Post on 17-Aug-2020
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Report July 2020 16-i
CHAPTER 16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS
16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS ................................................................................... 16-1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 16-1
Legislation, Policy and Guidance .................................................................. 16-1
Consultation .................................................................................................. 16-6
Parameters Used for Assessment ................................................................. 16-8
Assessment Methodology ............................................................................. 16-8
Baseline ...................................................................................................... 16-13
Assessment of Effects ................................................................................ 16-17
Additional Mitigation .................................................................................... 16-31
Residual Effects .......................................................................................... 16-32
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................... 16-32
APPENDICES (bound separately in Volume 3)
Appendix 16-1 ....................................................................................... Email Transcript
Please note that a full list of acronyms is provided the contents to this PEIR and should
be referred to when reading this Chapter.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-1
16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Introduction
16.1.1 This Chapter provides an assessment of the likely significant socio-economic
effects that could arise from the construction, decommissioning and operation
of the Proposed Extension.
Competence
16.1.2 This chapter has been prepared by Hatch Regeneris. It has been prepared by
a specialist with 16 years’ experience in economic development and
regeneration, specialising in socio-economic impact assessments for energy
projects, specifically energy from waste schemes.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
National Policy
National Policy Statements
16.2.1 As outlined in Chapter 3.0, the relevant National Policy Statements (NPS)
provide the primary basis for decisions by the Secretary of State (SoS) on
applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure
projects. Specific policy and guidance in relation to socio-economics, is
contained in the Overarching National Policy Statements (NPS’s) for Energy
(EN-1) and the NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).
NPS EN-1
16.2.2 Sections 2 and 3 of this NPS identify the need for new large-scale energy
infrastructure to provide security of energy supply and to support economic
prosperity and social wellbeing. Section 4 highlights the need for decision takers
to weigh-up potential benefits of a project, “including its contribution to meeting
the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and any long-term or wider
benefits” with potential adverse impacts. This includes any “relevant positive
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-2
provisions the developer has made or is proposing to make to mitigate impacts
(for example through planning obligations)”.
16.2.3 Section 5.12 of EN-1 includes specific guidance on the matters that should be
considered in socio-economic assessments, as outlined below:
• The likely socio-economic impacts at a local or regional level (paragraph
5.12.2).
• The creation of jobs and training opportunities (paragraph 5.12.3).
• The provision of additional local services and improvements to local
infrastructure, including the provision of educational and visitor facilities
(paragraph 5.12.3).
• Effects on tourism (paragraph 5.12.3).
• Impact of a changing influx of workers during the different construction,
operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases (paragraph
5.12.3).
• Cumulative effects – if development consent were to be granted for a
number of projects within a region and these were developed in a similar
timeframe, there could be some short-term negative effects, for example, a
potential shortage of construction workers to meet the needs of other
industries and major projects within the region (paragraph 5.12.3).
16.2.4 In addition, EN-1 paragraph 5.12.4 outlines that the Applicant should describe
the existing socio-economic conditions in the areas surrounding the proposed
development and should also refer to how the development’s socio-economic
impacts correlate with local planning policies.
16.2.5 Finally, EN-1, paragraphs 5.12.6 to 5.12.9, highlight a number of points relating
to the determination of an application for development consent and mitigation.
These are summarised below.
• The Secretary of State (SoS) should have regard to the potential socio-
economic effects of new energy infrastructure identified by the Applicant
and from any other sources that the SoS consider to be both relevant and
important to their decision. It should be reasonable for the SoS to conclude
that little weight is to be given to assertions of socio-economic effects not
supported by evidence (particularly in view of the need for energy
infrastructure as set out in this NPS) (paragraph 5.12.6-5.12.7).
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-3
• The assessment should consider any relevant positive provisions the
Applicant has made, or is proposing to make, to mitigate impacts (for
example through planning obligations) and any legacy benefits that may
arise as well as any options for phasing development in relation to socio-
economic impacts (paragraph 5.12.8).
• The assessment should consider whether mitigation measures are
necessary to mitigate any adverse socio-economic impacts of the
development. For example, high quality design can improve the visual and
environmental experience for visitors and the local community alike
(paragraph 5.12.9).
EN-3
16.2.6 NPS EN-3 sets out policies relating to the consideration of benefits and impacts
specific to biomass and energy from waste (EfW), onshore and offshore wind
energy. Paragraph 2.5.36 notes that “most renewable energy resources can
only be developed where the resource exists and where economically feasible”.
The positive effects of proposed biomass and EfW developments on skills and
the economy are identified in paragraph 1.7.2.
UK Industrial Strategy
16.2.7 The 2017 White Paper, “Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future”
sets the Government’s strategy for the UK economy1. The motivation of the
vision is to “create an economy that boosts the productivity and earning power
throughout the UK.”
16.2.8 The White Paper outlined five key foundations of productivity:
• People- the creation of high value jobs and skills;
• Business Environment- investment and sector growth through Sector Deals;
• Ideas- innovation and R&D investment;
• Infrastructure- investment in digital, transport, housing, low carbon and
other infrastructure; and
1 UK Government, Industrial Strategy White Paper, 2017
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-4
• Places- developing Local Industrial Strategies which focus on local
strengths.
16.2.9 Four Grand Challenges were also set out which relate to global opportunities,
these include, artificial intelligence (AI), clean growth, future of mobility, and
ageing society. Clean Growth has been identified as one of the main
opportunities for the UK economy to take advantage of, through the
“development, manufacture and use of low carbon technologies, systems and
services”. The UK Government is committed to increasing support for
innovation to reduce the costs of clean technologies, systems and services.
Clean Growth Strategy
16.2.10 To complement the UK Industrial Strategy, the Government developed a growth
strategy to ensure economic growth goes hand in hand with greater protection
for the natural environment2. Within this is a commitment to help British
businesses and entrepreneurs seize the opportunities of the low carbon
economy. This is driven by policies and processes to improve the route to market
for renewable technologies.
National Planning Policy Framework
16.2.11 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) emphasises
that one of the overarching objectives of the planning system is environmental
improvement. This includes supporting the transition to a low carbon future by
supporting renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. It
explains how planning authorities must support the delivery of low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure to increase the use of renewable and low
carbon energy and help to move toward a low carbon economy.
