This project would go through the National Infrastructure system, not local planning. If this authority and the Secretary of State decide in favour of the project, then that would overrule Green Belt rules as `very special circumstances’.

​

Cement and lime are currently vital to construction, water treatment, agriculture and other parts of our lives. The traditional processes to make them from limestone are inherently large producers of carbon dioxide, as the gas is formed in large amounts during the chemical processes involved. See Wikipedia for information on the chemistry and environmental impact of cement production. Internationally, around 8% of carbon emissions come from cement/lime manufacture, a significant amount from one industry.

Wirral Wildlife entirely realises the gravity of the climate crisis, and its close links to the biodiversity crisis. A rapidly changing climate threatens all life on earth including people.

As such, efforts to lower the carbon footprint of cement and lime production need to be considered carefully. 

Peak Cluster proposals can be seen at 
https://peakcluster-consultation.co.uk/ 

BUT, we have a lot of questions about these proposals which Peak Cluster need to answer.

We need to be convinced that the pipeline to Morecambe Bay is the least worst option.

 

• Carbon Capture and Storage is proposed. The Norwegian examples cited by the Peak Cluster team have differences from the English case. Both are extracting carbon dioxide from methane (natural gas), which is simpler than extracting it from the mix of gases coming off cement manufacture.

Can the companies demonstrate they can do this extraction economically at the scale required?

What technology to they propose to use (e.g. amine-based absorption, calcium looping, oxy-fuel combustion)?

​

• There are a number of alternative ways of making cement coming into production. All have their own impacts, but reduce the carbon emitted. They include a plant near Wrexham but also e.g. Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3), electric recycled cement, novel technologies (Sublime, Fortera, and Brimstone), co-production with steel recycling. See Climate Works article about these new methods.

Would these be better than CCS and a very long pipeline?

 

• Cost would be shared between the companies and the National Wealth Fund (i.e. all of us). Costs estimated at the start inevitable increase on a major project like this.

How much public money would be needed to make the product saleable even as `low-carbon cement’?

Would this public money be better spent encouraging new ways of making cement, rather than continuing with the existing processes?

Who pays for long-term maintenance and what happens if a company goes bust?

 

• The CO2 would be transported as a high-pressure gas.

What are the consequences if there is a leak, to people, and wildlife?

How would leaks be detected and sealed?

Monitoring and emergency response planning?

What is the safety distance between the pipeline and buildings? This could be very relevant west of Arrowe Park, between Irby and Pensby.
What about leaks under the sea, from the pipeline or the storage chambers? 

​

Construction of a pipeline is inevitably damaging along the route, and this is particularly difficult in Wirral, where possible routes are highly constrained by buildings and wildlife-rich sites, and there are already natural gas, oil and water pipelines and electricity cables. These include the HVDC Western Link, which was constructed a decade ago and has done some lasting damage to wildlife.
 

Particular worries are:

1. Wildlife-sites within their area of search, which include:

 

• North Wirral Foreshore (SSSI, SPA, Ramsar) and its Functionally linked land on the north Wirral coastal plain.

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) at Meols Meadow, Thurstaston Common and Hallwood Farm, Ledsham.

• Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) - 9 or 10 including  Arrowe Park, and North Wirral Coastal Park.

After the damage done to one LWS by HVDC Western Link, we would oppose trenched construction across any wildlife-rich site. We would also oppose any above-ground installations on wildlife-rich sites and any access routes across them.

2.  Interaction with HVDC Western Link cables and other existing pipelines and cables. Especially at pinch points such as west of Arrowe Park and east of Landican.

What about access routes? Construction traffic going over the HVDC or any other utility would be likely to cause damage.

3. Before HVDC we were given repeated assurances about how long each section would be open, which turned out to be wrong by months. It was the long delays that helped cause lasting damage to a LWS.

What could be done to prevent this?

4. Hydrology: could the pipeline make drainage worse, especially cross the North Wirral Coastal Plain, increasing flood risk?

Might it affect nearby ponds?

5.  During construction the working area would obviously have to be carefully fenced. This acts as a barrier to movement of some wildlife, e.g. badgers, newts, hedgehogs.

What would the effects on wildlife be and what could be done to lessen them?

6. Biodiversity Net Gain. This scheme will have to provide a net gain to biodiversity.

How would this be done? Compensation for damage done in Wirral should be spent in Wirral, not rolled up into some larger scheme many miles away. 

Wirral's wildlife and people must not suffer all the damage and get no benefits!

Conclusion
We realise the need to do something to reduce carbon emissions from cement manufacture, but Peak Cluster must demonstrate that this is the least worst option, the most cost-effective option, and how they would minimise damage to wildlife and people.

 

Wirral Wildlife committee

February 2026