PLANNING STATEMENT · 2017-02-13 · 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 This Planning Statement accompanies a planning application seeking planning permission for the change of

PLANNING STATEMENT

PROPOSED USE OF A BUILDING TO FOOD WASTE PROCESSING BY MEANS OF THERMOPHILIC AEROBIC DIGESTION AND USE OF BIOFUEL FROM FOOD

DERIVED OIL FOR GENERATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

PEBBLE HALL FARM, THEDDINGWORTH ROAD, MARSTON TRUSSELL, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, LE17 6NJ

WELLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD

June 2013 Version 1 Final

GP PLANNING LTD PLANNING STATEMENT

W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 The Site and Site Context ............................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Planning History at Pebble Hall .................................................................................................... 2

1.4 The Proposed Development ........................................................................................................ 3

1.5 Environmental Impact Assessment .............................................................................................. 6

2 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

3 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL ................................................................................. 18

3.2 Sustainable management of food waste and need for the development .................................... 18

3.3 Sustainable production of renewable energy ............................................................................. 19

3.4 Location .................................................................................................................................... 20

3.5 Catchment area ......................................................................................................................... 21

3.6 Environmental considerations .................................................................................................... 23

4 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 30

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Validation Checklist

APPENDIX 2: Process Diagram

APPENDIX 3: Screening Opinion

APPENDIX 4: Potential Supplier Map

APPENDIX 5: Oil Recovery Process

APPENDIX 6: Noise Assessment

APPENDIX 7: Air Quality Assessment

APPENDIX 8: Connection to National Grid System


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This Planning Statement accompanies a planning application seeking planning permission for the change of use of one existing building for food waste processing by means of thermophilic aerobic digestion (TAD). The food processing would enable fertiliser granules for agriculture and renewable energy to be generated in order to be exported to the national grid. This application seeks to extend the existing building in order to accommodate the new TAD system. There will be a number of associated features and machinery located around the building, such as an office and utility and encased CHP gensets.

1.1.2 The original application was withdrawn, following discussions with Planning Officers from

Northamptonshire County Council. Since the withdrawal of the application, the applicant has taken the opportunity to revise a number of elements of the proposal, the most significant one of which is an increase in the amount of power generation from biodiesel from oil extracted from oil-rich food waste. The other changes are as follows:

4 No generators in acoustic enclosures Complete internal cladding of the existing building and its extension with cold-store

specification of insulation to reduce noise and fugitive odour emissions Steam boiler

Recovered oil storage ISO container Heat exchange and control panel buildings Four additional 36,000 litre tank movements per day will be required in order to collect and

deliver oil Additional tertiary odour control scrubber on biofilters

1.1.3 The generators will be linked to the National Grid via underground cables, see Appendix 8.

These will be installed by Western Power Distribution. The longer term aspiration for the facility is to have a substation on site. A separate planning application will be submitted to Northamptonshire County Council for this, subject to an arrangement being agreed.

1.1.4 This application relates to the site operated by Welland Waste Management Ltd at the

company’s existing Pebble Hall development, near Theddingworth in Northamptonshire.

1.1.5 The application is supported by the following documents: W001-07 – Design and Access Statement Welland Waste Management Working Plan – version 2

Noise Assessment – Appendix 6 Air Quality Assessment – Appendix 7

1.1.6 The application is supported by the following drawings:

GPP/WWM/PH/12/01 – Site Location Plan GPP/WWM/PH/12/02 – Site Plan GPP/WWM/PH/12/03 – Site Layout Plan GPP/WWM/PH/12/04 – Existing Building Elevations GPP/WWM/PH/12/05 – Proposed Building Elevations GPP/WWM/PH/12/06 – Catchment Area Plan

GPP/WWM/PH/12/06 v3 – Catchment Area Plan


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

GPP/WWM/PH/12/07 – Photopanel A GPP/CL/PH/09/04 Rev 2 – Landscape and Biodiversity Plan (Approved) GPP/WWM/PH/13/09 – Illustrative Cross Sections GPP/WWM/PH/13/10 – Photograph Panel B GPP/WWM/PH/13/11 – Photograph Panel C

1.1.7 The County Council’s Validation Checklist is included in Appendix 1. Compliance, as appropriate,

is identified in the list.

1.2 The Site and Site Context

1.2.1 Pebble Hall Farm is located South of the A4304 (Bosworth Road), Theddingworth in the Northern part of the District of Daventry as shown on Drawing GPP/WWM/MT/12/01 (Site Location Plan). It is approximately 1.8 km East of the village of Husbands Bosworth. Existing access to the site, which crosses the Northamptonshire and Leicestershire county boundaries, is surfaced in concrete and is approximately 560 metres long from its junction with the A4304.

1.2.2 Pebble Hall Farm is an agriculturally based operation that has been the subject of farm diversification, mainly as a result of the BSE crisis. By a series of grants of planning permission over a number of years (see planning history below), the site has established a variety of industrial/commercial concerns and a waste management operation as part of the diversification of the farm.

1.2.3 The site is located in an area of open countryside, which by virtue of Policy EN1 of the Daventry Local Plan (saved policies), is designated as being in an area of ‘Special Landscape’.

1.2.4 The site has excellent access onto the strategic highway network via the A4304, A5199 and M1.

1.2.5 The proposed change of use relates to the building contained within the red line boundary on drawing GPP/WWM/MT/12/01 which benefits from planning permission for B8 use, but is temporarily being used as a grain storage building for the agricultural activities. It is 1680 square metres in size.

1.3 Planning History at Pebble Hall

1.3.1 In December 2000 Daventry District Council granted planning permission for a change of use of the farm buildings to B8 distribution uses; reference DA/00/1095.

1.3.2 On 21 October 2003 (reference DA/03/725C) planning permission was granted by Northamptonshire County Council for green waste composting. This permission has been implemented. A second permission was granted on 4 October 2005, for an extension to the area to be used for green waste composting, it has also been implemented (reference DA/05/773C). These permissions allow a total throughput of 25,000 tonnes per annum of green waste.

1.3.3 Planning permission DA/07/319 was granted in June 2007 for the construction of an In-Vessel

Composting Plant to deal with mixed green and food waste up to 25,000 tonnes per annum; however as the Waste Collection Authority has subsequently abandoned plans to collect the food waste there is no need to provide an in-vessel composting facility.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

1.3.4 Planning permission 08/00053/WAS was granted in June 2008 for a renewable energy

generation facility for Purepower, on the site previously consented for In-Vessel composting as detailed above. The REGF occupies a similar footprint, and uses waste wood to generate renewable electricity. The permission was implemented when the hoggin was excavated to create the site for the proposed renewable energy generation facility, however the building has not yet been constructed.

1.3.5 Planning permission 09/01593/FUL was granted on 14th

June 2010 for the widening of the access track.

1.3.6 Planning permission 2010/C262/03 was granted by Daventry District Council on 7th July 2010 for

the retention of temporary office buildings in association with the permitted carpet recycling activities on the site.

1.3.7 Planning permission 2010/0477 was granted by Daventry District Council on 19th October 2010

for the retention of engineering works associated with the existing distribution uses and waste related activities at the site.

1.3.8 Planning permission 10/00038/WAS was granted on 28 July 2010 for the use of one B8 unit for

carpet recycling and part of the yard for carpet storage. The carpet recycling operations have now ceased.

1.3.9 A planning application has been submitted to Leicestershire County Council to carry forward the limitations imposed on a S106 Agreement relating to vehicle movements onto the highway; reference 2010/0879/03. This application will not be determined until such time as Northamptonshire County Council determine the application for the TAD and renewable energy generation application to which this statement relates.

1.4 The Proposed Development

1.4.1 The proposed development will provide waste treatment for two waste streams, oil-rich food waste (such as pork pies, sausages, chips) and general food waste. Approximately 70% (28,000tpa) of incoming material will be comprised of 30% plus oil rich food and 30% (12,000tpa) will be comprised of general food waste. Two options for proposed catchment areas for the two waste streams are shown on two Catchment Area Maps on Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/12/06 and GPP/WWM/PH/12/06 v3. The justification for the catchment areas is included in Section 3.5.

1.4.2 The oil-rich food waste is likely to be sourced from food manufacturers and food service outlets in the following locations:

Nottingham Coventry Northampton Birmingham Rugby Leicester

1.4.3 The general food waste is likely to be sourced from waste collection companies, supermarkets and food manufacturers in the following locations:

Leicester


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

Milton Keynes Wellingborough Corby Market Harborough Banbury

1.4.4 The development involves the following which are shown on Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/12/03 v7 Site Layout Plan: 1. Thermophilic Aerobic Digester (TAD)

The TAD system will be fully housed within the grain store building. This building will be extended in order to accommodate the TAD system and dryers.

This building will accept food waste and turn it into agricultural fertiliser granules and renewable biofuel.

The capacity of the plant is a maximum of 40,000 tonnes per annum, which will produce up to 10,000 tonnes of product.

28,000 tonnes per annum of incoming material will be comprised of 16,000 tonnes of up to 30% plus oil content food and 12,000 tonnes per annum will be general food waste.

There will be heat exchange and control panel buildings. 2 ‘Ag bags’ will be used in order to control air emissions. There will also be an associated

tertiary biofilter scrubber and fan

There will be an office and utility building, as shown on the Site Layout Plan GPP/WWM/PH/12/03.

There will be one biodiesel storage tank, recovered oil storage tank and 2 digestate storage tanks.

There will be a sunken wheel wash in the floor of the existing building in order to remove any mud from the wheels of the HGVs delivering material to the site.

Complete internal cladding of the existing building and its extension with cold-store specification of insulation.

2. Generation of Renewable Energy.

4 No. combined heat and power generators in 40ft acoustic enclosures with one 17m stack will be sited in the yard and linked in to the national grid via underground cables to be installed by Western Power Distribution.

3. Extension to the North-West side of the Existing Building 12.2 meters by 18.3 meters extension.

The total area of this extension equals 223 square metres. This will continue the existing slope of the roof. The highest point of the entire building, with the extension, will be 9 meters. The lowest point of the entire building, with the extension, will be 5.4 meters. 4. Other Features The existing soil bund along the northern boundary will be moved North to accommodate the

extension, but retained to provide screening. The height of this bund will be 2.5 meters.

Outside the building there will be two storage tanks will be located to the South of the extension. A 500kW combined heat and power generator and diesel storage tank will located South-East of the existing building.

1.4.5 Waste will be delivered to the building in HGVs, using the existing site access. All loads will be

weighed on the existing weighbridge alongside the compost site.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

1.4.6 The proposed TAD will be an entirely enclosed process, which is fully compliant with the Animal By-Products Regulations. The thermophilic aerobic digestion process takes place inside a series of tanks, which are linked together with pipework, as shown on the process diagram in Appendix 2 and on the Site Layout Plan, Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/12/03.

1.4.7 The food waste will enter the building in HGVs through a roller shutter door to be added in the North-East end of the building. All existing openings will be blocked up. Once the HGVs are inside the building the roller shutter door will be closed. The HGVs will then go through a wheel wash, which will essentially be a sunken wheel bath in the floor. The food waste will then be deposited. Most of the incoming food waste will be in packaging.

1.4.8 Prior to the food waste being put into the TAD it will be removed from the packaging, it will

then be fed into a homogenization tank with screening system to ensure particle size is less than 12mm and that any non-organic fractions are removed; water will be added as necessary. The waste will then be fed into a centrifuge to extract the oil. In the short-term, this oil will then be stored pending removal off-site for processing into B100 biodiesel. It is intended to apply to the Environment Agency for ‘end of waste’ status for the oil. This is expected to take approximately 18 months. The oil will then be able to be used as a fuel directly in the generators, to create heat and power, some of which will be used in order to facilitate the drying process at the end of the TAD system. This means that the TAD facility needs to use very little imported energy and thus be very sustainable in its energy use. The oil recovery process is described in Appendix 5.

1.4.9 At the end of the digestion process the digestate will be put into driers before being put into a machine to produce fertiliser granules. The granules will be sold or used on Pebble Hall Farm crops as a fertiliser.

1.4.10 While a proportion of the oil recovered will be used in a generator to heat the driers, a large majority of it will be sold to biodiesel manufacturers. In return, B100 biodiesel will be brought in to fuel the generators. There will be 5 generators on site, with the capacity to produce 4 MW of electricity. B100 biodiesel product will be brought onto the site in 36,000 litre tankers. There will be one delivery of oil per day and one collection of oil per day.

1.4.11 The building structure and management procedures will have to comply with the requirements of the Animal By-Products Regulations, controlled by the Animal Health and Vetinary Agency (AHVLA) of DEFRA. Therefore, the pedestrian doors will have changing areas and foot baths located adjacent to them. The Western end of the building will have the walls and roof insulated to reduce heat loss, thus reducing the amount of energy used by the process.

1.4.12 The plant would run 24 hours per day but with controlled delivery times. The TAD is an innovative high quality development. The technology has been successfully in use at a site in East Anglia, which has now ceased trading and the equipment is to be reused on this site in the event that planning permission is granted. When the system was working, it received food waste bulked up by AE Burgess in Leicester. By relocating the plant to Pebble Hall, the HGVs will save approximately 100 miles per trip.

1.4.13 The proposed development will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The technology is proven and meets the requirements of the Animal By-Products Regulations and an Environmental Permit has been issued for its operation elsewhere.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

1.5 Environmental Impact Assessment

1.5.1 A screening opinion was issued by Northamptonshire County Council on 11th December 2012 in which it was confirmed that an EIA for this development is not required; a copy is included in Appendix 3. The development has not changed significantly since the issuing of a Screening Opinion, therefore no request has been made.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

2 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Relevant policy documents and policies are listed below.

National Planning Policy Documents

Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 2.1.2 The Waste Review 2011 builds upon the waste hierarchy which was the core of the 2007 Waste

Strategy for England. The key themes that are discussed within the review are; The need to focus on preventing waste as a priority, as a key component of broader

resource efficiency; The importance of treating waste as a resource and embedding waste policies into a

wider resource and material security policy; The need to remove barriers which prevent greater integration of household and

business waste policy and service delivery; The importance of policies which continue to promote high levels of high quality

recycling; and The need to continue to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.

2.1.3 In addition to the above key themes, the review assessed the merits of Anaerobic Digestion,

which is similar in principle to the proposed Thermophilic Aerobic Digester.

The principal purpose of consigning waste to anaerobic digestion is to recover energy from it. For certain waste, such as food waste, the use of anaerobic digestion, is considered to deliver a better overall environmental outcome than recycling the waste, taking into account the local economic and environmental considerations. Our evidence base shows that of the main options for the treatment of food waste, anaerobic digestion offers the greatest environmental benefit. Potentially, by 2020, a reasonable expectation for England could be around 5 million tonnes of food waste and around 20-60 million tonnes of animal waste to be available for anaerobic digestion.

The 2007 Waste Strategy for England

2.1.4 The main objective of the 2007 Waste Strategy is to significantly reduce the amount of waste that is disposed at landfill. Fundamental to this objective is the concept of the waste strategy, where by operators are encouraged through policy, targets and levies to move up the waste hierarchy through more efficient and sustainable waste management.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

National Planning Policy Framework and Technical Guide

2.1.5 The National Planning Policy Framework was published on the 27th March and came into force immediately with respects to plan and decision making. The NPPF states at paragraph 5 of its introduction that it does not contain specific waste policies 'since national waste planning policy will be published alongside the National Waste Management Plan for England'. However, paragraph 5 goes on to say that local authorities should have regard to the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework in preparing their waste plans.

2.1.6 The NPPF provides a presumption given in favour of development with sustainable credentials. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states:

'At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking.

For decision-taking this means Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless: o Any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or

o Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

2.1.7 The Technical Guide sets out the requirements for carrying out a Flood Risk Assessment, to replace Planning Policy Statement 25.

2.1.8 In paragraph 17, the NPPF states that one of its core planning principles is to:

support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

2.1.9 In paragraph 97, it states:

To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:

have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts; consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning; and identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.

2.1.10 In paragraph 98, it states that:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.

PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and Companion Guide

2.1.11 The National Planning Policy Framework has replaced most Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements, but it is noted that PPS 10 remains valid, together with its Technical Guidance Note. Planning Policy Statement 10 considers that positive planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management, through the development of appropriate strategies for growth, regeneration and the prudent use of resources. One of the key objectives of PPS10 is driving waste management up the waste hierarchy and using waste more as a resource.

2.1.12 Paragraph 29 states that “waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity”.

Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan 2011

2.1.13 Although this publication is designed to provide information on Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the proposed Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion process is similar in principle to the AD process. The publication is designed to provide information on how AD works to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. It is recognised that AD offers a local, environmentally sound option for waste management that helps divert waste from landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce renewable energy which could be used to power homes and vehicles.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

Regional Planning Policy

2.1.14 The East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy has now been revoked. However, its policies for low carbon energy generation are of relevance to this proposal, considering there is now little planning policy guidance in this area. In a recent planning appeal for a 116 home development in St Albans, Hertfordshire, the Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal stating that the local authority did not have an up to date plan. In this case the inspector decided that the RRS “provides the only figure that has been scrutinised through the independent examinations process.”

2.1.15 Policy 40 states that the following should be promoted by local authorities:

The development of combined heat and power (CHP) and district heating infrastructure necessary to achieve the regional target of 511 MWe by 2010 and 1120 MWe by 2020 and The development of distributed energy network using low carbon and renewable resources.

2.1.16 In establishing criteria for new facilities for renewable energy, Local Planning Authorities are advised to give particular consideration to:

The proximity of renewable energy resource The relationship with the existing natural and built environment The availability of existing surplus industrial land in close proximity to the transport network; and The benefits of grid and non-grid connected “micro-generation”

Local Planning Policy

Daventry District Council Local Plan 1997 (Saved Policies)

2.1.17 The following policies from the Local Plan are relevant to the proposal:

Policy GN1 – Guide to granting planning permission, which sets out the parameters that need to be taken into account. Policy GN2 – Criteria for granting planning permission: development will normally be granted provided the proposal will be in-keeping with the locality and does not detract from its amenities. Policy GN3 – Availability of services, infrastructure and amenities. Policy EM16 – Employment in the open countryside; exceptions to the restriction on employment are for development involving the reuse of buildings. Policy EN1 – Special Landscape Areas Policy EN20 – Conversions and change of use of farm buildings to be allowed where they will not have a significant effect on the landscape.

Energy and Development Supplementary Planning Document (March, 2007) Daventry

District Council

2.1.18 The SPD recognises that renewable energy provides an increasingly important fuel source. It provides the following:

“Using wastes as fuel can have important environmental benefits. It can provide a safe and cost-effective disposal options for wastes that could otherwise present


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

significant disposal problems.” “New development can have a significant impact on energy use. By designing things in from the start, you can contribute to improving energy use. Developers are encouraged, subject to other planning considerations, to showcase innovative energy measures in development.”

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2010)

2.1.19 Box CS3 Locational hierarchy The hierarchy of areas for locating waste management facilities are defined as: Central spine – in or related to the principal urban area of Northampton; in or related to the urban areas of Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and Rushden / Higham Ferrers; in or related to the central spine service centres of Burton Latimer, Irthlingborough, Rothwell and Desborough; in or related to other built up local service centres within the central spine between Northampton and Corby. Sub-regional centre – in or related to Daventry. Rural service centres – in or related to Brackley, Oundle, Raunds, Thrapston and Towcester. Rural hinterlands – the rest of Northamptonshire. Catchment areas Waste management facilities in Northamptonshire will be designated as having one or more of the following catchments within which waste can be sourced: National, Regional, Sub-regional, Local, and Neighbourhood. The definitions of these catchments will be contained in the Control and Management of Development DPD. Functional role The functional role of waste management facilities are defined as: Advanced treatment – thermal, pyrolysis, gasifcation, plasma arc and other waste to energy processes and other emerging advanced technologies. Preliminary treatment – household waste recycling centres, materials recycling facilities, composting (open windrow and in-vessel), anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological / heat treatment, inert processing, other recycling facilities and waste transfer stations. Disposal – non-inert landfill / landraise and inert landfill / landraise. Sewage and waste water treatment – sewage and waste water treatment plants.

2.1.20 Policy CS1 – Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity The development of a sustainable waste management network to support growth within Northamptonshire will involve the provision of facilities to meet the following indicative waste Management capacities during the plan period:

Biological processing (MSW and C&I) capacity of 423,000 and 498,000 tonnes per annum for 2016 and 2026 respectively, Waste management or advanced treatment (MSW and C&I) capacity of 392,000 and 456,000 tonnes per annum for 2016 and 2026 respectively,

This provision will come from a mix of extensions to existing sites, intensification or re-development of existing sites and new sites, providing they all meet the spatial


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

strategy for waste management and are assessed as meeting environmental, amenity and other requirements. Allocations that will contribute to meeting provision will be identified in the Locations for Waste Development DPD.

2.1.21 Policy CS2 – Spatial strategy for waste management

Northamptonshire’s waste management network, particularly advanced treatment facilities with a sub-regional or wider catchment, will be focused within the central spine, and the sub-regional centre of Daventry. In the rural hinterlands only facilities with a local or neighbourhood catchment providing for preliminary treatment, or that are incompatible with urban development, should be provided. Where it is the latter they should deal with waste generated from identified urban areas and be appropriately located to serve those areas. Facilities in rural areas should, where possible, be associated with existing rural employment uses.

2.1.22 Policy CS9: Encouraging sustainable transport movements

Minerals and waste related development should seek to minimise transport movements and maximise the use of sustainable or alternative transport modes.

2.1.23 Policy CS14: Addressing the impact of proposed minerals and waste development Proposals for minerals and waste development must demonstrate that the following matters have been addressed: minimising environmental impact and protecting Northamptonshire’s key environmental designations, protecting natural resources or ensuring that any unavoidable loss or reduction is mitigated, ensuring built development is of a design and layout that has regard to its visual appearance in the context of the defining characteristics of the local area, ensuring access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable, and ensuring that local amenity is protected.

2.1.24 Paragraph 4.16 the Core Strategy provides that:

Inevitably there will be some cross-border flows for reasons of geographical convenience, which may be broadly balanced, or because some waste management facilities can have a highly specialised role that means they have larger catchment areas. The Core Strategy recognises that waste management is becoming more specialised and is also a higher value industry than previously. It is not appropriate to oppose facilities serving wider catchments when other industries and commercial enterprises are not so constrained. However, in the wider interests of sustainability, it is not envisaged that Northamptonshire should take on a role as a key sub-national location for waste management facilities.

2.1.25 Paragraph 6.20 provides that: The development in Northamptonshire of facilities with a national or regional catchment area are only considered appropriate where these would be of a specialised nature, with a genuine specialist catchment area for the waste to be managed.

2.1.26 Paragraph 6.17 provides that: Facilities provided for within the rural hinterlands should have a local or


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

neighbourhood catchment and should mainly be for preliminary treatment. Facilities located within the rural hinterlands may also include those whose siting is incompatible with, or not complementary to, urban development; for example due to facility operational requirements (such as in the case of anaerobic digestion). In such circumstance, the facility should deal with waste generated from identified urban centres and be appropriately located to serve those centres.

Locations for Waste Development, Development Plan Document (2011)

2.1.27 This document principally sets out locations for waste development within the county, under four distinct categories, including:

Sites for waste management use in rural areas

This DPD sets out the allocation of specific sites for waste management facilities, and the identification of specific locations where waste management uses would be acceptable in principle. Such matters are addressed within policy in this DPD in the following manner:

Sites for waste management use in rural areas - specific sites within rural areas where those waste management uses most appropriately located in these areas (particularly composting and anaerobic digestion) would be acceptable.

It is therefore not appropriate for this DPD to attempt to identify all of the sites that will be required for waste management facilities over a twenty year period. To do so would be too prescriptive and inflexible and could potentially mean that acceptable sites identified outside of the plan-making process could be prevented from being implemented.

2.1.28 Already allocated sites for waste management use in rural areas are listed in Policy W4. These

are:

WS11: Kilsby WS12: Chelveston WAS13: Nassington – Kings Cliffe Regeneration Centre

The Control and Management of Development, Development Plan Document (2011)

2.1.29 Box CMD1 Indicative (non-hazardous) waste management capacity gaps (2026) A need has been identified for additional biological processing capacity, as follows:

Biological processing capacity for municipal and commercial & industrial waste will need to increase by 221,000 tonnes.

2.1.30 Box CMD2: Functional role of waste management facilities Preliminary treatment includes the following:

civic amenity sites & household waste recycling centre’s, material recycling facilities, composting (open windrow / in-vessel), anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological / heat treatment, inert processing, other recycling facilities, and waste transfer stations.

2.1.31 Specific policy within the DPD dictates the need to identify the likely catchment area of waste

sources for specific waste facilities. Paragraph 3.12 of the DPD sets out the definition of the scales of geographic influence that a waste facility may command. Sustainability principles are indicated within the DPD as the core reason for the management of waste streams to occur


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

within the vicinity of its creation. The DPD document states the criteria in which each facility is to be measured against with regard to their scale. The classifications are National, Regional, Sub-Regional, Local and Neighbourhood facilities. Each of these facilities has a list of criteria that indicate the scale of development and the bounds in which the waste is to be derived from, and as such the catchment area for the facility. Regional Waste to be managed on site originates from within the East Midlands or an

equivalent geographical area. The facility is of a specialised nature specifically relating to the waste to be

managed or the nature of the processes involved; on the basis of its specialised role the facility is one of only one or two within the region (or identified area).

Waste to be managed does not include untreated / unsorted MSW3, C&D, or green waste.

The facility supports the waste hierarchy and is not for the disposal of waste, unless disposal forms the last available option.

Sub-Regional Waste to be managed on site originates from with Northamptonshire or an

equivalent geographical area. May include a wide variety of waste types including municipal solid waste,

construction and demolition and green waste. The facility supports the waste hierarchy and is not for the disposal of waste,

unless this is the last available option.

2.1.32 Policy CMD1: Development criteria for waste management facilities Proposals for waste management facilities on non-allocated sites (including extensions to existing sites and extensions to allocated sites) must demonstrate that the development:

does not conflict with the spatial strategy for waste management, promotes the development of a sustainable waste network and facilitates delivery of Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity requirements, clearly establishes a need for the facility identifying the intended functional role, intended catchment area for the waste to be managed, market base for any outputs, and where applicable the requirement for a specialist facility, is in general conformity with the principles of sustainability (particularly regarding the intended catchment area), facilitates the efficient collection and recovery of waste materials, and where intended for use by the local community, is readily and safely accessible to those it is intended to serve.

2.1.33 Development should also, where appropriate, and particularly in the case of advanced

treatment facilities: ensure waste has undergone preliminary treatment prior to advanced treatment, integrate and co-locate waste management facilities together with complementary activities, maximise the reuse of energy, heat and residues, and maximise the use of previously developed land (particularly existing and designated industrial land and derelict, despoiled or brownfield urban land) or redundant agriculture and forestry buildings (and their curtilages).

2.1.34 Policy CMD7: Natural assets and resources Minerals and waste development should seek to (where possible) achieve a net gain in assets and resources, through:


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

delivery of wider environmental benefits in the vicinity where development would adversely affect any regional or locally designated sites or other features of local interest, protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and strategic biodiversity networks, in particular the River Nene and other sub-regional corridors, and consider opportunities to contribute towards Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan targets for habitats and species. Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to undertake an assessment (where appropriate) in order to: identify and determine the nature, extent, and level of importance of the natural assets & resources, as well as any potential impacts, and identify mitigation measures and / or requirement for compensation (where necessary) to avoid, reduce, and manage potentially adverse impacts.

2.1.35 Policy CMD8: Landscape character

Minerals and waste development should seek to reflect Northamptonshire’s landscape character. Development should mitigate potentially adverse impacts on the local character and distinctiveness of Northamptonshire’s landscape where necessary during the development, operational life, restoration, aftercare, and after-use. Opportunities for enhancement should be maximised through restoration, aftercare, and after-use.

2.1.36 Policy CMD10: Layout and design quality

The layout and overall appearance of waste management facilities will be required to demonstrate that the development: supports local identity and relates well to neighbouring sites and buildings,

is set in the context of the area in which it is to be sited in a manner that enhances the overall landscape, incorporates specific elements of visual interest, and builds-in safety and security

2.1.37 Paragraph 3.12 provides that: Where the facility is one of only very few of its type nationally (on the basis of its specialist role) either planned or existing, then a national catchment for the facility would be considered appropriate.

Development and Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document

2.1.38 This document was adopted in September 2011 and includes table SPD3 which indicates the proposed catchment area for facilities of differing scales. They are as follows:


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energy from Waste Power Plants,

February 2013

2.1.39 The Environment Agency requires that all applications for Environmental Permits for new installations regulated under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 demonstrate the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for a number of criteria, including energy efficiency. One of the principal ways in which energy efficiency can be improved is through the use of Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

2.1.40 The CHP Ready Guidance (2013) states that for new energy from waste plants which generate less than 50MW the National Policy Statements (NPS) are likely to be a material consideration.

2.1.41 The following NPS documents are relevant:

EN-1 Overarching Energy NPS (July 2011);

The UK has committed to sourcing 15% of its total energy (across the sectors of transport, electricity and heat) from renewable sources by 2020 and new projects need to continue to come forward urgently to ensure that we meet this target. Projections suggest that by 2020 about 30% or more of our electricity generation – both centralised and small-scale – could come from renewable sources, compared to 6.7% in 2009. The Committee on Climate Change in Phase 1 of its advice to Government in September 2010 agreed that the UK 2020 target was appropriate, and should not be increased. Phase 2 was published in May 2011 and provided recommendations on the post 2020 ambition for renewables in the UK, and possible pathways to maximise their contribution to the 2050 carbon reduction targets

Energy from Waste (EfW) – the principal purpose of the combustion of waste, or similar processes (for example pyrolysis or gasification) is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill in accordance with the Waste Hierarchy and to recover energy from that waste as electricity or heat. Only waste that cannot be re-used or recycled with less environmental impact and would otherwise go to landfill should be used for energy recovery. The energy produced from the biomass fraction of waste is renewable and is in some circumstances eligible for Renewables Obligation Certificates, although the arrangements vary from plant to plant.

EN-3 Renewable Energy Infrastructure NPS.

Given the importance which Government attaches to CHP, for the reasons set out in EN-1, if an application does not demonstrate that CHP has been considered the IPC should seek further information from the applicant. The IPC should not give development consent unless it is satisfied that the applicant has provided appropriate evidence that CHP is included or that the opportunities for CHP have been fully explored. For non-CHP stations, the IPC may also require that developers ensure that their stations are configured to allow heat supply at a later date as described in paragraph 4.6.8 of EN-1 and the guidance on CHP issued by BIS in 2006.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

3 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1.1 From a review of the relevant planning policy, the main issues relating to whether this proposal complies with policy are: How the technology moves the management of waste up the waste hierarchy and provides a

sustainable solution to the treatment of food waste and need for the development.

How the technology provides renewable energy, helping Northamptonshire meets its energy targets.

