Fossoway

PROPOSED LAMBHILL DEVELOPMENT
ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
PLANNING

1. Scottish Planning Regulations under PAN 45 & NPPG6 advise that CHP Plants are classed as
industrial uses and thus require that planning consent to operate. It also advises that consent
should be guided by the local and structure plan.
As this site is not identified in either the local of structure plans and is zoned for agricultural
(Green Belt) does the proposer intend to apply for change of use to industrial consent?
A. NPPG 6 was superseded by SPP6 “Renewable Energy” which was in turn revoked by Scottish
Planning Policy in February 2010. Para. 182 of the current Scottish Planning Policy encourages
the development of biomass technology as a means of increasing the amount of electricity
generated from renewable resources and as a means of supporting sustainable economic
growth. PAN 45 is a Planning Advice Note not policy document. Nevertheless, PAN 45 states
at para. 10; “Scotland has a considerable medium term resource in the shape of forestry
biomass”.
Yes, a biomass plant can be described as an industrial use but a more accurate description for
a planning proposal is a biomass plant. The Government’s planning policy for rural areas is to
encourage diversification and the re-use of brownfield sites. This proposal complies with two
important planks in that it is a renewable energy proposal and would make beneficial use of a
brownfield agricultural site in the countryside.
Development plans are not prescriptive and cannot anticipate every development idea or
proposal that comes forward. They are not “telepathic”. Structure Plans do not allocate sites
for specific purposes. The Kinross Area Local Plan is now almost 7 years old and just because
a piece of ground is not allocated for a specific purpose does not prevent a proposal coming
forward. Each application for planning permission has to be determined on its merits and
that is the case with this proposal.

2. National Planning Policy Guideline 6 states that in relation to the local community, (Biomass)
developments should not be permitted where they would have a significant long term
detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby, and where the impact cannot be
mitigated satisfactorily. NPPG6 2000.
The Scottish Parliament in relation to Blairingone stated on 31 March 2003 that
‘In the case of Blairingone, the village has undoubtedly suffered enough and deserves a clear
statement as to the risks or otherwise of the activities adjacent to it.’
‘In reaching our conclusion, the committee is conscious that the health of the public should
never be jeopardised for lack of definitive evidence. Neither should the situation be made worse
by inappropriate and unjustified speculation’.
It can be argued that the long term detrimental impact could be the physical and mental health
of the residents living close to the operation.
How does the operator react to the history of this site and the fact that he will be placing a great
deal of strain on the local community? What guarantees other than he is complying with
legislation can the operator provide to prevent physical and mental health?
A. NPPG 6 has been superseded. Each application has to be determined on its merits. Whilst
the Scottish Parliament made comments about Blairingone in 2003 these comments were not
made in relation to a proposal for biomass. This current proposal has to be judged on its
planning merits.
We would not presume to comprehend the impact on the community arising out of what was
a totally unsatisfactory series of events. However, we are in no way connected to the parties
which caused the problems and neither should our proposed process be viewed in the same
category. We all have a responsibility to represent the proposal in its true form and some of
the inappropriate comparisons that have been made to date are more likely to create
needless concern. Having said that, we appreciate that you need to satisfy yourselves that
the community’s interests are best served, and hopefully we have so far been as open and
responsive as possible.
In terms of the environment and health, it is intended that answers to some of the
subsequent questions address these aspects.

3. The Scottish Parliament in relation to previous activity on this site said “Blairingone has
undoubtedly suffered enough and deserves a clear statement as to the risks or otherwise of the
activities adjacent to it… The health of the public should never be jeopardised for lack of
definitive evidence”. John McAllion MSP petitions Committee Chair.
Will you contract with this community to the effect that if any member of the public suffers as a
result of the emissions, noise or dust particles that there will be a mechanism in place to seek
compensation directly from the operators of the plant. A contract will be entered into directly
with the community that will detail the medical steps that will be taken and the level of
compensation if injury occurs. Additionally will you offer a mechanism for the nuisance and
damage to property resulting from ash, chimney residue, sawdust or other contaminants
drifting off this site onto adjoining land and homes affecting washing drying on lines, window’s
or vehicles being covered in airborne particles?
A. We are of course subject to the law of Scotland in this respect and our legal liabilities are
already established. The idea of trying to create a bi-lateral contract which takes the place of
common law is frankly nonsense. Procedures and remedies already exist to address any
failure to meet our duties and obligations. We do not believe that the processes that we
propose to undertake on site will lead to the type of nuisances you describe because of the
technology, methods and management procedures that we will adopt. We will offer some
further explanation of this during the presentation on 15 February. Of course, in the unlikely
event that an incident should occur which is a result of our operation, then we are prepared
to offer appropriate compensation.