Local Planning Policy
16.2.12 The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) recognises that productivity,
measured as gross value added (GVA) per job, in the South East is relatively
2 UK Government, The Clean Growth Strategy, 2017
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-5
weak at around 92% of the UK average3. The Maidstone Economic
Development Strategy, 2015, also states that GVA per head and productivity in
Maidstone are below that of the rest of the South East4.
16.2.13 Increasing employment is a clear objective across Maidstone, Tonbridge and
Malling, Kent and the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The
Maidstone Local Plan, 2017, and Economic Development Strategy, 2015, state
that the Borough intends to create over 14,000 jobs over a 20-year period5 6.
The first objective outlined in the Tonbridge and Malling Economic
Regeneration Strategy is to plan for future economic growth by creating quality
local jobs. The South East LEP also points to a number of energy generation
assets in the region such as a planned nuclear power station at Bradwell and
major offshore wind generation capacity in the Thames Estuary, North Sea and
English Channel as well as noting the opportunity that they bring to the area in
terms of supporting future economic growth7.
16.2.14 The Tonbridge and Malling BC Economic Regeneration Strategy notes that
higher skills attainment in the Borough is better than the average for Kent but is
still below that of the South East as a whole. This leads to the objective of
embracing the skills and work readiness agenda to open up new employment
opportunities for local residents. Maidstone’s economic development strategy
notes a relatively tight labour market with low unemployment and relatively high
economic activity rates. However, the strategy does note that there is a lack of
entry level or intermediate level jobs available to meet the demand from job
seekers. It also notes that skill levels are lower in Kent and particularly
Maidstone compared to the national average.
Guidance
16.2.15 There are no published standards or technical guidelines that set out a preferred
methodology for assessing the likely socio-economic effects of a development.
However, there are a series of commonly used methodologies for quantifying
3 South East LEP, Strategic Economic Statement, 2018 4 Maidstone Borough Council, Economic Development Strategy, 2015 5 Maidstone Borough Council, Economic Development Strategy, 2015 6 Maidstone Borough Council, Local Plan, Adopted 2017 7 South East LEP, Strategic Economic Statement, 2018
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-6
economic effects both during the construction of a development and following
its completion. Other established qualitative techniques are frequently adopted
to assess the social effects of a development. The following section outlines the
approach used to conduct this assessment. Where possible, the likely significant
socio-economic effects are quantified, but where this is not feasible, a qualitative
assessment is provided using professional judgement and experience.
Consultation
16.3.1 Table 16.1 below provides details of the consultation undertaken to date in
relation to the socio-economic assessment.
Table 16.1: Consultation Responses to Date
Consultee Comment Response to Consultation
Scoping Responses
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.1
The Planning Inspectorate agrees that effects on the tourism economy can be scoped out of the ES as the Proposed Extension is unlikely to significantly affect the tourism economy due to not being a tourist attraction or located in proximity to a tourist attraction.
Noted, no further action required
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.2
The Planning Inspectorate agrees that Loss of amenity green / open space can be scoped out of the ES as there is no evidence in the Scoping Report that the Proposed Extension would affect amenity or green / open space.
Noted, no further action required and there have been no changes to the proposal that would affect this position
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.3
The Planning Inspectorate agrees that having regard to the location and characteristics of the Proposed Extension there is no reason to believe it would result in a significant effect to social and community infrastructure, and agrees that this matter can be scoped out of the ES.
Noted, no further action required and there have been no changes to the proposal that would affect this position
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.4
ES should include (where relevant) TMDC within the socio-economic assessment.
The local study area has been amended to include both TMBC and MBC.
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.5
The ES should include sufficient information to describe the labour market within the study areas and the likely impact the Proposed Extension would have on matters such as unemployment. The ES should state the anticipated quantity and types of jobs that would be directly and indirectly created by the Proposed Extension during construction and operation. If assumptions are required to determine the quantity of employment opportunities, the ES
The baseline has been expanded to include a range of indicators relating to employment and the labour market, which is reflected in the assessment of impacts covering direct and indirect impacts during construction and operation. The assessment of impacts assumes a worst-case
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-7
Consultee Comment Response to Consultation
should use a “worst case” scenario assumption and explain how the assumption has been
made and the effect the assumption has on the outcome of the assessment.
scenario, as appropriate, when making assumptions.
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.6
The ES should describe the criteria used in the socio-economic assessment to determine the sensitivity of receptor, magnitude of impact and significance of effect. Where professional experience is used within the assessment, it should be clearly described in the ES. The Applicant should seek to agree the methodology with relevant consultation bodies.
Comments noted and reflected in methodology and assessment. Repeated attempts have been made to engage with Kent CC regarding the methodology, but no response has been received to date. See Appendix 16-1 for a transcript of email contact attempts
PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.7
The Scoping Report Paragraph 6.10.14 states that mitigation measures will be recommended if the assessment results in significant adverse effects; but does not provide any further details regarding the
potential mitigation measures. The ES should describe mitigation
measures with sufficient detail. The likely efficacy of any measures proposed and how the measures will be secured through the DCO or
other legal mechanism should be described.
There are no significant adverse effects identified within this assessment and therefore, no mitigation measures have been proposed.
Public Health England, Scoping Opinion, Appendix 2: Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies
The scoping report identifies significant increased economic activity through gross value added (GVA) and employment yet intends to scope out the potential effects of increased employment, both from construction and operation on local services and demand on housing. No information has been provided on anticipated employment for the construction and operation stages, including surges for planned maintenance periods. Given the number of NSIP schemes and other large construction schemes within Kent and the wider region the demand on housing and local services will also be a potential significant impact within the cumulative effect assessment
As noted in the Scoping Opinion (PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.3), the effects on social and community infrastructure (which includes local education, healthcare and demand for housing) can be scoped out of the ES. Considering the evidence presented within this PEIR Chapter, the levels of employment anticipated during both the operation and construction stages do not necessitate an assessment of the demand for local services and housing. This judgement reflects the scale and nature of employment and the expected travel to work area. On the basis that many of the construction jobs would be temporary in nature they are therefore unlikely to place significant additional demand on local services and housing.
16.3.2 This Chapter has been based upon the outcome of the consultation and scoping
set out within Table 16.1.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-8
Parameters Used for Assessment
16.4.1 The overall approach to the use of the Rochdale Envelope and the Parameters
that have been assumed for the assessment of likely significant environmental
effects arising from the Proposed Extension is set out in Chapter 5.0 of this
PEIR.