The location of the site in the countryside The location relative to the sources of waste, i.e. the catchment area. Environmental considerations, including intensification of waste uses and cumulative effect

3.2 Sustainable management of food waste and need for the development

3.2.1 National and local waste planning policies require waste management to be moved up the waste hierarchy, away from disposal to landfill. The National Planning Policy Framework, which postdates adopted waste policy, places an emphasis on promoting sustainable development.

3.2.2 Food waste has traditionally been landfilled, although more recently it has been diverted from landfill for treatment in in-vessel composting facilities to produce compost or in anaerobic digestion facilities to produce renewable energy and a digestate agricultural fertiliser. The thermophilic aerobic digestion process, with the addition of a food oil recovery process, has proved to be much more efficient. The technology has been successfully in use at a site in Norfolk, which has now ceased trading and the equipment is to be reused on this site.

3.2.3 The TAD system requires only a low energy input, to run the preparation processes and the pumps. It has been shown that it only requires 22kW per tonne. This energy input will be provided by on-site combined heat and power plant, principally a generator, which will utilise oil recovered from the oil-rich food waste, thus making the process energy self-sufficient. The aerobic process for the breakdown of the waste takes only 3-4 days, thus is much quicker than either in-vessel composting or anaerobic digestion processes. This means that much less equipment is needed to process a similar tonnage of material. During the aerobic process, heat is produced, which promotes the digestion process and dries the material, thus producing a product in a short period of time, that is easy to handle and in a concentrated granule, which thus uses less transport to deliver the product to local farms.

3.2.4 The granular product is easy to store pending its application to agricultural land, as it does not

continue to breakdown. It returns organic material to the land to sequestrate carbon, rather than using it to generate energy and CO2, the gas then entering the atmosphere. It promotes CO2 removal from the atmosphere by natural plant photosynthesis, and displace highly polluting fertilizers. For each tonne of typical nitrogen fertilizer that is displaced by organic fertilizer granules, up to 6t of CO2 is prevented from entering the atmosphere.

3.2.5 The TAD process has been verified to comply with the PAS100 composting standard, thus the

granules are regarded as a product. The oil extraction system and the use of the oil in the energy generation plant has been approved for double ROCs payments, in recognition of the efficiency of the generation of renewable energy.

3.2.6 The technology is the most sustainable available for the treatment of food waste, therefore

complying with national and local policy.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

3.2.7 Policy CMD1 of the Control and Management of Development DPD requires that the need for

the facility is clearly established. Policy CS2 states that in the rural hinterlands only facilities with a local or neighbourhood catchment will be allowed. Pebble Hall Farm is located in the rural hinterlands, but this proposal is for a larger catchment, as discussed below.

3.2.8 The Core Strategy Policies CS1 and Box CMD1 in the Control and Management of Development

DPD identify a shortfall in capacity for biological processing of over 200,000 tonnes per annum. This proposal will provide a facility diverting waste from landfill and lower quality recovery, to process 40,000 tonnes per annum, thus assisting with meeting the shortfall and complying with policy.

3.3 Sustainable production of renewable energy

3.3.1 The NPPF provides that Local Authorities should have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources. The proposed development will generate energy from waste that would otherwise go to landfill or lower quality recovery. The NPPF also provides that Local Authorities should maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. The cumulative impacts of this development are addressed in Section 3.6. Visual impacts of the proposed development are seen to be minimal due to the fact that the extension will not be seen from the nearest public road. The visual impact of the stack will be outweighed by the benefits that the area will gain in terms of renewable energy supply. It is acknowledged that the proposed stack may be able to be seen at a short distance. However, it will be coloured grey in order to blend into the landscape, therefore reducing its visual appearance.

3.3.2 The Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (2011) realises that AD offers a local, environmentally sound option for waste management that helps divert waste from landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce renewable energy which could be used to power homes and vehicles. As the TAD facility proposed at Pebble Hall is similar in principle to AD facilities, it should be noted that it has the potential to provide similar and improved benefits. The TAD system is an improvement over AD in that it can produce up to 3 times more energy from the same food waste, and recycles up to 50% more carbon back to soil as organic fertiliser granules.

3.3.3 In a recent appeal case in Hertfordshire, the Inspector dismissed an appeal based on guidance provided by a Regional Spatial Strategy as it “provides the only figure that has been scrutinised through the independent examinations process.” The East Midlands Spatial Strategy currently provides the clearest guidance on renewable energy facilities in the East Midlands, in the absence of adopted county or district targets. It sets clear targets for generating renewable energy in Policy 40. The TAD facility helps the East Midlands meet the targets set out in this document. The proximity and catchment area of the renewable energy resource is provided in section 3.5. There are numerous benefits of using waste in order to generate renewable energy and the location of the facility is considered appropriate as Pebble Hall is already an established waste site.

CHP Ready Guidance

3.3.4 In accordance with the CHP Ready Guidance, the applicant has fully considered opportunities for CHP. Primarily, there is an opportunity to use the heat generated by the TAD system to fuel the driers.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

3.3.5 An outline planning application has been submitted to Harborough District Council for up to

1000 dwellings, marina and hotel at Land at Airfield Farm Leicester Road Market Harborough Leicestershire. This development would be located approximately 7 km North-East of Pebble Hall. The applicant is currently exploring opportunities to supply this housing development with heat from the TAD CHP system.

3.3.6 A planning application has also been submitted for 5 new properties located approximately 1Km west of Pebble Hall at Husbands Bosworth. The applicant is also exploring possibilities for supplying heat use to these dwellings.

3.4 Location

3.4.1 The complex of redundant agricultural buildings at Pebble Hall has planning permission for change of use to B8. Some units also benefit from additional permissions for workshop use. Alongside these uses, waste activities in the form of green waste composting and wood shredding are undertaken and permission has been granted for a renewable energy generation facility. The use of a building with permission for commercial use means that the proposals are in line with Policies GN2 and EM16 of the Daventry Local Plan and Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy.

3.4.2 Pebble Hall is situated in the countryside, which is included in the Special Landscape Area as shown on the Daventry Proposals Map and covered by a saved policy of the Local Plan. However, this designation has been replaced by the Northamptonshire Landscape Character Area Assessment. This development does not comprise of agricultural, forestry, recreational or tourism development or relate to settlements within these areas. However, it does relate to the reuse and adaption of a rural building, which will have no significant impact on the surrounding landscape. The impact on landscape of the development is considered in Section 3.7.

3.4.3 The site is located in the ‘rural hinterlands’, as defined in the Core Strategy, where composting and anaerobic digestion uses are noted as acceptable. The TAD system is very similar to anaerobic digestion processes, but has less odour and visual impact, therefore is also acceptable.

3.4.4 Pebble Hall is not allocated as a waste site in Policy W4 of the Locations for Waste

Development, but is has existing and consented waste activities within the Pebble Hall complex. Policy CS1 of Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy recognises that the new provision for biological treatment facilities will come from extensions to existing sites.

3.4.5 The suitability of its location is that it is well located to serve commercial producers of oil-rich and general food waste that are clustered within the East and West Midlands. In the East Midlands, the Regional Waste Strategy noted that 27% of all commercial and industrial waste is generated by the food and drink industry. Access to the site from a regional catchment area benefits from proximity to the M1/M6/A14 network and for deliveries from Leicester via the A6.

3.4.6 Policy GN1 of the Daventry Local Plan states that development should make proper use of underutilised land. As this building has permission for B8 use but is currently being used as a grain store, it is not being used to its full commercial potential.

3.4.7 The proposed development is ideally suited for a rural location such as Pebble Hall as the TAD system will produce fertiliser granules, which will be used for agriculture. This process will


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

effectively return carbon to the land in accordance with policy CMD7 of the Control and Management of Development DPD, which is concerned with natural assets of potential development. In connection with previous planning permissions, the landowner has undertaken extensive landscaping to deliver a net gain to the natural assets of the locality. The project will also generate a significant amount (4MW) of renewable electricity. The NPPF provides that renewable and low carbon energy facilities should be located in suitable areas. Pebble Hall is located in a rural location, and is not located in a close proximity to any sensitive receptors. In addition, power distribution companies have welcomed the energy generation proposals in this location as it will assist in filling a predicted shortfall in local grid capacity to cater for the planned 1000 home Airfield Farm housing development at Market Harborough. Pebble Hall is therefore seen as an appropriate location and is therefore compliant with the NPPF.

3.4.8 A significant factor in the choice of the application site is that the reception and treatment of

food waste carries a risk of noise and odour generation, however there are not any sensitive receptors likely to be affected, due to the remote location of the site.

3.4.9 The development involves a change of use of an existing building, with only a small building extension, which therefore meets the requirements of policy CS7 for the efficient use of resources.

3.4.10 Although the site is in a rural area, its proposed use complies with the location of development

that is incompatible with urban development and it is associated with existing rural employment uses.

3.5 Catchment area

3.5.1 The TAD system is an advanced technology for the efficient treatment of food waste, which will process both general food waste and more scarce oil-rich food waste. Two catchment area plans are included with this application in accordance with CMD2 for consideration by the Local Planning Authority.

3.5.2 Pebble Hall is centrally located within a major concentration of East and West Midlands oil-rich food waste sites; there is a cluster of commercial meat processors around Leicester and numerous red meat abattoirs and food processors in the proposed catchment area, although the businesses are scattered around the two regions. As the high oil content food will be sourced from specialist food processors, a wider catchment area is needed in order to meet the annual throughput tonnage to make viable the combined activities of oil recovery, combined heat and power generation and the TAD system.

3.5.3 General food waste will be sourced more locally, from a sub-regional catchment area. Any specialised food waste treatment facility needs at least a sub-regional catchment area to ensure that it can source a sufficient tonnage to maintain the viability of the operation, in the face of increased competition for food waste.

3.5.4 As this is a new facility, using a novel oil extraction technology in association with the TAD process, there are currently no similar processors in the region. This justifies the need for regional and sub-regional catchment areas.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

Option 1

3.5.5 Option 1 is shown on Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/12/06. This option incudes a larger catchment area for specialised oil-rich food waste and a smaller one for general food waste. The two different waste streams require different catchment areas, as shown on the plan.

Option 2

3.5.6 It is acknowledged that the specialist oil-rich food waste will need a regional catchment area in order to ensure that it is economically viable. The second option shows three clusters of localities where there are known sources of oil rich food from commercial operations. The three clusters have been made as small as possible. However, the commercial sources are well scattered within each cluster. The sub-regional catchment area also includes some potential customers of oil rich food waste, but not sufficient to justify the investment in the oil extraction and renewable energy generation operations.

Compliance with Planning Policy

3.5.7 Compliance with the catchment area limits can be demonstrated as follows. The sources can be identified from the waste transfer notes, which list the suppliers of and waste codes for the incoming material. A list of suppliers of oil-rich food waste will be maintained in the site office, alongside a separate list of general food waste suppliers. An interactive map of potential suppliers of oil-rich food waste can be found at this address: http://www.emap.org.uk/map.aspx. A screen shot is included in Appendix 4. From this map it can be seen that there are a number of meat processors and meat waste suppliers in the wider catchment area. Examples of potential suppliers of oil-rich food waste suppliers are listed below: Figure 1 / Potential suppliers of oil-rich food waste suppliers

COMPANY NAME LOCATION TYPE OF FOOD WASTE Greencore PLC Kiveton

Nottingham Chilled food waste

TMI Bacon Northampton Cooked bacon, sausages and roasted

vegetables

Pork Farms, Queens Drive Nottingham Pork pies

Charnwood Bakery Leicester Pork Pies

3.5.8 It is acknowledged in Northamptonshire’s Core Strategy that there will be some cross border

flows of waste because some waste management facilities can have a highly specialised role that means they have larger catchment areas. It provides:

The Core Strategy recognises that waste management is becoming more specialised and is also a higher value industry than previously. It is not appropriate to oppose facilities serving wider catchments when other industries and commercial enterprises are not so constrained. However, in the wider interests of sustainability, it is not envisaged that Northamptonshire should take on a role as a key sub-national location for waste management facilities.

3.5.9 The proposal has a regional catchment area for the specialist oil-rich food waste. It therefore will not encourage Northamptonshire to be a key sub-national location for waste management facilities. This innovative technology needs a regional catchment area in order to make it economically viable. The Core Strategy recognises that it is not appropriate to oppose facilities

http://www.emap.org.uk/map.aspx


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

serving a wider catchment area, when other industries and commercial industries are not so constrained. Therefore, a regional catchment area for this facility is appropriate. The Core Strategy provides in paragraph 6.20 that regional catchment areas are considered appropriate where these would be of a specialist nature. This operation is first of its kind in the region, with a very specialised technology.

3.5.10 Paragraph 3.12 of Northamptonshire’s Control and Management of Development, Development Plan Document provides that for facilities where there it is one of a few of its type nationally then a national catchment for the facility would be appropriate. While a national catchment area for this development would be preferred in order to not unduly constrain the profitability of this new technology, this proposal seeks to gain planning permission for a regional catchment area, in order to comply with Northamptonshire’s Core Strategy.

3.6 Environmental considerations

Introduction

3.6.1 To demonstrate compliance with Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy and GN2 of the Daventry Local Plan, the following environmental impacts are addressed:

Traffic and Transportation Noise Landscape and Visual Amenity Odour Air Emissions

Dust and Litter Pest Infestations

Traffic and Transport

3.6.2 Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy encourages sustainable traffic movements and policy CS14 requires that access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable.

3.6.3 HGVs will bring the food waste onto the site in bulk loads. The food waste will be bulked up either by the producer or at a waste transfer station, to deliver large loads to the site, in 25 tonnes loads (see 3.2), thus minimising HGV movements on the strategic highway network.

3.6.4 During processing, 80% of the input tonnage will be lost in moisture and there will be approximately 3 - 4 tonnes of plastic per load in the form of food packaging. This may be washed; it will be taken off site for recycling elsewhere. The food will then go through the thermophilic aerobic digester and turned into fertiliser granules. There will be separate HGV movements bringing food waste onto the site and taking the granules off the site.

3.6.5 There will be 40,000 tonnes of incoming waste per year which will be brought into the site in 25 tonne loads. This will create 1600 loads per year which will produce 8 incoming HGV movements per day. These vehicles will also have to leave the site so the total number of VMPD produced by incoming vehicles will be 16.

3.6.6 The site will produce 10,000 tonnes of agricultural granules per annum, which will be taken out in 10 tonne loads. This will mean that there will be 1000 loads of product per year. The total number of output vehicle movements per day will be 4. As these vehicles will have to enter the site as well, the total number of VMPD produced by outgoing vehicles will be 8. In addition, the


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

plastics will be removed in bulk loads of 25 tonnes, of 1-2 per day, adding 4 vehicle movements per day.

3.6.7 One HGV will be needed per day to collect oil and one will be needed to deliver biodiesel, therefore generating 4 vmpd.

3.6.8 This will give a total number of HGV movements on the site per day of 32. Allowing for two staff to enter and leave the site per day this will make the overall total number of vehicle movements per day to this part of the site 34.

3.6.9 The application site would produce between 34 and 48 vehicle movements per day as a B8 use. As the proposed development will fit within the existing parameters of vehicle movements per day it is not expected that traffic to the site will be a significant issue.

3.6.10 Although the plant will be running continuously the delivery times will be controlled to between 7am and 5pm. This is the same as the compost operation on the site.

3.6.11 There is a limit agreed by means of a S106 Unilateral Undertaking with Leicestershire County Council on the total number of daily movements using the Pebble Hall access and this limit is monitored using a traffic counter at the access to the site. On the basis of the traffic figures above, the proposed development is not expected to cause the limit to be exceeded. This complies with the requirement for a safe and acceptable access.

3.6.12 Through minimising the amount of HGV movements the operations comply in part with policy.

In addition, a main supplier will be in Leicester, which supplied the TAD plant in Norfolk before the site was closed. Therefore by relocating the plant to Pebble Hall, the HGVs will save approximately 100 miles per trip. Food waste will be bulked up at centres within the catchment area and brought to the site. Further information on traffic is detailed in section 3.2.

3.6.13 The food waste will be supplied from a number of different commercial premises within the

proposed catchment area; other than bulking up there is no alternative means of conveying the material to a specialist treatment facility.

3.6.14 The facility complies with policy for sustainable transport as far as is possible when handling food waste.

Noise (controlled by the conditions of an Environmental Permit)

3.6.15 Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy requires that local amenity is protected.

3.6.16 The Thermophilic Aerobic Digester would be fully enclosed within the building, which will utilise equipment with low levels of noise generation. Therefore, it is not envisaged that it will create a significant noise issue. In addition, the whole building and the extension will have its walls and roof insulated to retain heat, which in turn will reduce the noise from the operations inside the building.

3.6.17 The GHP generators used to produce electricity will be acoustically enclosed in order to reduce

the possibility of noise being generated. In addition, only four generators will be used at any one time, therefore reducing the amount of noise generated by the facility.

3.6.18 The closest sensitive receptor to the site is the residential dwelling that is located 510 meters

away from the building. There have not been any issues of noise from the existing operations at


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

the site, therefore a detailed noise impact assessment is not considered to be necessary. Therefore, there is no conflict with the policy to protect local amenity.

3.6.19 A noise assessment has been carried out for the proposed development and is included in Appendix 6. It concludes that:

Site noise levels and background noise levels are below BS 4142 standards Noise levels are unlikely to cause complaints during the daytime or night time

3.6.20 In terms of noise, there is no conflict with policy.

Landscape and Visual Amenity

3.6.21 Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy requires that the built development has regard to its visual appearance in the context of the landscape character and Policies CMD7, 8 and 10 require a net gain in natural assets, respect for landscape character and support of local identity.

3.6.22 The site lies within a ‘Special Landscape Area’ as designated by Daventry District Council, although this designation has been replaced by the landscape character assessment for Northamptonshire as a whole. The character assessment describes the area as being located in Welland Valley. The Welland Valley is described as varying in height with the Southern side of the Welland Valley overlooking Rutland and Leicestershire. It is due to these differences in height in the lay of the land that the Pebble Hall site does not disrupt the visual character of the area; the high level ground between the highway and the proposed extension effectively screens it from view.

3.6.23 The Thermophilic Aerobic Digester will be fully contained within the building, once it is extended. See Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/13/11 which shows how the extension will fit into the existing buildings at Pebble Hall.

3.6.24 Due to the siting of the building and the extensions, it is barely visible from the highway or the residential properties to the North, as it is largely screened by the established vegetation and the intervening landform. Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/13/09 shows an illustrative cross section of the lie of the land between the proposed extension and the nearest residential property, Woodside Bungalow and Farm. From this drawing it can be seen that the land between Woodside Bungalow and Farm and the extension is high enough to effectively screen it. In addition, the proposed 2.5 metre high bund will provide further screening. Photograph Panel B shows the view from the two nearest residential properties looking towards the site. From these photographs it can be seen that the extension would not be visible and therefore not cause any visual impact. It is worth noting that these photographs were taken in January and at other times of the year the existing vegetation would provide even more screening. Due to the fact that the extensions will not be visible, there will be no cumulative impact as a result of the development.

3.6.25 Recent tree and shrub planting, as shown on the Approved Landscape and Biodiversity Plan, Drawing GPP/CL/PH/09/04 will significantly enhance the appearance of the Pebble Hall complex of buildings and operations. Although the management of this planting was inadequate during the first couple of years following planting, a management contract has now been let and significant improvements were carried out in 2012. All dead plants were replaced, weed control was carried out at the appropriate times and plants were properly protected by staking and replacing rabbit guards. These measures will ensure that the planting makes a positive contribution to the landscape and to screening the wider site.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

3.6.26 The proposed stack has the potential to have an impact on visual amenity. The proposed stack will be barely visible due to the fact that it has a very small diameter (0.5 metres) and will be coloured grey in order to blend into the colour of the sky. In addition, even though it will need to be 17 metres high it will only be 5 metres above the height of the rising land to the South of the site.

3.6.27 The lack of landscape impact, the extent of landscaping and extent of biodiversity provision

mean that the proposals comply with planning policy.

Odour (controlled by the conditions of an Environmental Permit)


3.6.29 Waste reception will be carried out within the building, with fast acting roller shutter doors kept closed except during deliveries. The building will be fully enclosed. Air from within the building will be extracted and passed through an Ag Bag biofilter and tertiary air scrubber, which will significantly reduce the possibility of fugitive odour. From that point forward all materials will remain fully contained until the processed, dried digestate is removed for distribution off site for use as agriculture fertiliser granules. As the Thermophilic Aerobic Digester will be fully contained within the building, any odour will be contained and vented via the extraction system. The building will be kept at a slight negative pressure in order to prevent the escape of odorous air when a door is opened. Cleaned liquid will be returned for use in the process, being added at the preparation stage.

3.6.30 Odour is generated by the existing composting operations, although rarely have odour concerns been raised by nearby residents. Odour levels from the combined activities at the site are unlikely to be increased, due to the measures set out above to control odour from the TAD operations. The Environmental Permit will require an Odour Management Plan for the operations, in the event that any problems with odour are experienced off-site. Details of the Odour Management Plan can be found in the supporting document Working Plan – version 2.

Air Quality

3.6.31 The only emission to air from the TAD process is water vapour. Emissions from the generator will occur, in the form of engine gases, but the equipment is small scale and no regulation of the emissions is required.

3.6.32 A detailed Air Quality Assessment has been carried out and is included in Appendix 7. This Air Quality Assessment has been done based on the cumulative effect of the proposed TAD system and the Purepower Facility, which already has planning permission. The Purepower permission has been implemented, but the power generation building is not now going to be constructed in the approved location. The applicant is in active discussions with developers about a potential wood biomass application, which would replace the Purepower permission.

3.6.33 The Air Quality Assessment concludes the following:

Based on the Environmental Protection UK impact descriptive terms, the potential impact on local air quality at the location of maximum Process Contribution, close to the site boundary, would be described as large with a slight adverse impact. The corresponding values at nearby residential receptors would be classified as small to imperceptible. Model predictions for nearby residential receptors indicated that


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

annual NO2 Process Contributions at these locations were likely to be between ~2% and ~3% of the AQS objective. When taken in conjunction with the estimated background concentration of 10.4 μg m-3 for 2013, the impact on local air quality of emissions of NOX from the four CHP engines associated with the TAD facility can be screened out as insignificant.

3.6.34 As the applicants parents live at the site boundary the effect on this area of the site is not seen to be a significant issue. Crucially, this demonstrates that the impact on air quality at nearby residential receptors will be small to imperceptible, indicating that no complaints are likely to be received by the local authority as a result of this application.

The maximum annual average PM10 process contribution represents a small to imperceptible change in ambient concentration and likely to have a negligible impact on local air quality in the vicinity of the development, as defined by the Environmental Protection UK assessment criteria. Similar conclusions were drawn for emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. A cumulative impact assessment was undertaken for emissions from the proposed TAD facility and the approved energy recovery facility to be developed on the Pebble Hall site. The results from modelling confirmed that the cumulative impact of emissions from the two facilities would be well within relevant AQS objective values, and can be screened out as insignificant in relation to Environment Agency guidance.

3.6.35 The assessment concludes that the cumulative effect of the TAD facility with the Purepower

permission will not cause an issue. Overall, the Air Quality Assessment concludes that:

The overall conclusion from detailed modelling of emissions from the proposed TAD facility at Pebble Hall, near Theddingworth, is that the potential impact on local air quality is likely to be low, and unlikely to pose a significant threat to the health of local residents or people working nearby.

3.6.36 In terms of air emissions, there is therefore no conflict with policy in the Development Plan that seeks to protect local amenity.

Dust and Litter (controlled by the conditions of an Environmental Permit)


3.6.38 The operations that will be carried out in buildings are not dusty in nature and will be contained inside. Should dust become a problem from vehicles moving around the site, a mobile bowser with sprinkler would be employed to dampen the surface to eliminate dust blow.

3.6.39 Dust control measures are already in place for the composting operations, therefore there

should not be a cumulative impact as a result of the proposed new operations. Details of procedures used to control dust and litter can be found in the supporting document Working Plan – version 2.

3.6.40 In terms of dust and litter, there is no conflict with policy that seeks to protect local amenity.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage

3.6.41 The National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guide sets out the requirements for the preparation of a Flood Risk Assessment. The proposal involves an area of less than 1 hectare,


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

therefore a Flood Risk Assessment is not necessary.

3.6.42 The building extension will be drained to the existing building drains, which direct the roof water to the stream. The small extension will not result in a significant increase in the run-off from the site.

Pest Infestations


3.6.44 The containment of the food waste materials within the reception building minimises any infestations from insects. The site will be inspected on a daily basis for evidence of pest infestations. A record of spraying insecticides will be kept in the Site Diary. Details will only be recorded when infestations are found. If necessary, the area will be sprayed with insecticide using knapsack sprayers (for flies), using insecticides kept on the farm. See the supporting document Working Plan – version 2.

3.6.45 There is no conflict with policy that seeks to protect local amenity.

Ecology

3.6.46 Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy requires that natural resources are protected and Policy CMD7 of the Control and Management of Development DPD requires proposals to consider opportunities to contribute to BAP targets.

3.6.47 The proposal will take place in an existing building within the setting of the commercial yard

and waste operations. Therefore there are not any features of nature conservation interest that will be adversely affected by the development.

3.6.48 The recent landscaping work has been designed to enhance biodiversity at the Pebble Hall site. Therefore, the proposals comply with policy.

Cumulative Impact

3.6.49 The National Planning Policy Framework places emphasis on demonstrating that the cumulative effects of development in respect of some of the environmental impacts is acceptable. Cumulative impact has three components, in respect of successive, simultaneous and combined effects.

3.6.50 The proposed change of use to include a TAD facility, with a renewable energy generation component, adds a third waste operation at the Pebble Hall site. Green waste composting has been carried out at the site for 10 years. Permission exists for the construction of a renewable energy production plant utilising wood waste that is already being managed at the site. The complex of buildings at Pebble Hall already benefits from permission for a commercial use, which has been implemented, therefore other activities are taking place within the complex. The successive impacts, resulting from a series of developments and permissions is similar to the simultaneous effects, where they are in existence together.

3.6.51 In considering the impacts of the addition of the new facility, account has been taken of the existing impacts from the combined developments already taking place. Some features of the development are similar to features associated with existing uses on the site. It is possible that the combined effect of these could lead to a level of impact that could be objectionable. The


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

features of relevance are traffic, visual impact, noise, air emissions and odour.

The location has been acknowledged as suitable for waste development, due to its remoteness from sensitive receptors and to its access directly onto an A-class road, which means that heavy lorries do not have to travel along country roads. This additional facility will benefit from the co-location with other waste uses, as it can share the use of the existing weighbridge and staff on site with experience of running a waste facility.

Traffic impacts are controlled at their existing level by means of a legal agreement with Leicestershire County Council, in connection with the use of the access. Therefore there can be no increase in impact on the use of the access and the highway network.

The plant and equipment generate little noise, which in any event would be similar to the noise generated from the use of the building as a grain store or for B8 use. The distance from sensitive receptors means that this noise, together with noise from the other premises within the Pebble Hall complex, will not be obtrusive. A noise assessment has been carried out which included the noise from the shredding operations associated with the green waste composting operations as part of the background noise levels. The noise assessment concluded that there will be no adverse levels of noise as a result of this proposal.

The potential sources of odour have been identified and mitigation and management measures included in the Odour Management Plan. Therefore, adding the risk of significant odour to the existing risk of odour from composting operations will not lead to a level of odour from the combined operations that would be obtrusive.

The potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development have been assessed earlier in this section. Due to the high level of the ground, the extension of the TAD building will not be visible from the nearest residential dwelling. The proposed stack will be barely visible due to the fact that it has a very small diameter (0.5 metres) and will be coloured grey in order to blend into the colour of the sky. In addition, even though it will need to be 17 metres high it will only be 5 metres above the height of the rising land to the South of the site.

An Air Dispersion Model has been created, which took into consideration the emissions from the consented energy production plant permission and the proposed TAD facility. It was concluded that the impact on local air quality as a result of the application is likely to be low.

3.6.52 None of the simultaneous effects from the existing and proposed development are considered

to be objectionable, therefore there is no simultaneous combined effect.

3.6.53 In respect of the combined effects from the TAD development, none of the features considered in section 3.6 are close to being objectionable, none in combination could cause objections and there are no unusual features associated with the development. Therefore, there is no cumulative combined impact from the development considered on its own.

3.6.54 The conclusion is that there are no unacceptable levels of impact resulting from the addition of the TAD and renewable energy facility to an existing waste and employment site.

Fire Risk

3.6.55 Fire risk is low due to it being a largely wet process. The Dryer operates at a low temperature. There are large water tanks available on site for fire fighting purposes.


W001-07 PS / SE 21/06/2013

4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1.1 The proposed development seeks to change the use of one of the existing buildings at Pebble Hall Farm. It also seeks to extend the existing building on its North side by 223 square meters. The proposed change of use is considered to be acceptable in the countryside at this location, as it is for a use that is unsuitable to be located in a built-up area. The location in open countryside is beneficial, as it minimises the risk that environmental impacts such as odour and noise become a nuisance to residents in the locality; therefore the location complies with policy for the siting of biological treatment facilities.

4.1.2 There is a need for the development, to meet some of the identified shortfall in capacity for the treatment of biological waste in the county.

4.1.3 The proposal will not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts. It will not generate additional traffic or give rise to adverse landscape and visual impacts.

4.1.4 The proposal is for the one of most sustainable technologies current available for the treatment

of general and oil rich food waste. 4.1.5 The proposal is for a significant amount of renewable energy generation, which will contribute

to meeting the targets for the East Midlands.

4.1.6 A regional scale catchment area is justified for oil-rich food waste, as the oil extraction and use allied to the TAD system will be the first of its kind in the region and because oil-rich food processors are concentrated in but scattered widely around the West and East Midlands.

4.1.7 A sub-regional catchment area is justified for general food waste, as there is insufficient such

waste generated within a local catchment area.

4.1.8 The proposed development is therefore considered to be complaint with the development plan and national, regional and local planning policy guidance.

4.1.9 The proposed development is an excellent fit with NPPF ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ as the following benefits significantly outweigh its potential insignificant adverse impacts.

Provide 4MW of renewable electricity where there is a predicted shortfall in supply CHPr to supply heat to proposed future developments It is an innovative ‘Advanced Technology’ (attracting 2ROCs) that moves recycling up the

waste hierarchy by increasing both energy yield, nutrient recycling and greenhouse gas reduction from food waste.

Addresses a regional food waste processing niche not currently being addressed within the region with ‘Best Available Technology’

Requires only slight changes to an existing building on an existing well operated waste site. Insignificant impacts on local amenity.


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 1: Validation Checklist

Planning Statement Included

Air Quality Assessment Included

Archaeology Not Required

Cumulative Impact Included as part of the Planning Statement

Daylight/Sunlight Assessment Not Required

Design Statement Design and Access statement included

Dust, mud and debris on the highway and Litter Included as part of the Planning Statement

Environmental Impact Statement Not Required

Ecology / Protected Species / Biodiversity Survey & Report Not Required

Flood Risk Assessment

Foul Sewerage Assessment Not Required

Geotechnical Appraisal Not Required

Health Impacts Not Required

Heritage Assessment (including historical features and Scheduled Ancient Monuments) / Conservation Area Appraisal

Not Required

Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment Not Required

Land Contamination Assessment / Contamination Risk Assessment

Landscape Assessment Not Required

Landscaping Details Not Required

Lighting Assessment External lights shown on site layout plan

Minerals Safeguarding Not Required

Noise Impact Assessment Included

Odour Impact Assessment Included as part of the Planning Statement

Parking & Access Arrangements Shown on site layout plan

Phasing / Working Programme Not Required

Photographs/Photomontages Photograph panels included

Planning Obligations Not Required

Draft Head(s) of Terms (s.106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990)

Previous 106 agreement agreed with Leicestershire County Council.