4. Recognising the history of this site and how this community has suffered with firstly an open
cast mine then the spreading of medical and abattoir waste, if this community rejects your
proposals will you withdraw your interest?
A. If we felt that the basis for objections were substantive and undermined the merits of the
proposal, rather than some linkage to an unfortunate history of the site, then we would
reconsider the application. However, we would also take account of the views of those
people in the community that are either undecided or, favourable to the project.

5. Scottish Planning regulations call for uses of this nature to, at the end of their useful life,
reinstate the land back to a condition that is in keeping with the area. Would you confirm what
timescale you would propose to reinstate this land and that a fund would be set aside to do this.
Additionally would you contract with the community other than by a S75 agreement to reinstate
the land?
A. We will comply with the law.

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC & LIGHTING IMPACT
6. What measures are being taken to minimise the visual and acoustic impact of this development,
(tree planting, soil banks, acoustic baffling)?
A. In considering the visual impact, we have attempted to set out the plant in a manner which
uses the existing building and contours, e.g. placing the CHP building on the lower slab to
keep its ridge height at a similar level to the existing building on site – and in line with that
building. Likewise, keeping the extension to the existing building at the same roof height.
The existing tree planting to the north and east of the site will continue to offer increased
screening as it matures. Additional tree plant is an option if this will provide additional
screening.
In terms of acoustics, our intention is to deal with the main noise emitters at source through
the application of technology as the primary means of sound attention. If additional benefit
can be provided by landscaping, screening with trees or banking etc., then this will be
considered but we will not rely on this as being the most effective method of dealing with
noise.
Where feasible, we will house noisy equipment in their own acoustic enclosures, e.g. this is
the norm when installing gas engines. Additionally, silencers will be fitted to exhausts. The
construction of the building will incorporate materials with components designed to have the
appropriate acoustic performance. We can reassure people that these will not be simple
’wriggly tin’ sheds.
In terms of yard operations, we have undertaken to complete these by 8pm each evening, i.e.
all overnight operations will be confined within the buildings themselves, e.g. bales of
palletised shavings will be stacked within an internal storage area overnight – ready for
loading during daytime operations.
We have carried out a background acoustic study to establish noise levels (day and night) at
what are potential the most sensitive sites for noise (nearest properties). The final design of
the infrastructure and operations will be based on ensuring that these noise levels are not
exceeded.

7. Noise – This is a very quiet area. The proximity of this CHP plant to my house is approximately
230 metres. As my family and I (and other residents immediately adjacent) would directly suffer
from noise pollution (outwith core business hours 8am-6pm) what steps are being taken and
what level of compensation would be offered is noise pollution was found to occur?
Would you be prepared to install noise monitors at 360 degrees surrounding the site for the
duration of the CHP plant and if noise levels are found to be above agreed levels either offer
compensation or take action to bring levels to agreed limits?
A Please see the statement in answer to Q6. The distance of your property from the main noise
sources is actually closer to 400m. As you know, it is likely that achievement of noise levels
will be a condition of the planning consent. Should you believe that we are exceeding these
levels, and do not wish to discuss the matter with us in the first instance, then a complaint
can be made to the Environmental Health Officer. They will assess the situation and
ultimately enforce us to remedy the problem or cease the operation that is causing the
problem. Clearly, the last thing we want is to get phone calls from irate neighbours
complaining about noise. That is why we will take our responsibility in this respect very
seriously. We do not want to run the risk of having planned operations curtailed – this does
not make any sense. Therefore, our approach will, if anything, be overly cautious. We will be
happy to keep neighbours informed of our detailed design plans through the design process.
In terms of establishing noise monitors, we don’t believe that this is practical.