16.4.2 Based on an assessment of the potential socio-economic implications, the use
of the Rochdale Envelope and the Parameters will have no influence on the
assessment of socio-economic environmental effects given that the Parameters
do not affect the proposed waste treatment capacity and operation and, thus,
the employment and wider socio-economic effects of the Proposed Extension.
16.4.3 The only potential variable that could affect the assessment would be changes
to the proposed construction programme (anticipated to be carried out over 44
months, excluding the 16 month post-construction period for transfer of the
existing lines onto the new stack as this would include a very low level of
employment activity). However, that construction programme has been
prepared by the Applicant in combination with their preferred Engineering
Procurement Construction (EPC) Contractor, drawing on experience from the
construction of other similar facilities and is therefore considered to be a robust
and reasonable basis for assessment.
Assessment Methodology
Methodology
16.5.1 The methodology outlined below is based on the professional experience of the
assessor, as there is no set methodology for assessing the likely significant
socio-economic effects of a development. This is a tried and tested approach
that is informed by the approaches used successfully in past planning
applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects such as Hornsea
Projects One to Three.8 The criteria for determining the significance of effects
8 https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/?s=hornsea&submit=Search
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-9
has been carried out using a two-stage process that involves defining the
sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the impact.
16.5.2 Given the location and likely scale of the impacts associated with the Proposed
Extension, the local labour market, connectivity within the local area, and the
fact that the Site is located on the border of two local authority areas, a
combined local authority area and a county area were deemed the most
appropriate Study Areas for the assessment of likely significant effects. They
are described as follows:
• Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area – reflecting the fact that
the Site of the extended generating station would be located primarily in the
Tonbridge and Malling District Council area and partially within the
Maidstone Borough Council area.
• Kent9 Study Area– the wider County authority area.
16.5.3 In some cases, the assessment also uses a national comparator area,
particularly when assessing the sensitivity of receptors.
Sensitivity
16.5.4 The assessment of sensitivity for socio-economics has been undertaken
through a desk-based baseline assessment drawing on socio-economic
analysis, review of relevant policy documents and professional judgement. The
framework that has been adopted in the assessment of the sensitivity of socio-
economic receptors is outlined in Table 16.2.
9 Note: this includes the Medway Unitary Authority area in addition to Kent County Council Area due to the Proposed Development’s proximity to Medway
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-10
Table 16.2: Sensitivity of Socio-economic Receptors
Sensitivity Criteria
Very High Receptor is accorded a very high priority in local and regional economic development and regeneration policy. Baseline analysis finds evidence of severe and persistent socio-economic challenges locally.
High Receptor is accorded a high priority in local and regional economic development and regeneration policy. Baseline analysis finds evidence of major and persistent socio-economic challenges locally.
Medium Receptor is accorded a medium priority in local and regional economic development and regeneration policy. Baseline analysis finds no evidence of major socio-economic challenges or a particular resilience for the receptor.
Low Receptor is accorded a low priority in local and regional economic development and regeneration policy.
Baseline analysis finds evidence that the receptor is resilient and that there are no particular challenges locally.
Magnitude of Impact
16.5.5 Table 16.3 outlines the framework that has been adopted to determine the scale
of impacts on each Receptor during the construction and operation phases. It
takes into account the matters which have been scoped out of the assessment
following the formal EIA Scoping exercise with the Planning Inspectorate.
Table 16.3: Indicators for Assessment of Impacts
Receptor Indicator Method for Assessing Impact
Economic Activity
GVA Absolute impact on GVA calculated using economic impact model informed by consultation with the developer on their proposed operational business plan.
Employment Employees Absolute impact on employment calculated using economic impact model informed by consultation with the developer on their proposed operational business plan.
Access to Employment Opportunities for Local Residents
Unemployment Rate
Employment impact assessed in the context of unemployment levels and the local skills profile.
Skills Profile
Claimant Count10
10 A composite of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance and those claiming Universal Credit who are required to seek work to qualify for their benefits
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-11
16.5.6 The magnitude of impact has been determined with reference to the baseline
conditions, using the criteria outlined in Table 16.4.
Table 16.4: Assessing Magnitude
Magnitude of Impact
Description
Major Proposals would cause a large change – judged as beneficial or adverse - to baseline socio-economic conditions in terms of absolute and/or percentage change.
Moderate Proposals would cause a moderate change – judged as beneficial or adverse - to existing socio-economic conditions in terms of absolute and/or percentage change.
Minor Proposals would cause a slight change – judged as beneficial or adverse - to existing socio-economic conditions in terms of absolute and/or percentage change.
Negligible No discernible change, either way, in baseline socio-economic conditions.
16.5.7 Specific thresholds, based on the professional judgement, have been used to
inform the assessment against the criteria outlined in Table 16.5.
Table 16.5: Thresholds for Assessing Magnitude of Impacts
Receptor Negligible Minor Moderate Major
GVA Impacts
Construction Up to 0.1% 0.1 to 0.5% 0.5 to 1% 1%+
Operation Up to 0.1% 0.1 to 0.5% 0.5 to 1% 1%+
Employment Impacts
Construction Up to 0.1% 0.1 to 0.5% 0.5 to 1% 1%+
Operation Up to 0.1% 0.1 to 0.5% 0.5 to 1% 1%+
Access to Employment
Construction Up to 1% 1 to 5% 5 to 20% 20%+
Operation Up to 1% 1 to 5% 5 to 20% 20%+
Level and Significance of Effect
16.5.8 Table 16.6 shows the matrix used to assign significance based on the results of
the assessments of magnitude and sensitivity. Areas shaded in grey represent
effects that are deemed to be significant in EIA terms.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-12
Table 16.6: Significance Matrix
Magnitude
Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Sen
sit
ivit
y
Low Negligible Minor Minor Moderate
Medium Negligible Minor Moderate Major
High Negligible Moderate Major Major
Very High Negligible Moderate Major Substantial
Scope
16.5.9 As set out above, in line with the PINS Scoping Response, the assessment is
focussed on the potential for significant effects upon economic activity and
employment during both construction/decommissioning and operation of the
Proposed Extension. In order to do so, the assessment establishes:
• The significance of effect;
• The sensitivity of the socio-economic receptor to change;
• The magnitude of impacts; and
• The level of effect and whether or not that effect is considered significant in
EIA terms.
16.5.10 The assessment covers the following potential effects during both the
construction/decommissioning and operational stages:
• Economic activity;
• Employment; and
• Access to employment opportunities for local residents.
