Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | March 12, 2015

Full EA Refusal report published on Twemlow AD waste plant

Cheshire East has now published the full 34 page EA refusal for the proposed Twemlow AD Waste plant 12/0705W  :

EA Decision link.

The EA showed strong grounds for refusal at this location ….

Tanks not fit for purpose.

“It is very difficult to achieve good mixing in purpose designed tanks and the fact that this site proposes to use former MOD fuel storage tanks add further to this concern.”

“How will the gas holding integrity of the tanks be assessed? They are over 60 years old and were never designed to be gas tight. How will the ingress of ambient air be consistently prevented at the planned low pressures within the digester tanks? This is important because significant air ingress could result in the formation of explosive mixtures within the tanks.”  [page 12]


“the containment and abatement proposals do not demonstrate that odours will be effectively controlled.”  [page 16]

“given the significant potential for odour the measures proposed would not minimise annoyance.” [page 17]

Proximity to housing.

“The problem is that any fugitive emissions have the potential to cause odour pollution beyond the site boundary given the proximity of the receptors.”

“we can offer no assurance that it will be possible to demonstrate an appropriate level of process control in such a challenging environment given the proximity of sensitive receptors.  The Agency believe that there is a high likelihood that the site will cause odour pollution beyond the site boundary ”  [page 17]

The EA concludes;  “…the Agency is unsure whether it will be possible to avoid significant odour pollution with the feedstock materials proposed and in such close proximity to neighbours.”  [page 21]

As we have said all along – the site is too close to homes.  Read the full report; Environment Agency reasons for refusal. 

Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | March 4, 2015

Suspected methane blast kills 30 in Ukraine mine

A suspected methane gas blast at a coal mine in a rebel-held region of eastern Ukraine has killed at least 30 people, officials say, highlighting the constant risk involved with methane and the need for high safety standards.

At least 14 miners were also injured at the Zasyadko mine in Donetsk, scene of the country’s worst mine disaster nearly eight years ago.  Rescuers have not yet reached the site of the blast, officials said.  Donetsk saw heavy fighting between separatist rebels and government troops over the winter.  But a mine union official, Mikhail Volynets, told a Ukrainian TV channel there had been no fighting in the area in recent days.

Vladimir Tsymbalenko, head of the local mining safety service, was quoted by Reuters as saying: “According to preliminary information, more than 30 people were killed.

“Rescue workers have not yet come to the place of the explosion, they are removing the poisonous gas and then will go down.”

While Ukraine’s economy has significantly shrunk since the conflict began in April, many coal mines continue to operate in the conflict zone. Before the conflict, accidents were common in the mines, where safety standards are poor.  Despite being one of the region’s newer and better-equipped mines, Zasyadko suffered Ukraine’s worst mining disaster in November 2007, when 101 people were killed.

BBC 4th March 2015

Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | March 4, 2015

Crouchland Biogas REFUSED

Common sense prevailed:

Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | March 1, 2015

Exposure To Hydrogen Sulphide Caused Death

Tragic death at an AD plant due to toxic gases, Farmers Guardian article………..

Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | February 5, 2015

Fenland DC refuse Wimblington AD plant

Proposed AD plant in Wimblington refused by Fenland District Council.  Common sense prevailed, with one dwelling only 16 metres from the site.

‘Fengrain discover a touch of Murphy’s Law – everything that could go wrong did as they lose AD plant vote.

Fengrain Anaerobic digestion plant. Planning meeting at FDC, March. Picture: Steve Williams

Fengrain Anaerobic digestion plant. Planning meeting at FDC, March. Picture: Steve Williams

He’s not renowned for bringing an audience to its feet but Councillor Peter Murphy was in an unforgiving mood in protesting against an anaerobic digester plant in Wimblington.

Frustrated by two hours of debate at Fenland District Council over whether to allow Fengrain to go ahead with AD plant in Hook Lane he urged “let commonsense prevail over commercial greed”.

He brought a 70 strong group of protestors to their feet as his argument to refuse the application gradually won colleagues over.

Only two Wisbech councillors, Dave Patrick and Michael Bucknor, voted for the application, the rest grinding out reasons for refusing it.

Officers and planning chiefs will now formulate the reasons for refusal to minimise the chances of Fengrain winning an appeal.

Fengrain managing director Paul Rendle described the AD plant as a “vital cog” in defending the livelihoods of local farmers and claimed residents would not be “unduly inconvenienced”.

After the meeting he criticised Councillor Dave Connor and MP Steve Barclay for not taking up invitations to visit the site. He also felt many of those objecting were not from the Hook area of the village and therefore not directly affected.

But with 131 letters of objections – and a further 400 objections sent recently to the council- the odds were stacked against Fengrain, even though council officers had recommended it for approval.

Cllr Connor predicted smells from the AD plant would “be overwhelming and it would also have a detrimental affect on the countryside. We should learn from the past”.

Parish council chairman Maureen Davis warned the digester “would have a profound affect on Wimblington. We already suffer noise from the grain store and residents already have to keep their windows closed during the harvest- now they would not be able to open them at all.”

Fertilizer company boss Mark Laws said the AD plant “puts me in a vulnerable position” claiming it could impede access but also warned of a chemical and gas risk.

Councillor Will Sutton said he had asked himself if he would be happy with an AD plant on his back door “and after thinking about, no I wouldn’t”. He was not convinced odours could be abated.

Chief planning officer Graham Nourse said a decision needed to be made on specific planning grounds after highways and health objections were dismissed from evidence provided by the county and district council officials.

But Cllr Murphy ploughed on, citing specific planning policies from which objections could be formulated – and others councillors arguing for localism to prevail.

He said: “There is plenty of land all over the county – they could still build an AD plant, and with grants too, but somewhere in the open countryside. This is the wrong location.” ‘

Source:  Cambs Times 4th Feb 2015




Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | January 30, 2015

QC’s View WSCC Planning Report Flawed In Law

Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | January 21, 2015

Local fresh milk direct to customer


Selling fresh milk direct to local people from the local farm.

“Cows Own”, Blue Slate Farm, Twemlow Lane.  Simple and easy.  Place order > State time and when you want to collect > or have it delivered for small fee.

Telephone Landline – 01477 532201 or Mobile – 07855 197827

4 pints of our fresh and nutritious milk for £1.50. We ask, if you want delivered to your home or workplace, for a small fee of £1.50 to cover running around costs OR you can come to the farm (with or without your own milk containers) for collection here. If you would like to place a milk order please either inbox or message Cows Own on our facebook page or alternatively use our contact numbers listed above (text/answerphone message is fine if no answer).

Fresh milk from Cows Own. Fresh milk from Cows Own.

View original post

Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | January 21, 2015

Over 250 ePetition signatures & growing

Show support by signing their petition:

A West Sussex [Plaistow & Ifold Parish] community action group P.O.R.E. – Protect our Rural Environment has created an E-petition:  Protect Rural Sussex Parishes from an unapproved industrial Biogas Plant   It is due to be decided on the 3rd February 2015.
Crouchland propose increasing the numbers of large compressed gas tankers and HGVs.
They cause traffic disruption, continual road & verge degradation and unsafe roads for walkers, riders, cyclists and other motorists.
Their transport routes are throughout our villages and rural roads, on the B2133, down the A272 and further afield.
Posted by: tagnotowasteplant | January 11, 2015

A Biogas Expert Comments

Exactly, “they must be in the right place”. Sage advice.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »