negative impacts as a result of construction activities are not predicted a 

COMP has been proposed (which would be part of the CEMP) to enable the determination of 

whether working practices on site require amending to reduce the number of disturbance events 

(if applicable) and thus minimise negative impacts. 



17.39 An operational noise limit has been set for Poplar Farm (550 m from the development site), and 

earth bunds will screen visual disturbance of birds. Birds are likely to habituate to operational 

activities within the development as evidenced by birds using high-tide roosts immediately 

adjacent to existing similar industrial sites within the South Humber Bank. 

17.40 In summary the ecological assessment concludes that, given the measures inherent within the 

project design and execution, no significant negative ecological effects are predicted. 

17.41 The approach to understanding the ecological impacts of the Project and the identification of 

design measures, construction approaches and mitigation is in accordance with relevant policies. 


Key Policies 

17.42 ‘PPG 24 Planning and Noise’ aims to advise on how the planning system can be used to minimise 

the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development. The 

guidance recommends the use of BS 4142 to assess the likelihood of complaints from residential 

receptors for noise from an industrial type development; and the use of BS 5228 for general 

advice on construction noise mitigation, and a method for predicting noise from construction sites. 

PPG 24 advocates separation of major sources of noise from noise-sensitive land uses, as 

defined in the guidance. Particular consideration is afforded to the potential for sources of noise to 

affect SSSIs, especially where these are of international importance under the EC Habitats, Birds 

Directive or the Ramsar convention. 


17.43 The assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts of the Project on sensitive receptors has 

been undertaken in accordance with the guidance and processes presented in PPG 24, updated 

by BS4142 and BS5528 as appropriate (see Chapter 11). The assessment concludes that for the 

worst case scenario total noise levels (ambient noise and construction noise combined) would, at 

worst, be no more than 5 dBA higher than ambient noise levels. Considering the temporary nature 

of construction activities, this is considered an acceptable level of impact when assessed in 

accordance with BS 5228. 

17.44 Noise from construction and operation traffic and the potential for impacts from vibration have 

been assessed to be negligible. 

17.45 A noise target (44 dB (LAeq,T)) has been set at the nearest human noise sensitive receptor (Poplar 

Farm) in relation to operational noise. The assessment concluded that noise emissions from the 

operation of the site should easily satisfy the noise limit at the nearest residential properties and in 

accordance with BS 4142 guidance, the assessment suggests that there is a positive indication 

that complaints are unlikely. Furthermore, combining the expected site operational noise levels 

with the existing ambient noise level at Poplar Farm, results in a noise level change of less than 1 

dBA. Thus noise impacts associated with this noise level change are therefore expected to be 

negligible. On this basis, the approach to assessment of noise and vibration and the outcome are 

considered to accord with relevant policies. 



Transport 

Key Policies 

17.46 LPAs are required to consider a number of transport principles in assessing Planning Applications, 

as described in ‘PPG 13 Transport’. Principles relevant to the Proposed Development include: 

� active management of transport to make the fullest use of public transport, recognising that 

this may be less achievable in rural areas; 

� use parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures to promote 

sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys; 

� promote the sustainable movement of freight including, where feasible, movement by water 

and rail; 

� encourage the location of development involving freight movements away from congested 

central areas and residential areas, and ensure adequate access to trunk roads; and 

� support collaborative approaches to ensuring the design of lorry routes and loading unloading 

facilities in a manner that reduces vehicle emissions and noise levels. 

17.47 Development proposals should be set in the context of the Local Transport Plan 3 this sets a 

target of 0% growth in traffic up to 2022 in the Borough, complemented by targets to achieve 

increases in walking and cycling. 

17.48 The Local Plan includes policies that seek to implement parking restraint as a means of delivering 

more sustainable transport patterns, whilst also ensuring that development remains accessible to 

all (Policy T6: Development Proposals and the Provision of Parking; and Policy T7: Car Parking 

Provision for those with Mobility Impairments, supported by Supplementary Planning Guidance 

mobility and parking standards (adopted 2004) xxvii ). The forthcoming LDF Spatial Objective Policy 

SO6: Transport seeks to develop accessible patterns of development that reduce the overall need 

to travel and make it safer and more convenient for the community to access jobs and services by 

use of public transport, cycling and walking; and provide the necessary infrastructure to support 

sustainable growth. The intention is that this will be supported by Policy DM7: Managing Travel 

Demand, Promoting Sustainable Transport Networks, which will require development to manage 

travel demand by adopting approaches that; 

� widen transport options; 

� secure, safe, attractive environments that demonstrate a quality approach to design; 

� minimise the distance people need to travel, maximising connectivity along safe, attractive 

convenient cycle and pedestrian links; and 

� effectively contribute to demand management, managing car park provision in a manner 

consistent with the Regional Spatial Strategy, and addresses the needs of people with 

disabilities. 

xxvii http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/supplementary-planning-guidance/ 




17.49 One of the most effective means of delivering development that adheres to sustainable transport 

principles is judicious site selection. Ensuring connectivity to Immingham Port, coupled with the 

desire to minimise the need to transport both raw materials and products from the manufacturing 

process long distances by road, have been key considerations in selecting the appropriate site for 

the Dissolved Acetylene Project (reflecting the provisions of PPG 13 and forthcoming LDF Policy 

DM7). In addition, the site is directly adjacent to an established BOC facility, maximising the 

potential for new employees to benefit from local knowledge in exploring more sustainable modes 

of travel to access the site and delivering parking efficiency and restraint through sharing existing 

provision (reflecting Policy T6 of the Local Plan). 

17.50 Staff parking (including cycle and motor bike facilities) will be at the existing site car park, although 

two parking places, one disabled, will be available at the proposed site. BOC is planning to apply 

for consent to extend the existing car park (this is project is separate from and independent of the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project). 