8. Visual Impact – You advise that “every effort” has been made to minimise the visual impact,
specifically minimising it from local residents. What do you mean by “every effort” as little
detail on this effort has been demonstrated? Additionally what extra measures such as tree
planting, landscaping and earth works are you planning to obscure this completely from local
residents?
A. Please see answer to Question 6 above.

9. Light Pollution – At night time this is a very dark area. What steps will be taken to ensure that
there is no light pollution from the sight onto adjoining land and property?
A. We are aware of the existing lighting levels presently on site. In simple terms, we would work
to ensure that the impact of artificial lighting is certainly no worse than it is at present.
Moreover, we would try and improve the situation by considering a more modern and
sophisticated, and hopefully more beneficial system for everyone. Our focus would be to
concentrate on looking at the necessary local safety and task lighting and introduce features
such as PIR sensors. Whilst lighting in the yard would be necessary during winter hours – say
4pm-8pm, it will be minimised thereafter.

AIR QUALITY
10. Dr Van Steenis, advisor to the UK Government advises that incineration of wood and the
resulting PM1 and PM 2.5 particle emissions cause a shortening of life by up to 11 years by
increasing a range of diseases including strokes, cancers, heart attacks and infant mortality. He
goes on to advise that the best technique for a wood fired power station is plasma gasification
using an electric welding arc. He advises the emissions are greatly reduced and electricity
produced increases three fold. Can you confirm how your proposal differs from this and if you
would consider using this type of incineration.
A. Firstly, we are not sure that it is correct to state that Dr Van Steenis is an advisor to the UK
Government. Secondly, this is not incineration – it is a gasification process as is plasma arc
gasification. As we understand it, the prime reason why Dr Van Steenis recommends this
technology for ‘waste to energy’ applications (versus incineration) is because the very high
temperatures guarantee destruction of harmful chemicals, heavy metals etc. which are found
in waste materials. True, occasionally, such elements are found in virgin wood – resulting
from absorption predominantly from the atmosphere – and relating to the level of pollution
in the area in which the timber is grown. If they occur, they are at very low levels and this is
why virgin wood is not classified as ‘waste’ in terms of the Waste Incineration Directive.
Additionally, both plasma arc and our technology produce a syngas for use in say an engine to
produce electricity and heat. The clean- up process for the syngas is important to reduce the
particulate levels. Our process includes a cyclone, bag filter and demister clean up –
producing a very clean syngas. We do not believe that Dr Van Steenis is correct with his
‘three fold’ increase in electricity production. A recent report by Dr Gary Young in the USA
comparing waste conversion technologies suggests that plasma arc gasification is perhaps
20% more efficient for electricity production from waste than pyrolysis. If it was 3x better,
then we would be creating energy! This report also goes on to suggest (using US assumptions
on input costs and revenues) than it only breaks even when feeding it with between 180-270
tonnes of waste per day. Finally, plasma arc gasification is in its early stages of development
and is very expensive. It is perhaps viable only because the fuel source is, at worst ‘free’, and
in most cases attracts a gate fee, i.e. municipalities pay to have it treated.

