Chelveston Airfield (North) Chelveston
Planning, Design & Access
Statement
Conversion of Existing Former Defence Buildings, Use of
Land for Siting of Containers and Installation of New Septic Tank and Water Tank to form Live Fire Training Facilities for Northamptonshire County Council Fire &
Rescue Service
May 2011 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...... 3
2.0 Site Description ...... 5
3.0 Planning History ...... 8
4.0 Planning Policy ...... 12
5.0 Planning Analysis ...... 16
6.0 Design & Access Statement ...... 28
7.0 Conclusions ...... 32
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 2 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The following planning, design and access statement has been prepared in support of this planning application for a new fire training facility upon part of the northern section of Chelveston Airfield as shown upon the site location plan.
1.2 The development would comprise the change of use and conversion of four existing former defence buildings within the northern section of the site, the use of existing hardstanding for the stationing of ISO containers and the installation of a new septic tank and water tank. Access to the training facility would be from the B645 Kimbolton Road via the main distribution road within the Airfield perimeter. The southern access would be available for emergency access if required.
1.3 Uses such as that proposed generally require a substantial space to operate safely and without harming amenity. The Fire and Rescue Service has been looking for an appropriate site for 2-3 years and this is the only site which has been deemed suitable.
1.4 Training facilities such as this are vital to ensure firefighters have the ability to train for hazardous situations within a controlled environment. Following the loss of a number of firefighter‟s lives in such situations recently, the need for suitable training facilities has been clearly made.
1.5 This facility would also allow The Service to train using new fire fighting techniques (Cold Cut Cobra) and to relocate their Fire Behaviour Training from High Wycombe. This would materially enhance the training facilities at the disposal of Northamptonshire County Council Fire and Rescue Service at a location which would not result in harm to residential amenity or the countryside and would be more sustainable than current arrangements.
1.6 Chelveston Airfield is considered ideal in that it is isolated from residential properties, is well screened and features existing built development to make effective use of. The training facility would result in almost no additional development by utilising existing buildings upon the site for storage and servicing uses, with the only additions to the site being the siting of additional ISO containers which contain the actual fire training facilities along with a septic tank and water tank.
1.7 Pre–application discussions with Northamptonshire County Council earlier this year indicated general support for the proposal and set out the level of information required to support the application.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 3 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
1.8 The statement is set out as follows:
2.0 Site Description
3.0 Planning History
4.0 Planning Policy
5.0 Planning Analysis
6.0 Design & Access Statement
7.0 Conclusion
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 4 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
WIDER AIRFIELD SITE
2.1. This former RAF base, purchased in 2005, comprises some 305 Ha, 144 Ha in Northamptonshire and 161 Ha in Bedfordshire. The site is open, flat and featureless on the highest ground between the Midlands and the East Coast, ideal for its former use. Whilst the site lies in a rural setting it is not in any designated landscape areas.
2.2. The airfield is 2km (1.25 miles) south east of the village of Chelveston and 1.6km (1 mile) north of Yelden in Bedfordshire. The nearest town, Rushden is approximately 4.8 km (3 miles) to the west of the site and is an important market town, strategically located in East Northamptonshire.
2.3. Chelveston Airfield was built in 1940-1 and opened on 15 August 1941. The airfield comprised a standard RAF A-pattern airfield. In mid-1942 the airfield was established as the base for the USAAF 301st Bomb Group, replaced in December by the 305th Bomb Group. During the winter months of 1942/43 the airfield‟s runways and dispersal areas were expanded to accommodate the B17s of the 305th Bomb Group. At the end of the war the airfield was returned to the RAF and from October 1945 to May 1947 it remained a sub-site of 25 Maintenance Unit. The Second World War airfield officially closed in 1947.
2.4. In 1951 it was re-commissioned to accommodate USAF B-47 bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This required the construction of a rectangular concrete apron, headquarters building and crash tender shed and a new control centre in addition to a new runway, dispersal and taxiways. On 1st December the based was handed over to the USAF Third Air Force. Between 1951 and 1954 the airfield was entirely re-built. The former runways and taxi-paths partially removed to accommodate the new designs. The airfield remained under the jurisdiction of the USAF until 1st August 1962.