Playing Fields and Recreational Facilities Not Required

Public Rights of Way Not Required

Renewable Energy and Climate Change Renewable Energy information included in the Planning Statement

Restoration and Aftercare Statement/Plans Not Required

Statement of Community Involvement Not Required

Structural Survey Not Required

Survey of Levels Not Required

Transport Assessment Not Required


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

Travel Plan Not Required

Tree and Hedgerow Survey/Arboricultural Report Not Required

Utilities Statement Not Required

Vermin and Birds Considered as part of the Planning statement

Waste Audit and Waste Management Facilities Strategy Not Required


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 2: Process Diagram

Thermophilic Digester 20m3HRT 0.5-2dTemp 60-70 OC

Mesophilic Digester 45 m3 HRT1-3dTemp 30-50OC

Transfer pump 1

Compressor

Cesaro Depacker14t/hr

Cesaro Transfer pump

50m3 Digestate Storage

Transfer pump 2

Transfer pump 3Thermophilic Digester

20m3 HRT 0.5-2dTemp 60-70 OC

P-2

50m3 Digestate Storage

P-3

P-4

P-5

P-6 P-7

P-8

P-9

Thermophilic Digester20m3 HRT 0.5-2dTemp 60-70 OC

Mesophilic Digester 45 m3 HRT1-3dTemp 30-50OC

Transfer pump 1

Transfer pump 2

Transfer pump 3Thermophilic Digester

20m3 HRT 0.5-2dTemp 60-70 OC

P-11

P-10

P-13 P-14

P-12

P-15

P-24

P-25

P-28

Compactor

12mm macerator

12mm Macerator

P-30

P-4

P-31

P-32

P-10

P-33

P-38

P-39

P-38

P-40P-41 P-42

P-41

P-44

Temp1

Temp2

Temp4

Temp3

Temp 1

Temp 2

Temp 4

Temp 3

Temp

Temp

Temp

Temp

Level

Level

Level Level

Level Level

Level

Level

P-132

P-29

Welland Waste Draft Process SchematicV1 08/11/12

To biofilter

To biofilterTo biofilter

To biofilterTo biofilter

To biofilter


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 3: Screening Opinion

Northamptonshire County Council

Planning Services, Floor 3 Guildhall Road Block, County Hall, Northampton, NN1 1DN

w. www.northamptonshire.gov.uk t. 01604 367019 f. 01604 366065 e. [email protected]

This information can be provided in an alternative language or format such as large print or audio cd. Contact 01604 236014

Dear Mrs Pawson, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2011: REGULATION 5 SCREENING OPINION PROPOSAL – PROPOSED THERMAL AEROBIC DISGESTER AT PEBBLE HALL FARM, THEDDINGWORTH ROAD, MARSTON TRUSSELL, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, LE17 6NJ Thank you for your correspondence received 23rd November 2012 requesting a screening opinion in respect of the above development. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request. The development is not listed under Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations and therefore the requirement of an EIA is not mandatory. Nevertheless, the development requires screening under the above Regulations, Schedule 2, paragraph 11 (Other Projects) (b) Installations for the Disposal of Waste, as the development exceeds 0.5 hectares. Annex A of Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment provides indicative thresholds and criteria for the identification of Schedule 2 development requiring EIA. It is written in Annex A that EIA on installations for the disposal of non-hazardous waste is more likely to be required where new capacity exceeds 50,000 tonnes per year or occupies more than 10 hectares. Based on the information you have submitted I understand that the facility would cover an area of 0.6 hectares, accept approximately 40,000 tonnes of waste per annum and produce up to 10,000 tonnes of end product to be used as agricultural fertiliser.

Mrs G Pawson GP Planning The Stables Long Lane East Haddon Northampton NN6 8DU

Please ask for: Peter Moor Tel: (01604) 367019 Our ref: 12/00008/SCR Your ref: Date: 11 December 2012

Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations sets out selection criteria for determining whether a Schedule 2 development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Three broad criteria are identified relating to the characteristics of the development (e.g. its size), the environmental sensitivity of the location, and the characteristics of the potential impact (e.g. its magnitude and duration). The capacity of the proposed development is below the 50,000 tonnes per annum threshold in Circular 02/99. Pebble Hall Farm is an existing waste site with consent for the processing of compost and wood waste including the permitted renewable energy generation facility (REGF) which would utilise wood as a feedstock. This permission has only been partly implemented to date, although the landowner has stated an intention to development this in the future at an alternative location on Pebble Hall Farm. This would require a fresh planning application. With the existing waste developments and other industrial uses the characteristics of the development at Pebble Hall Farm are already established. In terms of the geographical location of the development, the site is located in the open countryside and lies within an area which has been historically designated as a ‘Special Landscape Area’ under saved Policy EN1 of the Daventry District Local Plan 1997 but now assessed in accordance with the landscape character of the area. However, the proposed development will be housed inside a grain store which is situated within the existing complex of buildings currently being used for both agricultural and industrial purposes and therefore it is not considered that there will be any significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape character. Although the proposed development also includes an extension to the existing grain store, it is not considered that this will result in any significant landscape character detriment. The characteristics of the potential impact of the development and the cumulative impacts with the existing waste developments are also not considered to be environmentally significant as it will all be contained within the existing building thereby minimising the risk of any adverse impacts. It should be noted that the nearest sensitive receptor is located over 500 metres away from the proposed development. Taking into account the characteristics of the development, location and potential impact it is considered that the development is unlikely to result in significant environmental impact and therefore an EIA is not required. Notwithstanding the above, any formal application for the proposed thermal aerobic digester should be accompanied by a full supporting statement, technical assessment reports and plans relating to the proposals including elevations, access and highway safety and environmental issues including dust, noise, visual/landscape impact, odour and associated implications. The cumulative impact of this development with the other permitted waste uses should also be assessed.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance. Yours faithfully,

Peter Moor Principal Development Control Officer


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 4: Potential Supplier Map


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 5: Oil Recovery Process

Agritec C502

The Agritec C502 continuous processing machine will process 10 tons of offal and organic food waste per hour. It is designed to run continuously and is fully automatic.

The machine is self-contained, it comprises a macerator, mixer, multi phase inline cooker, two three

phase centrifuge and all the associated pumps and pipe work. It runs under the control of a PLC (programmable logic controller) that maintains the quality of the oil produced and controls all parts of the

operation.

Process Description

The organic raw material is ground/macerated and moved by pump to the ASL plant, it is assumed that

the pipework will be no longer than 10m.

The ground raw material goes through an inline steel kettle that heats the slurry. The kettle uses live steam as the heating medium and precise control of the steam is maintained by the PLC. The slurry is

then further cooked to 80C in an inline cooker that has a residence time of 20 minutes at full capacity.

From there the product is pumped to the separation process that uses two three-phase decanter centrifuges.

The centrifuges are a specially designed Hiller type DA 45 three-phase decanters that separates the slurry

into solids, water waste and oil.

The solids are discharged via two screw conveyors that reach a height of 4.2m for discharge into a truck

or transferred to the dryer module if supplied.

The oil is pumped from the separator to a 20m3 heated and insulated storage tank (tank to be supplied by others) via an inline mesh filter using a centripetal pump.

The water is discharged by gravity to effluent.

The PLC uses sensors within the machine to maintain product quality and efficient running. The PLC incorporates process start and stop programs as well as monitoring the performance of the centrifuge and

separator. The process start program brings the machine up to working temperature and starts the various components in sequence to check their operation. The system stop program incorporates a

cleaning sequence that makes sure the machine is available for start up when necessary with no operator

involvement in cleaning. The PLC uses a waterproof touch screen to provide the operator interface and information on operation. The operator, using the PLC can set various parameters and also provision is

provided for data logging from the PLC.

Machine commissioning and operator training is included.

All internal pipe work, wiring and mounting are included.

The machine can be supplied with a hard material processing unit (for processing bones) not included in

quote. The main PLC electrical control system is programmed to be able to integrate the hard material

processing unit with additional software.


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

Technical description

1) In feed

Organic raw material (de-packaged) enters the machine via the intake hopper is then macerated to a

uniform slurry using a specially designed mincer/macerator.

2) Size reduction The grinder macerator reduces the size of the raw material to a maximum size of 6mm.

3) Product feed The resulting slurry is checked by sensors for viscosity and is pumped by a 2.2kw motor to the heating

process

4) Heating

The first stage of the heating process is via an inline steel kettle that heats the slurry.

The kettle uses live steam with a specially designed injection nozzle that ensures rapid mixing of the slurry.

The final temperature is then achieved by recirculating the slurry within a secondary vessel that achieves

80C and has a residence time of 20 minutes at full capacity.

Precise temperature control is vital, product quality and the required temperature curves are maintained

by multiple sensors and the PLC control of the steam valves.

5) Centrifuge

The centrifuges are a specially designed Hiller type DA45 three-phase decanters that separate the slurry into solids, water waste and tallow.

The centrifuges differs from a normal machine in the design of the bowl and scroll – the protection

system employed for the bearings, the speed and differential speed.

6) Solids discharge

The solids are discharged via a auger screw conveyor. A second auger screw conveyor sends the material to a lorry, skip or other container. (to be supplied by others)

7) Water discharge

The water is discharged by gravity to effluent.

8) Oil discharge

The oil is pumped from the separator to a separate storage tank via a centrifugal pump.

9) Control system The PLC uses sensors within the machine to maintain product quality and efficient running. The PLC

incorporates process start and stop programmes as well as monitoring the performance of the

centrifuge. The process start programme brings the machine up to working temperature and starts the various components in sequence to check their operation. The system stop programme incorporates a

cleaning sequence that makes sure the machine is available for start up when necessary with no operator involvement in cleaning. The PLC uses a waterproof touch screen to provide the operator interface and

information on operation. The operator, using the PLC can set various parameters and also provision is

provided for data logging from the PLC.


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 6: Noise Assessment

Walker Beak Mason Consultants in Noise & Vibration Steepleton Lodge Barn Paul Cockcroft BEng PhD CEng FIOA MIMMM Long Lane Richard Lyons BEng PhD CEng MIOA MCIBSE East Haddon Rachel Canham BEng MSc CEng FIOA Northamptonshire NN6 8DU

Tel: 01604 771 101 Fax: 01604 771 416 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.wbm.co.uk

Walker Beak Mason and WBM are trading names of The Walker Beak Mason Partnership Member of the Association of Noise Consultants

Ref 4169

For Welland Waste Management Limited

c/o GP Planning Ltd

The Stables

Long Lane

East Haddon

Northampton

NN6 8DU

Date 28 May 2013

Pebble Hall Farm, Theddingworth

Noise Assessment Author Dr Paul Cockcroft

2 of 35

The Author

Dr Paul Cockcroft BEng PhD CEng MIMMM FIOA (Senior Partner) has been

practising in mining engineering and acoustics since 1983. He joined WBM in

1989, became an Associate in 1991, a Partner in 1997 and Senior Partner in

2004. He has concentrated on environmental noise and has been involved in

work for mineral operators, waste disposal companies, planning authorities

and developers at over 500 mineral, waste disposal, housing, commercial

development and other sites as well as measurement and noise prediction

work for road and rail schemes. Dr Cockcroft has considerable experience of

planning appeal work.

Walker Beak Mason

Walker Beak Mason (WBM) is an established independent acoustic

consultancy specialising in architectural & building acoustics and

environmental noise. WBM is a member of the Association of Noise

Consultants and is also an Associate Assessor Member of the Institute of

Environmental Management & Assessment. The Consultants are Members or

Fellows of the Institute of Acoustics.

3 of 35

Contents

The Author ...................................................................................................... 2

Walker Beak Mason ....................................................................................... 2

1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4

2 Assessment Methodology ...................................................................... 5

2.1 National Planning Policy Framework .......................................................... 5

2.2 Environment Agency Horizontal Guidance for Noise .................................. 6

2.3 British Standard 4142 ................................................................................ 6

2.4 World Health Organisation ......................................................................... 7

3 Site Description ....................................................................................... 9

4 Measurement Methodology .................................................................. 10

4.1 Measurement Description ........................................................................ 10

4.2 Results ..................................................................................................... 11

5 Calculated Site Noise Levels ................................................................ 12

5.1 Noise Sources and Sound Power Levels ................................................. 12

5.2 Site Operation Activities ........................................................................... 13

5.3 Calculated Site Noise Levels ................................................................... 13

6 Comparison with Background Noise Levels ....................................... 15

7 Vehicle Movements on Site Access Road ........................................... 17

8 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................. 17

Appendix A – Glossary of Acoustic Terms................................................ 21

Appendix B – Site Location Plan and Measurement Positions ................ 23

Appendix C – Survey Details ...................................................................... 24

Appendix D – Survey Results ..................................................................... 25

Appendix E – Unattended Noise Survey Results ...................................... 29

Appendix F – Noise Calculation Method and Calculation Sheet ............. 34

4 of 35

1 Introduction

Welland Waste Management Limited (WWM) currently operates a site at

Pebble Hall Farm, near Theddingworth in Northamptonshire. The planning

history, current operations and proposed development are described in detail

in the Planning Statement prepared by GP Planning and are not reproduced

in this report.

In summary, food waste is to be delivered to the site by heavy goods vehicles

(HGVs) during daytime periods only, with almost all of the operations and

processes to take place inside buildings. For processes that are continuous,

potential impact at weekends and in particular at night will need to be

considered.

The closest dwelling to the development site is Pebble Hall Farm, which is

occupied by relatives of the site owner / applicant. Other dwellings in the area

are at separation distances of about 600 to 1500 metres, namely on the

northern side of the A4304 Theddingworth Road, on the eastern side of

Husbands Bosworth, Hothorpe Hall and nearby dwellings south of

Theddingworth.

This report sets out the findings of noise surveys conducted in April 2013 of

the existing noise climate at positions representative of the closest noise

sensitive properties to the site, for daytime, evening and night-time periods.

The report sets out the calculated noise levels arising from the proposed

operations and compares the calculated site noise levels with the measured

background noise levels to assess the potential impact of the operations in

terms of likelihood of complaints about noise for daytime and night-time.

The impact of road traffic noise from site HGVs entering and leaving the site

on the access road is also examined for the dwelling at Pebble Hall Farm.

To aid comprehension, a glossary of acoustic terms is presented in

Appendix A.

5 of 35

2 Assessment Methodology

The various relevant noise guidance documents considered for this

assessment are detailed below.

2.1 National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March

2012 with immediate effect and sets out the Government’s planning policies

for England. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a

presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The NPPF revoked and replaced a number of Planning Policy Statements

(PPS), Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and other guidance documents,

including Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise).

With regard to noise there are various aims, including that noise from a new

development should avoid giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health

and quality of life, and that other adverse impacts should be mitigated and

reduced to a minimum including through the use of conditions.

Section 11 of the NPPF (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

refers specifically to noise in the following paragraphs:

“109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by…preventing both new and existing development from

contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely

affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land

instability...”

“123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and

quality of life as a result of new development;

mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and

quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the

use of conditions;

6 of 35

recognise that development will often create some noise and existing

businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not

have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby

land uses since they were established (subject to the provisions of the

Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other relevant law); and

identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively

undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value

for this reason.”

2.2 Environment Agency Horizontal Guidance for Noise

From examination of the Environment Agency website and discussion with a

relevant noise officer from the Environment Agency on 26 April 2013, it is

apparent that Part 1 – “Regulation and Permitting” is no longer supplied as

part of the Horizontal Guidance for Noise. Part 2 – “Noise Assessment and

Control” is included on the Environment Agency website. At the bottom of

page 57 in Part 2 (Version 3 June 2004) it is stated “The potential noise

impacts of new or modified plants should be considered both in terms of

BS4142: 1997, PPG24 and the World Health Organisation guidelines”. As

indicated above, NPPF revoked and replaced PPG 24 Planning and Noise.

2.3 British Standard 4142

British Standard (BS) 4142:1997 “Method for Rating industrial noise affecting

mixed residential and industrial areas” describes a method of determining the

level of a noise of an industrial nature, together with procedures for assessing

whether or not the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from

persons living in the vicinity.

The noise level of the industrial source (specific noise source, LAeq, T) is

corrected for any distinguishable features at the receptor location that could

attract attention. The correction is +5 dB, and the corrected specific noise

level is known as the rating level (LAr,T). The acoustic feature correction

applies if the noise at the receptor location contains a distinguishable,

discrete or continuous note (such as a whine, hiss, screech or hum), contains

distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters or thumps) or is irregular enough to

attract attention.

7 of 35

The measured LAeq noise level at the residences in the absence of any

specific noise level is known as the residual noise level. The LA90, T level (i.e.

the level exceeded 90% of the time) corresponding to the residual noise level

is known as the background noise level.

The likelihood of complaints is assessed by subtracting the background noise

level from the rating level; the greater the difference, the greater the likelihood

of complaints.

A difference of around +10 dB or more (rating level greater than background

noise level) indicates that complaints are likely. A difference of around +5 dB

is of marginal significance. A difference of -10 dB (rating level below

background noise level) is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely.

There are limitations to the application of BS 4142. Within the Scope of the

standard it is stated:

“The method is not suitable for assessing the noise measured inside buildings or

when the background and rating noise levels are both very low.

NOTE: For the purposes of this standard, background noise levels below about 30 dB

and rating levels below about 35 dB are considered to be very low.”

2.4 World Health Organisation

Guidelines for Community Noise 1999

The World Health Organisation (WHO) “Guidelines for Community Noise”

1999 provides guidance on community noise based on knowledge of the

health impacts of community noise and also provides guidance on the

protection of people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial

environments. Some of the relevant guideline values according to specific

environments and critical health effects are tabulated below.

Specific environment

Critical health effect LAeq (dB)

Time base (hours)

LAmax,fast (dB)

Outdoor living area

Serious annoyance, daytime and evening

55 16 -

8 of 35

Outdoor living area

Moderate annoyance, daytime and evening

50 16 -

Dwellings, indoors

Speech intelligibility and moderate annoyance, daytime and evening

35 16 -

Inside bedrooms

Sleep disturbance, night-time

30 8 45

Outside bedrooms

Sleep disturbance, window open (outdoor values)

45 8 60

According to the WHO guidelines, the time base for LAeq,T values is 16 hours

for daytime (including evening) and 8 hours for night-time.

The effects of noise in dwellings are usually sleep disturbance, annoyance

and speech interference. For bedrooms the critical effect is sleep disturbance.

The WHO indoor guideline values for bedrooms are 30 dB LAeq,T for

continuous noise. If the noise is not continuous, maximum noise levels should

be used to indicate the probability of noise-induced awakenings with 45 dB

LAmax,f as the relevant criterion. The WHO guidelines state that “For a good

sleep, it is believed that indoor sound pressure levels should not exceed

approximately 45 dB LAmax more than 10-15 times per night…”

At night-time, external noise levels outside the façades of bedrooms should

not exceed 45 dB LAeq,T and 60 dB LAmax,f and so that people may sleep with

bedroom windows open, assuming a noise reduction of 15 dB from outside to

inside with the window open.

To protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the

daytime, the outside noise level from steady, continuous noise should not

exceed 55 dB LAeq,T on balconies, terraces and in outdoor living rooms. To

protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during the

daytime, the outside noise level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T.

It is important to note that these are health based guidelines rather than

levels set out in current Government legislation.

9 of 35

Night Noise Guidelines for Europe 2009

The World Health Organization “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” 2009

document provides guidelines that are neither standards nor legally binding

criteria. The guidelines may be considered as an extension to, as well as an

update of, the previous WHO “Guidelines for Community Noise” 1999.

This document proposes that an Lnight,outside of 40 dB should be the target of

the night noise guideline (NNG) to protect the public. The Lnight,outside indicator

is defined in Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC and is the year

average at the most exposed facade. It is the long-term A-weighted average

sound level (LAeq) determined over all the night periods of a year, where night

is eight hours in duration (usually 23.00 to 07.00 hours) and a year is a

relevant year as regard the emission of sound and an average year for

meteorological conditions. The Lnight,outside is determined at a receiver height

of 4 metres above local ground and is taken to be a free field level even

though it would be assessed near the most affected façade of a dwelling.

The Night Noise Guidelines also reports that effects on sleep quality can

occur at a threshold levels of 42 dB LAmax,inside (internal level) although

biological effects such as EEG awakening and changing sleep structure can

occur at lower noise levels.

3 Site Description

The proposed development site is situated about 500 metres south of the

A4304 Theddingworth Road. The closest dwelling to the development site is

Pebble Hall Farm, which is occupied by relatives of the site owner / applicant,

near to the junction of the site access road and the A4304. The dwelling at

Pebble Hall Farm is about 40 metres from the site access road.

Other dwellings in the area are at separation distances of about 600 to 1500

metres to the proposed development site, namely Dene Lodge and Woodside

Farm on the northern side of Theddingworth Road, Bosworth Hall on the

eastern side of Husbands Bosworth, Hothorpe Hall and nearby dwellings

south of Theddingworth.

10 of 35

4 Measurement Methodology

4.1 Measurement Description

A site location plan including the baseline noise survey measurement

locations is included in this report as Appendix B.

The noise measurements were carried out in accordance with the

Measurement Practice in BS 4142: 1997 for instrumentation and calibration.

The locations at which baseline measurements have been made were

chosen as the representative of the residential dwellings and areas closest to

the proposed development site.

Baseline noise surveys were conducted during four visits at four locations

representative of the nearest noise sensitive properties. A total of sixteen

sample measurements were taken over the course of the attended surveys in

April 2013. In addition, a sound level meter was installed for a week at Pebble

Hall Farm for largely unattended baseline noise monitoring.

Food waste is to be delivered to the site by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs)

during daytime periods only, 07:00 to 17:00, with almost all of the operations

and processes to take place inside buildings.

The sample measurements were undertaken between about 16:00 and 17:30

on Friday 19 April 2013; between about 22:00 and 23:30 on Monday 22 April

2013; between about 09:30 and 11:00 on Friday 26 April 2013; between

about 01:30 and 03:00 on Saturday 27 April 2013. The meter at Pebble Hall

Farm was installed at about 15:30 on Friday 19 April 2013 and collected at

about 11:00 on Friday 26 April 2013.

The measurements were taken at a microphone height of approximately

1.4 metres above local ground level away from reflecting surfaces other than

the ground, with a wind shield used throughout each measurement.

The sample measurements were of 15 minute duration. The start times of the

measurements are shown along with the results.

11 of 35

The parameters reported are the statistical indices LA10,T and the Background

Noise Level, LA90,T as well as the Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, LAeq,T.

An explanation of the noise units presented is given in Appendix A.

The instrumentation used for the measurements and calibration details are

shown in Appendix C. The attended survey results are presented in

Appendix D. The results from the unattended survey are presented in

Appendix E.

4.2 Results

The detailed results from the attended surveys are presented in Appendix D.

A summary of the background noise levels from the attended survey results is

presented in the following table.

Position dB

LA90,15min

dB

LA90,15min

dB

LA90,15min

dB

LA90,15min

Morning Afternoon Evening Night

1 Husbands Bosworth 44 40 31 22

2 West of Woodside Farm 47 53 29 27

3. Pebble Hall Farm 42 48 30 18

4. Hothorpe Road 41 37 35 20

The noise climate was affected by road traffic, aircraft movements, birdsong,

animal calls, distant agricultural activity and wind movement in trees at times

The results from the unattended survey at Pebble Hall Farm are presented in

Appendix E. The background noise levels at the quietest part of the night-

time period were in the range 18 to 23 dB LA90, 1 hour, free field at this location.

12 of 35

5 Calculated Site Noise Levels

The potential impact of site noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive

properties to the operations can be assessed by the calculation of site noise

levels due to the activities taking place on site and comparison with the

measured baseline noise environment.

The noise levels likely to arise at dwellings depend on the sound power levels

of the plant as much as on the distance to the properties and the effects of

intervening ground and buildings. Proper allowance can be made for these

variables to calculate site noise levels.

The Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, LAeq, T, is the preferred unit for

assessing noise sources. It is the value of a continuous level that would have

equivalent energy to the continuously varying noise over the specified period

"T". This unit is recommended internationally for the description of

environmental noise and is in general use. It is the chosen unit of BS 5228 for

Construction and Open site noise and BS 7445 for the Description and

Measurement of Environmental Noise.

5.1 Noise Sources and Sound Power Levels

The noise levels of the proposed operations have been supplied by WWM to

WBM, generally in the form of noise levels at a separation distance of 1 m.

These noise levels have been used to determine Sound Power Levels for

plant items, allowing noise levels inside the various buildings to be calculated.

With assumptions about sound insulation properties of the building walls and

roofs, the noise level breakout from each building can be determined. The

apparent Sound Power Levels for the walls and roofs of the buildings, as well

as noise from exhausts for one of the buildings and the “genset” units, have

been determined.

The calculations in this report are based on BS5228: 2009: Part 1 Noise.

Further details of the calculation methods are set out in Appendix F to this

report. A sample site noise calculation sheet for the nearest dwelling is

included in Appendix F, showing the noise sources and sound power levels.

13 of 35

5.2 Site Operation Activities

In order to calculate the noise levels for the proposed development site, the

contribution from each significant specific noise source has been evaluated

separately and then combined together to give the overall noise level.

The activities that will take place on the site are as summarised below and set

out on the sample calculation sheet along with on-time percentages for the

daytime assessment period of 1-hour or night-time period of 5-minutes.

Lorry movements along site access road;

Four engines “gensets” outside the buildings;

Stack exhausts for each of the four engines;

Reception building walls, roof and open door (daytime);

Reception building exhaust;

Digester building walls, roof and open door (daytime);

Slurry tanker outside buildings (daytime).

For the purposes of the calculations, the receiver height has been tested at

1.5 metres for the receiver locations (daytime) and 4.0 metres (night-time).

The site noise calculations include barrier attenuation attributable to the

building between the “gensets” and the dwellings at Pebble Hall Farm,

Woodside Farm and Hothorpe Hall. No allowance has been made in the

calculations for the effects of any barrier attenuation due to bunding or

landforms between the site and the noise sensitive receptors so as not to

over-estimate the attenuation.

5.3 Calculated Site Noise Levels

The nearest residential properties for which site noise calculations have been

made are Pebble Hall Farm, Woodside Farm, Bosworth Hall, Hothorpe Hall.

14 of 35

The calculated site noise levels, for night-time and daytime periods, are set

out in the table below with conventional, insulated cladding for walls and roof

of the reception building and digester building and without barrier attenuation

for the “gensets”. The daytime site noise levels include HGV movements on

the site access road, open doors to buildings and the operation outside

buildings of a slurry tanker.

Without Building as Barrier for “gensets”

Receiver Location

Calculated Daytime Site Noise Levels

dB LAeq, 1 hour, free field

Calculated Night-time Site Noise Levels

dB LAeq, 5 minutes, free field

Bosworth Hall 34 25

Woodside Farm 45 34

Pebble Hall Farm 55 36

Hothorpe Hall 39 30

Note: Pebble Hall Farm is occupied by relatives of site owner and applicant

The calculated site noise levels, for night-time and daytime periods, are set

out in the table below with conventional, insulated cladding for walls and roof

of the reception building and digester building and with barrier attenuation for

the “gensets”. The daytime site noise levels include HGV movements on the

site access road, open doors to buildings and the operation outside buildings

of a slurry tanker.

With Building as Barrier for “gensets”

Receiver Location

Calculated Daytime Site Noise Levels

dB LAeq, 1 hour, free field

Calculated Night-time Site Noise Levels

dB LAeq, 5 minutes, free field

Bosworth Hall 34 25

Woodside Farm 44 29

Pebble Hall Farm 55 30

Hothorpe Hall 39 25


The calculated night-time site noise levels are about 5 dB LAeq, 5 minutes, free field

lower with barrier attenuation attributable to the adjacent building, other than

for Bosworth Hall which is to the west and not shielded by the building.

15 of 35

6 Comparison with Background Noise Levels

The assessment method in BS 4142: 1997 compares the site noise level with

the background noise level, to determine the likelihood of complaints.

The following table compares the calculated daytime site noise levels from

the proposed development site and associated activities to the measured

daytime background noise levels, with the building as a barrier for the

“gensets” other than for Bosworth Hall.

Comparison for Morning / Afternoon Periods

With Mitigation for Engines Building

Receiver Location

Calculated Site Noise

Levels

dB LAeq,1 hour

Measured Background Noise Levels

dB LA90,15 minutes

Differences

dB LAeq, T – dB LA90, T

Bosworth Hall 34 44 / 40 -10 / -6

Woodside Farm 44 47 / 53 -3 / -9

Pebble Hall Farm 55 42 / 48 + 13 / +7

Hothorpe Hall 39 41 / 37 -2 / +2


For Bosworth Hall and Woodside Farm the calculated daytime site noise

levels below the measured background noise levels for morning and

afternoon periods.

For Pebble Hall Farm, the calculated daytime site noise levels are 13 and

7 dB(A) above the measured background noise levels for morning and

afternoon periods.

For Hothorpe Hall, the calculated daytime site noise levels are within 2 dB(A)

of the measured background noise levels for morning and afternoon periods.

For the daytime period the calculated site noise levels, other than for Pebble

Hall Farm, are below 45 dB LAeq, 1 hour, free field and are at or below the average

daytime background noise levels. For Pebble Hall Farm, the calculated site

noise level for daytime is dominated by HGV movements on the access road.

16 of 35

The following table compares the calculated night-time site noise levels from

the proposed development site and associated activities to the measured

evening and night-time background noise levels, with the building as a barrier

for the “gensets” other than for Bosworth Hall.

Comparison for Evening / Night-time Periods

With Mitigation for Engines Building

Receiver Location

Calculated Site Noise

Levels

dB LAeq, 5 minutes

Measured Background Noise Levels

dB LA90,15 minutes

Differences

dB LAeq, T – dB LA90, T

Bosworth Hall 25 31 / 22 -6 / +3

Woodside Farm 29 29 / 27 0 / +2

Pebble Hall Farm 30 30 / 18 0 / +12

Hothorpe Hall 25 35 / 20 -10 / + 5


For Bosworth Hall, the calculated night-time site noise level is 6 dB(A) below

the measured background noise level for the evening period and 3 dB(A)

above the measured background noise level for the night-time period.

For Woodside Farm, the calculated night-time site noise level is equal to the

measured background noise level for the evening period and 2 dB(A) above

the measured background noise levels for the night-time period.

For Pebble Hall Farm, the calculated night-time site noise level is equal to the


the measured background noise level for the night-time period.