17.51 As part of the EIA process, a TS has been produced for the Project. This has predicted low 

volumes of traffic and HGVs associated with the construction and operation of the proposed 

development, concluding that no significant adverse impacts are predicted and proposing no 

mitigation measures. As a precautionary approach, the TS (provided in Appendix 12A) includes a 

FMP and a Framework CTMP is provided in Appendix 12B). These have been considered in 

drawing the conclusions in relation to the likely impact of the Project in terms of transport effects. 

The approach is considered to accord with relevant planning policies. 


Key Policies 

17.52 General protection is afforded to landscapes designated for their exceptional quality in policies set 

out in PPS 7. In addition, several PPSs require careful attention to the design of development; 

citing integration and enhancement of various aspects of the built and natural environment as the 

rationale (see Appendix 4A). The site does not fall within a designated landscape, thus the local 

plan provides the context Policy GEN3: Development and Landscaping requires applicants to 

prepare a landscaping scheme that responds to the findings of the landscape appraisal. Policy 

also requires the developers to demonstrate the long term maintenance of the landscape scheme, 

supported by the contents of Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Landscape Design 

(adopted 2005 xxviii ). 

17.53 The Local Plan indicates that landscaping schemes will be expected to: 

� ‘make use of hard and soft landscaping as appropriate; 

� make use of existing features such as ponds, hedgerows, trees and walls; 

� be designed for minimum maintenance; and 

� be established at an early stage in the sites development.’ 

17.54 These landscape requirements are proposed to be carried forward into the LDF in a revised 

format, exemplified by the provisions of Spatial Objectives Policy SO5: Built and Natural 

Environment and relevant sections of Policy SP2: Sustainable Development Principles (see 

Appendix 4A). 

xxviii http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/supplementary-planning-guidance 




17.55 The site is not subject to any landscape designations, nor does it form part of the setting of any 

landscape designations consequently the relevant provisions of PPS 7 do not require detailed 

consideration. In accordance with the Local Plan policies, a landscape scheme has been 

prepared for the site (see Figure 3.4). The ZTV of the new facilities has been modelled as part of 

the EIA process (see Chapter 13). The ZTV modelling process has been used to develop an 

understanding of the intervisibility of the site (and therefore, the proposed development) and 

sensitive receptors that have a line of sight to the Project. 

17.56 A preliminary landscaping scheme has been designed (see Figure 3.4) to reflect the Local Plan 

policies insofar as existing landscape features within the site have been retained and enhanced, 

as far as practicable. Furthermore, an opportunity exists for the local community to become 

involved in working with the Applicant, NE, NELC and Humber INCA to create designs for the 

NEA within the site. 

17.57 The Dissolved Acetylene Project seeks to ensure that the appearance of the development in the 

ZTV is discrete and contributes to minimising impacts. Due to the nature of the development, 

material selection is limited and needs to be based on process requirements (insulation fire 

proofing, sound reduction etc.). The main building fabrication materials are likely to be metal, 

insulated panels. Following discussions with NELC these will have a grey low sheen finish (as per 

the existing site). Plant and equipment will be in its natural finish for site built items, typically 

galvanised steel, and white for preformed items such as tanks. 

17.58 Impact assessment concluded that construction is not likely to result in any significant impacts (as 

the works would be completed within a short time span and any effects will be temporary, 

transient and or not discernible). No specific mitigation measures are proposed for the 

construction phase. 

17.59 The assessment determined that Project would result in the addition of landscape elements 

congruent with those already present. The existing character would be intensified by the addition 

of another large scale industrial development within an already industrial and active landscape. 

Overall the impact on landscape character is anticipated to be neutral. 

17.60 On the basis of the above factors, the approach to assessment and the outcome are considered 

to accord with relevant policies. 


Key Policies 

17.61 The Government has an overarching aim to ensure that the historic environment and its heritage 

assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life that they bring to this and future 

generations, expressed through Policy HE7 of ‘PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment’. The 

guidance provides a methodology for considering the potential for development to give rise to 

effects on heritage assets and subsequent guidance on the processes to follow should effects be 

predicted. Policy BH12: Evaluation of Archaeological Remains of the Local Plan requires 

developers to determine whether proposals affect sites of known or potential archaeological 

interest. It is stated that planning permission will not be granted without adequate assessment of 

the nature, extent and significance of the remains present and the degree to which the proposed 

development is likely to affect them. 




17.62 In the Scoping Report 3 , it was determined that there would not be a requirement for the ES to 

address potential effects to Built Heritage Assets. This was primarily as a result of the relatively 

small scale of the development compared to the existing industrialised landscape and the location 

of the development (there are no designated undesignated historic buildings or structures on, or in 

the immediate vicinity of, the site). Thus, the scope of the historic environment assessment was to 

identify and analyse any archaeological remains within the proposed development area and the 

subsequent assessment of the potential impact of development on these. The assessment also 

considered the site’s historic landscape value and the proposed development’s impact on this. 

17.63 The EIA process has involved a combination of desk-based review, site visit and analysis of a 

geophysical survey of the site. The use of these baseline sources accords with the best practice 

approach to assessing the potential impacts of development on the historic environment (as it is 

presented in PPS 5). 

17.64 The assessment (see Chapter 14) concluded that there are no Built Heritage Assets on or close to 

the site. The Geophysical Survey did not identify any archaeological remains within the 

development area and it was been agreed with NELC’s Archaeologist that no further 

archaeological investigation is required. The scheme would not substantially affect any deeply 

buried potential palaeo-environmental deposits or the local historic landscape. Thus, in summary, 

the proposed development would have no significant impact on the historic environment 

Socio-Economics 

Key Policies 

17.65 ‘PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ encourages local authorities to adopt a 

positive and constructive approach to Planning Applications for economic development. The 

preference is for proposals that have the potential to support sustainable economic growth. In this 

context, the PPS 4 references the following favourable characteristics: proposals that demonstrate 

sound consideration of the effects over the lifetime of the development and respond in terms of 

climate change resilience; support accessibility by a range of modes and contribute to sustainable 

movement of people and goods; deliver high quality and inclusive design; have positive 

regenerative effects; and support local employment. 