2.5. In 1977 the runways and most of the perimeter tracks were removed to be used as hardcore in the development of Milton Keynes. Later in the year the airfield site was re-commissioned (B/TP/75/1492/A) as a Radio Transmitter site under the 81st Signals Unit. Twenty two tall transmitter masts were located within the central mast compound, consisting of 82 Ha in the centre of the site, and were sectioned off with a 2m high chain link security fence. Although the masts have been removed, much of
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 5 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
this infrastructure remains, including the extensive reinforced concrete foundations, wooden picket fencing surrounding each mast‟s location. A further, inner area surrounded by a separate high integrity chain link security fence contains a number of good quality modern buildings which housed control rooms, generators and facilities for the recent radio mast site and its operational personnel. The aerial masts on the site of the former airfield remained in use until December 2003. In June 2005 the site was sold by Bruton Knowles selling agents.
2.6. To the south west of the central mast compound lies another communications area known as the Boxer Mast site and storage area, which has an area of 0.3 Ha. A nissen hut, above ground diesel fuel storage tank and a generator house forms part of this closed off section. The 70m radio communication mast was until recently in use by the MOD but has now been acquired by the applicant. It is visible from most view points surrounding the former airfield site and forms a useful visual reference point. It remains in a separate secure compound and can only be accessed by authorised personnel. On the north eastern corner of the site, lie four former defence buildings of corrugated sheeted steel roofing.
2.7. The majority of the site is currently used for livestock grazing by a local farmer. The concrete runways and associated dispersal points have long been removed including the control tower and hangar buildings. Some hangar bases and internal roads and taxi ways remain visible and useable. The various MOD airfield layouts resulted in the whole area of the site being built on and utilised at one time or another and whilst not necessarily visible, large areas of the site have remnants of reinforced concrete and redundant infrastructure remaining.
2.8. Former drainage systems and open lagoons present obvious dangers to the health and safety of any unsuspecting public and former fuel storage tanks and explosive ordnance storage areas present further potential hazards. The site is known to have contained former temporary asbestos buildings and fuel storage tanks with soakaways and oil traps, which have largely been removed. The site is considered brownfield and Previously Developed Land for the purposes of further development, a point accepted by Northamptonshire County Council in their determination of the previous Anaerobic Digestion proposal.
2.9. Outside of the site on the south western boundary lies a residential area formerly comprising married quarters for RAF and USAF personnel but now in private
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 6 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
ownership. Public rights of way, bridleways and footpaths have been re-opened across the site in locations which were agreed between the MOD and Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire County Councils prior to the sale of the site.
SPECIFIC APPLICATION SITE
2.10. The particular part of the site proposed for use within this application comprises an area at the northern end of the airfield. The site within the red line consists of existing hardstanding adjacent to and within existing woodland along with eight former defence buildings. Four lie within the woodland and four outside. All buildings are interconnected by way of existing hardstanding.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 7 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
BACKGROUND
3.1. Chelveston airfield has been in defence use since the early stages of World War Two and has a very limited planning history as it benefited from Crown Immunity. It was originally opened in August 1941 by the Air Ministry for use as a wartime RAF base. The site was large enough to accommodate three runways, which were laid out in the then standard RAF triangular format. However, RAF Chelveston, known as Station 105, was used by the American Army Air Force (USAAF) from 6th December 1942 until 25th July 1945, for bomber operations over German occupied Europe. The airfield was in use by the 301st and then the 305th Bombardment Groups who flew the four engine Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bomber.
3.2. At the end of hostilities, the airfield was briefly used as a satellite station for the 25 Maintenance Unit (MU). However, with the onset of the Cold War and the need for an American military presence to complement other allied forces, the USAF Strategic Air Command took over the airfield in December 1952. They extended the main runway to accommodate the larger and more powerful jet engine bombers, originally, Boeing B-47 Stratojets flew out of the airfield. These were then replaced by the RB-66 Destroyers of the 42nd Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron (10th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing) who arrived in August 1959. In August 1962 the squadron left the airfield during what was known as Operation Clearwater, and the base was retained as a reserve airfield.
3.3. The long runway has been broken up and removed as has much of the rest of the base infrastructure. Since 1978, the majority of the site was occupied by the 81 Signals Unit who established a mast farm at the site. These masts have recently been removed although their concrete bases, anchor points and security fence remain on the site. The site was sold by the Ministry of Defence in 2005.