For Hothorpe Hall, the calculated night-time site noise level is 10 dB(A) below







17 of 35


standard it is stated: “The method is not suitable for assessing the noise measured

inside buildings or when the background and rating noise levels are both very low.



For the night-time period, background noise levels are below 30 dB LA90, T and

the site noise levels are below 35 dB LAeq, T and accordingly are considered to

be very low and therefore outside the scope of BS 4142.

7 Vehicle Movements on Site Access Road

The dwelling at Pebble Hall Farm is about 40 metres from the site access

road and about 50 metres to the edge of the A4304 Theddingworth Road.




The noise climate at Pebble Hall Farm during the period 07:00 to 17:00 is and

will continue to be dominated by road traffic noise on the A4304

Theddingworth Road.

Individual HGV movements on the site access road may well be audible at

Pebble Hall Farm but the maximum noise levels would be similar to those

arising from the passage of other HGVs on the A4304 Theddingworth Road.

8 Summary and Conclusions

Welland Waste Management Limited (WWM) currently operates a site at

Pebble Hall Farm, near Theddingworth in Northamptonshire. The planning

history, current operations and proposed development are described in detail

in the Planning Statement prepared by GP Planning and are not reproduced

in this report.

18 of 35

In summary, food waste is to be delivered to the site by heavy goods vehicles

(HGVs) during daytime periods only, with almost all of the operations and

processes to take place inside buildings. For processes that are continuous,

potential impact at weekends and in particular at night will need to be

considered.

The closest dwelling to the development site is Pebble Hall Farm, which is

occupied by relatives of the site owner / applicant. Other dwellings in the area

are at separation distances of about 600 to 1500 metres, namely on the

northern side of the A4304 Theddingworth Road, on the eastern side of

Husbands Bosworth, Hothorpe Hall and nearby dwellings south of

Theddingworth.

Baseline noise surveys were conducted during four visits at four locations

representative of the nearest noise sensitive properties. A total of sixteen

sample measurements were taken over the course of the attended surveys in

April 2013. In addition, a sound level meter was installed for a week at Pebble

Hall Farm for largely unattended baseline noise monitoring.




The sample measurements were undertaken between about 16:00 and 17:30

on Friday 19 April 2013; between about 22:00 and 23:30 on Monday 22 April

2013; between about 09:30 and 11:00 on Friday 26 April 2013; between

about 01:30 and 03:00 on Saturday 27 April 2013. The meter at Pebble Hall

Farm was installed at about 15:30 on Friday 19 April 2013 and collected at

about 11:00 on Friday 26 April 2013.

In order to calculate the noise levels for the proposed development site, the

contribution from each significant specific noise source has been evaluated

separately and then combined together to give the overall noise level.

The nearest residential properties for which site noise calculations have been

made are Pebble Hall Farm, Woodside Farm, Bosworth Hall, Hothorpe Hall.

19 of 35

The calculated daytime site noise levels from the proposed development site

and associated activities are compared to the measured background noise

levels for morning, afternoon, evening and night-time periods, with the

building as a barrier for the “gensets” other than for Bosworth Hall.

For the daytime period the calculated site noise levels, other than for Pebble

Hall Farm, are below 45 dB LAeq, 1 hour, free field and are at or below the average

daytime background noise levels. For Pebble Hall Farm, the calculated site

noise level for daytime is dominated by HGV movements on the access road.

The assessment method in BS 4142: 1997 compares the site noise level with

the background noise level, to determine the likelihood of complaints.

For Bosworth Hall, the calculated night-time site noise level is 6 dB(A) below



For Woodside Farm, the calculated night-time site noise level is equal to the


the measured background noise levels for the night-time period.

For Pebble Hall Farm, the calculated night-time site noise level is equal to the


the measured background noise level for the night-time period.

For Hothorpe Hall, the calculated night-time site noise level is 10 dB(A) below








standard it is stated: “The method is not suitable for assessing the noise measured

inside buildings or when the background and rating noise levels are both very low.

20 of 35



For the night-time period, background noise levels are below 30 dB LA90, T and

the site noise levels are below 35 dB LAeq, T and accordingly are considered to

be very low and therefore outside the scope of BS 4142.

The noise climate at Pebble Hall Farm during the period 07:00 to 17:00 is and

will continue to be dominated by road traffic noise on the A4304

Theddingworth Road.

Individual HGV movements on the site access road may well be audible at

Pebble Hall Farm but the maximum noise levels would be similar to those

arising from the passage of other HGVs on the A4304 Theddingworth Road.

Dr Paul Cockcroft BEng PhD CEng MIMMM FIOA

Senior Partner

(This document has been generated electronically and therefore bears no signature)

21 of 35

Appendix A – Glossary of Acoustic Terms

The following section describes some of the parameters that are used to quantify noise.

Decibels dB

Noise levels are measured in decibels. The decibel is the logarithmic ratio of the sound pressure to a reference pressure (2x10-5 Pascals). The decibel scale gives a reasonable approximation to the human perception of relative loudness. In terms of human hearing, audible sounds range from the threshold of hearing (0 dB) to the threshold of pain (140 dB).

A-weighted Decibels dB(A)

The ‘A’-weighting filter emulates human hearing response for low levels of sound. The filter network is incorporated electronically into sound level meters. Sound pressure levels measured using an ‘A’-weighting filter have units of dB(A) which is a single figure value to represent the overall noise level for the entire frequency range.

A change of 3 dB(A) is the smallest change in noise level that is perceptible under normal listening conditions. A change of 10 dB(A) corresponds to a doubling or halving of loudness of the sound. The background noise level in a quiet bedroom may be around 20 –30 dB(A); normal speech conversation around 60 dB(A) at 1 m; noise from a very busy road around 70-80 dB(A) at 10m; the level near a pneumatic drill around 100 dB(A).

Façade Noise Level

Façade noise measurements are those undertaken near to reflective surfaces such as walls, usually at a distance of 1m from the surface. Façade noise levels at 1m from a reflective surface are normally around 3 dB greater than those obtained under freefield conditions.

Freefield Noise Level

Freefield noise measurements are those undertaken away from any reflective surfaces other than the ground

Frequency Hz

The frequency of a noise is the number of pressure variations per second, and relates to the “pitch” of the sound. Hertz (Hz) is the unit of frequency and is the same as cycles per second. Normal, healthy human hearing can detect sounds from around 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

Octave and Third-Octave Bands

Two frequencies are said to be an octave apart if the frequency of one is twice the frequency of the other. The octave bandwidth increases as the centre frequency increases. Each bandwidth is 70% of the band centre frequency.

Two frequencies are said to be a third-octave apart if the frequency of one is 1.26 times the other. The third octave bandwidth is 23% of the band centre frequency.

There are recognised octave band and third octave band centre frequencies. The octave or third-octave band sound pressure level is determined from the energy of the sound which falls within the boundaries of that particular octave of third octave band.

22 of 35

Appendix A (continued)

Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level LAeq,T

The ‘A’-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level LAeq,T, is a notional steady level which has the same acoustic energy as the actual fluctuating noise over the same time period T. The LAeq,T unit is dominated by higher noise levels, for example, the LAeq,T average of two equal time periods at, for example, 70 dB(A) and 50 dB(A) is not 60 dB(A) but 67 dB(A).

The LAeq, is the chosen unit of BS 7445-1:2003 “Description and Measurement of Environmental noise”.

Maximum Sound Pressure Level LAmax

The LAmax value describes the overall maximum ‘A’-weighted sound pressure level over the measurement interval. Maximum levels are measured with either a fast or slow time weighted, denoted as LAmax,f or LAmax,s respectively.

Sound Exposure Level LAE or SEL

The sound exposure level is a notional level which contains the same acoustic energy in 1 second as a varying ‘A’-weighted noise level over a given period of time. It is normally used to quantify short duration noise events such as aircraft flyover or train passes.

Statistical Parameters LN

In order to cover the time variability aspects, noise can be analysed into various statistical parameters, i.e. the sound level which is exceeded for N% of the time. The most commonly used are the LA01,T, LA10,T and the LA90,T.

LA01,T is the ‘A’-weighted level exceeded for 1% of the time interval T and is often used to gives an indication of the upper maximum level of a fluctuating noise signal.

LA10,T is the ‘A’-weighted level exceeded for 10% of the time interval T and is often used to describe road traffic noise. It gives an indication of the upper level of a fluctuating noise signal. For high volumes of continuous traffic, the LA10,T unit is typically 2–3 dB(A) above the LAeq,T value over the same period.

LA90,T is the ‘A’-weighted level exceeded for 90% of the time interval T, and is often used to describe the underlying background noise level. It is defined in British Standard 4142 as the background noise unit and is used for establishing the reference against which industrial noises are assessed.

23 of 35

Appendix B – Site Location Plan and Measurement Positions

Location Description

1 Husbands Bosworth Southern end of Butts Lane, by public footpath sign

2 West of Woodside Farm Field entrance on northern side of Theddingworth Road

3. Pebble Hall Farm In rear garden, to south of stables / outbuildings

4. Hothorpe Road Field entrance, south of junction to “Quiet Fields”

1

2

3 4

24 of 35

Appendix C – Survey Details

Date and Location of Surveys

Friday 19.04.13, Monday 22.04.13, Friday 26.04.13, Saturday 27.04.13

In the vicinity of Pebble Hall Farm, Northamptonshire

Surveys carried out by

Ms Rachel Canham (19/22/26.04.13) and Dr Richard Lyons (27.04.13)

Instrumentation used (Serial Number)

Survey Date Sound Level Meter Calibrator

Install Meter 19.04.13 to 26.04.13 Norsonic 116 (21628) B&K 4230 (584690)

Friday 19.04.13 Norsonic 140 (1403137) Norsonic 1251 (31993)

Monday 22.04.13 Norsonic 140 (1403137) Norsonic 1251 (31993)

Friday 26.04.13 Norsonic 140 (1403136) Norsonic 1251 (31992)

Saturday 27.04.13 Norsonic 140 (1403138) Norsonic 1251 (31991)

Field Calibration

The sensitivity of the meter was verified on site immediately before and after the survey. The measured calibration levels were as follows:

Survey Date Start Cal End Cal

Install Meter 19.04.13 to 26.04.13 94.0 dB(A)

Friday 19.04.13 113.9 dB(A) 113.8 dB(A)

Monday 22.04.13 113.9 dB(A) 113.9 dB(A)

Friday 26.04.13 113.8 dB(A) 113.7 dB(A)

Saturday 27.04.13 113.7 dB(A) 113.9 dB(A)

Monthly Calibration

The meter and calibrator are tested monthly against a Laboratory Standard Bruel and Kjaer Pistonphone, type 4220 (serial number 375806) and a Norsonic Calibrator, type 1253 (serial number 22906) with UKAS approved laboratory certificate of calibration.

Install Meter

The install meter was set to store hourly results on the hour, which are presented in tabular and graphical format in Appendix E.

25 of 35

Appendix D – Survey Results

Friday 19.04.13

Occasional showers during set up of install meter, stopped raining for sample measurements. Reasonably light winds (N), overcast becoming less cloudy during survey, around 9 degrees C.

Results dB (T = 15 minutes)

Location Start time LAeq, T LAF(max) LA10, T LA90, T Comments

4 - Hothorpe Road

15:55 50 75 46 37 Stopped raining but roads damp. Distant road traffic, birdsong, distant aircraft, sheep in nearby fields, occasional bangs from direction of the site. Two passing vehicles on adjacent road, two vehicles on nearby junction.

1 - Butts Lane Husbands Bosworth

16:19 50 71 52 40 Weather dry but roads still damp. Noise due to birdsong, distant road traffic, sheep in adjacent field, light aircraft in distance and overhead, occasional dog barks, two vehicles turning.

2 - West of Woodside Farm

16:42 74 88 80 53 Noise dominated by road traffic on Theddingworth Road, also birdsong, distant aircraft, farm vehicle activity in nearby fields.

3 - Pebble Hall Farm

17:02 60 68 63 48 Noise due to road traffic on Theddingworth Road, birdsong, distant bangs, aircraft.

26 of 35

Appendix D (continued)

Monday 22.04.13

Overcast, dry, 10-12 degrees C, light SW breeze in most locations apart from Hothorpe Road where wind speeds ~ 5 m/s,




22:09 49 67 51 30 Noise due to distant road traffic, occasional vehicles on Theddingworth Road, distant aircraft, rustling leaves / wind in trees, distant bleating from sheep in fields

4 - Hothorpe Road

22:33 46 70 49 35 Quite breezy at this location, ~ 5 m/s. Noise due to rustling leaves/ wind in trees/ wind noise, very distant road traffic noise, distant animal/bird calls


22:58 60 84 50 29 Noise due to intermittent / occasional vehicles on Theddingworth Road, distant church bells, wind in trees/ rustling foliage, distant aircraft, noise from livestock in fields


23:20 44 67 45 31 Noise due to road traffic on A5199, lots of bleating from sheep and lambs in adjacent field, distant aircraft, some wind noise / rustling leaves

27 of 35


Friday 26.04.13

Cloudy, mainly dry with occasional light showers/hail, 8 degrees C, westerly breeze, 2-3 m/s




09:22 48 71 51 44 Noise due to birdsong, distant traffic, local activity from adjacent houses, sheep in field, cock crowing, rustling leaves


09:44 73 87 78 47 Noise due to road traffic, birdsong, distant farming activity, distant aircraft, rustling leaves

4 - Hothorpe Road

10:14 45 63 47 41 Brief rain shower during sample. Noise due to distant road traffic, distant aircraft, birdsong, sheep in field, distant reversing beepers, distant bangs (bird scarers?), bangs/clanks from Hothorpe Hall


10:41 57 69 62 42 Brief rain / hail shower at end of sample. Noise due to road traffic, birdsong, sheep in field, distant bangs, distant aircraft

28 of 35


Saturday 27.04.13

Dry, partial cloud, 2-3 degrees C, winds initially calm <1m/s and 3-4m/s mid-survey



4 - Hothorpe Road

01:31 29 46 33 20 Distant occasional vehicles on Theddingworth Road;distant sheep bleeting; dog barking in distance; owl hoots; distant aircraft movement; dull thuds from ENE.


01:58 46 66 47 18 Owl hoots; distant sheep bleats; distant road traffic, intermittent vehicles on Theddingworth Road; fox baying; occasional birdcalls; distant church bell chimes; dull thud in distance.


02:23 56 82 40 27 Breeze in trees; owl hoots; birdcalls; distant RT; occasional vehicles on Theddingworth Road; distant aircraft movement.


02:46 30 46 33 22 Distant road traffic on Theddingworth Road and to West; breeze in trees; distant sheep bleats; owl hoots; church bell chimes; birdsong

29 of 35

Appendix E – Unattended Noise Survey Results

0.0

10

.0

20

.0

30

.0

40

.0

50

.0

60

.0

70

.0

80

.0

90

.0

10

0.016:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00

04:00

08:00

Measured Noise Level dB(A)

Star

t Ti

me

(H

ou

rs:

Min

ute

s)

The

dd

ingw

ort

h B

ase

line

No

ise

Su

rve

y R

esu

lts

Pe

bb

le H

all F

arm

Fri

day

19

to

Fri

day

26

Ap

ril 2

01

3

LAm

ax,f

LA1

0,1

ho

ur

LAe

q,1

ho

ur

LA9

0,1

ho

ur

30 of 35

Appendix E (continued)

Start time LAeq, T LAF(max) LA10, T LA90, T

16:00 60 81 64 45

17:00 61 75 64 47

18:00 60 79 64 43

19:00 59 76 64 39

20:00 57 75 62 37

21:00 57 72 62 32

22:00 55 72 60 26

23:00 54 71 58 27

00:00 51 70 55 23

01:00 49 69 45 19

02:00 48 71 41 18

03:00 46 71 41 18

04:00 46 67 44 20

05:00 58 77 62 32

06:00 54 76 59 35

07:00 57 76 61 40

08:00 54 70 59 39

09:00 54 73 58 39

10:00 55 80 59 42

11:00 54 86 57 39

12:00 55 79 57 39

13:00 53 74 57 38

14:00 53 74 57 37

15:00 56 83 59 37

16:00 56 81 58 37

17:00 55 77 59 36

18:00 53 70 57 37

19:00 55 72 59 36

20:00 54 84 58 30

21:00 49 75 53 28

22:00 45 62 48 27

23:00 47 64 50 27

00:00 46 65 47 21

01:00 46 70 44 20

02:00 42 67 35 18

03:00 43 69 34 18

04:00 40 66 35 18

05:00 59 85 63 29

06:00 53 77 56 36

07:00 53 77 56 32

08:00 53 83 56 35

31 of 35


09:00 55 76 59 39

10:00 55 80 58 40

11:00 55 83 58 41

12:00 56 85 59 42

13:00 56 84 60 41

14:00 55 86 58 42

15:00 57 88 59 41

16:00 54 85 59 41

17:00 55 81 59 42

18:00 54 72 59 38

19:00 54 84 59 37

20:00 54 77 57 33

21:00 50 83 52 29

22:00 47 77 47 24

23:00 44 69 43 20

00:00 41 66 42 19

01:00 40 66 38 18

02:00 38 63 31 18

03:00 42 68 38 19

04:00 46 68 45 19

05:00 61 78 65 34

06:00 56 73 61 37

07:00 58 75 62 46

08:00 58 76 61 46

09:00 57 82 60 44

10:00 55 77 59 44

11:00 56 86 59 45

12:00 56 88 59 44

13:00 58 87 60 46

14:00 57 88 60 45

15:00 57 88 60 46

16:00 58 86 60 46

17:00 59 86 63 47

18:00 57 87 60 44

19:00 56 88 58 41

20:00 51 86 53 35

21:00 50 70 53 33

22:00 49 68 51 31

23:00 43 64 44 28

00:00 42 66 41 26

01:00 37 64 36 25

02:00 40 66 39 23

32 of 35


03:00 39 65 34 24

04:00 54 76 51 24

05:00 58 78 62 33

06:00 56 76 61 39

07:00 58 83 62 45

08:00 58 74 62 47

09:00 56 74 61 44

10:00 59 90 61 43

11:00 56 79 60 42

12:00 55 78 59 42

13:00 55 84 58 41

14:00 55 79 59 42

15:00 54 83 59 42

16:00 55 68 60 43

17:00 58 77 62 45

18:00 61 91 64 43

19:00 60 83 64 38

20:00 59 79 63 34

21:00 56 74 61 33

22:00 53 70 58 27

23:00 50 69 54 25

00:00 45 67 46 20

01:00 40 64 32 20

02:00 42 65 40 20

03:00 42 65 37 22

04:00 53 75 56 24

05:00 56 76 60 35

06:00 58 75 62 41

07:00 58 71 62 45

08:00 58 76 62 46

09:00 71 92 70 48

10:00 57 86 60 44

11:00 56 85 58 44

12:00 58 89 59 45

13:00 56 86 58 45

14:00 56 82 59 45

15:00 55 73 59 46

16:00 56 78 60 45

17:00 56 73 61 45

18:00 56 74 61 43

19:00 54 69 59 40

20:00 57 75 62 35

33 of 35


21:00 54 67 59 35

22:00 55 76 60 33

23:00 52 68 57 26

00:00 51 69 54 23

01:00 51 70 53 21

02:00 50 68 52 22

03:00 51 68 55 23

04:00 54 75 57 26

05:00 59 78 62 37

06:00 56 70 61 37

07:00 57 89 61 43

08:00 56 73 61 46

09:00 56 76 60 44

10:00 55 81 59 43

11:00 55 85 59 44

12:00 54 83 58 44

13:00 56 85 58 44

14:00 59 88 59 45

15:00 57 88 61 45

16:00 57 74 61 44

17:00 59 71 63 47

18:00 61 85 65 46

19:00 59 74 64 41

20:00 59 78 64 34

21:00 55 79 60 33

22:00 54 71 59 29

23:00 48 66 51 34

00:00 48 69 49 37

01:00 43 69 43 24

02:00 45 69 44 23

03:00 44 67 41 22

04:00 52 78 50 24

05:00 61 77 66 36

06:00 58 80 63 37

07:00 60 72 64 45

08:00 61 74 65 47

09:00 60 76 64 46

10:00 60 77 64 45

34 of 35

Appendix F – Noise Calculation Method and Calculation Sheet

Specific noise levels are predicted or measured in terms of the Equivalent

Continuous Noise Level, LAeq,T over a given reference time interval, T. In the

Technical Guidance document to the NPPF the time interval for daytime, evening

and night the reference time interval is 1 hour. In BS 4142: 1997 the reference time

interval for daytime is 1 hour and for night-time is 5 minutes, although the periods for

daytime and night-time are not defined.

The calculation method for any plant which is relatively fixed in location is that set out

in BS 5228: 2009 Part 1, Annex F, and is the “Method for activity LAeq” described in

section F.2.2 or the “Method for plant sound power level” described in section F.2.3.

The calculation method for site mobile plant such as lorries is that set out in

BS5228: 2009: Part 1, Annex F, and is the “Method for mobile plant using a regular

well defined route (e. g. haul roads)” described in section F. 2. 5.

Ground Absorption has been assumed as 90% soft ground between the proposed

development site and the receiver locations.

The method of assessing screening is that attributed to Maekawa as used in

BS 5228: 2009 and various other Government published documents. This method

uses the calculated path difference and octave band noise data for each noise

source over the frequency range stated in BS 5228: 2009.

The effects of ground absorption are not used in the calculations if screening has

been assessed and offers a higher attenuation.

The nearest distances to the respective dwellings, from the various items of plant,

have been used in an acoustic model for the site to calculate the reasonable worst

case LAeq,T site noise levels.

A summary site noise calculation sheet for one of the receiver locations is included

below.

35 of 35

Appendix F (continued)

WE

LL

AN

D W

AS

TE

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

4169

24-M

ay-1

3P

WC

Win

d C

orr

ection :

2dB

(A)

Receiv

er

Heig

ht

:4.0

m

PE

BB

LE

HA

LL

FA

RM

TH

ED

DIN

GW

OR

TH

FO

OD

WA

ST

E P

RO

CE

SS

ING

& E

LE

CT

RIC

ITY

GE

NE

RA

TIO

NB

uild

ing /

Barr

ier

Heig

ht

:5

m

Com

ments

on S

ound P

ow

er

Leve

ls &

Activi

tyP

ow

er

LW

AC

apacity

Sourc

e2 w

ay f

low

Speed

BS

5228

Ref

Pla

nt

Item

Att

enuation a

ssum

ed f

or

build

ings

LA

eq @

10 m

or

LW

A /

mO

n-t

ime %

Tonnes

Heig

ht

Q p

er

hour

V k

ph

Pla

nt

Set

back(m

)m

eth

od

1C

HP

genset

in I

SO

conta

iner

(1)

fans /

louvr

e70 d

B(A

) at

1 m

manufa

ctu

rer

guara

nte

e66

94

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

2C

HP

genset

in I

SO

conta

iner

(2)

fans /

louvr

e70 d

B(A

) at

1 m

manufa

ctu

rer

guara

nte

e66

94

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

3C

HP

genset

in I

SO

conta

iner

(3)

fans /

louvr

e70 d

B(A

) at

1 m

manufa

ctu

rer

guara

nte

e66

94

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

4C

HP

genset

in I

SO

conta

iner

(4)

fans /

louvr

e70 d

B(A

) at

1 m

manufa

ctu

rer

guara

nte

e66

94

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

5S

tack e

xhaust

(one f

or

each o

f fo

ur

sets

)70 d

B(A

) at

1 m

manufa

ctu

rer

guara

nte

e59

87

100

10

0m

back

1A

ctivi

ty

6R

eception b

uild

ing w

alls

108 d

B L

WA

-25 d

B f

or

build

ing

55

83

100

60

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

7R

eception b

uild

ing r

oof

108 d

B L

WA

-25 d

B f

or

build

ing

55

83

100

90

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

8R

eception b

uild

ing e

xhaust

70 d

B(A

) at

1 m

53

81

100

10

0m

back

1A

ctivi

ty

9R

eception b

uild

ing d

oor

Daytim

e o

nly

-10 d

B f

or

open d

oor7

098

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

10

Dig

este

r build

ing w

alls

108 d

B L

WA

-25 d

B f

or

build

ing

55

83

100

60

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

11

Dig

este

r build

ing r

oof

108 d

B L

WA

-25 d

B f

or

build

ing

55

83

100

90

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

12

Dig

este

r build

ing d

oor

Daytim

e o

nly

-10 d

B f

or

open d

oor7

098

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

13

Slu

rry t

anker

Daytim

e o

nly

Outs

ide b

uild

ings

78

106

100

30

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

14

HG

V m

ove

ments

Daytim

e o

nly

76

104

100

212

15

0m

back

4H

aul R

oad

15

Sourc

e 1

5 (

spare

Pla

nt

Item

)-1

027

-999

100

20

m b

ack

1A

ctivi

ty

Lo

cati

on

No

.1

Peb

ble

Hall F

arm

Receiv

er

Heig

ht

4.0

m A

OD

Site N

ois

e L

eve

l fo

r It

em

s 1

to 1

455

dB

LA

eq

, 1 h

ou

r, f

ree f

ield

Daytim

e (

Receiv

er

Heig

ht

1.5

m)

Site N

ois

e L

eve

l fo

r It

em

s 1

to 8

, 10 &

11

30

dB

LA

eq

, 5 m

inu

tes,

free f

ield

Nig

ht-

tim

e (

Receiv

er

Heig

ht

4.0

m)

Ref

Pla

nt

Item

Pla

nW

ork

ing

Gro

und

Work

ing

Sourc

eA

ngle

Range

Barr

ier

Barr

ier

Path

B

arr

ier

Soft

Gro

und

Resultant

Dis

tance

Dis

tance

Heig

ht

Heig

ht/

depth

Heig

ht

Degre

es

Metr

es

-Receiv

er

Heig

ht

Diff.

Att

en.

Gro

und %

Att

en.

LA

eq

1C

HP

gen

set

in IS

O c

on

tain

er

(1)

fan

s /

lo

uvre

500

500

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

480

5.0

0.2

21

15.1

90.0

4.9

18.9

2C

HP

gen

set

in IS

O c

on

tain

er

(2)

fan

s /

lo

uvre

500

500

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

480

5.0

0.2

21

15.1

90.0

4.9

18.9

3C

HP

gen

set

in IS

O c

on

tain

er

(3)

fan

s /

lo

uvre

500

500

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

480

5.0

0.2

21

15.1

90.0

4.9

18.9

4C

HP

gen

set

in IS

O c

on

tain

er

(4)

fan

s /

lo

uvre

500

500

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

480

5.0

0.2

21

15.1

90.0

4.9

18.9

5S

tack e

xh

au

st

(on

e f

or

each

of

fou

r sets

)500

500

0.0

0.0

10.0

00

480

5.0

-0.5

81

0.0

90.0

2.2

24.8

6R

ecep

tio

n b

uild

ing

walls

500

500

0.0

0.0

6.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

4.0

19.0

7R

ecep

tio

n b

uild

ing

ro

of

500

500

0.0

0.0

9.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

2.7

20.3

8R

ecep

tio

n b

uild

ing

exh

au

st

500

500

0.0

0.0

10.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

2.2

18.8

9R

eception b

uild

ing d

oor

500

500

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

4.9

33.1

10

Dig

este

r b

uild

ing

walls

500

500

0.0

0.0

6.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

4.0

19.0

11

Dig

este

r b

uild

ing

ro

of

500

500

0.0

0.0

9.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

2.7

20.3

12

Dig

este

r build

ing d

oor

500

500

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

4.9

33.1

13

Slu

rry t

anker

500

500

0.0

0.0

3.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

90.0

4.9

41.1

14

HG

V m

ove

ments

40

40

0.0

0.0

2.0

130

00

0.0

-1.0

00

0.0

0.0

0.0

54.6

15

Sourc

e 1

5 (

spare

Pla

nt

Item

)10000

10000

0.0

0.0

2.0

00

00.0

-1.0

00

0.0

0.0

0.0

-1085.0


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 7: Air Quality Assessment

GFE GF Environmental Limited

Welland Waste Management Ltd

Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling, Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (TAD) Facility, Pebble Hall, Theddingworth

June 2013

8 Alcotts Green Sandhurst Gloucester GL2 9PE Tel +44 (0) 1452 730240 Fax +44 (0) 1452 730240 Email [email protected]

Web: www.gf-environmental.co.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gf-environmental.co.uk/

GFE Welland Waste Management Ltd


Y:\JOBS\JOBS\W001 Welland Waste Management\W001-07 TAD\W001-07 Incoming Data\W001-07 Consultants\GFE155 Welland Waste Management Ltd - Air Quality Assessment - Pebble Hall TAD Facility - 210613.docx

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents i

Figures, Tables and Equations ii

Authorisation Sheet iii

Summary iv

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the Study 1 1.2 ADMS Version 5 2

2. Modelling Input Data 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Site Location and Local Setting 3 2.3 Plant Details 4 2.4 Emissions Data 4 2.5 Atmospheric Chemistry 5 2.6 Background Air Quality 7 2.7 Meteorological Data 7 2.8 Local Environmental Conditions 8 2.9 Specific Receptors 10 2.10 Assessment Criteria 10

3. Preliminary Sensitivity Analysis 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Chimney Height Assessment 14

4. Detailed Modelling – Air Quality Assessment 18 4.1 Modelled Parameters 18 4.2 Determining Significance. 19 4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 21 4.4 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 23 4.5 Particles (PM10) 23 4.6 Particles (PM2.5) 24 4.7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 25

5. Air Quality Predictions at Nearby Specific Receptors 27 5.1 Introduction 27 5.2 Results for Nitrogen Dioxide 27

6. Cumulative Impact Assessment with the Recently Approved Energy Recovery Facility at Pebble Hall 29

6.1 Introduction 29 6.2 Emissions Data 29 6.3 Nitrogen Dioxide 29

7. Conclusions 32 7.1 Introduction 32

Appendices 34

Appendix A Detailed Discussion on Model Input Data 35

Appendix B Output from the D1 Chimney Height Calculation 38




ii

Figures, Tables and Equations

Figure 2-1 The Local Setting Showing the Location of the Pebble Hall TAD Facility Development Site3 Figure 2-2 Source Locations and Building Layout (See Table 2-5 for Buildings Data) 4 Figure 2-3 Variation in Hourly Average NOX and Ozone Concentrations at the Market Harborough

AURN Site – February 2012 6 Figure 2-4 Coventry Windrose – 2012 8 Figure 3-1 Predicted Maximum Annual Average PC NO2 (µg m

-3) Associated with Different Stack

Heights – 4 CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack 16 Figure 3-2 Predicted Maximum Annual Average NO2 Process Contribution Associated with Different

Stack Heights – 4 CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack 17 Figure 4-1 Annual Average Predicted Environmental Concentration for NO2 – Four CHP Engines

Discharging Via a Common Stack 22 Figure 6-1 Maximum Annual Average Process Contribution for NO2 – Cumulative Impact of the TAD

Facility and the ERF Development 31

Table 2-1 Emission Source Parameters 5 Table 2-2 Modelled Pollutant Emissions Data 5 Table 2-3 Background Air Quality Data for the Theddingworth Area 7 Table 2-4 Modelled Meteorological Parameters 8 Table 2-5 Modelled Building Data 9 Table 2-6 Specific Receptors 10 Table 3-1 Results from Meteorological Data Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2 13 Table 3-2 Results from Buildings Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2 13 Table 3-3 Results from Terrain Effects Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2 14 Table 3-4 Results from Surface Roughness Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2 14 Table 3-5 Results from Iterative Chimney Height Assessment – Annual Average PC for NO2 15 Table 4-1 Emission Source Parameters used in the Detailed Assessment 18 Table 4-2 Modelled Emissions Data – Normal Operation 18 Table 4-3 Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10

Concentration 19 Table 4-4 Air Quality Impact Descriptors for Changes to Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide

Concentrations 19 Table 4-5 Air Quality Impact Descriptors for Changes to Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations at a

Receptor 20 Table 4-6 Results from Detailed Assessment for Nitrogen Dioxide – Four CHP Engines Discharging

Via a Common Stack 21 Table 4-7 Modelling Predictions for Carbon Monoxide Due to Emissions from the Four CHP

Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack 23 Table 4-8 Maximum Process Contribution for Particles (PM10) Due to Emissions from the Four CHP

Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack 24 Table 4-9 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) Due to Emissions from the Four CHP Engines

Discharging Via a Common Stack 25 Table 4-10 Maximum Process Contribution for VOCs Due to Emissions from the Four CHP Engines

Discharging Via a Common Stack 26 Table 5-1 Maximum Annual Average Process Contributions for NO2 at Specific Receptors 27 Table 6-1 Emission Source Parameters 29 Table 6-2 Modelled Pollutant Emissions Data 29 Table 6-3 Results from Detailed Assessment for Nitrogen Dioxide – Cumulative Impact of

Emissions from the Four CHP Engines and the ERF Development 30

Equation 1 Calculation of Annual Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) 5 Equation 2 Calculation of Hourly Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) 5 Equation 3 Calculation of Annual Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration 35 Equation 4 Calculation of Hourly Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration 35




iii

Authorisation Sheet

Client: Welland Waste Management Ltd

Project: Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling, Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (TAD) Facility, Pebble Hall, Theddingworth

Version: Final

PREPARED BY

Signature:

Name: Geoff Fynes

Position: Director, GF Environmental Ltd

Date: June 2013

AGREED BY

Signature:

Name: Mike Jordan

Position: Managing Director, Advanced Organics Ltd

Date: June 2013

DISTRIBUTION

Statutory Consultees

Welland Waste Management Ltd




iv

Summary

Detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken of emissions to atmosphere from four CHP engines associated with the proposed Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (TAD) facility to be built on the Pebble Hall site near Theddingworth, by Welland Waste Management Ltd. The modelling was undertaken using process data provided by technology providers to the development, Advanced Organics Ltd. Modelling was undertaken for scenarios that represented the Normal Operating conditions for the four CHP engines, operating at maximum output and discharging emissions to atmosphere via a 17m tall common stack.