17.66 Supplementary Planning Guidance Investment through Growth adopted 2005 supports the 

employment policies of the Local Plan in terms of economic development. There is renewed 

national policy emphasis on economic development and the forthcoming LDF responds to this 

within Spatial Objectives Policy SO3: Economy this aims to support the growth of the local 

economy in ways which are compatible with environmental objectives, creating conditions that 

sustain more and better jobs, remove the barriers to accessing jobs and raising skills including 

support for rural regeneration and diversification and strengthening of the tourism offer. 

17.67 The Project Site is within the ‘Area of Strategic Employment Potential’ that embraces the majority 

of the South Humber Bank extending westwards from Grimsby. The Council's Regeneration 

Strategy identifies the opening up of employment land on the South Humber Bank as one of a 

number of priority projects seen as critical to achieving the aims and objectives of the strategy by 

improving the socio-economic performance and physical environment of the Borough and being 

catalysts for transformational change. Proposed developments and expansion will require 

transport infrastructure investment to ensure that connectivity does not become a barrier to 

regeneration and competitive advantage. The ports of Immingham and Grimsby are also viewed 

as providing an opportunity to service offshore wind farms supporting national renewable energy 

targets. 




17.68 The EIA process has included specialist assessment to define the baseline socio-economic 

characteristics of the area within which the site is located and explore the potential impacts of the 

Project in terms of socio-economic factors such as job-creation, community impacts (e.g. stress; 

interference with leisure and amenity) and land and property values. The adopted approach is 

considered to reflect the policy requirements in terms of understanding and commenting upon the 

contribution of the Project in social and economic terms, which includes the sustainability of the 

proposals. 

17.69 At the Scoping stage it was recognised that no specific consultation would be undertaken as part 

of the socio-economic impact assessment, given the location of the proposed development away 

from residential areas and within an existing industrial environment. 

17.70 The socio-economic assessment (see Chapter 15) concluded that the Project is likely to have 

mostly positive socio-economic impacts at both the local and regional levels (in terms of job 

creation). It is expected that the Project will create a small number of permanent jobs, which are 

viewed as positive contributions against social aims within relevant policies. In addition, the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project would assist with safeguarding manufacturing roles within the 

160,000 fabrication customers for acetylene in the UK, all of which would be impacted by the 

failure to invest in a new acetylene manufacturing facility. Limited adverse impacts are anticipated 

on the economic and social level related to stress caused by inconvenience, primarily during the 

construction stage. 

Waste 

Key Policies 

17.71 ‘PPS 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ aims to deliver the Government policy for 

waste: ‘to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a 

resource wherever possible. By more sustainable waste management, moving the management 

of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery, and 

disposing only as a last resort, the Government aims to break the link between economic growth 

and the environmental impact of waste’. The PPS is primarily concerned with the development of 

waste management facilities; however, it also stressed that development proposals have a role to 

play in terms of producing site waste management plans and supporting the waste hierarchy 

through appropriate on site provision and arrangements. 

17.72 The forthcoming LDF includes a strategy for the management and disposal of waste includes for 

major new development to identify and minimise waste generated, and address the sustainable 

management of waste as an integral element of the development. 


17.73 Waste management for the Project will reflect the Government policy for waste, prioritising re-use, 

recycling and recovery in preference to disposal, as far as is practicable given the nature of the 

development. For both construction and operation, good practice will be adhered to the intention 

to recycle process water; re-use harvested rainwater as process water; and process the lime byproduct 

of the acetylene manufacturing process for productive uses in the locale all provide 

examples. For unavoidable waste disposals, the proposed development includes space for wastes 

to be segregated, stored, handled, labelled, packaged and disposed of in accordance with good 

practice and relevant legislation. 

17.74 The approach to waste management, which includes construction being governed by a WMP (as 

part of the CEMP) and operation in accordance with the EMS and EA permit, is considered to 

accord with relevant policies. 



18. Summary of Impact Assessment 

Introduction 

18.1 This Chapter provides a summary of the findings of EIA process for the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project. The EIA has been carried out in accordance with the general methodology described in 

Chapter 5, and the discipline specific methodologies described in each of the assessment 

Chapters (Chapters 6 to 15). In addition, the EIA has taken account of the responses received in 

the Scoping Opinion (see Appendix 5A) and other consultation (as described in Chapter 5 and 

Chapters 6 to 15). Furthermore, the assessment process has considered the relevant planning 

policies at national, regional and local levels (as discussed in Chapter 4 and summarised in 

Appendix 4A). 

18.2 The definitions of impact significance provided in the following Sections are given in the 

assessment Chapters (Chapters 6 to 15). Unless stated otherwise: 

� activities and impacts associated with the typical operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

are considered to be likely, continuous (whilst the plant is in operation) events with long-term 

(permanent within the context of the project lifespan) effects; 

� activities and impacts associated with abnormal operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project 

are assumed to be unlikely, infrequent (one-off events) with short-term temporary effects; 

� activities and impacts associated with typical construction activities for the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project are assumed to be likely, continuous (during typical construction hours) 

events with short to medium term (permanent within the context of the construction period 

(~9 months)) effects; and 

� activities and impacts associated with ground preparation construction activities for the 

Dissolved Acetylene Project are assumed to be likely and non-continuous events with 

temporary short term effects. 