PLANNING HISTORY
BEDFORD BOROUGH APPLICATIONS
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 8 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
B/TP/75/1492 (Circ. 80/71) Development of land for proposed transmitter stationAPPROVED 8-9-1975
B/TP/75/1492/A (Circ. 80/71) Detailed plans for development of land for proposed transmitter station APPROVED 29-12-1976
10/00484/MAF Construction and use of 4 ( four ) wind turbines, each 125m high to blade tip, and one anemometer mast (80m high) including construction of access tracks, turbine bases and laying of underground cables. REFUSED 28-03-11
EAST NORTHAMPTONSHIRE DISTRICT APPLICATIONS
73/0120//OTR Use of building for the storage and restoration of vintage public service vehicles at shed B3 APPROVED 5-7-1973
74/0012//OTR Use of disused hangar for agricultural storage APPROVED 29-3-1974
74/00816/TMP Temporary permission for contractor‟s store - Butler shed at shed B3 APPROVED 13-11-1975
75/00294/FUL Use of building for storage of vintage buses at shed B3 APPROVED 16-4- 1975
75/01076/CWN Transmitter station at the RAF Signals unit APPROVED 24-9-1975
76/00093/RWL Use of building for storage of vintage buses at shed B3 APPROVED 25-2- 1976
76/01425/CWN Proposed aerials and landscaping at the RAF Signals unit APPROVED 9-2- 1977
77/00427/FUL Use of building for storage and restoration of vintage vehicles APPROVED 25-5-1977
79/01491/FUL Additional use of hangar to store dried fruit APPROVED 24-10-1979
80/01629/FUL Storage and restoration of vintage vehicles APPROVED 14-1-1981
80/01671/RWL Additional use of hangar to store dried fruit APPROVED 26-1-1980
82/01630/RWL Additional use of hangar to store dried fruit APPROVED 12-1-1983
84/00050/RWL Restoration and storage of vintage vehicles at shed B3 APPROVED1-2- 1984
85/01129/CWN Unmanned communication building with replacement aerial tower APPROVED 12-9-1985
86/01274/RWL Storage of preserved road vehicles at shed B3 APPROVED 5-1-1987
88/00681/CWN Communications facilities APPROVED 4-3-1988
91/00882/RWL Storage of vintage vehicles (renewal) APPROVED 6-1-1992
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 9 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
96/00681/CWN Avionics workshop for the RAF Signals Unit APPROVED 26-11-1996
97/00622/RWL Renewal of planning permission to continue use of building for storage and restoration of vintage vehicles at shed B3 APPROVED 19-11-1997
02/01093/CWN Repair security fence- Married family housing area APPROVED 22-2-2003
02/00965/RWL Renewal of planning permission to continue use of building for storage and restoration of vintage vehicles at shed B3 WITHDRAWN 2-12-2002
06/00251/FUL Installation of 70m-anemometer mast for temporary period of one year. APPROVED
06/01824/FUL Change of use of redundant MOD buildings for electricity generation and construction and use of ancillary plant equipment and construction and use of electricity switch room REFUSED 19-6-2007
07/00332/TMP Continuing operation of a 70m Anemometer mast for a further period of one year. Mast installed and currently operated under approval 06/00251/FUL APPROVED 30-7-2007
08/00451/FUL Change of use of redundant MOD buildings for electricity generation and switching room, construction and use of ancillary plant equipment REFUSED 10.6.08 Planning permission was granted on appeal on 3rd Jun 2009.
EN/10/00415/FUL Development of wind farm comprising nine wind turbines, five of which are located within the district of East Northamptonshire, each 125m high to blade tip, one anemometer mast 80m high, construction of access tracks, underground cabling, visitor car park and viewing area. REFUSED 07-03-11
3.4. The most recent applications at the site involve an application for a wind farm. Due to the size of the site this consisted of applications in both Bedford Borough (10/00484/MAF) and East Northants (EN/10/00415/FUL). Both were refused planning permission in March 2011.
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL APPLICATIONS
NCC 08/0003/WAS Construction of biomass renewable energy plant.Approved 22nd December 2008.