16.5.11 These are presented in terms of the direct (on-site) effects and the combined
indirect and induced effects (those supported in the supply chain and through
employee expenditure).
Limitations
16.5.12 The most up to date information available has been used in the preparation of
the baseline. However, there is often a lag in publishing national datasets,
meaning there is a possibility that some information may be slightly out of date.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-13
For example, employment data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
usually has a one to two-year lag but is still the best representation of
employment available. The baseline datasets used, along with publication
dates, are presented in Table 16.7. These data limitations would not have a
material effect on the predictability or accuracy of the impact assessment.
16.5.13 Since January 2013, the number of people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance
and Universal Credit have been combined in the Claimant Count. This means
it is no longer possible to get an accurate indication of the number of people
seeking work in occupations related to the Proposed Extension. This has
implications for the level of quantitative analysis which can be undertaken in the
baseline section and subsequent assessment.
16.5.14 Kent County Council (KCC) have been contacted on several occasions to
discuss the methodology for this assessment. However, to date, no response
has been provided. Copies of the correspondence with KCC are contained
within Appendix 16-1.
Baseline
Data Sources
16.6.1 Table 16.7 outlines the data indicators and sources that have been used to
develop the baseline for the two Study Areas.
Table 16.7: Baseline Data Sources
Receptor Indicator Source
Economic Activity GVA ONS, Gross Value Added, 2018
Employment Employees ONS, Business Register & Employment Survey, 2018
Access to Employment Opportunities for Local Residents
Unemployment Rate ONS, Annual Population Survey, 2018
Skills Profile ONS, Census, 2011; ONS, Annual Population Survey, 2018
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-14
Environmental Baseline
Existing Baseline Scenario
16.6.2 Table 16.7 shows the total GVA (a measure of economic activity) in each of the
study areas as well as GVA growth over the last five years. The table shows
that the Kent Study Area and the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study
Area are broadly in line with the national average in terms of GVA growth.
Table 16.8: Gross Value Added11
Study Area GVA, 2018 GVA Growth (2013-18)
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling £8.3 billion 21%
Kent £42.4 billion 20%
United Kingdom 1,908 billion 20%
16.6.3 Table 16.9 shows the total number of employees (full and part time) in both of
the study areas. In each Study Area, employee growth has been above the
national average over the past five years.
Table 16.9: Employees12
Study Area Employees, 2018 Employee Growth (2013-18)
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling 133,500 6.8%
Kent 704,000 7.9%
United Kingdom 29,758,000 6.1%
16.6.4 Table 16.10 shows that unemployment is relatively low in the Maidstone and
Tonbridge and Malling Study area compared with the national average, whilst
unemployment in the Kent Study Area is marginally higher than the UK average.
11 Source: ONS, Gross Value Added (Balanced Approach), 2018; 12 ONS, Business Register & Employment Survey, 2018
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-15
Table 16.10: Unemployment Rate13
Study Area Unemployment Rate, 2018
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling 2.8%
Kent 4.3%
United Kingdom 4.2%
16.6.5 As of December 2019, there were around 25,700 claimants seeking employment
in Kent and 3,300 across Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling14. Although out
of date, data on occupations sought by claimants indicates that residents
seeking employment in sectors relevant to construction and development
accounted for 10% of claimants in Kent and 8% in Maidstone and Tonbridge and
Malling15.
16.6.6 Table 16.11 shows that the proportion of people with higher level skills is
relatively low in both study areas and there is a higher proportion of people with
mid and entry levels skills. The Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study
Area has a significantly lower proportion of people with no qualifications.
Table 16.11: Profile of Highest Level of Qualification, Percentage of 16-64 year
olds, 201816
Study Area % NVQ4+
% NVQ2-3
% NVQ1
% trade apprentice
% other
% none
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling 36% 39% 12% 4% 6% 4%
Kent 34% 36% 13% 3% 6% 8%
United Kingdom 39% 33% 10% 3% 7% 8%
Grid Connection
16.6.7 As set out in Chapter 5.0, the connection to the national grid would be
undertaken by the District Network Operator (DNO) under their statutory
powers under the Electricity Act 1989 and permitted development rights as
13 Source: ONS, Annual Population Survey – Unemployment Rate, 2018 14 ONS, Claimant Count, 2020 15 ONS, Job Seeker’s Allowance by Occupation, 2013 16 Source: ONS, Annual Population Survey - Qualifications, 2018
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-16
a statutory undertaker. Accordingly, the works would not fall to be consented
under the DCO process. Nonetheless, the Chapters of the PEIR have given
consideration to the likely impacts associated with the installation of the Grid
Connection, because the connection to the network is a critical requirement
for the Proposed Extension to recover energy.
16.6.8 The Existing Station is connected to the Maidstone Sub-Station via an
underground connection that runs east around the 20/20 business park and
then south through a number of land-uses and suburban areas on northern
Maidstone (Route A). The existing grid route is subject to a number of
potential environmental and physical constraints, which has led the Applicant
to consider whether an alternative route may be preferable (Route B).
Accordingly, there are two potential grid connection routes for the Proposed
Extension, as follows:
• Route A: the existing route from the Existing Station, running through
undeveloped and suburban areas towards the northern edge of Maidstone;
• Route B: an alternative route that follows the A20, and roads within
Maidstone town centre;
16.6.9 It is anticipated that the grid connection would be installed via excavating a
trench (in a series of short sections). A working trench of 350mm would be
required with a 1.5m-2.5m wide running track and up to 6m stockpile run. Where
feasible, any vegetation lost to construction would be reinstated.
16.6.10 The assessment will consider the potentially significant environmental effects
associated with construction and operation of both routes on the water
environment.
The HWRC Scenario
16.6.11 A separate planning application for a Household Waste Recycling Centre
(HWRC) at the north-eastern edge of the Site was submitted to KCC in
December 2019 (application reference KCC/TM/0284/2019) and was awaiting
determination at the time of writing. As such, and for the reasons explained in
more detail in Chapter 6, it is necessary for the assessment of likely significant
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-17
effects on the water environment to also consider a second scenario, where the
HWRC has been implemented.
16.6.12 The HWRC would comprise:
• A new household waste recycling facility (the HWRC);
• New access from Laverstoke Road;
• Re-engineering of existing perimeter earthworks;
• Loss of existing tree cover; and
• New native woodland planting.
16.6.13 Whilst the HWRC may contribute to economic activity and employment in the
study areas, its consent does not have a bearing on the baseline assessment
for socio-economics.
Assessment of Effects
Incorporated Mitigation
16.7.1 There are no specific mitigation measures incorporated into the Proposed
Extension which would have an impact on the socio-economic assessment.
Construction Phase Effects
Economic Activity
Sensitivity of Receptor
16.7.2 As demonstrated in the review of policy at local, LEP and national level,
economic activity, productivity, and economic growth is accorded a high priority
in development and regeneration policy.
16.7.3 GVA growth is in line with the national average across both study areas.
However, low productivity is noted as a concern across the South East at 92%
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-18
of the UK average within local economic development policy17, particularly in
Maidstone18.
16.7.4 The sensitivity of the receptor is considered high for the Maidstone and
Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and Kent Study Area.
Assessment of Magnitude
16.7.5 During the 44-month construction programme, there are expected to be an
annual average of around 300 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) direct construction
workers with a peak of 490 FTE direct workers. Data on employment and GVA
by industry from ONS is used to convert this into GVA using a GVA per
employee benchmark. This provides an estimated annual average direct GVA
supported by the Proposed Extension of £35.3 million.
16.7.6 To account for the additional indirect and induced economic activity supported
in the supply chain and through employee expenditure, a multiplier based on
Homes and Communities Agency benchmarks has been applied to generate
estimates of gross impacts19. This brings the gross average annual GVA
supported by the Proposed Extension to £40.6 million in the Maidstone and
Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and £44.1 million in Kent Study Area. These
figures are compared with the baseline in Table 16.12.
Table 16.12: Construction GVA
Study Area Average Annual GVA
Baseline GVA Proportion
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
£40.6 million £8.3 billion 0.5%
Kent £44.1 million £42.4 billion 0.1%
16.7.7 For both study areas, the increase in GVA falls between the impact magnitude
categories listed in Table 16.5. Therefore, to avoid overstating a beneficial effect
the lower magnitude of impact is assumed.
17 South East LEP, Strategic Economic Statement, 2018 18 Maidstone Borough Council, Economic Development Strategy, 2015 19 Homes & Communities Agency, Additionality Guide, 2014
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-19
16.7.8 The magnitude of effect is therefore minor for the Maidstone and Tonbridge and
Malling Study Area and negligible for the Kent Study Area.
Significance of Effect
16.7.9 The significance of effect from increased economic activity is therefore
‘moderate beneficial’ for the Maidstone and Tonbridge & Malling Study Area,
which is considered significant in EIA terms. In the Kent Study Area, the effect
has been assessed as being beneficial and ‘negligible’ which is not significant
in EIA terms.
Employment
Sensitivity of Receptor
16.7.10 As demonstrated in the review of policy at local, LEP and national level,
employment and employment growth is accorded a high priority in development
and regeneration policy.
16.7.11 The baseline data shows that employee growth is relatively high for both study
areas with no evidence of major challenges for the Receptors.
16.7.12 The sensitivity of the Receptor is assessed as medium for both the Maidstone
and Tonbridge & Malling Study Area and the Kent Study Area.
Assessment of Magnitude
16.7.13 As outlined above the construction period would create an annual average job
creation of around 300 FTE direct jobs with a peak of 490 FTE direct jobs.
16.7.14 To account for the additional indirect and induced employment supported in the
supply chain and through employee expenditure, a multiplier based on Homes
and Communities Agency (now Homes England) benchmarks has been used
to generate estimates of gross impacts20. This calculates that the gross average
20 Homes & Communities Agency, Additionality Guide, 2014
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-20
annual employment supported by the Proposed Extension could be up to 345
FTE employees in the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and
375 FTE employees in the Kent Study Area. These figures are compared with
the baseline in Table 16.13.
Table 16.13: Construction Employment
Study Area Average Annual Employment
Baseline Employment
Proportion
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
345 133,500 0.26%
Kent 375 704,000 0.05%
16.7.15 The magnitude of effect is minor for the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
Study Area and negligible for the Kent Study Area.
Significance of Effect
16.7.16 The significance of effect from construction employment is therefore minor
beneficial and not significant in EIA terms for both study areas.
Access to Employment Opportunities for Local Residents
Sensitivity of Receptor
16.7.17 As demonstrated in the review of policy at local and LEP level, employment,
and access to jobs for local residents is a high priority in the study areas.
16.7.18 The baseline data shows that unemployment is relatively low for the Maidstone
and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area, but in line with national trends for the
Kent Study Area. Evidence from local policy points towards a relatively tight
labour market but with a skills mismatch. Both study areas present a higher
proportion of residents with mid to entry level skills with Tonbridge and Malling
showing a lower than average proportion of people with no qualifications.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-21
16.7.19 The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore assessed to be medium for the
Maidstone and Tonbridge & Malling Study Area and high for the Kent Study
Area.
Assessment of Magnitude
16.7.20 As outlined above the construction period would create an annual average of
around 300 FTE direct jobs with a peak of 490 FTE direct jobs.
16.7.21 To account for the additional indirect and induced employment supported in the
supply chain and through employee expenditure, a multiplier based on Homes
and Communities Agency benchmarks has been applied to generate estimates
of gross impacts21. This brings the gross average annual employment
supported by the Proposed Extension to 345 FTE employees in the Maidstone
and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and 375 FTE employees in the Kent
Study Area. These figures are compared with the baseline in Table 16.14.
Table 16.14: Construction Access to Employment Opportunities for
Local Residents
Study Area Average Annual Employment
Baseline Claimants
Proportion
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
345 3,300 10.5%
Kent 375 25,700 1.5%
16.7.22 The baseline assessment of the skills profile of residents and sought
occupations of claimants, as well as unemployment rates, indicates that there
is capacity within the local labour market to access employment opportunities.
16.7.23 The magnitude of effect for both study areas is therefore moderate.
21 Homes & Communities Agency, Additionality Guide, 2014
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-22
Significance of Effect
16.7.24 The significance of the effect from access to employment opportunities during
construction for both study areas is moderate beneficial and therefore
significant in EIA terms.
Decommissioning Phase Effects
16.7.25 It is unclear at what point decommissioning and demolition of the Proposed
Extension would occur and what changes there would be in methods and
approach to decommissioning facilities in the intervening period.
Notwithstanding, this could be a part of the project and it is necessary to
consider whether this would have the potential to give rise to likely significant
effects.
16.7.26 Because of the uncertainty regarding the timing and approach to
decommissioning, for the purpose of this assessment, it has been assumed
that similar techniques and / or approaches would be used as the
construction phase. Thus, although the scale of effects is unknown at this
stage, the nature of the impacts from decommissioning is expected to be
similar to those associated with the Construction Phase.
16.7.27 However, in taking this approach, it is also recognised that the DCO
application is for an extension to an Existing Station and the assessment of
construction phase impacts only relates to the construction activity
associated with the Proposed Extension. When decommissioning occurs, it
may apply to the entire Generating Station. Such operations would be of a
slightly different scale to the effects assessed for the decommisioning of the
Proposed Extension in isolation. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume
that similar construction techniques and mitigation measures would be
applied, and that the outcome of the construction phase assessment remains
a reasonable proxy for the assessment of construction phase effects, despite
the scale of impacts being unknown.
16.7.28 The assessment of construction phase effects has identified some significant
beneficial environmental effects. It is assumed that in the absence of further
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-23
information, the effects of decommissioning would be similar and as such the
assessment of construction phase effects also covers that of the
decommissioning phase.
Construction and Decommissioning of Grid Connection
16.7.29 As stated in section 16.6 above, two potential grid connection routes are
being considered for the Proposed Extension (Route A and Route B). This
section assesses the potential construction and decommissioning phase
impacts each route would have upon the water environment.
Construction Phase
16.7.30 The employment and economic activity associated with the construction of
the Grid Connection infrastructure would be minimal and very similar for both
options. In term of socio-economics there would be no discernible difference
between the two routes.
16.7.31 As such, it is concluded that, in relation to the potential socio-economic
effects associated with construction, there would be no significant effects
associated with the Grid Connection for either route and therefore no
difference between the two routes.
Decommissioning of Grid Connection
16.7.32 At the end of its operational life, it is anticipated that the ducting for the Grid
Connection would be left in situ, such that there would be no
decommissioning works and therefore no potentially significant socio-
economic effects.
Assessment of Effects against HWRC Scenario
16.7.33 If approved, the construction phase for the HWRC would be complete and the
HWRC would be operational before construction commences on the Proposed
Extension. As such, there would be no combined construction effects for socio-
economics.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-24
Operation Phase Effects
Economic Activity
Sensitivity of Receptor
16.7.34 GVA growth is in line with the national average across both study areas.
However, locally policy highlights how low productivity is a concern across the
South East at 92% of the UK average22, particularly in Maidstone.23
16.7.35 The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore assessed to be high for both study
areas.
Assessment of Magnitude
16.7.36 The Existing Station employs 94 FTE direct workers on site, plus an additional
9 FTE remote workers off site. The Proposed Extension is expected to employ
an additional 20 FTE direct workers on site with management of the Proposed
Extension shared across the Generating Station. Data on employment and
GVA by industry from the ONS has been used to convert this into GVA using a
GVA per employee benchmark. This provides an estimated additional annual
direct GVA supported by the Proposed Extension of £2 million during its
operation.
16.7.37 To account for the additional indirect and induced economic activity supported
in the supply chain and through employee expenditure, a multiplier based on
Homes and Communities Agency (now Homes England) benchmarks has been
applied to generate estimates of gross impacts24. This brings the additional
gross annual GVA supported by the Proposed Extension during operation to
£2.3 million in the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and £2.5
million in the Kent Study Area. These figures are compared with the baseline in
Table 16.15.
22 South East LEP, Strategic Economic Statement, 2018 23 Maidstone Borough Council, Economic Development Strategy, 2015 24 Homes & Communities Agency, Additionality Guide, 2014
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-25
Table 16.15: Additional Operational GVA
Study Area Additional Average Annual
GVA
Baseline GVA Proportion
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
£2.3 million £8.3 billion 0.03%
Kent £2.5 million £42.4 billion 0.01%
16.7.38 Based on the above the magnitude of effect for both study areas is negligible.
Significance of Effect
16.7.39 The significance of the effect from increased economic activity during operation
for both study areas is therefore classed as beneficial but ‘negligible’. Whilst
beneficial, this level of effect is not deemed to be significant in EIA terms.
Employment
Sensitivity of Receptor
16.7.40 The baseline data shows that employee growth is relatively high for both study
areas with no evidence of any major challenges.
16.7.41 The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore assessed to be medium for both study
areas.
Assessment of Magnitude
16.7.42 As mentioned above the Proposed Extension is expected to employ an
additional 20 FTE direct workers on site during the operational phase.
16.7.43 To account for the additional indirect and induced employment supported in the
supply chain and through employee expenditure, a multiplier based on Homes
and Communities Agency (now Homes England) benchmarks has been applied
to generate estimates of gross impacts25. This brings the gross annual
25 Homes & Communities Agency, Additionality Guide, 2014
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-26
employment supported by the Proposed Extension to 24 FTE employees in the
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and 26 FTE employees in the
Kent Study Area. These figures are compared with the baseline in Table 16.16.
Table 16.16: Additional Operational Employment
Study Area Additional Average Annual
Employment
Baseline Employment
Proportion
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
24 133,500 0.02%
Kent 26 704,000 <0.01%
16.7.44 Based on the above the magnitude of effect for both study areas is negligible.
Significance of Effect
16.7.45 Based on the above the effects of additional employment during the operational
phase in both study areas is considered to be beneficial but ‘negligible’. Whilst
beneficial, this level of effect is not deemed to be significant in EIA terms.
Access to Employment Opportunities for Local Residents
Sensitivity of Receptor
16.7.46 Baseline data shows that unemployment is relatively low for the Maidstone and
Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and in line with national trends for the Kent
Study Area. Evidence from local economic development policy such as the
Maidstone Economic Development Strategy points towards a relatively tight
labour market, but with a skills mismatch. Both study areas present a higher
proportion of residents with mid to entry level skills with Tonbridge and Malling
showing a lower than average proportion of people with no qualifications.
16.7.47 The sensitivity of the Receptor is therefore assessed to be medium for the
combined Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and high for the
Kent Study Area.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-27
Assessment of Magnitude
16.7.48 The Existing Station employs 94 FTE workers on site which include a range of
roles such as managers, engineers, technicians, supervisors, and operators.
During operation, the additional 20 FTE direct workers on site would include a
15-person operational team and 6 mechanical and electrical engineers. Based
on the current workforce, it is expected that all additional workers would reside
within a 20-mile radius of the Site, with three quarters residing within a 6-mile
radius.