18.3 In reading this Chapter it should be noted that the impact assessment has taken a ‘realistic’ 

approach in that it has assumed that the Dissolved Acetylene Project will be designed, 

constructed and operated in accordance with relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

guidelines and that general ‘good practice’ will be employed. The assessment also takes into 

consideration the fact that the Construction Contractor will produce a comprehensive CEMP for 

(including a WMP and a CTMP), to be agreed with NELC, and that the operation of the project will 

be controlled and managed through incorporation into the existing site’s EMS and through a new 

EP. Whereas these environmental management and control measures may be considered as 

forms of mitigation, they have been considered to be an integral part of the Dissolved Acetylene 

Project proposals and, as such, only specific specialist mitigation measures are provided in the 

following Sections. Mitigation measures have not been suggested for impacts with beneficial 

effects, or those that are neutral and or negligible. 

18.4 The remainder of the Chapter is divided into Sections for each of the environmental discipline 

topic areas. A summary of the assessment of cumulative and in-combination effects is also 

provided. 



Air Quality 

18.5 The assessment identified the following as the main potential sources of impacts on air quality: 

� dust from construction activities; 

� vehicle emissions as a result of increased traffic during construction and operation; 

� emissions from the manufacturing process (primarily acetylene and very small quantities of 

acetone, ammonia, phosphine and hydrogen sulphide); and 

� odour (from process emissions). 

18.6 The air quality assessment concluded that: 

� all potential impacts on air quality would be of negligible significance; 

� the Dissolved Acetylene Project would not affect either of the two AQMAs that have been 

declared by NELC; 

� the Dissolved Acetylene Project is unlikely to give rise to odour complaints; 

� the planned design, management and control of the Dissolved Acetylene Project in relation to 

air quality are sufficient and no specific mitigation measures have been suggested; and 

� as a general recommendation, the CEMP should include a method statement detailing dust 

suppression techniques to be employed during the course of construction. 


18.7 Construction and Operational Phase CSMs have been developed to identify any changes to 

contamination sources, receptors and pathways and a qualitative contamination risk assessment 

has been carried out and compared with the baseline. The assessment considered the risk to (and 

impact significance for) the following receptors types: 

� humans on site and offsite; 

� groundwater (in the Superficial Deposits); 

� surface water (the Humber Estuary); 

� property (crops) on site and offsite; and 

� property (buildings) on site and offsite. 

18.8 In the absence of the full results of the GI works, the possibility of contamination at the site cannot 

be confirmed, thus the assessment has assumed that contamination could be present but that the 

likelihood of this is very low. 

18.9 For construction, the assessment concluded that there would be: 

� no risk of contamination of on site crops (as they would no longer be present). 

� a very low risk of contamination to human receptors offsite and to offsite property receptors, 

resulting in impacts of neutral significance; 

� a low risk of contamination to human receptors on site, groundwater and surface water 

receptors, resulting in adverse impacts of minor significance; 



18.10 For operation, the assessment concluded that that there would be: 

� no risk of contamination of on site crops (as they would no longer be present); 

� a very low risk of contamination to humans on site and offsite, offsite property (buildings and 

crops), groundwater and surface water, resulting in impacts of neutral significance; and 

� a low risk of contamination to buildings on site, resulting in adverse impacts of minor 

significance. 

18.11 The assessment concluded that the planned design, management and control of the Dissolved 

Acetylene Project in relation to contaminated land (and groundwater) are sufficient; thus no 

specific mitigation measures have been identified and no recommendations have been made. 


18.12 The two main water quality receptors are Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary. Middle Drain is 

considered to have a ‘medium’ sensitivity; whereas the Estuary is considered to have a ‘very high’ 

sensitivity. 

18.13 For the construction phase the following potential impacts were identified and assessed for their 

effects to Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary: 

� contamination resulting from : 

- accidental spillages, 

- use and maintenance of vehicles, plant and equipment, 

- waste water discharges, and 

- exposure of contaminated soils and subsequent surface water runoff mobilisation and 

migration through groundwater; 

� increased sedimentation due to construction activities; and 

� deterioration in aesthetic quality due to accumulation of litter. 

18.14 The assessment determined that: 

� impacts to the Humber Estuary would be of neutral significance; 

� impacts to Middle Drain associated with contamination resulting from exposure of 

contaminated soils would be of neutral significance; and 

� all of the other identified impacts to Middle Drain would be of minor adverse significance. 

18.15 For the operational phase the following potential impacts were identified and assessed for their 

effects to Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary: 

� deterioration in water quality resulting from: 

- the increase in potential for contaminants from inappropriate materials waste handling, 

transfer and storage (e.g. accidental spillages) to reach the receptor water bodies, 

- aqueous discharges, and 

- the increase in hard standing areas, causing increased runoff, higher sedimentation rates 

and higher suspended solids load in the receptor water bodies; 

� contamination resulting from use and maintenance of vehicles, plant and equipment; and 

� increased sedimentation due to increased traffic. 

18.16 The assessment determined that all of the identified impacts would be of neutral significance for 

both Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary. 




Acetylene Project in relation to surface water quality are sufficient; thus no specific mitigation 

measures have been identified. The CEMP will include a method statement detailing the proposed 

techniques for ensuring that the water quality of Middle Drain and the Humber Estuary will be 

protected. As a result of the assessment it has been recommended that this is submitted and 

agreed with NELC prior to commencement of development. 

Flood Risk 

18.18 The assessment of flood risk has considered the following sources of flooding: tidal, fluvial (Middle 

Drain), groundwater, pluvial surface water and sewer. There are no sewers in the area and there 

is no knowledge of flooding to the proposed development site to date from all potential identified 

sources. The risks of flooding to and from the site are considered to be similar for both the 

construction and operational phases (albeit that the construction period is such that there is no 

requirement to account for climate change. 

18.19 The site is currently protected to at least a 1 in 1,000 year tidal event by coastal defences. The 

site has a residual risk from overtopping of the defences during more extreme tidal events (above 

0.1% AEP) and from a breach of the coastal defences. The risk from the breach of the coastal 

defences will be managed by providing a flood warning system; safe evacuation routes; and 

evacuation procedures. During operation, safe refuges will be provided above the breach water 

level within the Generator Building and secondary flood protection to electrical equipment will be 

provided through water tight doors. On this basis the tidal flood risk is considered to be negligible. 