The modelling was undertaken using ADMS Version 5 and was based upon the conclusions from a sensitivity analysis to determine which model parameters (buildings, terrain, surface roughness and meteorological data sets) would produce the most realistic set of predictions and then the set of worst-case predictions. Adjacent structures were shown to be likely to have a significant impact on the dispersion of emissions from the four CHP engines and therefore the buildings module was included within the modelling. Terrain effects were also shown to be significant and were included in the detailed assessment. It was concluded that a surface roughness factor of 0.3m and the 2008 hourly average meteorological data set for the nearby Coventry Airport measurement station should be used.

The model predicted that pollutant emissions from the four CHP engines would not result in exceedences of the objective limits defined within the Air Quality Regulations or relevant Environmental Assessment Levels from Environment Agency Horizontal Guidance Note H1 Annex F.

Modelling predicted that under normal operating conditions the maximum annual average Predicted Environmental Concentration for NO2 associated with emissions from the four CHP engines would be ~18 µg m

-3, approximately 46% of the 40 µg m

-3

annual objective value. The location of the maximum Process Contribution is close to the site boundary, and so will not affect local residents or people working nearby. The maximum annual average NO2 Process Contribution was predicted to be ~8 µg m

-3,

which is equivalent to ~29% of the AQS objective value. The maximum hourly average NO2 PC was predicted to be ~98 µg m

-3, or ~49% of the hourly average AQS of 200

µg m-3, and was predicted to occur within the confines of the site boundary.

Based on the Environmental Protection UK impact descriptive terms the potential impact on local air quality at the location of maximum Process Contribution, close to the site boundary, would be described as large with a slight adverse impact. The corresponding values at nearby residential receptors would be classified as small to imperceptible. Model predictions for nearby residential receptors indicated that annual NO2 Process Contributions at these locations were likely to be between ~2% and ~3% of the AQS objective. When taken in conjunction with the estimated background concentration of 10.4 µg m

-3 for 2013, the impact on local air quality of emissions of

NOX from the four CHP engines associated with the TAD facility can be screened out as insignificant.

Detailed modelling predicted that the maximum annual average PC for particles (PM10) was likely to be ~0.4 µg m

-3, ~1% of the 40 µg m

-3 objective limit, while the maximum

daily average PC was predicted to be ~1.1 µg m-3, equivalent to ~2% of the 50 µg m

-3

daily average objective value. The maximum annual average PM10 process contribution represents a small to imperceptible change in ambient concentration and likely to have a negligible impact on local air quality in the vicinity of the development, as defined by the Environmental Protection UK assessment criteria. Similar conclusions were drawn for emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.




v

A cumulative impact assessment was undertaken for emissions from the proposed TAD facility and the approved energy recovery facility to be developed on the Pebble Hall site. The results from modelling confirmed that the cumulative impact of emissions from the two facilities would be well within relevant AQS objective values, and can be screened out as insignificant in relation to Environment Agency guidance.

The overall conclusion from detailed modelling of emissions from the proposed TAD facility to be built by Welland Waste Management Ltd at Pebble Hall, near Theddingworth, is that the potential impact on local air quality is likely to be low, and unlikely to pose a significant threat to the health of local residents or people working nearby.




1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

1.1.1 Welland Waste Management Ltd (WWM) is proposing to install a thermophilic aerobic

digestion (TAD) process on its premises at Pebble Hall, Theddingworth, Leicestershire.

The proposed development will provide waste treatment for two waste streams, oil-rich

food waste such as pork pies, sausages, chips, as well as general food waste.

Approximately 70% (28,000tpa) of incoming material will be comprised of oil rich food and

~30% (12,000tpa) will be comprised of general food waste.

1.1.2 Prior to the food waste being treated in the TAD it will be removed from the packaging, it

will then be fed into a homogenisation tank with screening system to ensure that the

particle size is less than 12mm, and that any non-organic fractions are removed; water will

be added as necessary. The waste will then be fed into a centrifuge to extract the oil. This

oil will then be transferred off site for refining into bio-diesel by third party organisations.

Four CHP engines are also to be installed within the TAD facility and will burn bio-diesel

fuel brought to site from third party producers, and will generate ~4 MWe of renewable

electricity to the local distribution network and up to ~4 MWth of thermal energy for use

within the drying processes associated with the TAD facility.

1.1.3 Planning permission was granted in 2008 for an energy recovery facility (ERF) on the

Pebble Hall site for a wood pyrolysis plant to be built in conjunction with Prestige Thermal

Energy (PTE) of South Africa. The air quality assessment considers the potential

cumulative impact of the TAD facility and the ERF to provide an estimate of potential worst

case air quality impacts when both developments are operational.

1.1.4 This report describes the data used in the modelling, the methodology adopted,

assumptions made and the results generated by the model. Modelling was based upon

emissions and process data supplied by Advanced Organics Ltd and its technology

providers, and site drawings of provided by GP Planning Ltd. Emissions data and fluegas

discharge characteristics of the gas engine associated with the ERF were provided by

PTE, the technology providers for the wood pyrolysis plant.

1.1.5 The objective of the atmospheric dispersion modelling exercise was to assess the potential

impact on local air quality of process emissions from the CHP engines associated with the

TAD facility to be built at Pebble Hall, Theddingworth, in terms of ground level

concentrations of pollutants designated by the UK Air Quality Regulations.




2

1.2 ADMS Version 5

1.2.1 The modelling software used in the air quality assessment was ADMS Version 5, one of a

range of models available for modelling the impact on local air quality of pollutant

emissions to atmosphere. Those used routinely in the UK for this sort of application include

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) models such as AERMOD, and

the ADMS models developed in the UK by Cambridge Environmental Research

Consultants (CERC)1.

1.2.2 The ADMS model can be used to assess ambient pollutant concentrations arising from a

wide variety of emissions sources associated with an industrial process. It can be used for

initial screening or more refined determination of ground level pollutant concentrations on

either a short-term basis (up to 24 hour averages) or longer term (monthly, quarterly or

annual averages).

ii 1 Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd, ADMS Version 5, November 2012




3

2. Modelling Input Data

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section provides a summary of the input data used in the ADMS model.

2.2 Site Location and Local Setting

2.2.1 The site where the TAD facility is to be located is on land belonging to Pebble Hall Farm,

between Theddingworth and Husbands Bosworth. Figure 2-1 shows the local setting with

the location of the exhaust stacks associated with the CHP engines and the engine

exhaust of the ERF marked with red stars.

2.2.2 The area is predominantly rural and the specific receptors that were included in the

modelling are indicated by the numbered blue circles. The nearest residential properties

are ~600 metres to the north of the development site. The nearest sensitive ecological

receptor in the vicinity of the site is the Coombe Hill Hollow SSSI (Receptor No. 1), which is

designated as an acid grassland and heathland.

Figure 2-1 The Local Setting Showing the Location of the Pebble Hall TAD Facility Development Site

Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Licence number 100048653




4

2.3 Plant Details

2.3.1 ADMS requires that sources of emissions are defined in terms of dimensions, location and

physical characteristics of temperature and velocity. This modelling study has been carried

out to assess the potential impact on local air quality due to releases of atmospheric

pollutants from the four CHP engines associated with the proposed TAD facility.

2.3.2 The locations of the modelled stacks, relative to on-site buildings and structures are

presented in Figure 2-2. Buildings are discussed further in Section 2.8.4.

Figure 2-2 Source Locations and Building Layout (See Table 2-5 for Buildings Data)

2.4 Emissions Data

2.4.1 The operation of the TAD facility will be regulated by the Environment Agency in line with

the requirements of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment)

Regulations 2013, as amended by the implementation of the EC Industrial Emissions

Directive (IED). Process information and pollutant emissions data for the TAD facility were

supplied by Advanced Organics Ltd2, and the corresponding data for the ERF were

supplied by PTE3, technology providers for the ERF development.

iv 2 Email communications from Mike Jordan of Advanced Organics Ltd.

3 Telephone conversation and subsequent email communication from Richard Bingham of Prestige Thermal

Energy




5

2.4.2 The four CHP engines associated with the TAD facility are housed separately in dedicated

enclosures, but the engine exhausts are likely to be co-located on a common support

structure. This has the added benefit of enhanced buoyancy effects as well as mitigating

the visual impact of the four engine exhausts, as they will be perceived by the casual

observer as a single stack. Emissions from the CHP engines were modelled as a single

common stack based upon the combined release from the four engines, as recommended

by best practice guidance for atmospheric dispersion modelling.

2.4.3 The modelled source and emissions data used in the preliminary sensitivity analysis are

summarised below.

Table 2-1 Emission Source Parameters

Parameter CHP Engine Exhausts (Common Stack)

Stack Height (m) 15

Stack Diameter (m) 1.0

Efflux Temperature (°C) 490

Efflux Velocity (m s-1) 20.5

Location (x,y) 466100,284524

Table 2-2 Modelled Pollutant Emissions Data

Pollutant CHP Engines (Common Stack)

Mass Emission Rate (g s

-1)

NOx 5.31

CO 5.24

Particulates 0.16

VOCs 0.61

2.4.4 The pollutant emission rates calculated for this condition represent a worst-case scenario

with emissions at the maximum likely to be allowable under the conditions of an

Environmental Permit that will be required prior to the operation of the TAD facility.

2.5 Atmospheric Chemistry

2.5.1 The atmospheric chemistry module in ADMS was not used for the current assessment.

Instead, an empirical approach recommended in the Environment Agency’s guidance4 on

the modelling of NOX emissions from combustion process, was used to calculate annual

average and hourly average NO2 ground-level concentrations from model reported

average NOX concentrations.

Equation 1 Calculation of Annual Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC)

(Annual NOX Modelled x 0.7) + Annual NO2 Monitored

Equation 2 Calculation of Hourly Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC)

(Hourly NOX Modelled x 0.35) + (Annual NO2 Monitored x 2)

v 4 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Conversion_ratios_for__NOx_and_NO2_.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Conversion_ratios_for__NOx_and_NO2_.pdf




6

2.5.2 This method may overestimate the PEC for NO2 in close proximity to the site as

conversion of NOX to NO2 is unlikely to be instantaneous, as it requires mixing of the plume

with the ambient air and its associated oxidant species. Local circumstances can also

affect the availability of atmospheric oxidants required for the conversion of NOX to NO2.

2.5.3 Atmospheric chemistry in the Theddingworth area is not constant, as shown by data

recorded at the Market Harborough AURN monitoring station, ~5 miles to the east, that

provide a reasonable indication of the air quality conditions in the area around the

development site in Theddingworth. Archive data for February 2012 show the variability of

hourly average NOX, NO2 and ozone concentrations, and indicate that the availability of

atmospheric oxidants such as ozone is significantly lower at certain times, and varies

significantly on a daily basis.

Figure 2-3 Variation in Hourly Average NOX and Ozone Concentrations at the Market Harborough AURN Site – February 2012

2.5.4 As can be seen, the NOX and ozone curves tend to mirror one another, with ozone

concentrations higher when the NOX concentrations are lower and vice versa. Similar

patterns are exhibited for other months throughout the year.

2.5.5 The NOX/NO2 concentrations are markedly higher when ozone concentrations are lower,

with NOX being the dominant species (higher levels of nitric oxide). Under these variable

conditions, the atmospheric transformation of NOX to NO2, associated with emissions from

the CHP engines associated with the TAD facility to be built at Pebble Hall, will be affected

to a varying degree. Accordingly, there is likely to be a proportion of the year when the

atmospheric chemistry in the Theddingworth area may be restricted in its capacity to

convert NOX to NO2 and the model predictions may overestimate the significance of annual

average NO2 predictions at receptors in the vicinity of the Pebble Hall site.




7

2.6 Background Air Quality

2.6.1 Estimates of background concentrations for NOX, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are provided by

DEFRA5 at a resolution of 1km x 1km grid spacing.

2.6.2 The Pebble Hall development site is close to the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border,

and data were obtained for 2013 for locations within Daventry and Harborough District

Councils. The data show that for the area in the vicinity of the proposed development site,

current and future estimates for background concentrations of the above pollutants, without

any Process Contribution from the proposed development, are well below their respective

Air Quality Standards.

2.6.3 Data for the grid squares immediately adjacent to the ERF development site were used to

provide the basis for assessment for the general area around the site, relative to existing

background concentrations. The air quality assessment for the TAD facility was based

upon the estimated background concentrations for 2013, and the estimated background

concentration for 2013 for nitrogen dioxide was 10.4 µg m-3, reflecting the rural

characteristics of the area around Theddingworth.

Table 2-3 Background Air Quality Data for the Theddingworth Area

Pollutant Annual Average Concentration (g/m3)*

NO2 10.4

NOx 14.2

PM10 15.2

PM2.5 10.0

* Average of concentrations at grid points 465500,285500 466500,285500 and 465500,284500

2.7 Meteorological Data

2.7.1 The prevailing and strongest winds in the area, as shown by the 2012 Coventry windrose

below, are from a southerly to westerly vector. A range of other wind directions are also

experienced frequently in the area. The Coventry Airport meteorological station is located

approximately 30 kilometres to the west of the Pebble Hall development site, and is

thought to provide the most representative data for the Theddingworth area.

LAQM.TG(09)6 recommends meteorological stations within 30km of an assessment area

as being suitable for detailed modelling.

vii 5 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/maps/maps2010.html

6 Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09), DEFRA, 2009.

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/maps/maps2010.html




8

Figure 2-4 Coventry Windrose – 2012

2.7.2 All meteorological data used in the assessment was provided by Atmospheric Dispersion

Modelling (ADM) Ltd, which is an accredited distributor of meteorological data within the

UK. The meteorological data included nine parameters defined in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4 Modelled Meteorological Parameters

Parameter Description

YEAR Year of observation

TDAY Julian Day (1 to 366) of observation

THOUR Hour of Observation

T0C Temperature (ºC)

U Wind speed (m s-1)

PHI Wind Direction (nearest 10 degrees)

P Precipitation (mm)

CL Cloud cover (Oktas)

RHUM Relative Humidity (%)

2.8 Local Environmental Conditions

2.8.1 Local environmental conditions describe the factors that might influence the dispersion

process (such as nearby structures, sharply rising terrain, etc.) and also describe the

locations at which pollutant concentrations are to be predicted. These include:

Surface Roughness

2.8.2 Surface roughness defines the amount of near-ground turbulence that occurs as a

consequence of surface features, such as land use (i.e. agriculture, water bodies,

urbanisation, open parkland, etc.). A value of 0.5m is typical of open parkland and

suburbia. Agricultural areas may have a surface roughness of approximately 0.2m to 0.3m

whereas large cities may have a roughness of 1 to 1.5m.

0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0°

22.5°

45°

67.5°

90°

112.5°

135°

157.5°

180°

202.5°

225°

247.5°

270°

292.5°

315°

337.5°

300

600

900

1200

1500




9

2.8.3 A surface roughness factor of 0.3m was considered likely for the area in the vicinity of the

development site, and was used in the sensitivity analysis.

Nearby Buildings and Structures

2.8.4 The proximity of solid structures, such as buildings, to an emission source can affect the

dispersion of a plume, particularly in the vicinity of that structure. The potential impact of

this occurring was assessed based on the buildings data presented in Table 2-5. The main

process building was included in the modelling. The dimensions of the modelled buildings

were taken from site drawings provided by GP Planning Ltd.

Table 2-5 Modelled Building Data

Building Height (m) Length (m) Width (m) Angle (o) Main Building

Gasifier Building 13 25 48.6 135 Yes for ERF

Canopy 13 25 16.6 135

TAD facility Main Building 1 9 29.9 34.4 33

TAD facility Main Building 2 9 42 20 33 Yes for CHP

engines

2.8.5 Building locations and dimensions were estimated from a combination of site plans

provided by GP Planning Ltd, and the GIS facility on the MAGIC website7.

Local Terrain

2.8.6 Local terrain can affect wind flow patterns and, consequently, can affect the dispersion of

atmospheric pollutants. The effects of terrain are not normally noticeable where the

gradient is less than 1:10. There is little in the way of steep terrain near to the development

site, nevertheless, terrain effects were included in the initial sensitivity analysis of the

detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling.

Output Grid

2.8.7 When setting up a receptor grid it is important to ensure that there are sufficient receptor

points to be able to predict the magnitude and location of the maximum Process

Contribution. If the grid of receptor points is too widely spaced, the maximum concentration

may be underestimated. The initial sensitivity analysis was undertaken using a 40m grid

spacing. Subsequent modelling was undertaken for an 8km x 8km grid with 80m spacing

to ensure that the full extent of the dispersion of emissions from the CHP engines could be

illustrated on the contour plots shown in Section 4.

ix 7 http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx

http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx




10

2.9 Specific Receptors

2.9.1 Ten specific receptors were modelled indicating the location of nearby properties, farms

etc., where members of the general population may be exposed to airborne pollutants. The

nearby Coombe Hill Hollow SSSI was also included. The model was set to predict ground

level concentrations at the specific receptor locations, at an elevation of 1.5 metres, typical

of the breathing height of the general public. The locations of these specific receptors are

shown in Figure 1-1.

Table 2-6 Specific Receptors

Name Receptor X Y Distance from Source

(metres)

Coombe Hill Hollow SSSI 1 467900 283600 1,935

Hothorpe Hall 2 466905 285034 726

Pebble Hall 3 466083 285117 498

Dene Lodge 4 465877 285149 634

Woodside Farm 5 465706 285058 700

Home Farm 6 467726 285102 1,510

Bosworth Hall 7 464743 284381 1,564

Bosworth Mill Meadow SSSI 8 462859 282202 4,215

Theddingworth Lodge 9 465227 286766 2,355

Residence (S.E. Theddingworth) 10 466477 285464 826

2.9.2 Receptors 8 and 9 are outside of the Output Grid and therefore do not appear in

Figure 2-1, but calculations were still undertaken by the ADMS model at their specific

coordinates.

2.10 Assessment Criteria

2.10.1 The TAD facility will be subject to regulation by the Environment Agency, under the

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which will

incorporate the requirements of the EC Industrial Emissions Directive8, with associated

emission limit values (ELVs) for the following pollutants:

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX);

Particulates;

Carbon Monoxide (CO);

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Nitrogen Dioxide

2.10.2 All combustion processes release a mixture of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) which comprise

varying proportions of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The majority of the NOX

that is released from combustion processes is in the form of NO, which subsequently

reacts with atmospheric oxidants such as ozone (O3) to form NO2.

2.10.3 The Air Quality Standards for NO2 include two objectives to be achieved by 31 December

2005:

x 8 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated

pollution prevention and control) (recast)




11

An annual limit of 40 µg m-3

; and,

A limit for the one-hour mean of 200 µg m-3

, not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year (equivalent to the 99.79

th percentile).

Particulates

2.10.4 Solid matter suspended in the atmosphere which has particles with a diameter of less than

10 µm, is referred to as PM10. It should be noted that the regulation of emissions of

particulates from processes such as the gas engines associated with the proposed Pebble

Hall ERF development are associated with total particulate release, rather than the PM10

fraction.

2.10.5 The Air Quality Standards include the following objectives for PM10:


, to be achieved by 2004;

A daily limit of 50 µg m-3

, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year (the 90.41th

percentile) to be achieved by 2004;

A daily limit of 50 µg m-3

, not to be exceeded more than 7 times a year (the 98.08th

percentile) to be achieved by 2010; and,


, to be achieved by 2010.

2.10.6 The 2010 objectives have yet to be formally incorporated into UK legislation.

Carbon Monoxide

2.10.7 Carbon monoxide (CO) is a gas formed by the incomplete combustion of carbon

containing fuels. In general, the more efficient the combustion process, the lower the

carbon monoxide emission. The main outdoor source of carbon monoxide is currently

emissions from road transport, in particular passenger vehicles, which in 2006 accounted

for almost 44% of total emissions in the UK of ~2.27 million tonne.

2.10.8 In their 1994 report, EPAQS recommended an air quality standard of 11.6 mg m-3 (10ppm)

as a running 8 hour mean. The EPAQS recommendation is intended to limit the exposure

of the population, including susceptible individuals, and specifies levels at which harm is

unlikely to occur.

2.10.9 The Air Quality Standards include an objective for CO to be achieved by 31 December

2003:

A limit of 10 mg m-3

expressed as a maximum daily 8 hour running mean value.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

2.10.10 Volatile Organic Compounds is a generic term applied to a range of organic hydrocarbon

substances that have a high vapour pressure and low water solubility. VOCs typically are

industrial solvents, and are often components of petroleum fuels, hydraulic fluids, paint

thinners, dry cleaning agents, etc.




12

2.10.11 Benzene is likely to comprise a very small proportion (<5%) of any emissions of VOCs

from the CHP engines associated with the proposed TAD facility. Nevertheless, to provide

a worst case assessment of the potential impact on local air quality of emissions from the

TAD facility, reference was made to the AQS objective value for 2010 of 5 µg m-3.




13

3. Preliminary Sensitivity Analysis

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 A preliminary sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the basis of maximum emissions of

NOX from the four CHP engines discharging via a common stack, and their potential

impact on ambient NO2 concentrations. This is generally the most significant pollutant in

terms of Local Air Quality Management, particularly in relation to the annual average

objective value of 40 µg m-3. The initial sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the basis of

a stack height of 15 metres.

3.1.2 An initial review of the results from the sensitivity analysis indicated that the maximum

predicted Process Contribution would occur off-site. The assessment therefore considers

the maximum predicted Process Contribution across the modelled area (4km x 3.6km).

Meteorological Data

3.1.3 The results of the meteorological data sensitivity analysis for the Coventry meteorological

data are presented in Table 3-1, and indicate that the 2008 meteorological data resulted in

the highest predicted maximum annual average NO2 Process Concentration. The 2008

and 2010 meteorological data resulted in the highest hourly average NO2 Process

Contribution (~180 µg m-3).

Table 3-1 Results from Meteorological Data Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2

Run Name Source Assessment

Levels (µg m-3)

Meteorological Data Year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Average CHP Engines

Common Stack

40 6.3 5.0 2.8 6.0 5.1

Hourly Average ** 200 180 165 70 97 180

* Note this run was based on: Surface Roughness – 0.3 metres; Building Effects Module – Inactive; Terrain Module – Inactive; Release Height – 15 m; Meteorological Data – Variable.

** Expressed as the 99.79th percentile

3.1.4 The highest annual average NO2 PC value was obtained using the 2008 meteorological

data, and this data set was used for a worst case assessment in subsequent detailed

modelling.

Building Effects

3.1.5 Modelling of building downwash effects was undertaken and the results are presented in

Table 3-2. The results clearly indicate that building effects result in elevated Process

Contributions of pollutants discharged from the 15 metre tall common stack of the CHP

engine exhausts, and so were included in subsequent detailed modelling.

Table 3-2 Results from Buildings Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2

Run Name Source Assessment Levels (µg m

-3)

Buildings Module

Yes No

Annual Average CHP Engines Common

Stack

40 7.0 6.3

Hourly Average 200 180 180

* Note this run was based on: Surface Roughness – 0.3 metres; Building Effects Module – Variable; Terrain Module – Inactive; Release Height – 15m; Meteorological Data – Coventry 2008




14

Terrain

3.1.6 There is no significant terrain (>10%) in the vicinity of the Pebble Hall development site,

nevertheless, the potential impact of terrain effects was considered as part of the sensitivity

analysis. The results are shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Results from Terrain Effects Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2

Run Name

Source Assessment Levels

(µg m-3)

Terrain Effects Module

Terrain & Buildings

Yes No

Annual Average CHP Engines

Common Stack

40 7.4 6.7 6.3

Hourly Average 200 68 68 180

* Note this run was based on: Surface Roughness –0.3 metres; Building Effects Module – Variable; Terrain Module – Variable; Release Height – 15m; Meteorological Data – Coventry 2008

3.1.7 The results confirm that terrain effects have a significant impact on model predictions for

the CHP engines, and when considered in conjunction with the “Buildings Effects” module

produces a further slight increase. It is unclear why there is a marked reduction in the

hourly average NO2 PC when terrain effects are considered. Terrain effects were included

in the detailed assessment.

Surface Roughness

3.1.8 The results of the dispersion modelling sensitivity analysis for surface roughness are

presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Results from Surface Roughness Sensitivity Analysis – PC NO2

Run Name Source Assessment Levels

(µg m-3)

Surface Roughness (m)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5

Annual Average CHP Engines Common

Stack

40 6.4 7.1 6.7 8.0

Hourly Average 200 52 58 68 120

* Note this run was based on: Surface Roughness – Variable; Building Effects Module – Active; Terrain Module – Active; Release Height – 15m; Meteorological Data – Coventry 2008

3.1.9 The results indicate that a surface roughness of 0.5m would result in the highest annual

average NO2 PC (~8.0 µg m-3), as well as the highest hourly average NO2 PC (120

µg m-3). A surface roughness of 0.5m is used to define an environment dominated by

parkland and open suburbia, which is inappropriate for the locality in the vicinity of Pebble

Hall, therefore a surface roughness factor of 0.3m (maximum agricultural classification)

was selected as the appropriate description of the surrounding land use and was used in

subsequent detailed modelling.

3.1.10 In view of the open aspect of the Coventry Airport meteorological data measurement

station, a surface roughness factor of 0.1m was selected.

3.2 Chimney Height Assessment

3.2.1 Two approaches were adopted with regard to determining the most appropriate stack

height in relation to the common stack of the CHP engines, as follows:

Calculating stack height using the D1 calculation procedure; and,




15

Iterative modelling of stack height using the ADMS model.

3.2.2 The results of each approach are discussed in the following section.

D1 Chimney Height Calculation

3.2.3 The methodology defined in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP, now the

Environment Agency) guidance note D1 was used to calculate the appropriate height of

the common stack associated with the CHP engines. As a minimum, the guidance

recommends that a stack is at least 3m taller than the height of the building on which the

emission stack is located, or near to. In this instance the minimum height for the common

stack would be ~12 metres as the adjacent building is 9 metres to the ridge.

3.2.4 The D1 chimney height methodology was followed based on discharge conditions and

emission rates defined in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Following this methodology, D1

determined the stack height for the common stack associated with the four CHP engines to

be ~17 metres. The printout from the D1 calculations is presented in Appendix B.

Iterative Modelling of Chimney Height

3.2.5 An iterative assessment of stack height was undertaken using the ADMS model to

determine what the appropriate stack height should be to facilitate effective dispersion of

atmospheric pollutants from the common stack of the four CHP engine exhausts. The

results of the modelling are presented in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-1 and, and are based

upon the maximum PC value across the receptor grid.

Table 3-5 Results from Iterative Chimney Height Assessment – Annual Average PC for NO2

Stack Height (m)*

Maximum Annual Average PC Common Stack of 4 CHP Engines

(g m-3)

Maximum Hourly Average PC Common Stack of 4 CHP Engines

(g m-3)

12 20.3 117.5

15 12.8 107.6

17 8.6 98.2

18 7.2 85.8

21 5.2 54.7

24 3.5 24.9

27 2.9 16.0

30 2.3 13.4

* Note modelling was based on: Surface Roughness – 0.3 metres; Building Effects Module – Active; Terrain Module – Active; Release Height – Variable; Meteorological Data – Coventry 2008




16

Figure 3-1 Predicted Maximum Annual Average PC NO2 (µg m-3) Associated with Different Stack Heights – 4 CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack

20.3

12.8

8.6

7.2

5.2

3.52.9

2.3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Concentra

on(ugm

-3)

ChimneyHeight(metres)

MaximumAnnualNO2PC

3.2.6 The results from the chimney height assessment for the four CHP engines discharging via

a common stack indicate that the maximum annual average NO2 Process Contribution

would be ~9 µg m-3 for the D1-calculated stack height of 17 metres. There is a distinct

change in the gradient of the line in the above figure for a chimney height of 17 metres,

which is indicative of the height required for emissions from the CHP engines to escape

from the effects of downwash associated with adjacent buildings and structures.

3.2.7 The results from the D1 calculation suggested a chimney height of 17 metres would

provide effective dispersion of emissions from the four CHP engines discharging from a

common stack, which is supported by the results from detailed modelling using the ADMS

Version 5 model.

3.2.8 When the impact of varying the chimney height of the common stack associated with the

four CHP engines is considered farther afield the following situation is apparent.