16.7.49 To account for the additional indirect and induced employment supported in the
supply chain and through employee expenditure, a multiplier based on Homes
and Communities Agency (now Homes England) benchmarks is applied to
generate estimates of gross impacts26. This brings the gross additional annual
employment supported by the operational phase of the Proposed Extension to
24 FTE employees in the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and
26 FTE employees in the Kent Study Area. These figures are compared with
the baseline in Table 16.17
Table 16.17: Additional Operational Access to Employment Opportunities
for Local Residents
Study Area Average Annual Employment
Baseline Claimants
Proportion
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
24 3,300 0.7%
Kent 26 25,700 0.1%
16.7.50 The baseline assessment of the skills profile of residents and unemployment
rates, indicates that there is capacity within the local labour market to access
employment opportunities. Therefore, the magnitude of effect for both study
areas is negligible.
26 Homes & Communities Agency, Additionality Guide, 2014
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-28
Significance of Effect
16.7.51 Based on the above, the effect from increased access to employment
opportunities during operation in both study areas is assessed as being
beneficial but ‘negligible’. Whilst beneficial, this level of effect is not deemed to
be significant in EIA terms.
Grid Connection
16.7.52 As noted previously, the electrical grid connection would comprise an
underground cable. Accordingly, during the operational phase, it would not have
any potential to give rise to any significant socio-economic effects.
Assessment of Effects against HWRC Scenario
16.7.53 The introduction of the HWRC would bring additional operational activity to the
study areas and if the HWRC is granted planning consent, it would already have
operated for a number of years prior to the operational phase of the Proposed
Extension. However, the Levels of Economic Activity, Employment and Access
to Employment Opportunities for Local Residents that would be generated by
the development are unlikely to be of a scale that would affect the outcome of
the operational phase assessment.
Cumulative Effects
16.7.54 As described in Chapter 6, the cumulative assessments undertaken within each
chapter of this PEIR has been carried out by considering which scenario (i.e.
development of the Proposed Extension with or without the HWRC) would give
rise to the ‘worst-case’ for the assessment of that environmental topic. Once that
has been established, it has then been assessed on that basis in conjunction
with the cumulative scheme set out below. Where the two scenarios give rise
to different worst-case effects, two cumulative scenarios are assessed
separately.
16.7.55 For the purposes of the assessment of potentially significant socio-economic
effects, it has been judged that the worst case scenario would be without HWRC
because the HWRC would generate socio-economic benefits.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-29
16.7.56 The approach to the cumulative assessment is discussed in Chapter 6.0 along
with the criteria and search area adopted in the assessment of sites. Six
developments have been identified and all are for residential use; three benefit
from planning permission (not yet implemented) and whilst the planning
applications for the other three are yet to be determined. The schemes are
summarised in the Table 12.8 below, and their locations are shown on Figure
6.1.
Table 16.18: Cumulative Schemes
Project name / location
Details of development Status and relevant Study Area(s)
Springfield Mill, Sandling Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 2LD
Demolition of existing buildings, and development of 295 residential units (use class C3), including 218 x 1-2 bed apartments and 77 x 2-4 bed houses, including associated car parking, public realm and landscaping works, Grade II Listed Rag Room to be preserved and re-used for community (D1), office (B1) or residential (C3) use
17/502432/FULL (8 Jun 2018)
1.7 km from Site boundary
Permitted but not yet implemented – all Study Areas
Former Somerfield Distribution Centre, Station Road, Aylesford, Kent, ME20 7QR
Construction of 92 dwellings with associated parking, roads, landscaping and public open space (Revised scheme to that approved under application TM/13/03109/FL)
17/03350/FL (21 Jan 2019)
980 m from Site boundary
Permitted but not yet implemented – all study areas
Land West Of Hermitage Lane And East Of Units 4A 4B And 4C Mills Road Quarry Wood Industrial Estate Aylesford Kent
Demolition of all existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide a new Centenary Village. Redevelopment of the site to provide 24 Assisted Living Apartments, 40 Dwellings, Community Hub, Access Roads, Landscaping and Parking (Phase 2). Outline planning permission for up to 35 Dwellings (all matters reserved) (Phase 3).
17/03513/FL (29 Mar 2018)
600 m from Site boundary
Permitted but not yet implemented – all study areas
KCC Springfield Library HQ Sandling Road Maidstone ME14 2LD
Demolition of the existing County Central Library and associated buildings, and erection of six-to-sixteen storey residential development of 170no. Apartments and 85no. Car parking spaces at the former KCC Springfield Library site, Sandling Road, Maidstone.
17/504568/FULL
1.8 km from Site boundary
Application not yet determined – all study areas
Land South Of London Road And East Of Hermitage Lane, Aylesford, Kent
Erection of up to 840 dwellings (including affordable homes) with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage systems, land for a Primary School, doctors surgery and for junction improvements at Hermitage Lane/A20 junction, and a link road between Poppy Fields roundabout and Hermitage Lane. Vehicular accesses into the site from Poppy Fields Roundabout and Hermitage Lane. All matters reserved with the exception of means of access.
17/01595/OAEA
Application not yet determined – all study areas
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-30
80 m from Site
Land South West Of London Road And West Of Castor Park, Allington, Maidstone, Kent
Permission for layout, access and scale for a residential scheme of 106 units comprising mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings (including bungalows, houses and apartments), associated access and infrastructure.
19/00376/OAEA
140m from site
Application not yet determined – all study areas
Cumulative Effects During Construction
16.7.57 The Cumulative Projects listed in Table 16.18 are all expected to support
additional construction employment and economic activity. This employment
and economic activity will be temporary in nature with peaks and troughs that
overlap with the with the construction programme for the Proposed Extension.
16.7.58 Although there is some information on the overall construction periods for the
Cumulative Projects, this does not include information on the likely timing, scale
or nature of construction employment and economic activity for each of them,
and importantly, where this is likely to overlap with the construction programme
for the Proposed Extension. As such, it is not possible to assess the likely
effects associated with the Cumulative Projects and therefore, the overall
effects in combination with the Proposed Extension. However, it is likely that
any additional economic activity would enhance the beneficial socio-economic
effects during construction.
16.7.59 As agreed at scoping (PINS, Scoping Opinion, Para 4.9, ID 4.9.3) the effects
on social and community infrastructure are scoped out of the assessment of the
Proposed Extension as given the location and characteristics of the Proposed
Extension, the effects are not likely to be significant. For the same reasons and
given the scale of additional activity associated with the Proposed Extension it
is not likely to change the combined effects of the Cumulative Projects and is
therefore not assessed here.