18.20 There is a risk of flooding from Middle Drain in the event of failure of the pumping station. 

However, the station operates with duty and standby pumps and overall the risk is considered to 

be minor. 

18.21 The site is at moderate to high risk of flooding from groundwater but the main influence on 

groundwater levels within the development site will be the tidal levels. The measures incorporated 

into the design of the site to manage the tidal and surface water flood risk are suitable for 

managing the groundwater flood risk such that the significance of the impact is considered 

negligible. 

18.22 There is an increase in compacted soils and or impermeable areas associated with the proposed 

development, and, therefore an increase in surface water runoff. As part of the CEMP, surface 

water runoff during construction will be managed such that it will not increase the risk of flooding 

at the proposed development site, or to land within the surrounding area during construction. 

During operation, surface water runoff will be managed through an appropriately designed surface 

water drainage system and pumping station which outfalls into Middle Drain. The site is 

considered to be at minor risk of flooding from pluvial surface water during construction and 

negligible risk of pluvial surface water flooding during operation. 


Acetylene Project in relation to flood risk are sufficient; thus no specific mitigation measures have 

been identified. Nonetheless, the following recommendations have been made: 

� BOC should continue to liaise with the EA to ensure they are informed of any changes to the 

standard of protection provided by the coastal defences and any changes to the flood 

warning system; and 

� BOC should continue to liaise with NELDB to ensure they are informed of any changes to the 

standard of protection provided by the pumping station on Middle Drain. 



Ecology 

18.24 The land take associated with the development will be minimal and no habitats of importance to 

nature conservation are to be lost as a result of proposed works. The key potential nature 

conservation receptors are: 

� the wildlife corridor along Middle Drain (the main habitat linking the application site to the 

Humber Estuary) and water vole using Middle Drain; and 

� the internationally important populations of birds associated with the Humber Estuary SPA and 

Ramsar site (and also the nationally important populations of birds associated with the 

Humber Estuary SSSI and North Killingholme Haven Pits SSSI which form part of the 

internationally important population of birds). 

18.25 Information to support a HRA screening on the likely significant effects of the proposed 

development on the Humber Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar site by the competent authority 

(NELC) has been produced separately 6 . Subsequently a Stage 2 AA to determine whether there is 

the potential for negative effects on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar site has also been 

prepared 7 (see Appendix 10A). 

18.26 The ecological impact assessment considered the following potential impacts for the construction 

phase: 

� permanent land take within the construction footprint (loss of habitat and injury to species); 

� construction of bridge over Middle Drain (temporary disturbance of water voles); 

� foundation works, including piling (auditory disturbance to species); 

� delivery and use of materials, plant, equipment and associated increase in traffic volumes, 

leading to: 

- generation and deposition of airborne pollutants ( changes to sensitive habitats), 

- increase in visual disturbance, and 

- vibration and noise resulting (auditory disturbance); and 

� ground preparations and inappropriate use, handling and storage of construction 

commissioning materials and wastes, potentially resulting in: 

- dust and litter generation (and smothering of sensitive habitats), and 

- leaks and spills leading to temporary contamination of habitats. 

18.27 The assessment considered the following potential impacts for the operational phase: 

� operation of the plant and movement machinery: 

- noise generation ( auditory disturbance), 

- light generation and movement of people and machinery (visual disturbance), and 

- generation and deposition of airborne pollutants (changes to sensitive habitats); 

� increased traffic generation resulting in vehicle emissions with generation and deposition of 

airborne pollutants (changes to sensitive ); and 

� spillage leakage from inappropriate storage and handling of raw materials, chemicals and 

wastes, resulting potential contamination of habitats within the Estuary via Middle Drain and 

or groundwater. 



18.28 The construction and operational assessment was undertaken for impacts on: 

� the qualifying interest features of the statutory designated Humber Estuary (incorporating all 

aspects of the qualifying features for the SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar site) based on 

whether the qualifying features are likely to be within the zone of influence of the proposed 

development during construction and whether impacts could result in a significant effect; and 

� non-statutory designated sites, notable habitats and notable species together with the 

significance of effect on ecological receptors. 

18.29 The assessment of significance of impacts takes into account measures which have already been 

included within the Project to avoid or reduce ecological impacts. The assessment determined that 

the construction and operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project would not result in adverse 

effects on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar and that, although there could be negative impacts 

on ecological receptors, these would not be significant. 


Acetylene Project in relation to ecology are sufficient; thus no specific mitigation measures have 

been identified. Nonetheless, several recommendations have been made (see Chapter 10) in 

relation to selection of piling methods, lighting design, planting landscaping, wildlife 

enhancements and the NEA. 


18.31 The assessment identified the following as the main potential sources of noise and vibration: 

� noise: 

- operation of fixed plant during construction and operation, 

- operation of mobile plant and general site activities during construction and operation, 

- increased traffic during construction and operation; and 

� vibration: 

- piling activities, and 

- HGV movements from increased traffic during construction and operation. 

18.32 The noise assessment focuses on impacts to human receptors; however, data from the noise 

assessment has been used to determine effects on ecological receptors (see Chapter 10 and the 

previous sub-Section of this Chapter). 

18.33 The noise assessment determined that: 

� on the basis of highly conservative, worst case assumptions the total noise levels (ambient 

noise and construction noise combined) have been predicted, at worst, to be no more than 

5 dBA higher than ambient noise levels. Considering the temporary nature of construction 

activities, this is considered an acceptable level of impact when assessed in accordance with 

BS 5228; 

� an appropriate noise target (44 dB (LAeq,T)) has been set at the nearest human noise sensitive 

receptor (Poplar Farm) in relation to operational noise; 

� combining the expected site operational noise levels with the existing ambient noise level at 

Poplar Farm, results in a noise level change of less than 1 dBA. In accordance with BS 4142, 

the assessment suggests that there is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely. Thus 

noise impacts associated with this noise level change are therefore expected to be negligible; 

� traffic noise impacts during construction and operation are expected to be negligible; and 

� no adverse vibration impacts are expected at nearby properties during the construction or 

operation of the proposed facility. 




