CHAPTER 16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS · July 2020 16-1 16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS Introduction 16.1.1 This...

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


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).


• 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


• 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


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


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


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


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


ES should include (where relevant) TMDC within the socio-economic assessment.

The local study area has been amended to include both TMBC and MBC.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


Unemployment Rate ONS, Annual Population Survey, 2018

Skills Profile ONS, Census, 2011; ONS, Annual Population Survey, 2018


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


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


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


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%


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


16.7.16 The significance of effect from construction employment is therefore minor

beneficial and not significant in EIA terms for both study areas.



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.


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.


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.



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


Baseline Claimants

Proportion


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.




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


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.


Operation Phase Effects

Economic Activity


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.


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


Table 16.15: Additional Operational GVA

Study Area Additional Average Annual

GVA

Baseline GVA Proportion


£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.


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


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.


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.



and Communities Agency (now Homes England) benchmarks has been applied

to generate estimates of gross impacts25. This brings the gross annual



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


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.


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.



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.



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.



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


Baseline Claimants

Proportion


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.




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.


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



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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


Medium Negligible Negligible (No) None Proposed

Negligible


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


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


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


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.


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.

Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CHAPTER 16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS · July 2020 16-1 16.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS Introduction 16.1.1 This...

Documents