11. Air Quality – Biomass increases the emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulphur
dioxide as well as formaldehyde, toluene, acetaldehyde etc. These are found to have an impact
on the health of children.
A. Please see the comment above about potential pollutants in virgin wood.
Additionally, particle pollution especially fine particles contain microscopic solids and liquid
droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health
problems.
A. A summary of the air quality analysis will be presented at the meeting on 15 February.
Hopefully, this will demonstrate the impact of the emissions relative to the background levels
in the area and also air quality standards as set in Scotland and comparing these to world-
wide standards and the World Health Organisation recommendations.
As a father of a 15 month old baby and a 5 year old what steps will you take to ensure that my
children are not exposed to any toxins or particle pollution coming from the operation of this
CHP plant.
A. We have described the abatement measures we will take and will show the impact. We
would then pose the question – how do you think this compares to those households in the
village who are burning wood in open fireplaces and stoves – with no abatement?
Also recognising the Scottish legal precedent of ‘Duty of Care’ and particularly numerous cases
where an operator adhering to ‘best practice’ was not found to be sufficiently robust argument
to protect them from litigation when the operator knew of extra measures that could be taken
to address this ‘duty of care’. What extra steps over UK guidelines will you take?
A. We have explained why we believe this process to be superior to traditional combustion.
Will you meet an independent expert, who is advisor to the UK Government and take on board
their recommendations for minimising the emissions of this operation?
A. We will demonstrate that we will exceed the requirements of Scottish air quality standards.
We are not averse to examining what other measures are available.
Would you be prepared to install air pollution monitors at 360 degrees surrounding the site for
the duration of the CHP plant and if levels of pollutant/toxins are found to be above agreed
levels either offer compensation or take action to bring levels to within agreed limits?
A. Air pollution monitors at 360 degrees is simple impractical because the atmosphere in the
vicinity of the site is not ‘pure’. Therefore, there is no way of determining who is causing the
pollution – it could be from your own chimney. We are happy to undertake regular checks of
emissions from our flue stack, and if it was considered that it would deliver a real benefit,
then we might look at continuous emissions monitoring. This would provide data on a
continuous basis and identify what the plant is producing – not what might be arising from
other emitters in the area.

12. Dust Contamination – What steps will be taken to ensure that no dust from ash or sawdust will
be blown off the site onto adjoining land and property and what compensation will you offer if
this occurs and affects such issues as washing drying outside, windows becoming dirty more
than normal etc.
A. Ash will be conveyed automatically from the gasifier to closed ash containers. These have
shut-off flaps which operate at container change-over. This is fairly standard procedure in
such plants and should not give rise to the opportunity for ash to blow offsite. Likewise,
shavings and sawdust handling will be undertaken indoors. Good housekeeping is essential
but if you go to a modern, well run shavings plant, you would be surprised by how clean they
are. As we mentioned above, in the unlikely event of an incident as described, then we will
accept our responsibility and deal with it to the reasonable satisfaction of the affected
property owner.

FUEL FEEDSTOCK
13. Scottish Natural Heritage advise that if care is not taken in the production of feedstocks, the
development of bioenergy could have diverse impacts on biodiversity, landscapes, soil and water
quality, further supporting the rejection of a biomass chp plant at this location.
What is the operators view on this and what guarantees will be given that no contamination to
the local land, water courses, soil and air will result from the operation?
A. Before answering this specific point, it is worth clarifying for those who are unaware, that the
above comment refers to an extract from Scottish National Heritage’s document ‘Bioenergy
and the natural heritage’. To set the context, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), in the
Introduction state that;
‘SNH strongly supports the development of renewable energy, including bioenergy, as part of
the Government’s action on climate change’.
‘The development of bioenergy in Scotland offers the opportunity to utilise land for forestry
and energy crops in a way which could benefit both landscapes and wildlife and which can be
accommodated alongside existing land management practices. The bioenergy industry
provides opportunities for enhanced rural employment and can contribute to the sustainable
and dynamic economy for Scotland’.
In this context, it then goes on to make the statement referred to in the question above.
Specifically, SNH’s comment refers to the production of feedstock, and the following response
assumes that this is what the question refers to as opposed to operation on site.
The EU is introducing mandatory sustainability criteria and greenhouse gas thresholds in
respect of renewable feedstocks. In order to qualify for renewable certification, the operator
will be subject to regular audits, part of which requires a fuel management system to be
maintained – which will track upstream supply. For this reason it is incumbent on the
operator to purchase feedstock from reputable suppliers who can demonstrate compliance
with the extensive regulations which already exist in the UK forest industry. Ultimately we
are not experts in forestry and rely on selecting those companies with that expertise to
manage that portion of the supply chain. Most of them have many years of proven
experience and expertise in this area – managing the aspects of concern mentioned above,
e.g. whether or not to engage in stump removal. We do not see an influx of ‘new’ forestry
management companies into the market to try and take advantage of the increase in activity
in this area.