Acetylene Project in relation to noise are sufficient; thus no specific mitigation measures have 

been identified and no recommendations have been made. 

Transport 

18.35 The transport assessment identified the following as the main potential impacts of increased 

transport during construction and operation of the Dissolved Acetylene Project: 

� pedestrian and cyclist delay and amenity; 

� accidents and safety; and 

� driver delay. 

18.36 A TS, including a framework FMP and a framework CTMP have been produced (see Annex 12) in 

order to identify and minimise the predicted low volume of construction traffic as well as HGVs 

once the site is fully operational. 

18.37 The assessment has determined the effect that vehicles are predicted to have during the 

construction and operational phase on the local road network (in particular Hobson Way, Kiln 

Lane, the A1173, and the A180 (northbound and southbound)). Calculations have been based on 

the predicted annualised number of construction or operational vehicles, compared to the 

annualised baseline survey information plus nearby committed development traffic. 

18.38 The assessment concluded that there would be no significant impacts during the construction or 

operational periods for all roads within the study area and thus no mitigation measures have been 

proposed. 


18.39 The landscape and visual assessment considers potential impacts on landscape character and 

changes to views for the construction and operational phases. The focus of assessment is the 

longer term impacts that the presence of the facility would result in during the operational phase. 

18.40 In terms of landscape and visual issues, the construction phase is not considered likely to result in 

any significant impacts and any impacts would be temporary, transient and or not discernible. The 

nature and scale of the construction works for the Project would be set within the context of the 

existing site and the wider setting of a heavy industrial and agricultural landscape. Here 

disturbance of land is common place within the dynamics of the industrial activity carried out and 

seasonal work undertaken on the agricultural land. Overall, the construction phase was assessed 

as having the potential to result in slight adverse landscape and visual impacts. 

18.41 The Project would result in the addition of landscape elements congruent with those already 

present. The existing character would be intensified by the addition of another large scale 

industrial development within an already industrial and active landscape. Overall, the impact on 

landscape character phase was assessed as neutral. 

18.42 Once built and operational, the general visibility of the Project has been established using a series 

of ZTV drawings. The assessment determined that: 

� the most significant visual effects of the scheme would be experienced in settlements and 

houses within 5 km of the site and the predicted impact significance ranges between neutral 

and slight adverse; 

� impacts on PRoWs and footpaths are assessed to be of neutral to slight adverse 

significance; and 

� impacts on views from roads, the railway and ferry boat users are assessed to be of neutral 

significance. 




Acetylene Project are sufficient to reduce landscape and visual impacts to acceptable levels. No 

mitigation measures are proposed; however recommendations have been made relating to 

lighting design, consideration of policies in finalisation of design details and landscape treatment. 


18.44 There are no Built Heritage Assets on or close to the site. A Geophysical Survey has not identified 

any archaeological remains within the development area and it has been agreed with NELC’s 

Archaeologist that no further archaeological investigation is required. Thus, the scheme would 

have no impact on archaeological remains within the footprint of the development area. It would 

also not significantly affect any deep palaeo-environmental deposits (if they are present). 

18.45 The construction and subsequent presence of the new facilities would involve further industrial 

development in a local historic landscape of minimal value, and which is already characterised by 

a mix of post-World War II industrial development. The loss of a small area (4.2 ha) of a field and 

presence of the proposed development would only constitute a minor adverse change on a 

landscape with minimal value; in combination this would be considered to be an effect of neutral 

significance. 

18.46 Beyond the presence of the new plant and its potential to impact on the local historic landscape 

(discussed above for the construction phase) no additional operational impacts have been 

identified or assessed. 

18.47 Thus, in summary, the proposed development would have no significant impact on the historic 

environment and no mitigation measures are proposed. 


18.48 The potential impacts of the Project in terms of socio-economic factors such as job-creation, 

community impacts (e.g. stress; interference with leisure and amenity) and land and property 

values have been assessed for the construction and operational phases. 

18.49 The socio-economic assessment concluded that the construction and operation of the Project is 

likely to have mostly positive (minor beneficial) socio-economic impacts at both the local and 

regional levels (in terms of job creation). In addition, the Dissolved Acetylene Project would assist 

with safeguarding manufacturing roles within the 160,000 fabrication customers for acetylene in 

the UK, all of which would be impacted by the failure to invest in a new acetylene manufacturing 

facility. 

18.50 Minor adverse impacts are anticipated on the economic and social level related to stress caused 

by inconvenience, primarily during the construction stage. 

18.51 All other impacts were assessed to be negligible. 


Acetylene Project in relation to socio-economics are sufficient; thus no specific mitigation 

measures have been identified. However, it is recommended that BOC maintains close links and 

communication with the local communities and businesses in relation to the planned construction 

works and that early warning of potentially disturbing activities is given to existing businesses and 

nearby residents to help to minimise the effects of disturbance. 

Cumulative and In-combination Impacts 

18.53 The cumulative impact assessment identified two proposed developments (the Vireol Bio-ethanol 

plant at 1.5 km from the Dissolved Acetylene Project and C.A.T.C.H. at 1.9 km distance) with the 

potential to generate cumulative impacts as a result of concurrent construction phases. 



18.54 The assessment concluded that the concurrent construction phases of the three proposed 

Projects would be unlikely to result in any significant adverse cumulative impacts. 

18.55 The cumulative impact assessment identified four proposed developments (Aeolian Wind 

Turbines, Abengoa Bio-ethanol Plant, RWE Biomass Plant and Vireol Bio-ethanol Plant) with the 

potential to generate cumulative impacts as a result of concurrent operations. 

18.56 The assessment concluded that the concurrent operation of the proposed Projects would be 

unlikely to result in any significant adverse cumulative impacts. 

18.57 The potential for in-combination effects as also considered, particular for human and ecological 

receptors. The assessment concluded that the Dissolved Acetylene Project was unlikely to result 

in any significant adverse in-combination effects. 



19. References 

1 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 [SI 2010 No. 675]. 

2 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) 

Regulations, 1999 (as amended). 

3 BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project Environmental Scoping Report, Atkins, March 2011. 

4 Scoping Opinion in Accordance with Regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) 

(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for BOC ltd to Construct a Dissolved Acetylene Production 

Facility at Hobson Way, Stallingborough, NELC, 27 th April 2011. 

5 Geophysical Survey Report, 2011/24, Proposed Acetylene Facility Immingham North East 

Lincolnshire, GSB, May 2011. 

6 

BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project, Information to Support a HRA: Screening (Atkins on behalf of 

BOC, June 2011). 

7 

BOC Dissolved Acetylene Project, Information to Support a HRA: Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 

8 

on behalf of BOC, August 2011). 

North east Lindsey Internal Drainage Board (Land Drainage Act 1991) Byelaws, No 10. No 

Obstructions within 7 Metres of the Edge of the Watercourse. 

9 Landmark Information Group Envirocheck Report (Envirocheck), dated February 2011. 

10 

Email 24 th May 2011 from Andrew Hudson (NELC Trees and Woodland Office) to Emma Spence 

(Atkins). 

11 European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) Noise Management, IGC Doc 85/02/E, 2002. 

12 European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) Good Environmental Management Practices for the 

Industrial Gas Industry, IGC Doc 88/08/E, 2008. 

13 European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) Environmental Impacts of Acetylene Plants, IGC Doc 

109/03/E, 2003. 

14 European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) Environmental Issues Guide, IGC Doc 106/03/E, 

2003. 

15 European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) Code of Practice Acetylene, IGC Doc 123/04/E, 

2004. 

16 

European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) web-based tool, available at 

http://www.eiga.org/fileadmin/docs_pubs/Doc_84_08_E_Spreadsheet.xls. 

17 

US National Library of Medicine, ChemIDPlus Advanced 

(http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/chemidheavy.jsp), search for propylene glycol, results from 

Hazardous Substances Data Bank. 

18 

Fisher, DJ., Turley, SD., Turely BS., Ziegler GP. And Knott MH (1995) The acute whole effluent 

toxicity of storm water from an international airport, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (14:6) 

1103-1111. 

19 

Propylene glycol MSDS, ScienceLab.com, updated 2010. 

20 th 

Phone call between Esther Ainsworth (Atkins) and Debbie Morris (EA) on 9 August 2011. 

21 th 

Phone call between Mark Gray (BOC) and Debbie Morris (EA) on 12 August 2011. 

22 

Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Cmd. paper No. 7169); July 

2007; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 

23 

Air Pollution Information System website. Available at http://www.apis.ac.uk. 

24 

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/environment/pollution/air-quality/planning-guidance/. 

25 

Horizontal Guidance Note H1, Annex F (version 2.1); April 2010; Environment Agency. 

26 

Personal Communication between Jenny Spencer (Atkins) and Lee Oliver (Environmental Protection 

Team, North West Leicestershire Council), 16 th March 2011. 

27 

OPDM Minerals Policy Statement 2, Annex 1: Dust, Appendix 1A: Information on the Nature of Dust 

(D/M13). 



28 

Upton & Kukadia (2002) Measurements of PM10 from a Construction Site: A Case Study, prepared 

by BRE Environment for National Society for Clean Air. 

29 

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, HA207/07, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, May 2007; 

Highways Agency. 

30 

North East Lincolnshire Council, Local Air Quality Management, Progress Report, April 2011 

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/environment/pollution/air-quality/air-quality-reports. 

31 

Health Protection Agency, Acetylene Toxicological Overview, version 1, 2009, available at 

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1246260034508. 

32 

How to comply with your environmental permit Additional guidance for: The Production of Large 

Volume Organic Chemicals (EPR 4.01), Environment Agency, March 2009. 

33 

Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

34 

Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land; Statutory Guidance; Circular 01 

2006; 2006; Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 

35 

CLR11: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination; 2004; DEFRA & EA. 

36 

The Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009; SI 2009 2902. 

37 

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 

establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy; 2000; Official Journal of 

the European Community L 327 1. 

38 

The Water Act 2003; 2003. 

39 

The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009; IS 2009 153. 

40 

Directive 2004/35/EC; of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on 

environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage; 2004; 

Official Journal of the European Community. 

41 

Building Control Regulations 1991 (as amended); SI No. 2768; 1991. 

42 

Approved Document C Site Preparation and Resistance to Contaminates and Moisture; 2004; Office 

of the Deputy Prime Minister. 

43 

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended); SI 2002 No. 2677; 

2002; Great Britain, Parliament. 

44 

E-mail to Elizabeth Walker (Atkins) on 07 06 2011 from Shaun Poole (NELC). 

45 

E-mail to Elizabeth Walker (Atkins) on 09 06 2011 from Katie Empson (EA). 

46 

Environmental Impact Assessment; A Guide to Good Practice and Procedures; A consultation 

paper; 2006; Department for Communities and Local Government. 

47 

Contaminated Land Risk Assessment; A Guide to Good Practice (C552); 2001; CIRIA. 

48 

Guidance on the Safe Development of Housing on Land Affected by Contamination; R&D 

Publication 66; 2008; National House Building Council; Environment Agency and Chartered Institute 

of Environmental Health. 

49 

Environment Agency (2009) Humber Estuary River Basin Management Plans, 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124803.aspx. 

50 

Associated British Ports, Humber Estuary Services, http://www.humber.com/Estuary- 

Information/Estuary-Community/index.asp, accessed July 2011. 