17

Figure 3-2 Predicted Maximum Annual Average NO2 Process Contribution Associated with Different Stack Heights – 4 CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack

3.2.9 The contour lines represent a maximum annual average NO2 Process Contribution of 0.4

µg m-3, or 1% of the AQS objective value. In line with Environment Agency guidance,

Process Contributions outside of the 0.4 µg m-3 contour lines can be screened out as

insignificant. The contour plots represent the case for a chimney height of 15 metres (blue),

18 metres (red), 21 metres (green), 24 metres (orange) and 27 metres (purple) and show

that there is little benefit, in terms of the extent of the area enclosed within the 0.4 µg m-3

contour line, from increasing the height of the chimney from 15 to 27 metres.

3.2.10 In view of the results shown in Figure 3-1, where there is a break in the slope at 17 metres

for the annual average process contribution, it is considered that a stack height of 17m is

the appropriate discharge height for the common stack associated with the four CHP

engine exhausts.




18

4. Detailed Modelling – Air Quality Assessment

4.1 Modelled Parameters

4.1.1 Detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling of emissions from the four CHP engines

associated with the proposed TAD facility at Pebble Hall was undertaken on the basis of

the conclusions of the sensitivity analysis as follows:

Release height – 4 CHP engines via a common stack : 17m

Building module: active

Terrain effects: active

Surface roughness: 0.3 metres

Meteorological data: Coventry 2008

4.1.2 Modelling considered emissions from the four CHP engines associated with the proposed

TAD facility, both in isolation as well as cumulatively with those from the ERF as a

separate development within the Pebble Hall development site.

4.1.3 Emissions of NOX, CO, Particles (PM10) and VOCs were assessed in line with the Air

Quality Regulations and their objective limits (where applicable), or against specific

pollutant Environmental Assessment Limits (EALs) detailed in Environment Agency

Horizontal Guidance Note H1 Annex F.

4.1.4 Information on the discharge characteristics under normal operating condition were

supplied by Advanced Organics Ltd and are summarised below in Table 4-1 and

Table 4-2.

Table 4-1 Emission Source Parameters used in the Detailed Assessment

Parameter 4 CHP Engines - TAD Facility

Stack Height (m) 17

Stack Diameter (m) 1.0

Efflux Temperature (°C) 490

Efflux Velocity (m s-1

) 20.5

Location (x,y) 466100,284524

4.1.5 Pollutant emission rates were calculated from fluegas volumetric flowrate data and

achievable release data provided by Advance Organics Ltd’s technology providers (mg

Nm-3) for the CHP engines.

Table 4-2 Modelled Emissions Data – Normal Operation

Substance Discharge Rate (g/s) (mg Nm

-3)

TAD Facility

NOX 5.31 (921)*

CO 5.24 (910)

Particulates 0.16 (0.1)**

VOC 0.61 (105)

Note: * NOX emissions abated by 70% by hydrogen enrichment of the CHP fuel gas ** Particulate emission factor = 0.1 g/BHP/hr




19

4.1.6 The CHP engines will burn biodiesel fuels supplied commercially by third party suppliers

and it is expected that the environmental permit for the TAD facility will only include

emission limits for NOX, CO, particulates and VOCs for the CHP engines. Accordingly, the

assessment for the TAD facility focused solely on the pollutants listed in Table 4-2

Modelled Emissions Data – Normal Operation.

4.1.7 The results from detailed modelling of the Normal Operation Case are presented in the

following section. Results are presented in terms of the maximum Process Contribution

(PC), apart from those of Nitrogen Dioxide and Particles (PM10 and PM2.5) which are also

reported as the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) taking into account the PC

and the estimated background concentration for the area.

4.2 Determining Significance.

NO2 and PM10

4.2.1 The descriptive terms for the impact significance for NO2 and PM10 are based on those

published in Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update) prepared by

Environmental Protection UK. The descriptors are reproduced in Table 4-3, Table 4-4 and

Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-3 Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10 Concentration

Magnitude of Change Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Mean PM10

Large Increase/decrease >4 μg/m3

Increase/decrease >1.8 μg/m3

Medium Increase/decrease 2 - 4 μg/m3 Increase/decrease 0.9 - 1.8 μg/m

3

Small Increase/decrease 0.4 - 2 μg/m3

Increase/decrease 0.2 - 0.9 μg/m3

Imperceptible Increase/decrease <0.4 μg/m3 Increase/decrease <0.2 μg/m

3

Table 4-4 Air Quality Impact Descriptors for Changes to Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations

Absolute Concentration in Relation to Standard Change in Concentration

Small Medium Large

Decrease concentration with scheme

Above standard without scheme (>40 µg m-3

) Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Substantial Beneficial

Just Below Standard without scheme (36-40 µg m-3

) Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Moderate Beneficial

Below standard without scheme (30-36 µg m-3

) Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial

Well Below standard without scheme (<30 µg m-3

) Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial

Increase With Scheme

Above standard with scheme (>40 µg m-3

) Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Substantial Adverse

Just Below Standard with scheme (36-40 µg m-3

) Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Below standard with scheme (30-36 µg m-3

) Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

Well Below standard with scheme (<30 µg m-3

) Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse




20

Table 4-5 Air Quality Impact Descriptors for Changes to Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations at a Receptor

Absolute Concentration in Relation to Objective/Limit Value Change in Number of Days *

Small Medium Large

Increase with Scheme

Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (>35 days) Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Substantial Adverse

Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (32 to 35

days) Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (26 to 32 days) Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (<26 days) Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse

Decrease with Scheme

Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (>35 days) Slight

Beneficial

Moderate

Beneficial

Substantial

Beneficial

Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (32 to 35

days)

Slight

Beneficial

Moderate

Beneficial Moderate Beneficial

Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (26 to 32 days) Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial

Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (<26 days) Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial

Other Pollutants

4.2.2 The Environment Agency provides guidance for screening the significance of air quality

impacts associated with the operation of industrial processes9. For long term impacts the

EPR H1 Annex F guidance recommends a 1% significance threshold relative to a long

term AQS or environmental assessment level, with a corresponding 10% significance

threshold for the assessment of short term impacts.

4.2.3 For all other pollutants considered as part of this assessment the following assessment

thresholds were used, as recommended by the Environment Agency in EPR H1 Annex F:

xx 9 Environment Agency, Horizontal Guidance Note H1 Annex F – Air Emissions, December 2011




21

A PC of less than 1% of the annual average objective limit should be considered insignificant.

A PC less than 10% of the short-term (hourly) average objective limit should be considered insignificant.

4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

4.3.1 The results of the NO2 modelling are presented in the following section, and represent the

values at the location of maximum Process Contribution across the 8km x 8km output grid.

The data presented are for both the Process Contributions (PC) and the Predicted

Environmental Concentration (PEC) for NO2. The PEC values take into account the

estimated background NO2 concentration and the conversion of the NOX released from the

process, based upon an empirical formula recommended by the Environment Agency10

.

The results for the four CHP engines are based upon the expected daily average emission

limit value to be incorporated into the environmental permit for the TAD facility, that will

prevail for the majority of the operational period.

4.3.2 The results of the NO2 modelling are presented in Table 4-6. The data presented are for

both the Process Contributions (PC) and the Predicted Environmental Concentration

(PEC) for NO2. The PEC values take into account the estimated background NO2

concentration of 10.4 µg m-3 for 2013, the year that the TAD facility is expected to be

commissioned, and the conversion of the NOX released from the process, based upon the

empirical formula approved of by the Environment Agency.

4.3.3 The maximum reported values for the CHP engines are predicted by modelling to occur at

a location ~200 metres to the north-east of the point of release, and reduce significantly

with distance from the site. The results are discussed in the following sections.

Table 4-6 Results from Detailed Assessment for Nitrogen Dioxide – Four CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack

Pollutant Statistic Exceedence Threshold

Averaging Period

Concentration (µg m

-3)

PC/PEC Expressed as %AQS/EAL

(%)

NOX

Annual (PC) 30 - ~11 ~38

Short Term

99.79% (PC) - 1hr ~280 -

NO2

Annual (PEC) 40 - ~18 ~46

Annual (PC) 40 - ~8.0 ~20

Short Term

99.79% (PEC) 200 1hr ~120 ~59

Short Term

99.79% (PC) - 1hr ~98 ~49

4.3.4 The model predicted that when the TAD facility is operational, the maximum annual

average NO2 PEC, taking into account the process contribution (PC) and the estimated

background NO2 concentration for 2013 (10.4 µg m-3 for the modelled output area), would

be ~18 µg m-3, or ~46% of the 40 µg m

-3 annual objective value.

xxi 10






22

4.3.5 The maximum annual average NO2 PC across the receptor grid was predicted to be

~8 µg m-3, or ~20% of the annual objective value. In terms of the Environmental Protection

(UK) impact descriptors, the maximum annual average NO2 Process Contribution

represents a large change with a slight adverse impact on local air quality.

4.3.6 The maximum hourly average NO2 PC was predicted to be ~98 µg m-3, expressed as the

99.79th percentile value, and about half of the 200 µg m

-3 objective limit. The location of the

maximum hourly average Process Contribution is ~90 metres to the south-west of the

common stack and is within the site boundary.

4.3.7 The above estimates are based upon worst case emissions, and an estimated background

concentration value of 10.4 µg m-3 for the year 2013 when the TAD facility is expected to

become operational. It should also be noted that the data above relate to the point of

maximum process contribution, which is greater than corresponding values across the

remainder of the modelled output grid. Process contributions are predicted to decrease

rapidly with distance from the stack (See Section 5).

4.3.8 The annual average Predicted Environmental Concentration (existing background plus

Process Contribution) for NO2, associated with the operation of the four CHP engines,

discharging via a common stack, is presented graphically in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1 Annual Average Predicted Environmental Concentration for NO2 – Four CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack

Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright: All rights reserved. License No. 100048653




23

4.3.9 The 0.4 µg m-3 contour line, highlighted in orange, represents an increase equivalent to 1%

of the annual AQS objective value (40 µg m-3) above background. Therefore, in all areas

outside this contour, the Process Contribution may be regarded as insignificant in relation

to the Environment Agency’s screening criteria set out in Horizontal Guidance Note H1

Annex F.

4.3.10 The annual average NO2 Process Contribution in Theddingworth represents a value of

about 1 to 2% of the annual objective value for NO2, with the corresponding values at

Hothorpe Hall equivalent to ~2% to ~3% of the AQS objective. Nevertheless, when taken

in consideration with estimated background concentrations from the DEFRA Background

Maps (2010) website, the PEC value in Theddingworth represents a value that is about a

quarter of the AQS objective value. In terms of the Environmental Protection UK impact

descriptors the predicted increases in annual average NO2 concentrations in

Theddingworth, due to emissions of NOX from the four CHP engines, represent a small

change with a negligible impact on local air quality.

4.3.11 In relation to Environment Agency guidance for the assessment of long term air quality

impacts, the annual average NO2 predicted environmental concentrations are well below

the 70% insignificance threshold and can be screened out as insignificant.

4.4 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

4.4.1 The results from detailed modelling of carbon monoxide are presented in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7 Modelling Predictions for Carbon Monoxide Due to Emissions from the Four CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack

Statistic Exceedence Threshold

Averaging Period

Process Contribution

Biomass CHP Plant (µg m-3)

PC as %AQS/EAL Biomass CHP

Plant (%)

Annual PC -

8hrsR

~11 -

Short Term PC 100%

10,000 ~220 ~2

4.4.2 Detailed modelling predicted that the maximum 8 hour rolling average ground-level

Process Contribution for CO associated with the emissions from the four CHP engines

associated with the proposed TAD facility would be ~2% of the AQS objective value of

10,000 µg m-3. The predicted PC is considerably below the Environment Agency’s 10%

insignificance threshold and can be screened out as being insignificant.

4.5 Particles (PM10)

4.5.1 The results from detailed modelling of particulates (PM10) are presented in Table 4-9, and

are presented in the context of the Process Contribution and the resultant Predicted

Environmental Concentration, taking into account the estimated annual average

background concentration for 2013 of 15.2 µg m-3.




24

Table 4-8 Maximum Process Contribution for Particles (PM10) Due to Emissions from the Four CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack


Averaging Period


(µg m-3)

Process Contribution as %AQS

(%)

Annual PC 40 -

~0.4 ~1

Annual PEC ~16 ~39

Short Term PC 90.41%

50 24 Hour

~1.1 ~2

Short Term PEC 90.41%

~16 ~33

4.5.2 Detailed modelling predicted that the maximum annual average PC for particles (PM10)

due to emissions from the four CHP engines discharging via a common stack was

predicted to be ~0.4 µg m-3, which is ~1% of the 40 µg m

-3 objective limit, and can be

screened out as insignificant. The maximum annual average process contribution was

estimated to be ~0.4 µg m-3, representing a small change in ambient concentration with an

associated negligible impact on local air quality in the vicinity of the development, as

defined by the Environmental Protection UK assessment criteria.

4.5.3 The maximum daily average PC, expressed as the 90.41% value, was predicted to be

~1.1 µg m-3, and equivalent to ~2% of the 50 µg m

-3 daily average objective value, and can

also be screened out as insignificant.

4.5.4 Taking the background into consideration with the Process Contribution predicted by

modelling, the annual average Predicted Environmental Concentration for PM10 due to

emissions from the four CHP engines was predicted to be ~16 µg m-3, or ~33% of the

objective value of 40 µg m-3.

4.5.5 No exceedences of the AQS for Particles (PM10) were predicted as a result of the

operation of the four CHP engines associated with the TAD facility, and the results indicate

that emissions of Particles (PM10) will have an insignificant impact on local air quality in the

vicinity of the site. Accordingly, emissions of Particles (PM10) were screened out as

insignificant and do not require further assessment.

4.6 Particles (PM2.5)

4.6.1 The implementation of EC Directive 2008/50/EC introduced two new objective values for

Particles (PM2.5) with a Stage 1 Limit Value of 25 µg m-3, expressed as an annual average

and to be met by 1 January 2015, and a Stage 2 Limit Value of 20 µg m-3, expressed as an

annual average and to be met by 1 January 2020. The 2015 Limit Value is also the “Target

Value” for 1 January 2010.




25

4.6.2 Modelling was undertaken assuming that all of the particulate matter released from the

proposed biomass CHP plant was PM2.5, and so represents an absolute worst case

scenario. The results from detailed modelling of Particles (PM2.5) are presented in

Table 4-9, and are presented in the context of the annual average Process Contribution

and the resultant Predicted Environmental Concentration, taking into account the

estimated annual average background concentration of 10.0 µg m-3 for 2013.

Table 4-9 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) Due to Emissions from the Four CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack


Averaging Period


(µg m-3

)


(%)

Annual PC

25 24hr

~0.4 ~1.6

Annual PEC

~10.4 ~42

4.6.3 The results from modelling for Particles (PM2.5), assuming that all of the particulate

emission is PM2.5, predicted that the maximum annual average PC for Particles (PM2.5)

associated with emissions from the four CHP engines was likely to be ~0.4 µg m-3; ~2% of

the 2015 limit value of 25 µg m-3, and ~3% of the 20 µg m

-3 limit value for 2020, and

therefore marginally significant in relation to Environment Agency guidance.

4.6.4 In terms of the Environmental Protection UK impact descriptors, based upon those for

PM10, the increase in PM2.5 concentrations arising from emissions from the four CHP

engines associated with the TAD facility, assuming that all of the particulate emission is

PM2.5, is likely to be small and have a negligible impact on local air quality.

4.6.5 Taking the estimated background concentrations into consideration with the Process

Contribution predicted by modelling, the maximum annual average Predicted

Environmental Concentration for PM2.5 was estimated to be ~10.4 µg m-3, or approximately

42% of the objective value of 25 µg m-3, and can be screened out as insignificant in

relation to Environment Agency guidance

4.7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

4.7.1 There are no assessment levels for total VOC emissions as they comprise a mixture of

organic compounds. Furthermore, there is no information available about the proportion of

benzene that may be present in the total VOC emission from the biomass combustion

plants, although, it is likely to be a very small percentage of the total. In order to provide a

worst-case assessment, the annual average Process Contribution for VOCs was

compared against the annual AQS objective value for 2010 for benzene of 5 µg m-3.

4.7.2 The results from detailed modelling of VOCs are presented in Table 4-10.




26

Table 4-10 Maximum Process Contribution for VOCs Due to Emissions from the Four CHP Engines Discharging Via a Common Stack

Statistic Exceedence Threshold Averaging Period Process Contribution

(µg m-3

)


(%)

Annual 5 24hr

1.3 ~26

Short Term 100% - ~16 -

4.7.3 The model predicted a maximum annual average Process Contribution of ~1.3 g m-3 for

total VOC emissions from the four CHP engines, which represents a value that is ~26% of

the benzene AQS. Bearing in mind that benzene will comprise only a very small

percentage of the total VOC emissions, and that the assessment is based upon a worst

case assumption for VOC emissions, the results can probably be screened out as

insignificant, and the overall environmental impact may be described as negligible, and

requires no further assessment.




27

5. Air Quality Predictions at Nearby Specific Receptors

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Specific receptors were included in the detailed atmospheric modelling in order to assess

the potential impact on local air quality of emissions from the four CHP engines associated

with the proposed TAD facility. The following discussion relates to issues associated with

NO2 only.

5.1.2 The preliminary sensitivity analysis undertaken to assess the significance of local

environmental aspects identified the 2008 meteorological data for Coventry as providing

worst case dispersion in relation to the location of the maximum annual average NO2

Process Contribution. However, the significance of the prevailing meteorological conditions

may vary depending upon the location of a receptor in relation to distance and direction

from the emission source. Accordingly, the assessment for the specific receptor locations

was undertaken for the 2008 to 2012 hourly average meteorological data and the

maximum value is highlighted in the following table.

5.2 Results for Nitrogen Dioxide

5.2.1 The maximum annual average PC and PEC values for NO2 at the various specific receptor

locations, due to emissions of NOX from the gas engines associated with the pebble Hall

ERF, are presented below.

Table 5-1 Maximum Annual Average Process Contributions for NO2 at Specific Receptors

Name Receptor

Number

Annual Average NO2 Process Contribution (µg m-3)

2008 %AQS 2009 %AQS 2010 %AQS 2011 %AQS 2012 %AQS

Coombe Hill Hollow SSSI

1 0.10 0.2% 0.12 0.3% 0.21 0.5% 0.12 0.3% 0.15 0.4%

Hothorpe Hall 2 1.09 2.7% 0.86 2.2% 0.48 1.2% 1.04 2.6% 0.92 2.3%

Pebble Hall 3 0.57 1.4% 1.02 2.5% 0.76 1.9% 0.90 2.2% 0.89 2.2%

Dene Lodge 4 0.36 0.9% 0.58 1.5% 0.55 1.4% 0.50 1.2% 0.40 1.0%

Woodside Farm 5 0.23 0.6% 0.36 0.9% 0.49 1.2% 0.32 0.8% 0.26 0.7%

Home Farm 6 0.32 0.8% 0.26 0.7% 0.17 0.4% 0.29 0.7% 0.28 0.7%

Bosworth Hall 7 0.17 0.4% 0.10 0.3% 0.11 0.3% 0.11 0.3% 0.13 0.3%

SSSI SW of N Kilwort

8 0.10 0.2% 0.08 0.2% 0.06 0.1% 0.05 0.1% 0.06 0.2%

Theddingworth Lodge

9 0.06 0.1% 0.13 0.3% 0.12 0.3% 0.11 0.3% 0.08 0.2%

Residence in Theddingworth

10 0.69 1.7% 0.84 2.1% 0.50 1.3% 0.91 2.3% 0.70 1.7%

5.2.2 Values in red denote the maximum annual average NO2 Process Contribution for the five

meteorological data years considered. As can be seen, 2008 was the most significant

meteorological data set at four of the specific receptors, followed by 2009 (3 specific

receptors), then 2010 (2 specific receptors) and 2011 (1 specific receptor).




28

5.2.3 Values in blue denote where the maximum annual average Process Contribution is greater

than the 1% insignificance threshold recommended by the Environment Agency for the

assessment of long term impacts. However, where there is an exceedence of this

threshold it is only marginal at ~2 to ~3% of the AQS objective, and unlikely to have a

significant impact on people living and working at the respective locations. These values

represent a small to imperceptible increase in ambient NO2 concentrations in terms of

the Environmental Protection UK assessment criteria, and can be regarded as negligible

in terms of their significance at these locations, taking into account the existing background

NO2 concentration (10.4 µg m-3 estimated to be the annual average for 2013).

5.2.4 Annual average NO2 Process Contributions at the two nearby SSSIs, Receptor 1 and

Receptor 9 are ~0.1 to ~0.2 µg m-3 and are unlikely to have a significant impact on the

designated species at the two habitat sites.




29

6. Cumulative Impact Assessment with the Recently Approved Energy Recovery Facility at Pebble Hall

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Planning permission was granted in 2008 for an energy recovery facility (ERF) to be built

on the Pebble Hall site. Accordingly, the air quality assessment for the TAD facility was

extended to include a cumulative impact assessment of emissions from the four CHP

engines with those from the gas engine associated with the ERF development.

6.1.2 The ADMS model was configured to calculate Process Contributions to ground level

concentrations of nitrogen dioxide across a 8km x 8km grid, in addition to the specific

receptors considered in the previous section. The results are presented in the following

section.

6.2 Emissions Data

6.2.1 The modelled source and emissions data are summarised below.

Table 6-1 Emission Source Parameters

Parameter CHP Engine Exhausts (Common Stack)

ERF Development Gas Engine

Stack Height (m) 17 15

Stack Diameter (m) 1.0 1.1

Efflux Temperature (°C) 490 120

Efflux Velocity (m s-1) 20.5 20.5

Location (x,y) 466100,284524 466282,284661

Table 6-2 Modelled Pollutant Emissions Data

Pollutant

Mass Emission Rate (g s

-1)

CHP Engines (Common Stack)

ERF Development Gas Engine

NOx 5.31 2.71

CO 5.24 0.14

Particulates 0.16 0.68

VOCs 0.61 0.14

6.2.2 The pollutant emission rates calculated for this condition represent a worst-case scenario

with emissions at the maximum likely to be allowable under the conditions of an

Environmental Permit that will be required prior to operation of the TAD facility.

6.3 Nitrogen Dioxide

6.3.1 The results of the NO2 modelling are presented in Table 6-3 and relate to the worst case

situation when the CHP engines associated with the TAD facility are operating at the same

time as ERF development.

6.3.2 The maximum reported values are predicted by modelling to occur at a location ~320

metres to the north-east of the common stack associated with the four CHP engines, and

reduce significantly with distance from the site.




30

Table 6-3 Results from Detailed Assessment for Nitrogen Dioxide – Cumulative Impact of Emissions from the Four CHP Engines and the ERF Development

Pollutant Statistic Exceedence Threshold

Units Averaging

Period

Concentration (µg m

-3)

(Exceedences)

PC/PEC Expressed as a Percentage of

the AQS/EAL (%)

NOX

Annual (PC) 30

µg m-3

- ~20 ~67

Short Term

99.79%

(PC)

- 1hr ~280 -

NO2

Annual

(PEC) 40

µg m-3

- ~25 ~61

Annual (PC) 40 - ~14 ~35

Short Term

99.79%

(PEC)

200 1hr ~64 ~32

Short Term

99.79%

(PC)

- 1hr ~43 ~21

6.3.3 The maximum annual average NO2 PC across the receptor grid due to the cumulative

impact of emissions from the four CHP engines associated with the TAD facility and those

from the ERF development was ~14 µg m-3, or about one third of the annual average

objective value. The location of the maximum Process Contribution is predicted to be

~320m to the north-east of the common stack associated with the CHP engines, near to

the site boundary. When considered in conjunction with the estimated background

concentration for 2013 of 10.4 µg m-3, the maximum PEC value is likely to be ~25 µg m

-3,

or ~61% of the AQS objective value. Accordingly, in line with Environment Agency

guidance in EPR H1 Annex F, the cumulative impact of emissions from the four CHP

engines associated with the TAD facility and the ERF development can be screened out

as insignificant.

6.3.4 In terms of the Environmental Protection UK impact descriptors the cumulative increase in

annual average NO2 concentrations represents a large increase but will have a slight

adverse impact due to the existing good air quality in the area, as indicated by the DEFRA

data. The annual average Process Contribution for NO2, associated with the cumulative

impact of emissions from the two facilities is presented graphically in Figure 6-1.




31

Figure 6-1 Maximum Annual Average Process Contribution for NO2 – Cumulative Impact of the TAD Facility and the ERF Development

Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright: All rights reserved. License No. 100048653

6.3.5 The 0.4 µg m-3 contour line, highlighted in orange, represents an increase equivalent to 1%

of the annual AQS objective value (40 µg m-3) above background. Therefore, in all areas

outside this contour, the Process Contribution may be regarded as insignificant in relation

to the Environment Agency’s screening criteria set out in Horizontal Guidance Note H1

Annex F.

6.3.6 The dashed blue line shows the extent of the 0.4 µg m-3 contour line for the four CHP

engines associated with the proposed TAD facility operating in isolation. The cumulative

impact of the emissions from the ERF development results in an increase in the extent of

the 0.4 µg m-3 contour (orange line) by about 1km to the north-east of the Pebble Hall

development site. Process contributions at nearby residential receptors are equivalent to

about 3 to 4% of the AQS objective value. Nevertheless, the Predicted Environmental

Concentration is ~12 µg m-3, and the cumulative impact of emissions from the TAD facility

and the ERF can be screened out as insignificant in relation to Environment Agency

guidance.

6.3.7 Similar conclusions were drawn for the other pollutants considered.




32

7. Conclusions

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken of emissions to

atmosphere from four CHP engines associated with the proposed Thermophilic Aerobic

Digestion (TAD) facility to be built on the Pebble Hall site near Theddingworth, by Welland

Waste Management Ltd. The modelling was undertaken using process data provided by

technology providers to the development, Advanced Organics Ltd. Modelling was

undertaken for scenarios that represented the Normal Operating conditions for the four

CHP engines, operating at maximum output and discharging emissions to atmosphere via

a 17m tall common stack.

7.1.2 The modelling was undertaken using ADMS Version 5 and was based upon the

conclusions from a sensitivity analysis to determine which model parameters (buildings,

terrain, surface roughness and meteorological data sets) would produce the most realistic

set of predictions and then the set of worst-case predictions. Adjacent structures were

shown to be likely to have a significant impact on the dispersion of emissions from the four

CHP engines and therefore the buildings module was included within the modelling.

Terrain effects were also shown to be significant and were included in the detailed

assessment. It was concluded that a surface roughness factor of 0.3m and the 2008 hourly

average meteorological data set for the nearby Coventry Airport measurement station

should be used.

7.1.3 The model predicted that pollutant emissions from the four CHP engines would not result

in exceedences of the objective limits defined within the Air Quality Regulations or relevant

Environmental Assessment Levels from Environment Agency Horizontal Guidance Note

H1 Annex F.

7.1.4 Modelling predicted that under normal operating conditions the maximum annual average

Predicted Environmental Concentration for NO2 associated with emissions from the four

CHP engines would be ~18 µg m-3, approximately 46% of the 40 µg m

-3 annual objective

value. The location of the maximum Process Contribution is close to the site boundary,

and so will not affect local residents or people working nearby. The maximum annual

average NO2 Process Contribution was predicted to be ~8 µg m-3, which is equivalent to

~29% of the AQS objective value. The maximum hourly average NO2 PC was predicted to

be ~98 µg m-3, or ~49% of the hourly average AQS of 200 µg m

-3, and was predicted to

occur within the confines of the site boundary.




33

7.1.5 Based on the Environmental Protection UK impact descriptive terms the potential impact

on local air quality at the location of maximum Process Contribution, close to the site

boundary, would be described as large with a slight adverse impact. The corresponding

values at nearby residential receptors would be classified as small to imperceptible.

Model predictions for nearby residential receptors indicated that annual NO2 Process

Contributions at these locations were likely to be between ~2% and ~3% of the AQS

objective. When taken in conjunction with the estimated background concentration of 10.4

µg m-3 for 2013, the impact on local air quality of emissions of NOX from the four CHP

engines associated with the TAD facility can be screened out as insignificant.

7.1.6 Detailed modelling predicted that the maximum annual average PC for particles (PM10)

was likely to be ~0.4 µg m-3, ~1% of the 40 µg m

-3 objective limit, while the maximum daily

average PC was predicted to be ~1.1 µg m-3, equivalent to ~2% of the 50 µg m

-3 daily

average objective value. The maximum annual average PM10 process contribution

represents a small to imperceptible change in ambient concentration and likely to have a

negligible impact on local air quality in the vicinity of the development, as defined by the

Environmental Protection UK assessment criteria. Similar conclusions were drawn for

emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.

7.1.7 A cumulative impact assessment was undertaken for emissions from the proposed TAD

facility and the approved energy recovery facility to be developed on the Pebble Hall site.

The results from modelling confirmed that the cumulative impact of emissions from the two

facilities would be well within relevant AQS objective values, and can be screened out as

insignificant in relation to Environment Agency guidance.

7.1.8 The overall conclusion from detailed modelling of emissions from the proposed TAD facility

to be built by Welland Waste Management Ltd at Pebble Hall, near Theddingworth, is that

the potential impact on local air quality is likely to be low, and unlikely to pose a significant

threat to the health of local residents or people working nearby.




34

Appendices




35

Appendix A Detailed Discussion on Model Input Data

Atmospheric Chemistry

A component of the ADMS model contains algorithms to calculate the chemical reactions

in the atmosphere between nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone (O3) and

the resultant concentration of each pollutant within the plume.

In England and Wales the Environment Agency has traditionally preferred a methodology

for calculating annual average and hourly average NO2 ground-level concentration based

upon conversion of NOX model predictions as shown in Equation 3 and Equation 4:

Equation 3 Calculation of Annual Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration

(Annual NOX Modelled x 0.7) + Annual NO2 Monitored

Equation 4 Calculation of Hourly Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration

(Hourly NOX Modelled x 0.35) + (Annual NO2 Monitored x 2)

This methodology is likely to overestimate the PEC for NO2 in close proximity to the site as

conversion of NOX to NO2 is unlikely to be instantaneous as it requires mixing of the plume

with the ambient air and its associated oxidant species (O3, etc.). Accordingly, applying the

70% conversion of NOX to NO2 at locations close to the point of release may overestimate

significantly the potential NO2 concentrations at these locations. As the plume migrates

away from the stack it disperses and mixes with the ambient air resulting in lower

concentrations of pollutants, so the PC for NOX and hence associated NO2, will be lower

farther afield. Furthermore, the oxidising potential of the atmosphere in the vicinity of the

Pebble Hall ERF development site is known to vary significantly throughout the year, as

shown by measurement data from the nearby AURN monitoring station at Market

Harborough.

Meteorological Data

When modelling plume dispersion, the following meteorological data are required as a

minimum:

wind speed (m s-1

)

wind direction (degrees)

cloud cover (Oktas)

mixing height

For the purpose of this exercise, meteorological data for 2008 to 2012 from the nearby

Coventry Airport measurement station, were utilised. The windrose for 2012 is shown in

Figure 2-4.




36

The data indicated a predominance of winds from a westerly direction, with additional

dominant components from a south-westerly and north-westerly direction. The

meteorological data included nine parameters defined in Table 2-4.

Local Environmental Conditions

Local environmental conditions describe the factors that might influence the dispersion

process (such as nearby structures, sharply rising terrain, etc.) and also describe the

locations at which pollutant concentrations are to be predicted. These include:

Surface Roughness

It is sometimes necessary to define a term, which describes the degree of ground

turbulence caused by the passage of wind across surface structures, also called the

surface roughness. The degree of ground turbulence is much greater in urban areas (due

to the presence of tall buildings) than in rural areas (which contain smaller obstacles at the

surface). The dispersion model may require the user to select “urban” or “rural” conditions,

or to specify a “surface roughness length” according to defined criteria. Calculations of

dispersion, which take account of the greater aerodynamic roughness of the surface

structures in urban areas, tend to predict higher concentrations closer to the stack than

calculations under equivalent conditions, which assume typical rural roughness.

For the purpose of this model a surface roughness factor of 0.3m was chosen,

characteristic of the maximum value applied to agricultural areas.

Nearby Buildings and Structures

If the stack is located on the top of a building, or adjacent to a tall building, then the size of

these buildings may need to be considered. As a general guide, building downwash

problems (where emissions are caught in the turbulent wake caused by wind blowing

around the building) may occur if the stack height is less than 2½ times the height of the

building upon which it sits. Adjacent buildings may need to be taken into account if they are

within about 5 stack heights of the point of release.

To take account of local building effects, models generally require information related to

the dimensions and location of the structures with respect to the stack. The building data

used in this modelling exercise are presented in Table 2-5.

The building adjacent to the CHP engines was considered to be the “main building” that

could potentially affect the dispersion characteristics of emissions from the common stack

associated with the four engines.




37

Complex Terrain Data

The presence of steep hills in the vicinity of a stack may affect the dispersion of pollutants.

During more stable conditions, an elevated plume may impact upon a nearby hillside,

resulting in much higher ground level concentrations than would occur over flat terrain. The

more sophisticated models can take account of these terrain effects, and require the input

of contour heights in the immediate area surrounding the stack. Terrain effects are unlikely

to be significant where the hills have a slope of less than about 10%.

There is no significant terrain in the Theddingworth area, although the preliminary

sensitivity analysis incorporated an assessment of the significance of terrain as a

precautionary measure. The results showed that when considered in conjunction with

building downwash effects, the effects of terrain increased model predictions significantly.

Accordingly, terrain effects were included as part of the detailed assessment.

Output Grid and Specific Points

It is necessary to define the locations at which ground level concentrations are to be

calculated by the model. In selecting receptor locations, it is general practice to identify the

nearest, sensitive locations to the chimney stack, such as residential housing, hospitals

etc.

Many models allow the user to specify a “grid” of receptor locations. However, when

setting up a receptor grid it is important to ensure that there are sufficient receptor points to

able to predict the magnitude and location of the maximum concentration. If the grid of

receptor points is too widely spaced, the maximum concentration may be missed.

A receptor grid covering an area 8,000 m x 8,000 m in a 101 x 101 grid was incorporated

into the model in order to assess the potential impact of pollutant emissions from the CHP

engines associated with the TAD facility to be developed at Pebble Hall. The model was

set to predict concentrations at ground level.

Specific receptor locations were included in the model representing the location of nearby

residential properties, schools, allotments, playing fields, etc. identified from Ordnance

Survey mapping data.




38

Appendix B Output from the D1 Chimney Height Calculation

D1 Chimney Height Calculation - Welland WM TAD - Common Stack - 090613.xlsx

Prepared by G Fynes 10/06/2013 Page 1

Calculation of Chimney Height Using Method in Technical Guidance Note D1Welland Waste Management - TAD Facility - Common StackCalculations Based on Data Supplied by Advance OrganicsJune 9, 2013

Gas Temp C 490 Heat Release MWthGas Temp K 763 3.49 Q<1 a -1.2132Stack Diameter 1.000 0.79 m2 b 0.4927Gas Rate m3/s 16.100 Q>1 a -1.2765Gas Velocity m/s 20.50 b 0.5089FG O2 (%) NA If emissions data available, x -1.7604Building Height m 9 enter in appropriate Cell in y 4.5972FG H2O (%) NA Column C (19 to 27). z -10.2410Std O2 (%) NA Otherwise Enter Discharge Rates

Discharge Discharge Discharge Guideline Background PollutionConc. Conc. Rate Concentration Concentration Index

(mg/Sm3) (mg/m3) (g/s) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (m3/s)NOx 5.310 4.40 0.028 1215 NOxNO2 1.859 0.2 0.021 10371 NO2NO 3.452 4.4 0.008 786 NOCO 5.242 10 0.120 531 COPM10 0.164 0.3 0.015 576 PM10Total 10371 Total

Case for Single Building

Ub M Min Um Um U Corrected Height(m) (m4/s2) (m) (m) Chimney Height Above Building

(Metres) (Metres)5.85 122 3.8 12.8 17.0 8.00Case for Multiple Buildings within 5Um 5Um = 63.9 metres CHECK THAT D<5Um

Building No. Distance Height Height Width Length K T(metres) (metres) (H) (B) (metres) (Min H & B) (H+1.5K)

Main Building 7 1 9 9 42 55 9 22.5

Hm Tm U Is U>Tm? Corr. Disch. Ht.(Hmax) (Tmax) Min Um&Ub (1=Y, 0=N) (Metres)9 22.5 5.9 0 17.0

229 122.75

XS Area


W007-01 PS / SE Appendix 14/06/2013

APPENDIX 8: Connection to National Grid System

Pond

Pond

BOSWORTH RD (P262)

HUSBANDS

93/7837 (33E0262)

Woodside

Issues

THEDDINGWORTH

ROAD

Lodge

Pond

A 43

04

115.8m

Dene

Pond

Farm

110.9m

108.8m

Pond

Spring

Pond

Ponds

MP 21

Track

Track

River Welland

Pond

Riv

er

Wella

nd

Pond

Lake

Pond

3

Wry Furlong

under

duct

river

THEDDINGWORTH

BROXHILL FARM

93/7987 (33E0420)

Broxhill Buildings

Bungalow

Pond

Riv

er

Welland

Long Spinney

The

Pond

Pond

Issues

Cattle Grid

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

3P2S

3P2S

3P2S

3P2S

2P1S

3P2S

3P2S

2P1S

THEDDINGWORTH (G426)

93/7817 (33D3426)

THEDDINGWORTH

HARBOROUGH RD (P264)

93/7836 (33E0264)

Corner Nook

Folly

Chapel

The Lodge

126.5m

Tall Trees

Weir

Chapel

Old Folly

6

Laurels Farm

Ho

ST

ATIO

N

RO

AD

Croft

Post

Cottage

126.

4m

Pebble Hall

River

Wella

nd

Rise

Hothorpe Hall

Bakehouse Cottage

Sch

GP

Hall

HOT

HORPE R

OA

D

Farm

8

Hothorpe

Pond

1

House

Ris

e

El Sub Sta

Bra

mbles

The Bungalo

ws

Sun

2

MAIN STREET

MP

(Conference Centre)

4

GPHill-

Cote

1

134.4m

111.3m

The Cottage

Da

msid

e Spin

ney

118.6m

Church

3

Hill Vie

w

Farm

6

All Saint

s’

2

TO

MS

CL

OSE

1

House

1

A 43

04

2

4

Pebble Cottage

The

Padd

ocks

Flat

Track

The

Robert’s

Compton

High

Ponds

New

MO

WSLE

Y

RO

AD

5

Theddingworth

Sluice

Haddon House

BOSWORTH

ROAD

Forge

War

Me

ml

GP

LB

Homeside

Theddingworth

Congregational

Spencerdene

The

Spring

3

Manor

(Private)

Manse

4

116.4m

Lych

Gate

North Lodge

Beeches Farm

Cottages

The

Sluice

Taylors Cottage

The

Cottage

1

3

119.8m

1

Garden

Mid

dle Cottage

128.0m

Beeches

1

Box Bush

House

130.5

m

CG

Little

Cemetery

1

TCB

The Homestead

Farm

Sluice

CG

131.1

m

Grosvenor

Hill

1

3

Coun

cil H

ouse

s

Bank

South View

Lark’s

Pond

Church

124.4m

Home

6

128.9

m

Beeches

Old

Knallings

Chen-wydh

The

Nook

13

School

The

Old

Farmhouse

The

The

Leighs

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

THEDDINGWORTH

STATION RD (P829)

93/7832 (33E0829)113.4m

Station House

Pp

103.6m

Manor Farm

Pond

Pond

Pond

Pond

ST

ATIO

N

RO

AD

Pond

Disman

tled R

ailw

ay

Pond

106.4m

MO

WSLEY R

OA

D

111.9m

113.7m

Pond

103.6m

ASNW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

ASNW

ASNW ASNW

ASNW

AS

NW

AS

NW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

AS

NW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

ASNW

AS

NW

AS

NW

IVY LODGE FARM (P367)

93/7819 (33E0367)

Pond

Canal

Pond

128.6m

150.9m

HIL

L

Ivy

114.3m

Union

Pond

Pond

Pond

128.9m

Hollow Spinney

Theddingworth

166.4m

Grand

Pp

Farm

MIL

L

114.0m

Lodge

Laughton Hills

Towing Path

117.3m

THE LODGE (P418) LAUGHTON HILLS

93/7821 (33E0418)

LAUGHTON HILLS (P258)

93/7820 (33E0258)

LodgePond

172.3m

GP

The Lodge

172.0m

Farm

170.9m

Cattle Grid

Court

164.0m

Pond

Tennis

Manor

Cattle Grid

168.5m

170.1m

Farm

Laughton

168.6m

Hill Farm

SSSI

SS

SI

SSSISSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SS

SI

SSSI

SSSI

SS

SI

SSSI

SIBBERTOFT SEWAGE WORKS

92/3338 (43E2213)

Sinks

River Welland

Ponds

Spring

Issues

Pond

Pond

Outfall

Barn-hill Spinney

Coombe-hill Spinney

Path (u

m)

106.7m

107.6m 107.0m

121.0m

109.4m

Pond

(um)

Path

107.9m

Spring

Issues

105.8m

117.3m

Pond

Nichol’s Hill Spinney

113.4m

NOSWORTHY

92/3329 (43E2080)

HOTHORPE HOME FARM BUNGALOW

92/3330 (43E2221)

HOTHORPE HALL

92/3331 (43E2081)

Welland

HOT

HORPE R

OA

D

The Cottage

THEDDINGWORTH

ROAD

River We

lland

101.8m

1

Greylag

Play Area

Pen-y-Bryn

106.7m

A 43

04

113.4m

102.4m

Sewage Works

102.7m

108.5m

105.5m

Buckle Hill

2

108.8m

104.5m

113.1m

GP

Paddocks

103.0m

Beeches Cottages

7

107.6m

Cottage

123.6m

Tudor

Sunnie Brae

Pond

Pond

Farm

Home

THEDDINGWORTH GRAIN DRYER (P263)

93/7833 (33E0263)

SKINNERS NEW FARM FIELD RD (P957) THEDDINGWORTH

93/7834 (33E0957)

Drain

Pond

Pond

Disman

tled R

ailw

ay

Cattle Grid

103.0m

Pond

98.4m

Pond

105.8m

101.2m

99.8m

99.1m

111.3m

Pond

97.5

m

HARBOROUGH ROAD

100.0m

Weir

A 4304

The Oaks

Cattle Grid

GP

Riv

er

Welland

SCOBOROUGH LODGE FARM (P909)

93/7818 (33E0909)

Pond

110.9m

Pond

103.3m

Towin

g Path

Pond

Pond

Gran

d Unio

n Ca

nal

Track

113.4m

Spring

BU

NKE

RS

HILL

109.4m

Pond

Pond

1P1P

LUBBENHAM

LAUGHTON RD

BUNKERS YARD (P937)

92/3002 (33E0937)

(P259) FARM

BUNKERS HILL

92/3003 (33E0259)

159.8m

Pond

Towing Path

Bunker’s

Hill Farm

LAUGHTON ROAD

164.8m

160.4m

158.0m

Pond

Grand Union Canal

154.8m

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

THE COOMBES

92/0470 (43E0096)

159.4m

The Coombes

Coombes

126.5m

Track

Track

Post

164.6m

SIB

BERT

OFT

RO

AD

Track

137.5m

Track

Track

Issues

Tank

Cottage

133.7m

Track

Pond

Track

Sinks

Berberis Spinney

Track

Te

nnis

Sibbertoft Wood

Guide

Co

urt

Issues

Rough-hill Spinney

Trac

k

SWINGLERS

92/3332 (43E2079)

MARSTON LODGE

92/3333 (43E2078)

Essex Farm

103.6m

Pond

Drain

104.2m

Trac

k

Pond

Pond

Issues

Pond

Pond

Pond

GP

SIB

BE

RT

OFT

RO

AD

Issues

Marston Lodge

RISHWORTH FM

92/3328 (43E2061)

97.2m

Pond

Victoria Spinney

102.4m

Pond

GP

Trussell

100.9m

Hall

Union Spinney

Pond

Recorder’s Spinney

FB

Pond

Pond

Pond

Mill Hill Farm

Pond

Track

THEDDINGWORTH ROAD

SC

OB

OR

OU

GH

RO

AD

Snipe Spinney

Pond

109.1m

Ash Spinney

FB

106.4m

Pond

Pheasant Spinney

Pond

Maidstone Spinney

Pavilion

Bullacre Spinney

Pond

Cricket Ground

98.5m

Mickleborough Spinney

Pond

Marston

110.3m

Mill Hill Farm Cottage

Track

Mast

Track

2P1S

THE PEAR TREE (P265)

93/7835 (33E0265)

PAPILLON HALL

92/3327 (43E2062)

Track

Scoborough

A 430

4

River

Wella

nd

THEDDINGWORTH

Papillon Hall Farm

101.6m

Bramfield

ROAD

The

102.1m

Weir

Pond

109.7m

Lodge

113.0m

Homes

Foot

Railw

ay

113.5m

Pond

101.2m

110.8m

Pond

103.6m

100.2m

101.2m

Cottage

Pond

ROAD

Disman

tled

Scoborough

105.1m

Park

Bridge

Weir

Ford

SCOBOROUGH

Bramfield

99.0m

LB

8

13

21

4

1

29

9

6

25

2a

2b

18

17

23

28

Pond

Pear Tree Cottage

11

3

2

7

24

16

22

15

7b

5

10

20

Pond

Dismantled

Railway

Pond

Pond

Pond

Pond

Pond

Track

Pond

Pond

Lower Lodge

Pond

Lodge

Scoborough

Farm

300HDA (33kV

)

3 x 400 1c Cu X

LPE 33kV

3 x 400 1c Cu

XLP

E 33k

V

3 x 400 1c Cu XLPE 33kV

92ZNVD1

UNKNOWN

EARTHWIRE

92ZNVD2

UNKNOWN

92ZNVD3

UNKNOWN

92ZNVD4

UNKNOWN

92ZNVD5

UNKNOWN

92ZNVD6

UNKNOWN

EARTHWIRE

138.1m

LAUGHTON ROAD

129.0m

Pond

Wells

132.9m

Towin

g Pat

h

113.6m

GP

103.1m

107.7m

BU

NKE

RS

HILL

Far Cottage

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

STARRS LODGE

92/3323 (43E2058)

Track

115.6m

Pond

Pond

DIC

K’S HIL

L

Track

Marston Wood

Track

Starr’s Lodge

Pond

Castle Yard

Motte and Bailey

Track

Track

Track

Pond

Pond

MARSTON LODGE MARSTON TRUSSELL

92/5375 (43E3303)

Cattle

Grid

101.5m

110.0m

FB

109.7m

109.4m

105.5m

108.2m

FB

107.6m

DIC

K’S HIL

L

Pond

104.2m

Track

Woodland View Farm

Track

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

1Pcrossed in PC400 to keepRed and Blue connection

village phasing correct.

2P1S

1P

2P1S

RECTORY FARM WATSON

92/3324 (43E2059)

RECTORY FARM COTTAGES

92/3325 (43E2261)

MARSTON TRUSSELL

92/3326 (43E2060)

1 x

150

Marston

94.5m

16

Rectory Farm Cottages

21

17

13

Pond

Trussell

20

GP

Moat

Hall

The

24

4 5

34

95.4m

18

35

96.9m

32

97.8m

FARNDON ROAD

Tennis

10

95.7m

Limes

Croft

28

3

2

The Lake

Church

SIB

BERT

OFT

RO

AD

93.9m

22

2

Lodge

FB

Rectory Farm

Shelter

14

Linden

The

19

Vine

St Nicholas’s

27

94.8m

94.2m

GP

30

15

Hall

9

1

LUBENHAM ROAD

Stables

Water

Fairthorne

Court

Overflow

The Cedars

The

House

TCB

Track

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

Cattle Grid

THEDDINGWORTH ROAD

37

145

Papillon Fields Farm

87.5m

Sewage

88.2m

Foot

99.2m

River

Wella

nd

88.9m

36

Weir

95.9m

RO

AD

Plantation

Drain

Works

Pond

Bridge

Pond

LU

BE

NH

AM

Pond

98.4m

98.8m

The Bungalow

39

92.5m

101.4m

MA

RS

TO

N

RO

AD

Highfield

38

River

Wella

nd



Ponds

96.3m

LAUGHTON ROAD

Pond

Pond

100.0m

Pond

Spring

Track

97.5m

Pond

94.5m

Pond

Pond

90.1m

95.8m

Pond

Pond

Drain

Pond

Dismantled Railway

Ponds

(P268)

HOLMES FARM

92/3005 (33E0268)

104.1m

Holme’s

Farm

Cattle

100.9m

Cattle Grid

Water

Yd

Pond

Grid

Pond

1

352

THE GRANGE HART

92/3320 (43E2055)

Track

Farndon

109.1m

Pond

106.4m

East Farndon

MARSTON TRUSSELL ROAD

98.8m

FARNDON ROAD

103.0m

96.3m

Grange

Ponds

94.8m

97.5m

Guide Post

Spinney

Ash Tree Barn

Water

Pond

100.6m

Paddocks

The

Farndon Grange

Farndon

House

Grange

Barn

The

Coach

House

SAM SAM SAM SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

MS

AM

SAM

1P

1P

THORPE LUBENHAM HALL LUBENHAM

92/3563 (43D2050)

1- SPARE

2- 0.06 3c Cu

470028, 286976

Track

GP

Track

MAIN STREET

Foot

River Welland

Track

Moat

Pond

84.7m

Cattle

Thorpe

Hall

84.0m

FARNDON ROAD

Pump

Welland

Fn

Cattle Grid

House

Long Spinney

Grid

Bridge

87.0m

Foot Bridge

Lubenham

141

Dismantled Railway

Field

Pond

85.0m

Foot Bridge

River

Grid

Cattle Grid

Plantation

FB

Cattle

Pond

Upper Highfield

Cattle Grid

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

1P

1P

1P

1P

4 X 185CNE (LV) TAILS

185Al/CuCNE (LV) TAILS

185AL XLPE 3x1 (11kV) TAILS

3P2S

2P1S

2P1S


3 x 400 1c

Cu XLPE 33kV


3 x 400 1c Cu X

LPE 33kV

LUBENHAM SOUTH

92/3564 (43E2131)

COVENTRY ROAD LUBENHAM

92/3566 (43E2187)

LUBENHAM

92/3565 (43D2051)

WESTGATE LANE LUBENHAM

92/0257 (43D9870)

FOXTON RD LUBENHAM

92/3558 (43E2186)

MANOR FM LUBENHAM

92/3559 (43E2169)

470371, 287370

1 - SPARE DUCT

2 - 0.1 Cu 11kV

War

21

1

25

3

26

96.5m

17

13

TH

E

GR

EE

N

(Track)

Pond

Manor Farm

6

1

4

31

99.4m

12

Pond

19

2

MIL

L

HIL

L

32

39

WASHPIT LANE

CHURCH WALK

River Welland

42

12

11

Weir

House

Lubenham

Yew

3

91

l

31

13

19

1

Knights-

49

Track

137

A 4304

56

Meridian

LAUGHTON ROAD

50

97

1

5

86.2m

14

(PH)

86.0m

3

6

CLOSE

TCB

TOWER

91.7m

27

Gardens

HARBOROUGH ROAD

Barleycroft

Allotment

61

54

33

10

Dismantled Railway

4

9

41

6

Orchard

Pond

43

5

Path (um)

House

85.4m

11

2

6

66

Lime Tree

Spring

139

92.9m

21

51

38

Pond

35

84

19

2

23

13

1

19

64

11

105

MP 15

99

82

59

1

WESTLAND

CLOSE

88.6m

19a

3

5

LA

NE

PAGET ROAD

Pond

and Horses

51

1

Moat

19

88.3m

Pond

Hall

31

Recreation

25

2

COURT

All Saints’ Church

Allotment

ACORN

17

9

39

1

87.5m

96.2m

House

84.3m

42

21a

FO

XT

ON

RO

AD

13

GP

47

2

RU

SH

ES

LA

NE

8

21

14

Path (u

m)

56

41

14a

118

68

35

90.1m

86.8m

24

ll

Pond

CHURCH WALK

41

1

61

35

6

Pond

Meml

10

Mill Mound

31

Gardens

2

and Wash

94

Tree

10

FB

l

51

63

89.5m

55

MP

16

OL

D

HA

LL

LA

NE

23

113

13

12

20

144

17

11

24

52

16

2

98

13

1818

41

15

78

24

40

29

93.3m

SC

HO

OL

LA

NE

1

96

28

hayes

The Coach

16

62

23

THE GREEN

38

MAIN STREET

CONNELL CLOSE 36

80

19

10

Marton

21

48

Ground

House

85.5m

8

Sheep Pens

4

54

23

WES

TG

AT

E

1

Drain

20

22

Brooklyn

House

House

The

Chestnuts

House

Beech

Ashtree

Summer House

1

5

THE HA

WT

HORNS

13

18

The Old

Police

House

Lubenham All Saints

C of E

Primary School

The

Rowans

Beechcroft

ESS

Moat House

44

1

Pineridge

Cherry Angel

28

StablesPine Lodge

Pine Grange

The

Old Hall

47

Issues

Pond

Pond

97.5m

Pond

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SAMSAM

SAM

SA

MS

AM

SA

MS

AM

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

2P1S

1 - SPARE

2 - 0.1 4c Cu

471638, 284876

EXACT ARRANGEMENT UNKNOWN

The Crest

Orchard House

Pond

Church Cottage

GP

145.4m

Issues

Linden

The Old Coach House

Red Brick Cottage

Old School House

Cottage

Grey Walls

Orchard Cottage

PondLea

Fern

137.5m

MAIN S

TR

EE

T

Finn

Green

Pond

The

Fernhill House

Garden

House

Pond

Pond

Farrer Cottages

2

4

1

3

FarrarFarm

Rowan House

Ferendone House

SA

MS

AM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SA

M

SA

M

SA

M

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

M

SA

MS

AM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SAM

SA

MS

AM

SA

M

THE LEALANDS

92/3336 (43E2161)

THE DALES BELTON

92/3334 (43E2054)

EAST FARNDON

92/3475 (43D2063)

130.1m

Cottage

117.7m

Pond

128.0m

Elms

Path (u

m)

Hall

6

War Memorial

The Judith

Hall

Council H

ouses

138.7m

113.1m

5

10

107.0m

12

Bleasdale

Horseshoe

Cottage

Foxglo

ves

The Wharri

1

Hilltop

HA

RB

OR

OU

GH

RO

AD

Manor

Rowanden

The Dales

99.7m

Spring

Pond

The Limes

4

123.7m

Kenwood

East

111.6m

Farm

The Laurels

94.2m

The Cedars

Pond

East Farndon

93.6m

28

Hillside

East

Rose

Moyargot

117.7m

14

Hillcrest

Wren Cottage

THE LE

AL

AN

D

124.7m

93.6m

111.6m

Trough

Bramble

Pond

LU

BE

NH

AM

RO

AD

Sunnybays

The Briars

Sheep Pens

Stone

21

Pond

Yewgarth

Pond

Kiln YardHillview

138.1m

GP

15

Ivy House

Home

Greenfields

MAI

N STREET

Spring

field

The

The Old Bakehouse

Farndon GP

TC

B

The Old

Post

Office

Brown Gable

Spring Cottage

Sunnyside

1

Beauchamp House

139.6m

TH

E

LE

AL

AN

D

Twin

25

Farm

Farm

Ponds

Farndon

Manor Cottage

Cottage

BAC

K LA

NE

Hawthorn Cottage

Cottage

18

2

Elmbridge

Spring

view

18a

House

Downfield

MARSTON LANE

Mast

Bell

5

Rydal

HO

ME

1

FA

RM

House

TheOld

CL

OS

E

Windmill

Jackdaw

View

Cottage

Pheasant View

The Spinneys

Mill House

FARNDON FIELDS STRAWBERRY CENTRE

92/5483 (43E9546)

WELLAND FARM LUBENHAM

92/0419 (43E0060)

95.6m

19

Track

23

Pond

30

91.6m

1

Pond

115

86.9m

27

Pond

113

36

15

Pond

2

2

Judith Stone

FB

Pond

MIL

LE

RS

GA

RD

EN

S

Pond

Dismantled Railway

98.5m

37

Pond

98.9m

111

Pond

Pond

1

14

RIL

EY

CL

OS

E

32

31

96.0m

River

Wella

nd

LUBENHA

M

ROAD

Pond

Welland Farm House

5P1S



3 x 400 1c Cu

XLPE 33kV

WELLAND LODGE

92/3482 (43D3167)

1 - SPARE

2 - 0.3 4c AL

471900,287003

A 4304

LUBENHAM HILL

Pond

Lay-by

Track

Spring

Pond

Issues

A 4304

Pond

Spring

River

Wella

nd

Pond

HARBOROUGH ROAD

101

87

109

99

98.0m

83.4m

107

85.1m

86.9m

105

84.1m

Lubenham Hill Lake

Archway

House

ESS

The Arc

Business

Centre

Pond

Pond

Pond

Pond

Issues

Pond

Pond

Market Harborough

Golf Course

2P2S

depth 1.20m

depth 1.10m

3P1S

2P

3w 300 HDA 33kV DUAL CIRCUIT


3 x 0.4 1c AL 33kV

0.4 AL 33kV

0.4 AL 33kV



3 x 0.4 1c AL 33kV

0.4

AL 33kV 06/19

69

HOPTON FIELDS MARKET HARBOROUGH

92/3472 (43D2197)

BOOTH

92/3335 (43E2053)

92ZRMC28

33

92ZRMC29

34

92ZRMC30

35

92ZRMC31

36

92ZRMC32

37

92ZRMC33

38

92ZRMC34

39

92ZSCD83

33

92ZSCD84

34

92ZSCD85

35

92ZSCD86

36

92ZSCD87

37

92ZSCD88

38

92ZSCD89

39

Earthwire

472819, 285967

1 - 0.15 4c Al

2 - SPARE DUCT

472966, 285959

1 - AR - 0.15 Al 11kV

2 - AR - UNKNOWN 4c

55

51

63

14

56

GP

48

9

11

6

16

25

Pond

1

17

93.1m

7

30

RAINSBOROUGH GARDENS

13

1

14

16

13

1

5

25

Pond

29

67

22

19

75

41

Issues

57

26

MA

URIC

E

RD

HOPTON FIELDS

Drain

25

2

HARBORO

UGH RO

AD

13

66

P

12

24

58

36

BA

RN

AR

DG

DNS

13

13

El

Sub

Sta

89.7m

Brierley Farm

Pond

16

11

32

39

2

32

GERRARD

2

51

40

New House Farm

39

7

46

Pond

WATSON AVENUE

Pond

LIN

DS

EY

GD

NS

12

14

34

Pond

1

13

GDNS

75a

P628

P534

P535

P536

P348

P614

P347

P345

P344

P332-333

P621

P622

P334

P335

P336

P339

P338

P337P340

P341

P342

P343

P598

P592-P297

P619

P618

P617

P616

P615P607

P605

P606

P608P609-P610

P611-613

P627

P626

P625

P624

P623

P620

P350

P351

P352

P353

P354

P355

P356

P349

P374

P375

P376

P403

P377

P385

P386

P428-433

P422

P423

P421

P420

P419

P418

P468

P390

P391

P392

P393

P394

P395

P397

P389

P388

P387

P396

P398

P399

P400

P401

P402

P404

P405

P406

P407

P408

P409

P410

P411

P412

P413

P414P415

P416P417

P464

P465

P463

P466

P467

P427

P381

P382

P384

P383

depth 1.10m

depth 1.10m

1P

3P2S

3P1S

1P

1P

2P1S

4P3S 3P3S

depth 1.20m

2P

depth 1.20m

3P1S

depth 1.20

m

depth 0.90m

depth 0.90m

2P

8P1S

2P

1P

1P

4P1S

6P3S

6P3S

4P3S

2P1S

4P1S

2P1S

2P2S

1x300CNE (LV) TAIL

3x185CNE (LV) TAILS

95PIAS (11kV) TAILS

33kV TILES & STEEL PLATE

2P1S

33kV TILES

1 x 120CNE (LV) TAIL

3 x 185CNE (LV) TAILS

2 x 185PIAS (11kV) TAILS

1P1P

33kV TILES

Split Duct with 33kV TILES

2P1S

1P

2P1S

3x185CNE (LV) TAILS

Embedded (Non-CN) network

Contact ’The Electricity Network Company (GTC)’ for details











EN

0.4 AL 33kV

0.4 AL 33kV

0.4

AL 33kV

0.4

AL 33kV







3 x

400 1c

Cu

XLPE 33

kV


0.4

AL 33kV 07/19

69

0.4

AL 33k

V 07/19

69

300 AL 33kV 09/1971

LUBENHAM HILL

92/3483 (43D2049)

REGENT PARK FARNDON ROAD

92/3489 (43D2254)

WELLAND PARK ROAD

92/3497 (43D2122)

SKIPPON CLOSE

92/3505 (43D2265)

MARKET HARBOROUGH

ROCHESTER GARDENS

92/3468 (43D2143)

RAINSBOROUGH GDNS

92/3473 (43D2170)

FARNDON FIELDS EMBEDDED NETWORK

92/0719 (43D0657)

MARKET HARBOROUGH

CROMWELL CRESCENT

92/3474 (43D2130)

33KV/11KV S/STN

FARNDON ROAD

92/0046 (43P0018)

FRESHMAN WAY EMBEDDED

92/5624

UNKNOWN SIZE 33kV

Deco

m

472245, 286951

UNSURE OF CABLE LOCATIONSARRANGEMENT ONLY

472423, 286877

1. SPARE2. 0.3 4c Al

3. 0.15 Al 11kV NC

472992, 286051

UNSURE OF CABLE LOCATION

ARRANGEMENT ONLY


ARRANGEMENT ONLY

472990, 286116

472995, 286124 &


ARRANGEMENT ONLY

472989, 286234

472924, 286373

1. 0.1 Cu 11kV2. SPARE


ARRANGEMENT ONLY

472834, 286440

472722, 286363

1. 0.1 4c Cu2. SPARE

1. 0.15 Al 11kV

472721, 286338

2. SPARE

2. SPARE1. UNKNOWN 4c

472734, 286303

472743, 286126

UNSURE OF CABLE ROUTE

ARRANGEMENT ONLY

2

79.6m

61

BALFO

UR

GAR

DENS

Garage

170

36

5

39

99

14

Garage

34

10

DE LIS

LE CL

20

243

25

66

56

53

159

68

El

Sub

Sta

Nursery

El Sub Sta

80.8m

224

225

SKIPP

ONCLOSE

31

2

Pavilion

78

53

136

22

158

14

136

16

2

31

18

PRID

E P

LA

CE

20

20

BU

TLE

R

GA

RD

ENS

33

13

6

CL

OS

E

51

217

236

13

5

Warehouse

65

226

24

10

1

32

35

19

159

4

33

16

Pond

21

11

20

2

84

110

9

6

29

40

1

100

52

27

Pond

26

4

41

7

WILLOW CRESCENT

22

87.8m

21

17

2

84

MO

NT

RO

SE

86

120

18

4

13

23

46

25

79.2m

9

255

11

6

20

20

180

Sub Sta

13

7

1

21

78.6m

22

Waterfurrows

1

35

1

30

144

121

STRATTON CLOSE

140

44

130

7

41

ESSEX GARDENS

Weir

35

13

12

9

8

5

RUGBY CLOSE

292623

2520

221916

7 to 15

6

1

104

14

116

39

FAR

ND

ON R

OA

D

8

RAIN

SB

OR

OU

GH

El S

ub Sta

HOWARD WAY

El

Sub

Sta

HA

RRIS

ON

CL

GA

RD

ENS

30

7476

80

9

11

13

15

17

20

8

67

172

FLEETWOOD CLOSE

4

51

10

207

10

57

1 6

Welland Park

138

31

17

72

21

70

2

80.2m

57

162

29

153

45

30

45

Depot

6

101

GR

EN

VIL

LE

GA

RD

EN

S

HUNTINGDON GARDENS

Burford GreenASTLEY CLOSE

ST

UART R

OA

D

IRETON ROAD

Burf

ord

Clo

se

El Sub Sta

PEAR TREE GARDENS

WELLAND PARK ROAD

Bowling

Green

Bowling

Green

Tennis Courts

(Recreation Ground)

157

195

28

El Sub Sta

FB

11

72

70

68

88

9294

8684

96

LUBENHAM HILL

CR

OM

WE

LL

CR

ES

CE

NT

End

1

3

Works

WESTERN AVENUE

86.3m

MAURI

CEROAD

38

134

45

1

2

22

12

2

4

6

14

10

27

Riverside

Court

257

1

4

ELM DRIVE

6

81

22

56

120

LB

Track

RO

CH

ES

TE

R

GA

RD

EN

S

23

108

7

121

7

Hall

1

El

FLEETWOOD GARDENS

2

235

113

5

13

13

29

115

13

173

83.2m

24

34

45

1

1

2

171

81

10

7

LB

32

1

20

1

16

183

23

178

67

7

78

2

13

13

16

Issues

244

80.8m

132

66

160

168

4

81

River Welland

13

158

90

34

31

28

53a

30

135

6a

Farndon Court

1 to 14

35

5

1

53

65

61

13

1

77

39

74

12

71

77

99

184

182

94

1

83

RHODES CLOSE

FA

RN

DA

LE

VIE

W

15

13

Works

10

4

7

23

15

7

19

12

3

13

22

127

Water

2

5

92

3

4

10

SP

RIN

GHIL

L

GA

RD

ENS

1

7

SU

MM

ER

S

WA

Y

1

261

7

17

10

14

14

20

1

3

8

2

25

18

El Sub Sta

Garage

8

2

15

12

9

7

6 1

12a

33

42

10

2527 27a

23

28

21

38

18a 1819

Barking House

Filtration

House44

45

49

48

46

Farndon Business Cenre

3941

Posts

Skateboard Park

Drain

18

PlaygroundGas

Gov

Gracelands

(Mobile Homes Park)

ME

DO

RA

CL

OSE

FRES

HM

AN

WA

Y

SOUT

HWOLD CLO

SE

ESS

19

3

BRID

EG

RO

OM

ST

RE

ET

ESS

7

8 to 16

1

BRIN

GT

ON

CL

OS

E

MARMION CLOSE

21

13

20

6

1

24

5

1

22

25

32

11

31

29

42

10

27

8

56

48

46

4

1

16

2

2

41

2P

2P

2P2S

0.3AL (LV) TAILS

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

50AL (LV)

MARKET HARBOROUGH

1P1S

4P1S

2P

3P2S

3P1S

2P1S

CONSUMER

95 PIAS

CABLE

3P2S

185Al/CuCNE (LV) TAILS

2P1S

5W

1P

3P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P

2P1S

2P1S

3P2S

4P2S

2P1S

3P

WOODLANDS

92/3520 (43D2176)

CHARLES ST

92/3518 (43D2121)BROOKFIELD RD

92/3484 (43D2225)

LOGAN ST MARKET HARBOROUGH

92/5475 (43D2120)

FAIRLAWN

92/3517 (43D2138)

UNION WHARF

92/5362 (43D3226)

MARKET HARBOROUGH

COVENTRY ROAD HOSPITAL

92/3494 (43D2048)

HOME WELLAND HOUSE

92/3512 (43D2233)

MARKET HARBROUGH

JUNIOR SCHOOL

92/3429 (43D2151)

2 - 0.06 Cu 11kV

1 - SPARE

472869, 287853

472838, 287892

472415, 287987

2 - 0.15 Al 11kV

1 - 0.3 4c Al

472765, 287633

0.15 Al 11kV NC

0.15 Al 11kV NC

SPARE

OF CABLES

UNKNOWN ARRANGEMENT

SPARE

OF CABLES

UNKNOWN ARRANGEMENT

472601, 287583

0.06 Cu 11kV NC

0.3 4c Al

1 - SPARE

472515, 287507

472516, 287499

472561, 287432

1 - SPARE

2 - SPARE

2 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC

2 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC

1 - SPARE

3 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC

1 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC

2 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC

472593, 287399

472594, 287397

1 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC2 - SPARE

472560, 287291

1 - SPARE

2 - 0.06 Cu 11kV NC

472488, 287247

2 - 0.15 Al 11kV NC1 - SPARE

472603, 287190

1 - SPARE

2 - 0.06 Cu 11kV

472472, 287105

2 - SPARE

472793, 287123

1 - 0.075 4c Cu

472790, 287021

1 - 0.3 Al 11kV2 - SPARE

2 - 0.1 4c Cu

1 - 0.3 4c Cu

472959, 287162

IN DUCTS 3 - 4UNKNOWN CABLES

IN DUCTS 3 - 4UNKNOWN CABLES

3 - 0.04 Cu 11kV NC

4 - 0.04 Cu 11kV NC

0.3 4c Cu

0.1 4c Cu

472969, 287161

Welland

7

13

20

91

71

1a

141

SPENCER

STREET

49

80.8m

1

34

13

23

16

79

47

30 to 84

38

15

46

STEV

ENS ST

REET

34

5

1

1

23

5

36

3

6

El S

ub Sta

69

Cricket Ground

Chestnut

62

36

76

84

92

3

1

1

44

22

54

42

19

5

48

1

30

1

31

39

1 to 4

62

16

39

68

31

NO

RB

UR

Y

CL

OSE

67

10

Giffard Ct

23

2

9

4

8

2

House

Manse

HORSEF

AIR C

LOSE

Manse

LOGAN COURT

15

B 6047

2

26

125

45

18

14

31

3

130

13

7

El

StaSub

4

13

27

37

13

31

13

42

52

14

2

Welland

Park

1

32

A 4304

5

24

28

21

27

AD

AMS

WO

OD

CL

OSE

1

2

22

60

64

2

2a

Holly

94.2m

LEIC

ESTER R

OA

D

1

3

1

4

9

89

2

10

16

7

85

93.0m

28

FAIRFIEL

D

RO

AD

5

THE

2

1

15

24

28

12

1

3

To

win

g

Path

120

46

34

11

14

FB

33

70

15

24a

17

37

13

68

1

80

30

POPLARS COURT

Hospital

2

5a

1

4

73

93

Sub

El

30

18

54

Windsor

9

89a

91a

1

21

117

2

22

3

40

43

The Willows

91

Recreation Ground

Homewelland

19

Cedar

9

5 to 7

House

24b

16

35

PASTURES

5

50

38

8

13

30

36

3

43

43

19

18

24

Centre

Pavilion

Grand

Unio

n

Canal

67

Weir

47

12

11

CL

HILLCREST

41

78

114

103

62

71

38

16

4

NO

RT

HLEIG

H

GR

OVE

15

Allotment Gardens

11

66

15

Hornbea

m

House

19

AUSTIN

S CLOSE

45

49

THE FIRS

1

50

77

29

32

1

53

4

HEART

H STREET

56

85

21

2

12

50

6

1

5

9

1

17

21

62

10

3

1

86

26

1

6

56

95

1

5

Poplars

Spring

A 4304

7

55

2

33

Market

15

34

El

24

80.5m

4

Mast

Sub

100

2

2

21

El Sub Sta

1

18

19

CL

OS

E

THE

FIELDHEAD

B 6047

42

6

22

PCS

2

BeechHouse

HIGHF

IELD

STREET

66

15

27

1

BR

OO

KFIE

LD

RO

AD

Issues

12

87.2

m

24

60

20

6

6

El S

ub Sta

49

31

100

Union Inn

Hotel

1

21

32

89

3

7

1

1

29

1

1

143

51

10

100

8

7

29

25

69

47

2

Club

19

7

18

26

7

44

2

14

The Boathouse

The Warehouse

The Dockhouse

1 to

4

66b

2

StationFire

11

5

Sub

6

88

84.7

m

1

CHARLES S

TREET

44

6

18

18

54

95

50

House

22

1a

8

3

7

17

13

1

18

80

Oakle

y

Me

ws

19

11

7

26

HIL

L

6

5

16

BIRTLEY COPPICE

GA

RD

EN

S

31

20

Police

Ad

miral Ct

FA

RN

DO

NR

OA

D

1 to 45

10

9

71

Youth

Playground

2

30

House

12

12

16

Sta

WES

TFIE

LD

56

18

1 to 4

5 to 8

41

6

16

7

11

10

4

1

SPIN

NE

Y

CL

49

Harborough

Wharf Cottage

11

LB

13

Ground

Recreation

159

House

Fairlawn

TCB

SOUTHLEIGH GROVE

1a

1

66a

14

102

39

FAIRWAY

17

14

3

7

62a

El Sub Sta

El S

ub St

aGA

RDIN

ER ST

REET

House

14

Union Wharf

13

PH

MP 5

9

39

NELSON

STREET

34

C of E

52

LB

VIC

TO

RIA

AV

EN

UE

55

A 4304

4

LB

16

EDWARD ROAD

21

58

AVENUE

82.9m

22

29

101 20

21

13

13

8

CL

AR

KE ST

REET

A 4304

28

13a

36

29

12

Bank

FB

17

8

35

59

EAST STREET

28

48

105

LUBENHAM HILL

LO

GA

N

CR

ES

CE

NT

FB

38a

MORLEY

STREET

1b

19

HIGHCRO

SS S

TREET

56

Woodlawn

19

TH

E

WO

OD

LA

ND

SKNO

LL ST

REET

Pond

4

24

Sta

Pump

WOODLANDS

61

62

3

43

COVENTRY ROAD

104

55

60

16

84.7

m

16

95 24

Knoll

23

89

LB

20

34

25

118

73

6

25

10

13

12

19

HARCO

URT ST

REET

9

WA

RT

NA

BY ST

REET

LB

50

1

40

Wharf

30

99.1m

FB

24

68

4

27

16

101

40

33

22

18

86

16

3

Primary School

Station

3432

17

52

132

41

1

66

Pond

El

Court

LB

Sta

90.2

m

24

6

8

9

93a

64

9

River

LO

GA

N ST

REET

14

The TollHouse

1

11a

38

4

Terminal Warehouse

The Co

ach Hou

ses

121

14a

2b

1c

1

1a1b

3

Canalsi

de

1 to 10

Ha

milt

on

Cottages

The

Cottage

The

Gate

House ESS

1

6

3

4

1 to 4

2

5

Bowden Mews

Victoria

Mews

Community

Centre

59

7

HIL

L

TO

P

CL

OS

E

12a

1

38a

58a

60

60a

58

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P

2P

2P

3P2S

1P

185AL XLPE 3x1 (11kV) TAILS

6P1S

2P

2P

MARKET HARBOROUGH

LEICESTER ROAD

92/3519 (43D2113)

TYME CROSSE GARDENS

92/5374 (43D3182)

ST LUKES HOSPITAL

92/0688 (43D0646)

1, 2 - SPARE DUCT

3 - 0.06 Cu 11kV DISC

472732, 288015

472697, 288054

1 - SPARE DUCT

2 - 0.15 3c Al 11kV

20

Hillcrest

1

20

14

2

17

32

3

3

35

Lodge

36

5

13

9

30

11

Ambulance

24

9

TH

E

WO

OD

LA

ND

S

14

20

3

Pond

103.8m

17

22

26

2

20a

31

34

11

21

5

18

10

28

THE W

OODLA

NDS

Station

FB

10

15 2

VIC

TO

RIA

AV

EN

UE

HILLCREST AVE

EDWARD

ROAD

20

GP

12

47

40

2

39

2

7

13

829

63

49

43

TIM

SON CLOSE

94

28

53

89

79

SubSta

To

win

g Path

El

16

69

75

14

17

24

CO

ALES

GA

RDE

NS

Pond

2

18

B 6047

TYMECROSSE

21

44

5

6

2

18

AL

VIN

GT

ON

WA

Y

GA

RD

ENS

63

57

81

1

69

11

KESTIAN CLOSE

82

1

TURNPIKE CLOSE

1

34

8

38

49

9

1512

2

1

7

24

12

1

5

13

9-11

El Sub Sta

Holly B

ank

Helmdon

House

Wheatcroft

Lodge

Yew

Tree

House

Hospital

St Luke’s

Lay-b

y

ESS

Issues

Sinks

3P1S

4P2S

2P

2P1S

2P1S



RITCHIE PARK

92/3471 (43D2180)

92ZRMC25

30

92ZRMC26

31

92ZRMC27

32

92ZSCD80

30

92ZSCD81

31

92ZSCD82

32

BIS

HO

P

29

5

9

1

104

98

2

83

113

Pond

15

CLOSE

22

6

17

78

50

103

109

GA

RD

ENS

3

88

1

101

9

68

6

14

RIT

CHIE P

AR

K

2

DALLISON CLOSE

13

87

RAINSBOROUGH

12

JA

CKS

ON

CL

OS

E

13

8

19

7

102

14

VAUGHAN CLOSE

4 13

3

1

1

El Sub Sta

1

4

7

ARGYLE PARK

110

23

CL

OS

E

85

38

1

81

2

11

77

7

10

1

18

SELBY

2

100

97

Farndon Fields

Primary School

4 x 300CNE Tails

2P1S

2P

2P1S

2P1S

3P1S

3P3S

95PIAS (11kV,decom)

95PIAS (11kV,decom)

1 duct

185AS (11kV,decom)185AS (11kV,decom)

95AS (11kV,decom)

0.15AL (11kV,decom)

185AS (11kV,decom)

0.15AL (11kV,decom)

0.15AL (11kV) decom

95AS (11kV,decom)

2 ducts

95AS (11kV,decom)

2P1S

2P1S

3P1S

1P

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2xALK

WESTERN AVENUE

92/5367 (43D2123)

STUART ROAD

92/3506 (43D2135)

473002, 286046

473156, 286658

1 - 0.06 Cu 11kV EW

2 - SPARE EW DUCT

3 - SPARE EW DUCT

2x 0.3 4c CU EW

1x 0.3 4c AL EW

OF LV CABLES

UNKNOWN ARRANGEMENT

473158, 286675

1 - 0 4c UNKNOWN2 - SPARE

2 x EW DUCT

2 - SPARE1 - 0.3 4c Al

3 - 0.3 4c Cu

2 x EW DUCT

121

43

1

5

1

84

21

13

16

145

75

CROMWELL CRESCENT

WELLAND PARK ROAD

44

58

87

31

45

10

5

27

21

63

37

3

6

PW

11

TCB

1

LB

49

9

20

30

38

69

12

37

13

20

12

13

NA

SE

BY

CL

OS

E

Sutton Court

14

123

6

8

4

2

(PH)

1

Hill

Castlerigg

5

7

River Wel

land

29

42

37

45

Welland Park

47

LE

NT

HA

LL S

QU

AR

E

44

129

46

Community College

20

1

18

29

47

RO

WA

N

AV

EN

UE

Track

28

9

99

25

21

Langdale

Walk

51

47 to 61

33

El Sub Sta

108

59

36

18

1

Ro

wan

Ave

nue

El Sub Sta

Car

Park

54

13

12

PCs

38

13

36

26

2

2a

21

Welland Park

8690

146

19

118

15

46 to 58

6

50

Allotment Gardens

12

56

33

34

10

30

28

29

7

39

3736

35

96

24

115

13

Hall

22

20

32

2

GREEN LANE

34

46a

13

49

85

1

82.0m

79.2m

32

45

12

35

14

3

8

2

11

88

12

29

42a

23

5

9

18

35

1

1

Lenthall House

4

26

2

54

97

45

16

40

NA

SE

BY

SQ

UA

RE

52

30

130

66

FAIRF

AX

RO

AD

18

36

1

2

1

21

82

48

Monument

10

10

14

20

48

27

2

1

Whitehaven

12

Robin

16

23

6

34

STUART ROAD

1917

12

36

34

87

46

1731

2

62

1

9

1

4

11

22

42

13

WESTERN AVENUE

40

RUPERT ROAD

13

1

43

55

61

13

Chy

Aviary

Gas Gov

New Haven

106

56

92

37

60

70 to 80

(Secondary School)

Lentall

Square

3 to 15

(Recreation Ground)

Burford Green

Playground

Sports Court

1a

3P2S

2P1S

4P1S

1P

3P2S

1P1S

1P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

2P1S

4P2S

2P1S

2P1S

2P

2P2S

4P2S

1P

2P1S

7P1S

4 x 0.3AL (LV) Tails

2P1S

2P1S

1P

3P1S





ENEN

43D2111

ABBEY ST

92/3420 (43D2172)

CO-OP COVENTRY ROAD

92/3496 (43D2237)

OXFORD HOUSE

92/3418 (43D2108)

MARKET HARBOROUGH

PARKHOUSE ESTATE

92/3430 (43D2111)

1,2 - 0.3 Al 11kV

473007, 287111

473300, 287367

1 - 0.06 Cu 11kV

2 - 0.1 4c Cu

473340, 287583

1 - SPARE DUCT

2 - 0.3 4c Al

473041, 287767

1 - SPARE DUCT

2 - 0.1 4c Cu

Sub

ST

REET

14

23

Club

a

Ald

winckles

57

BU

RN

MIL

L

RO

AD

2

20

2

10

81.1

m

93.0m

32

18

13

SCHO

OL LANE

Chur

ch

2

3

Park

7

20

29

Works

16

11

3

(Car Park)

B 4304

Bank

85.0m

49

15

86

39

Paddock

14

49

13

3 2

24

Posts

LB

7

82.0m

The

Retr

eat

The Commons

67

48

Register

1

3

Amb

40

69

70

PH

1

54

11

53

42

7

56

Hind Ya

rd

1

5

35

Car

GOWARD STREET

39

11

2

10

25

45

22

29

83.8m

26

TCB

Hall

91

13

Colle

ge

4

2

8

PA

RK

DRIV

E

Church

31

14

15

Yard

40

18

Hotel

17

19

76

1

Bowling Green

3

Car

4

26

20

13

45

83.2m

Yard

9

44

5

17

34

35

63

20

2

5

1

13

78.6m

23

to

18

Sta

33

25

60

77.1

m

Talb

ot Ya

rd

19

1

66a

15

11

FIR TREE

WALK

21

41

13

65

50

10

Club

61

LEIC

ESTER R

OA

D

52

17

Park

Path

House

Jubilee

38

6

Brooke

House

28

34

51

87.8m

35

Park Mews

51

81.7m

36

40

64

18

9

28

36

3

85.0m

A 4304

31

Church

13

3

Letter

Box

Tel Ex

62

PH

YE

OM

AN

RY

CO

UR

T

Works

Manor

Walk

30

8

Car ParkSchool

Market Harborough

C Of E Primary

Arboretum

77.7m

1

4

9

Sta

FAIR

FIE

LD

RO

AD

48

41

30

Surgery

27

7 to 10

A 43

04

Court

B 6047

1 to 10

Northbank

35

36a

55

13

Hotel

32b

23

49

1

6

St

Martins

Yard

Three Cro

wns

Yard

Hotel

2

5

58

32

1 to 22

HOLLY CLOSE

4

66

Office

1

16a

El

75

2

1

2

40

THE OVAL

Park

Welland

to 30

67

1

3

43

El Sub Sta

Angel

1

35

13

17

Memor

ial

42

17

22

37

11

1 to 6

Garage

96.3m

Hall

66

11

28

KIN

G’S

20

71

79.6m

44

68

30

40a

Sta

1

69

70

19 PH

Bank

4

32

61

28

3

Angel C

ourt

Sub

1

28

7

16

Park

5

6

1

63

7

83.5m

39

21

31

11 to 20

99a

Mille

r’s

2

1

Club

HIG

H S

TR

EET

Hall

25

DO

DDRID

GE R

OAD

7 to 911

LB

5

1

5

15

ABBEY

STREET

1

68

5

2

COVENTRY ROAD

35

20

18

14

13

Cort’s

Yard

Hall

NELSON STREET

to 40

Post11

4

1

78.0m

Hall

2

El

Angel Stre

et

PH

LB

2a

2

8

HE

YG

AT

E S

TR

EE

T

BOWDEN LANE

20

1

4

1

2

3

14

8b8a

811

10

4

7

1 to 3

11

14

17

5

1 to 9

1 to 12

ESS

23

Clarke

Matthew

House

11a

Manse

OLDSCHOOL

MEW

S

5

1

6

2

7

3

8

4

The

Maltings

22

Goddard

Court

Joules

Yard

Ps

Langton

Court

1 to

10

11 to 20

Plou

ghman

s Yard

2

1

2a

7

42a

Pegasus

Court

1 to 25

Benn

ett’s

Plac

e

12

1a

Pumping Station

FB

St Joseph’s

Catholic

Primary

School

8a

7

1to

6

14 to 22

El

Sta

Sub

8

10

The

Old

Fire Stati

on An

nex

CHURCH

3

30

Chur

ch

185AL, decom

CONSUMER’S CABLE

2 x 185AL XLPE 3x1 (11kV) [o] TAILS

ROBERT SMYTH SCHOOL

92/0466 (43D0050)

MARKET HARBOROUGH

BURNMILL ROAD NORTH

92/3412 (43D2185)

BURNMILL RD

92/3411 (43D2110)

110

2

School

88

92

112

2

Tennis Courts

75

Smyth

8

1

15

24

77

El Sub Sta

14

122

Robert

102

73

24

112.9m

81

20

26

21

119.1m

Beeches

The

The

33

37

104.0m

El Sub Sta

Substation

Customer

33kV Cable

33kV PoC

MA

Y be

prese

nt in this area.

Ele

ctricit

y assets o

wne

d by ID

NO’s (I

nde

pe

nde

nt

Net

work

Operators)

PL

EA

SE

NO

TE:

This pla

n

ON

LY sho

ws assets o

wne

d by

Western

Po

wer

Distrib

utio

n.

and it’s accuracy cannot be

guarantee

d.

Inf

or

matio

n is giv

en as a guid

e

only

Designs and Patents Act 1988 unless that Act provides a relevant exception to copyright the copy must not be copied without prior permission of the copyright owner.

WPD Copyright: This copy has been made by or with the authority of Western Power Distribution (WPD) pursuant to Section 47 of the Copyright

H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE, CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED. LICENCE No.NA27318X

WORKS TO BE DISMANTLED SHOWN

TRAFFIC SENSITIVE AREA YES/NO

UNDERGROUND CABLES OVERHEAD LINES

132KV 33KV 11KV

L.V. SERVICE STREET LTG.

HV EARTH LV EARTH

132KV 33KV

11KV L.V.

SERVICE STREET LTG.

PYLON POLE STAY

HOUSE METER POSITIONS - EXTERNAL

INTERNAL

PROPOSALS COLOURED PINK

REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP WITH THE SANCTION OF THE CONTROLLER OF

SURF TELECOMS PILOT CABLESS S P P

TITLE

REV. DATE SCHEME PROGRESS BLOCK DRN CHK’D

ELECTRODE

EARTH

Serving the Midlands, South West and Wales

DISTRIBUTIONWESTERN POWER

.

.

.

DEVELOPER.

BUILDER.

ARCHITECT Drg. No.

O.S. MAP.

PARISH.

11kV DIAG.

LV. DIAG.

PLAN No. 1614695

Enq No. of1614695 1 1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A

15/05/13

INITIAL PROPOSAL

PEBBLE HALL FARM

SERVICES CABLE SIZES AS SHOWN

ALKATHENE TUBE

DUCT &

@ A3

Licence Nos. 100022488, 100024877, 100021807. CARE SHOULD BE EXERCISED TO ENSURE THE PRECISE POSITION OF THE WPD APPARATUS IF WORK IS TO BE EXECUTED IN ITS VICINITY. If in doubt, contact your local WPD office.

Based upon the Ordnance Surveys map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Reserved. Western Power Distribution, Avonbank, Feeder Road, Bristol. BS2 0TB.

N

SCALE 1:20000

DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT

PROPOSED USE OF A BUILDING TO FOOD WASTE PROCESSING BY MEANS OF THERMAL AEROBIC DIGESTION AND USE OF BIOFUEL FROM FOOD DERIVED

OIL FOR GENERATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

PEBBLE HALL FARM, THEDDINGWORTH ROAD, MARSTON TRUSSELL, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, LE17 6NJ

WELLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD

June 2013 Version 1 Final


W001-07 D&A / SE 21/06/2013


Introduction

This design and access statement forms part of the suite of planning application documents that have been submitted by GP Planning Ltd to Northamptonshire County Council. The documents have been submitted on behalf of Welland Waste Management Limited, and relate to a planning application that seeks to gain permission for the extension and change of use of an existing grain store building to include a Thermal Aerobic Digester (TAD) to produce agricultural fertiliser granules and renewable energy. The Design and Access Statement accords with industry guidance, Design and Access Statements how to read, write and use them (CABE, 2007). The Design and Access Statement considers the following in relation to the proposed development:

Use of the Site

Amount of Development Layout Scale Landscape Appearance Access

Use of Site

Pebble Hall Farm is located South of the A4304 (Bosworth Road), Theddingworth in the Northern part of the District of Daventry as shown on drawing GPP/WWM/MT/12/01 (Site Location Plan). It is approximately 1.8 km East of the village of Husbands Bosworth. Pebble Hall Farm is an agriculturally based operation that has been the subject of farm diversification, mainly as a result of the BSE crisis. By a series of grants of planning permission over a number of years, the site has established a variety of industrial/commercial concerns and a waste management operation as part of the diversification of the farm. The site is located in an area of open countryside, which by virtue of Policy EN1 of the Daventry Local Plan (saved policies), is designated as being in an area of ‘Special Landscape’. The proposed change of use relates to the building contained within the red line boundary on drawing GPP/WWM/MT/12/01 which benefits from planning permission for B8 use, but is temporarily being used as a grain storage building for the agricultural activities. It is 1680 m2 in size. The proposed application is comprised of the following:

An extension to the application building. A change of use of the application building from a grain store to include a thermal aerobic

digester (TAD) The TAD will be housed within the existing grain store and accept food waste from the sub-region to turn it into agricultural fertiliser pellets. The capacity of the plant will be a maximum of 40,000 tonnes per annum (tpa), which will produce up to 10,000 tonnes of product. In order to include the TAD the development building will be extended on its North-West side by 12.2m by 18.3m.


W001-07 D&A / SE 21/06/2013

Amount of built development

The amount of built development for the site relates to the proposed extension to the North-West elevation. This extension to the existing building measures 12.2m x 18.3m. It will carry on the slope of the roof of the existing building. The highest point will measure 9m and the minimum point will measure 5.4m in height. The total floor area of the extension equals 223m2. See GPP/WWM/PH/12/05.

Layout

The arrangement of the site has been developed with a view to maximising both the efficiency and safety of the industrial operations, and limiting the impacts upon the surrounding landscape and environment. The extension of the building will be to the North-East elevation and will allow the entire TAD process to be enclosed within the existing building. There will be two storage tanks placed outside the North-West elevation and a diesel storage tank and a generator placed outside the South-West elevation. The extension will be surrounded with hard standing in order to ease the HGV movements. The soil bund will be moved further North to accommodate the extension to the building. The bund will be reconfigured in order to provide effective screening for the extension. For the detailed site layout plan see drawing GPP/WWM/PH/12/03.

Scale

The scale of development relates to the size of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding context. The site covers 9964m2. The extension to the development building will equal 223m2. This is a relatively small compared to the size of the existing building which equals 1680m2. There will be associated machinery and offices located outside the building, as shown on the Site Layout Plan GPP/WWM/PH/12/03. The stack height will be 17metres high by 0.5 metres in diameter.

Landscaping

A soil bund will be placed along the North-East side of the building and extension. This bund will screen the site, therefore reducing any negative impact on visual amenity. See GPP-WWM-PH-12-03. Numerous approved landscaping features have been implemented on the site. See Drawing GPP-CL-PH-09-04. Specifically, the 8787m2 of native woodland planting to the North-East of the site will provide effective screening for the proposed extension. The grass seeded area on the soil bund will also have this effect.

Appearance

This TAD will be fully enclosed within the extended building, therefore reducing any detrimental effects to visual amenity. The extension will be made of the same material as the existing building, cladding is Juniper Green plastisol coated steel sheeting. There will be two storage tanks placed outside the North-West elevation and a diesel storage tank and a generator placed outside the South-West elevation. These will be effectively screened by the soil bund and not easily seen from a distance. The stack height is only 5 metres above the height of the rising land to the south and is very small in diameter (0.5 metres). The elevations are illustrated in Drawing GPP/WWM/PH/12/05.


W001-07 D&A / SE 21/06/2013

Lighting

The current lights on the existing building will be retained. No other fixed lighting will be used without prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. All lights will be switched off when the site is not in use.

Access

Access to the site is gained from the A4304. The existing access to the site crosses the Northamptonshire and Leicestershire county boundaries. It is surfaced in concrete and is approximately 560 metres long. There is a weighbridge located at the end of the access track. HGVs will be weighed at this point and then travel through the site to the application building. See GPP/WWM/PH/12/02. No access for members of the public to the site is to be provided. Only authorised people will be allowed on site. The access currently has a traffic counter.