The document outlines the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a proposed onshore wind farm in Cheshire, consisting of 35 turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW. It discusses the project's necessity, potential environmental impacts, and relevant government regulations, as well as public acceptance and economic benefits associated with the wind farm. The conclusion highlights the wind farm's compatible impact on socio-economic factors and the environment while considering various alternatives and their implications.

1. MSc Water, Energy & the
Environment
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT
EIA
Wind farm in the Cheshire area
Sergio Arenas Gayoso

2. Index
1. The need for the project
3. The likely environmental impact of this project
5. Government regulations
7. Possible project alternatives and environmental of alternatives
9. Non-technical summary/conclusions

3. 1 – The need for the project
Fossil
fuels Econom
pact
y
Im Society
CC
RE’s
International (Kyoto Protocol) and domestic (UK Climate Change
Act) policies
• Onshore wind farm in Cheshire
• 35 wind turbines: 850 kW → 30
MW

4. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project

5. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Abiotic factors Natural environment Social/public
welfare
Patrimony/herit Perceptible Socioeconomic
age environment
Water bodies: earthmoving/machines
Installatio
(↓use/maintenance) → changes in water
n
quality
Civil
works
Sites of geological interest:
Installatio
earthmoving
n
No in the area chosen
SAC’s
SPA’s
Aero-generators and tension cables
buried paths modified →
Access:
transport

6. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Abiotic factors Natural environment Social/public
welfare
Patrimony/herit Perceptible Socioeconomic
age environment
Potential: affects the typical vegetation in this
Vegetation area
Real: vegetation really affected by civil • Pine
works • Hazel
Installatio Conifero
• • Oak
Faun us • Willows
n
a Vertebrates: hares, foxes, • Oaks
hedgehogs, • Knapwee
d
otters, minks, salmons, carps
• Buttercup
Operation Birds • The IUCN Red List of Threatened
s
Species
Bats • Kestrels
• Data base • Treecreeper
Wildlife NO ⇈attention to: bird s
migration, paths, • Saker
corridor Falcons
reproduction areas,
Directive 92/43/CEE (↓population
behaviour
)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations-10
Natura 2000 network

7. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Abiotic factors Natural environment Social/public
welfare
Patrimony/herit Perceptible Socioeconomic
age environment
Vibrations Installati ↓ Intensity civil works, no
on detonations
The Control of Vibration at Work
Regulations 2005
No significant vibrations
Operatio
- wind
n turbines/infrastructures -
Electromagnetic fields ETSU-R-97
(ETSU)
Operatio Relatively ↓; city centres far
n away
Noise BS 6626; BS 7375; BS EN 50110
Parts 1-2
Installati Civil works: the usual
on noise
Operatio Control of Noise at Work Regulations
2005
n Electrical conductions:
↓ frequencies: headaches, nausea,
sleep disorders, stress and negligible
depression Wind farm: 8 m/s winds ≃ 30
dB(A)

8. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Abiotic factors Natural environment Social/public
welfare
Patrimony/herit Perceptible Socioeconomic
age environment

9. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Abiotic factors Natural environment Social/public
welfare
Patrimony/herit Perceptible Socioeconomic
age environment
Wind ENTEC UK PLC : 20 points = total
farm area
5.6% = 9 wind
turbines
3.1% = 18 wind
turbines
0.64% = >3/4 wind
turbines
High-tension
cables
Overhead: ⇈visual impact
2/3 use previous electrical
installation

10. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Abiotic factors Natural environment Social/public
welfare
Patrimony/herit Perceptible Socioeconomic
age environment
Benefi
ts • £20m investment into the Cheshire and National
economy
• £550,000: payment rates, rents, operation and site
maintenance
• £15000/year: donated to Cheshire Hospital for the first
5 years
• £20000: to the local communities and schools projects
and trips
Acceptanc • Energy security: supply
e • Annual monitoring: 2001-07
• 7.5/10 by the population
• 74% of the interviewees: better than
conventional energies and preferred over
hydraulic power stations, thermic power stations,
oil and nuclear power stations