3.5. This proposal is a waste to energy operation based around anaerobic digestion technology. Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is a biological process whereby animal and plant matter is broken down by bacteria in the absence of oxygen. It is a process that has been used successfully for many years in sewage works for the treatment
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 10 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
of sewage waste. The process produces methane and an inert bio-fertiliser which can be used as a soil conditioner in liquid, sludge or solid form. AD occurs naturally within most landfill operations where organic waste is deposited - the methane gas has to be piped off and either released directly into the atmosphere or flared off. AD is being developed extensively in Western Europe as a means of processing animal and plant waste which otherwise has to be deposited to landfill. Commercial AD plants take all forms of animal and plant waste and process them in large digestor vessels. The AD process generates methane which is piped off and stored on site. The methane is used to power engines which can then generate electricity.
3.6. As a waste recycling operation, the proposal was a county matter to be determined by Northamptonshire County Council as the relevant waste planning authority. The proposal involves the following elements located within and around the central compound :
a) a large waste reception building located immediately to the south east of the existing buildings to be used to accommodate the three diesel engines proposed in the current appeal. This building is 84.8m long, 34.86m wide and 12.45m high to ridge.
b) a range of anaerobic digestion silos for blending, processing and storing the feedstock and methane gas. These would be 13.92m high but located within a sunken bund reducing their overall height to 11.92m.
c) abiofilter bed for processing air within the waste handling building 84m by 26m and raised 3m above ground level
d) installation of two engines within the existing buildings generating electricity from methane
3.7. The development will have an annual processing capacity of 48,000 tonnes. Material will be delivered to the site by HGV involving a maximum of 40 HGV movements per day (20 in and 20 out). The plant is anticipated to have an electricity generating capacity of 1.5 MW. Construction work is due to start on site in 2010. As part of the planning permission highway improvement works have been completed to upgrade Newton Road and junctions along the southern approach route to the airfield which is the route to be used for HGV‟s delivering waste to the site once operational.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 11 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1. In respect of the proposed use of the site as a Fire Training facility, there are no policies referring specifically to the use proposed, just general national and local policies discussing the use of rural areas. Indeed many policies at the local level have since been removed pending the introduction of the relevant DPD. However this is somewhat delayed with only the Core Strategy in place
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
4.2. National policy of primary consideration to the proposed scheme arePPS1 and PPS7.
PPS1 – DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
4.3. PPS1 encourages the concept of sustainable forms of development, of which a primary part is the efficient use of resources i.e. land. Policies should ensure the re- use of previously developed land and existing buildings to help achieve these aims.
PPS7 – SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS
4.4. PPS7 sets out within its Key Principles at Paragraph 1 that priority should be given to the re-use of previously developed (Brownfield) sites in preference to the development of Greenfield sites. This follows on from the broad sustainability principles set out within PPS1.
4.5. The Governments policy is also to support the re-use of existing buildings in the countryside and LPA‟s should be supportive of the re-use of existing buildings for community uses.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY
4.6. Of the local level policies still in force there is only one applicable to the proposed development.
EAST NORTHANTS LOCAL PLAN
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 12 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
POLICY AG4 – RE-USE AND ADAPTATION OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE
4.7. This policy considers the issue of the re-use of buildings within the countryside.
Planning permission will be granted for the adaptation or re-use of buildings in the countryside, provided that the form, bulk and general design of the proposed scheme is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and the re-use is for employment, leisure or tourism, or residential accommodation for agriculture or forestry workers. In addition:-
(i) extensive alteration, re-building, large scale extensions and those not in keeping with the existing building will not be permitted;
(ii) structural surveys will be required for proposals relating to buildings which are unoccupied and show evidence of some dereliction;
(iii) conditions will be imposed withdrawing permitted development rights to prevent future extensions, where these would result in an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area;
(iv) proposals which would result in an adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding land users will not be permitted;
(v) detailed drawings will be required, indicating the layout, design and external appearance of the building after conversion, the materials to be used, the means of access and landscaping proposals; and
(vi) the local highway network must be capable of satisfactorily accommodating the traffic generated by the development
NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE CORE SPATIAL STRATEGY
POLICY 13 – GENERAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES
4.8. This policy is within the Core Strategy and is therefore relatively wide in scope and builds upon the ethos set out within PPS1 and PPS7.