51 

Environment Agency, Habitats Directive, Humber Estuary, http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Humber_Estuary.pdf 

accessed July 2011 

52 

Boyes, S., and Elliot, M. (2006) Organic matter and nutrient inputs to the Humber Estuary, England, 

Marine Pollution Bulletin (53)136-143. 

53 

Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs); 2007; EA, SEPA, and EHS. Available at: 

http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/63875.aspx 

54 

PPG 5 Works and Maintenance in or Near Water, EA, EHS and SEPA, October 2007, 

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO1107BNKG-E-E.pdf. 

55 

PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites, EA, EHS and SEPA, 2010, EA, EHS and 

SEPA, October 2007, http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/PMHO0410BSGN-E- 

E.pdf. 



56 

Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point Shoreline Management Plan. Consultation Draft Humber 

Estuary Coastal Authorities Group. November 2009. 

57 

Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy. Planning for the Rising Tides. Environment Agency. 

2008. 

58 

National Tidal and Sea Level Facility (2011). 

59 

Northern Area Tidal Modelling Tidal Analysis Report, Mott MacDonald, November 2006. 

60 

Scenarios of future climate change in the UK. Defra. 2002. 

61 

Information provided through consultation with Trevor Vassey, NELDB, 2011. 

62 

Economic Appraisal Supplementary Planning Note to Operating Authorities Climate Change 

Impacts. FCDPAG3. Defra. October 2006. 

63 

Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development. R&D Technical Report FD2320/TR2. 

Defra, October 2005. 

64 

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, August 2005, Office of the 

Deputy Prime Minister, ISBN 9780117539549. 

65 

English Nature Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, August 2001. 

66 

Cresswell & Whitworth, 2004. An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value 

of different habitats for great crested newt Triturus cristatus, English Nature Research Report 

Number 576. Natural England. 

67 

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website http://www.magic.gov.uk/ 

68 

National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway website http://data.nbn.org.uk/ 

69 

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) website http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ 

70 

Natural England website http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ 

71 

Stroud, DA, Chambers, D, Cook, S, Buxton, N, Fraser, B, Clement, P, Lewis, P, McLean, I, Baker, H 

& Whitehead, S (eds). 2001. The UK SPA network: its scope and content. JNCC, Peterborough 

(known as the SPA Review 2001) summary accessed from 

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1996 in June 2011. 

72 

Allen, J., Boyes, S., Burdon, D., Cutts, N., Hemingway, K., Jarvis, S., Jennings, K., Mander, L., 

Murby, P., Proctor, N., Thomson, S. & R. Warren, 2003. The Humber Estuary: A comprehensive 

review of its nature conservation interest. English Nature Research Reports, Number 547. ISSN 

0967-876X. 

73 

Wetlands International Ramsar Sites Information Service website http://ramsar.wetlands.org/. 

74 

Flash Earth website http://www.flashearth.com/. 

75 

Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995), Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. 

76 

Stace (1997) New Flora of the British Isles 2nd edition. 

77 nd 

Rob Strachan and Tom Moorhouse (2006) Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 2 Edition. 

78 

Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for 

the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), Herpetelogical Journal, Vol. 10 pp.143-155. 

79 

Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, Natural England 2001. 

80 

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (26 June 2006) Guidelines for Ecological 

Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. 

81 

North East Lincolnshire Cabinet Committee Report, 6 September 2010. 

82 

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 

83 

Health Protection Agency, Acetylene Toxicological Overview, version 1, 2009, available at 

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1246260034508. 

84 

Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership (June 2011) Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan Third Edition, 

Species Action Plans, Consultation Version (June 2011) Water Vole, p222. 

85 

Telephone conversation between Ryan Swales (Atkins Principal Acoustic Consultant) and Danny 

Fox (NELC EHO), 29 th June 2011. 

86 

Department for Transport Memorandum, Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, 1988 



87 

Email communications between Anthony Kay (Atkins) and Terry Worth (NELC Highway 

Development Engineer), 17/3/2011; and Joanna Heweth (NELC Principal Development 

Management Officer), 17/3/2011. 

88 

Email from Kurt Jnpierre (C Spencers) to Vicki Bottomley (Atkins), 9/6/2011. 

89 

Email correspondence between Ian Trowsdale (NELC) and Emma Spence (Atkins), with 

confirmation being received on 19 th May 2011. 

90 th 

Email from Mrs Lara Parrott (NELC Technical Assistant) to Emma Spence (Atkins), 10 March 2011. 

91 

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (second edition); 2002; Landscape 

Institute, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. 

92 

Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, prepared by LUC on behalf 

of the Countryside Agency and SNH (2002) 

93 

Dimensional data for the average adult human eye level, p. 191 Vernon. S et al (2009) Landscape 

Architect’s Pocket Book, Architectural Press. 

94 

MAGIC (Multi- Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside), OS Explorer Maps 284 and 

292, aerial photography of the site and surroundings. 

95 

The Character of England’s Natural and Man-made Landscape Volume 3; Yorkshire & The Humber; 

1996; The Countryside Commission. 

96 

Data sourced from Office of National Statistics, Annual Population Survey. 

97 

Data sourced from Office of National Statistics, Annual Labour Survey. 

98 

Data sourced from Office of National Statistics, Annual Business Inquiry. 

99 

Ecus Ltd (October, 2009) CATCH site, Immingham. Ecological Impact Assessment. 

100 

Envest Air (March 2010) Vireol plc Planning Application Environmental Statement, Grimsby Bioethanol 

Plant. 

101 

NELC Planning ID DC/827/08/IMM. 

102 


103 



Dr Emma Spence 

Atkins Limited 

RTC Business Park 

London Road 

Derby 

DE24 8UP 

Tel: 01332 225635 

emma.spence@atkinsglobal.com 

www.atkinsglobal.com 

Plan Design Enable

View - North East Lincolnshire Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?