14. Scottish Natural Heritage also advise that at the local & global level there is a risk that
bioenergy feedstocks could be derived from unsustainable production systems namely not
enough wood to supply a biomass plant with fuel. Thus suggesting that biomass which starts
out by burning wood will inevitably burn other biomass such as chicken litter, farm slurries,
sewage sludge and municipal solid wastes. All of which are permitted to be incinerated under
Scottish regulations and a planning consent does not differentiate between fuel types.
What guarantees will be given that no fuel other than wood will be used in the lifetime of this
facility.
A. We are prepared to enter into a Good Neighbour Agreement in respect of the commitment
not to utilise waste as a fuel feedstock. A Good Neighbour Agreements is a voluntary
agreement which is legally binding and entered into between the developer and the
community. The community can enforce it terms akin to a normal contract. They have been
introduced into the planning system in Scotland from 1 February this year and are considered
a mechanism to govern land management/operations and are intended to help alleviate
objections, such as the above.

15. You advise that this plant will only burn wood yet Scottish planning regulations allow biomass
plants to burn other fuel types including oilseed rape, cereal straw, and waste such as, municipal
waste, wood waste, poultry litter, abattoir waste and waste vegetable oils. Will you enter into a
contract with the community to the effect that for the lifetime of the operation of this plant that
no fuel other than virgin wood will be used?
A. Please see answer to Question 14 above.

MISCELLANEOUS
16. Wildlife – I walk my dogs on this land almost every morning and evening. Over the past 3 years I
have spotted 4 species of woodpecker, bats, barn and tawny owls, red squirrels, roe and sika
deer, red kite, peregrine falcon as well as badger sets and pine martin droppings. What steps
will be taken to protect these animals especially as some are protected species.
A. Our operations will be confined to the road and slabbed areas marked on the drawings. We
will have no need or desire to encroach into the wooded area and surrounds which are
adjacent to the site. We do not believe the operations will have any adverse impact on these
species or their habitat.

17. Impact – The RICS acknowledge that homes adjacent to unacceptable and inappropriate uses
suffer a drop in their capital value. What compensation will you offer home owners who suffer a
drop in the capital value of their homes as a direct result of this operation being sited with close
proximity?
A. We would refute the plant being described as an unacceptable and inappropriate use.

18. There is an equestrian and public right of way through the property from Vicars Bridge Road.
The current operator broke legislation by padlocking a gate at the entrance to this site. Will you
allow the public uninterrupted use of this right of way?
A. We cannot comment on the actions of the current operator. Clearly we will be bound by law
and comply with legislation. From an operation, suitability and safety point of view, we are
happy to talk about arriving at a solution which suits all parties. At the Open Day, we talked
about the possibility of establishing a new walkway to the north of the site which might
provide a more convenient and pleasant route to access the woodland area.

19. Community Fund – a proposal for a community fund mechanism was tabled to Lambhill Energy
Ltd by a local resident during a recent meeting with the community council. This fund would
operate on the premise that what is important to the community is a degree of control and
peace of mind that this is a safe operation as opposed to outright financial gain. The
mechanism proposed is that Lambhill Energy upon receipt of planning permission would gift the
land to the community who would then lease it back to Lambhill Energy ltd for a term to be
agreed. There would be clauses within the lease that would cover emission levels, noise, fuel
type, management of the plant in terms of minimising materials from blowing off the site to
adjoining houses and future expansion. Would you enter into an agreement with the
community?
If you would not be prepared to enter into this agreement what other contractual agreement
would you offer to back up your verbal promises regarding the fuel type, emissions, noise, air
quality levels etc?

A. In terms of the above-mentioned proposal that was tabled, it is wholly unacceptable and
unworkable. We believe that we have covered the points raised in the previous answers. We
are happy to sit and talk about some form of contribution to local projects, perhaps towards
the construction of a new village hall which I understand has been discussed in the
community.

Adrian Talpade
Lambhill Energy Limited