11. 2 – The likely environmental impact of this project
Factors Action Impact
Positive Compatible Moderate Severe Critical
Abiotic Installation N,D,T,S,A,R,Rc
Vegetation Installation N,D,T,S,Si,R,Rc
Operation N,D,T,S,A,R,Rc
Fauna Installation N,D,T,S,Si,R,Rc
Operation N,D,T,S,A,R,Rc
Installation N,D,T,S,Si,R,Rc
Social welfare
Operation
N,D,P,S,Si,R,Rc
Heritage Installation N,D,P,S,Si,IR,URc
Visual Impact Installation N,D,T,S,Si,R,Rc
Operation N,D,P,S,Sn,R,Rc
Socioeconomic Installation N,D,P,S,Si,R,Rc
Operation
Environment Operation
N: negative; D: direct; T: temporal; P: permanent; S: short-term; Si: simple; A: accumulative;
Sn: synergic; R: reversible; IR: irreversible; Rc: recoverable; URc: unrecoverable

12. 3 – Government regulations
Renewable Kyoto
Energy Protocol
UK Climate Change Act
2008
UK Low Carbon Transition Plan
2009
Energy
Policy
Directive 2009/28/
EC
UK Renewable Energy Strategy
2009
Energy White Paper
2007
The North West Regional Assembly
(NWRA)
Regional Spatial
Strategy
North West Development Agency
(NWDA)
Regional Economic
Strategy
Regional low carbon
economy
Wind farm Feed-In Tariff
scheme
EIA Directive 97/11/ The Town and Country Planning
CE Regulations 1999

13. 4 – Possible project alternatives
6
1 – Alternative “0”: not to build the
wind farm
• Hamper local economic
↓socioeconomic
development
development
• Hamper local welfare
• GHG increasing
• Hamper meet environmental and policy set targets (CC
Act 2008)
2 – Alternative: different wind farm
location
• Balance energetic resources/lowest environmental
cost
• Satisfies Planning and Energy Act 2008 and
↓environmental modifications and ↑energy
efficiencies
• The north area has been respected as it coincides
with natural/environmental heritage (roman ruins)

14. 4 – Possible project alternatives
b
3 – Access
alternatives
A1 Impassable without ↑ environmental
A2 modifications shady areas; longer than
↓↓conditions;↑
the A1
A3 a Excursionists; close to natural heritage
A4 (roman ruins)
Impassable without ↑ environmental/village
modifications d
A1 A2 A3 A4
c
A3.a: complex earthmovings
Link
A3.b: Excursionists
Road
A3.c: Slopes>24%
A3.d: Previous path; Slope ≃
20%

15. 4 – Possible project alternatives
4 – Wind turbine
alternatives
Criteria Turbine model
G8X E-80 G-58
Wind turbine power (MW) 2 1.67 0.85
Number require 15 18 35
Capital cost per turbine (£m) 3.3 2.8 2
Cost installation considering wind 49. 50.4 70
turbine (£m)
Total installed capacity (MW) 5
30 30 30
Feed-In Tariff generation rate (£/kWh) 0.0 0.05 0.05
Cost MW installed (£) 5= = =
Workforce (£) = = ⇈
Civil works (installation) (£) ↓ ↓ ⇈
Environmental impact ⇈ ⇈ ↓

16. 4 – Possible project alternatives
5 – Grid connection
alternative
• Tension cables buried (3 km): ↑cost ↑energy loses; ↓
visual impact
• Tension cables overhead (2 km): ↑visual impact; ↑slopes
(↑civil works/environmental impact); previous grid
6 – installation location
Substation Transport Grid
alternative
National
Grid
⇈Access
Power Step-up Sub-
station transformer station
Different location:
⇈ energy loses/civil works
Home: Step- Industry Distribution Step-
230V down down transformer
transform
er

17. 5 – Summary – Conclusions
• Onshore wind farm in Cheshire; 35 wind turbines (850
kW): 30 MW
• Compatible impact on Vegetation (operation), Fauna,
Social welfare and Socioeconomic factor (installation)
• Moderate impact on Abiotic factors, Vegetation
(installation), Heritage and Visual Impact
• Positive impact on Socioeconomic (operation) and the
Environment (overall)
• Regulations: CC, Low Carbon Emissions, RE, environment
protection, Feed-In Tariffs
• Alternatives: environment decisive factor over total cost:
philosophy of EIA