Development should meet the needs of residents and businesses without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life that the present generation aspires to. Development should:
Meet needs
a) Incorporate flexible designs for buildings and their settings, including access to amenity space, enabling them to be adapted to future needs and to take into account the needs of all users;
b) Seek to design out antisocial behaviour, crime and reduce the fear of crime by applying the principles of the “Secured by Design” scheme;
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 13 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
c) Maintain and improve the provision of accessible local services and community services, whilst focusing uses that attract a lot of visitors within the town centres;
d) Have a satisfactory means of access and provide for parking, servicing and manoeuvring in accordance with adopted standards;
e) Be designed to take full account of the transport user hierarchy of pedestrian-cyclist-public transport-private vehicle, and incorporate measures to contribute to an overall target of 20% modal shift in developments of over 200 dwellings and elsewhere 5% over the plan period;
f) Not lead to the loss of community facilities, unless it can be demonstrated that they are no longer needed by the community they serve and are not needed for any other community use, or that the facility is being relocated and improved to meet the needs of the new and existing community;
g) Not lead to the loss of open space or recreation facilities, unless a site of equivalent quality and accessibility can be provided, serviced and made available to the community prior to use of the existing site ceasing.
Raise standards
h) Be of a high standard of design, architecture and landscaping, respect and enhance the character of its surroundings and be in accordance with the Environmental Character of the area;
i) Create a strong sense of place by strengthening the distinctive historic and cultural qualities and townscape of the towns and villages through its design, landscaping and use of public art;
j) Be designed to promote healthier lifestyles and for people to be active outside their homes and places of work;
k) Allow for travel to home, shops, work and school on foot and by cycle and public transport.
Protect assets
l) Not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking;
m) Be constructed and operated using a minimum amount of non-renewable resources including where possible the reuse of existing structures and materials;
n) Not have an adverse impact on the highway network and will not prejudice highway safety;
o) Conserve and enhance the landscape character, historic landscape designated built environmental assets and their settings, and biodiversity of the environment making reference to the Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure Strategy;
p) Not sterilise known mineral reserves or degrade soil quality;
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 14 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
q) Not cause a risk to (and where possible enhance) the quality of the underlying groundwater or surface water, or increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and lead to a reduction in flood risk.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 15 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
5.0 PLANNING ANALYSIS
THE PROPOSED USE
5.1. This application seeks planning permission to site a Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield which would serve Northamptonshire County Council Fire & Rescue Service (NFRS).
5.2. The Centre would consist of the siting of a number of standard ISO containers on existing hardstanding and the change of use of the existing buildings within and adjoining the edge of the nearby wooded area for administrative and storage purposes.
5.3. The containers would accommodate two facets of the training system, a Fire Behaviour Training (FBT) unit and „Cold Cut COBRA‟. A training „villa‟ is also planned which will allow various scenarios to be created and trained upon and would be a significant enhancement to the training facilities available. This may be provided later than the rest of the training units.
5.4. Cold Cut COBRA is a new firefighting technology, which NFRS have begun to use as part of their structural firefighting strategy, and requires structured training in order to utilise it to its fullest extent.
5.5. Currently FBT is provided at High Wycombe, which is expensive, logistically unsustainable and is a drain on service resources at a time when resources are being squeezed. There is currently no COBRA training facility delivering the standard required for NFRS and therefore the introduction of a high quality training facility would materially improve the ability of the service to use this breakthrough firefighting technique.
THE PROPOSED TRAINING FACILITIES
5.6. FBT involves the reproduction of realistic fire conditions in a controlled environment giving firefighters a practical experience of gas cooling and fire fighting techniques. This helps to recreate many of the challenges facing firefighters in modern buildings
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 16 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
which are designed to be airtight with high levels of insulation and create many challenges not normally seen in older buildings.
5.7. The need for FBT was highlighted following the deaths of a number of firefighters whilst responding to structural fires. Previously fires such as this would not have presented the same level of risks however, modern building designs have changed the behaviour of structural fires and there is a need to train specifically for these situations and to develop new fire fighting techniques to save lives.
5.8. COBRA is a high pressure water jet which can breach concrete walls, brick, timber and steel plate which means a reduced risk to firefighters when dealing with fires within structures. The small droplet size generated by the high pressure jet results in the fire being extinguished quickly and with the use of a minimal amount of water.
5.9. In relation to Phase 1 training, a number of ISO containers (12.5m x 3m) are required for the training facilities themselves. Two containers are linked to the FBT training while another two (connected with a fabricated steel pitched roof) are specifically for COBRA training.