Cumulative Effects During Operation
16.7.60 For Land West of London Road and West of Castor Park, Springfield Mill,
Former Somerfield Distribution Centre, KCC Springfield Library HQ, the nature
of these Cumulative Projects is such, that they are not likely to support
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-31
significant additional employment or economic activity during operation and are,
therefore, not likely have a cumulative socio-economic impact with the
Proposed Extension during the operational phase.
16.7.61 The developments that are proposed on Land West of Hermitage Land and East
of Units 4A 4B and 4C and Land South of London Road and East of Hermitage
Lane, both include elements that are likely to have long-term employment
impacts associated with them. The former would generate employment through
the assisted living and a community hub, and the latter would generate
additional employment through a proposed primary school and doctor’s surgery.
Accordingly, both projects would support some additional employment activity
and give rise to some beneficial effects in terms of the main socio-economic
assessment factors (economic activity, employment, and access to employment
opportunities for local residents).
16.7.62 A review has been carried out of the information submitted in support of the
planning applications for both developments, to determine the level of any
operational phase effects that would be generated by the projects and the
overall cumulative effects with the Proposed Extension.
16.7.63 The review of the relevant documentation has revealed that there is not enough
information to allow for a robust, quantitative, cumulative assessment to be
carried out. However, given the nature of the activities proposed within each of
the identified developments (low levels of employment in public services and
social care), it can be concluded that, whilst they would undoubtedly give rise
to some further beneficial effects, those effects would be so modest that even
in combination with the Proposed Extension, the operational phase effects
would remain beneficial but ‘negligible’.
Additional Mitigation
Construction / Decommissioning Mitigation
16.8.1 The assessment of socio-economic effects during the construction and
decommissioning phases concludes that the Proposed Extension is not
expected to result in any significant adverse environmental effects (in fact quite
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-32
the opposite is true). Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are deemed
necessary.
Operational Mitigation
16.8.2 The assessment of socio-economic effects during the operational phase
concludes that the Proposed Extension is not expected to result in any
significant adverse environmental effects. Therefore, no additional mitigation
measures are deemed necessary.
Residual Effects
16.9.1 Given no additional mitigation measures are proposed, residual effects remain
unchanged from those identified in the assessment of effects (sub-section 16.7
above).
Summary and Conclusion
16.10.1 This Chapter identifies and assesses the likely significant socio-economic
effects resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Extension.
16.10.2 The socio-economic assessment finds that during the construction phase there
is likely to be significant beneficial effects on economic activity in the Maidstone
and Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and access to employment opportunities
in both the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling and Kent Study Areas.
16.10.3 The operational assessment of the Proposed Extension is not expected to have
any significant environmental effects at this stage
16.10.4 The introduction of the HWRC would not affect the conclusions of the
assessment and negligible socio-economic effects are predicted in relation to
either option that is being considered for the Grid Connection.
16.10.5 There are no additional mitigation measures proposed, as such, residual socio-
economic effects remain unchanged from those identified in the assessment of
effects (sub-section 16.7 above).
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-33
16.10.6 A summary of the assessment of socio-economic effects is shown in Table
16.19 below.
Table 16.19: Assessment of Effects for Socio-Economics Summary Table –
Existing Scenario
Receptor Study Area Sensitivity Magnitude Significance (in EIA terms)
Mitigation Residual Impacts
Construction / Decommissioning Phase
Economic Activity Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
High Minor Moderate Beneficial (Yes)
None Proposed
Moderate Beneficial
Kent High Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Employment Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
Medium Minor Minor Beneficial (No)
None Proposed
Minor Beneficial
Kent Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Access to Employment Opportunities
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
Medium Moderate Moderate Beneficial (Yes)
None Proposed
Moderate Beneficial
Kent High Minor Moderate Beneficial (Yes)
None Proposed
Moderate Beneficial
Operation Phase
Economic Activity Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
High Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Kent High Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Employment Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Kent Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Access to Employment Opportunities
Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling
Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Kent High Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed
Negligible
Table 16.20: Assessment of Effects for Socio-Economics Summary Table –
HWRC Scenario
Receptor Study Area Sensitivity Magnitude Significance
(in EIA terms)
Mitigation Residual
Impacts
Construction / Decommissioning Phase
Economic Activity Maidstone and Tonbridge
and Malling
High Minor Moderate
Beneficial (Yes)
None
Proposed
Moderate
Beneficial
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-34
Receptor Study Area Sensitivity Magnitude Significance
(in EIA terms)
Mitigation Residual
Impacts
Kent High Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Employment Maidstone and Tonbridge
and Malling
Medium Minor Minor Beneficial
(No)
None
Proposed
Minor
Beneficial
Kent Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Access to
Employment
Opportunities
Maidstone and Tonbridge
and Malling
Medium Moderate Moderate
Beneficial (Yes)
None
Proposed
Moderate
Beneficial
Kent High Minor Moderate
Beneficial (Yes)
None
Proposed
Moderate
Beneficial
Operation Phase
Economic Activity Maidstone and Tonbridge
and Malling
High Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Kent High Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Employment Maidstone and Tonbridge
and Malling
Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Kent Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Access to
Employment
Opportunities
Maidstone and Tonbridge
and Malling
Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
Kent High Negligible Negligible (No) None
Proposed
Negligible
16.10.7 Taking account of the sensitivity of identified Receptors and the magnitude of
predicted socio-economic changes, the assessment concludes that the
construction, decommissioning and operation of the Proposed Extension is
likely to result in multiple beneficial socio-economic effects. No adverse effects
are predicted. The socio-economic effects which would be significant in the
context of the 2017 EIA Regulations are all predicted to occur during the
construction phase. They relate to economic activity in the Maidstone and
Tonbridge and Malling Study Area and access to employment opportunities in
both the Maidstone and Tonbridge and Malling and Kent Study Areas. These
conclusions are repeated when the Proposed Extension is considered in the
context of the HWRC Scenario.
2565-01 / Proposed Extension to the Allington IWMF PEIR Main Repot July 2020 16-35
Cumulative Effects
16.10.1 It is not possible to draw conclusions with regard to cumulative effects, given
the lack of information available on Cumulative Projects.
16.10.2 No residual significant socio-economic effects on have been identified during
either the construction, decommissioning or operation of the either of the
proposed Grid Connection routes.