5.10. The two FBT containers have separate functions, with one being a demonstrator unit and one an attack container unit. Each container is primed with twelve 8x4 100% wood boards which results in fire of a high temperature such that most of the smoke is re-burnt and only a lean plume containing mostly steam is produced. The „villa‟, which is phase 2, would enable a more complex and realistic training environment which would accurately reflect real world scenarios.
5.11. The demonstrator unit is used to demonstrate pyrolysis, fire development and gas cooling techniques. The attack container provides firefighters with practical experience of the effects of gas cooling and fire fighting techniques enabling realistic door entry practice. COBRA practice would be undertaken with cinder blocks used to simulate a wall to the front of the container such that firefighters are able to practice utilising the system to its fullest extent.
5.12. It is proposed that in phase two of the training programme, further ISO containers will be used to enable firefighters to apply all the component training within scenario based advance training (the villa) . The aim would be to create a structure which simulates realistic conditions within a range of different buildings. Twelve ISO containers would be sited three abreast and two long with the same again on top of
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 17 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
each other with steel access stairs to simulate a two storey structure. Different exercises would then be set based on different scenarios.
5.13. The existing former defence buildings are to be converted to provide accommodation for the firefighters and instructors themselves and will include instructor and student changing and shower facilities, office space, workshop, wood storage, kitchen and canteen, and lecture room.
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
5.14. The overarching aim of national planning policy is for sustainable development of which a key part is the re-use of previously developed land and the re-use of existing buildings where possible. Therefore the principle of the re-use of sites for alternative uses is considered acceptable at both local and national policy level. Commercial uses are considered more appropriate than residential uses in rural areas and the proposed use falls more towards a commercial / community use than a residential use.
5.15. As such the principle of the use in this location should be considered acceptable. A key part is the consideration of whether the site is considered to be brownfield / previously developed.
BROWNFIELD STATUS OF THE SITE
5.16. In the Development Control Practice Guide brownfield land is defined as
“…land which is already developed, as opposed to land which has never been developed (greenfield land). The term may be extended to apply to land which has been developed in the past but is now cleared.”
5.17. The application site has been extensively used in the past for defence uses and was previously part of an extensive network of runways, concrete taxi-ing aprons, hangars and buildings which were associated with its use as a military airfield. Upon this particular site, which forms part of the wider airfield the majority of the hardstanding remains along with a number offormer defence buildings.While the majority of these hard surfaces and buildings have been removed from the wider
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 18 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
site, a significant proportion of them still remain along with the underground infrastructure such as cable ducts and runway drainage systems.
5.18. The site is clearly not a greenfield site which has never been developed. Rather, it is a brownfield site and falls within the definition referred to above. Moreover the site can also be considered as Previously Developed Land. The definition of Previously Developed Land is slightly different to brownfield and is defined in Annex B of Planning Policy Statement 3 : Housing as
“Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.”
The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:
- Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. - Land that has been developed for mineral extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. - Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. - Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings).
There is no presumption that land that is Previously Developed Land is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.
5.19. It can be seen that this definition of Previously Developed Land can be applied to the site. It clearly was in defence use until recently and there are the remains of
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 19 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
useable former defence buildings still on the site. It cannot be argued that the site has naturally reverted back into the landscape in the process of time – there are obvious remains of various defence related structures littered over the site. The site is currently in agricultural (grazing) use but this use co-existed with the previous defence use as an ancillary use while the site was used as an aerial site. The farming value of the land has been vastly undermined by the previous defence use due to soil disturbance and infrastructure left behind.
5.20. There is a raft of government policy encouraging the appropriate re-use and redevelopment of brownfield and Previously Developed Land in preference to greenfield sites and to re-use existing buildings within the rural area in place of new construction.
5.21. The proposal therefore also benefits from the support of policies encouraging the re- use of brownfield and Previously Developed Land in preference to greenfield sites along with re-using existing buildings within the rural area. The application site should therefore be considered more favourably than similar proposals on greenfield land or mixed greenfield/brownfield land.
5.22. As well as general policy support, there is also a significant community benefit in support of the proposal. The fire training facility will allow the County‟s firefighters to train safely in a controlled environment. This will have three major benefits. Firstly, it will increase their general levels of skills and experience and allow them to tackle real-time emergencies more effectively. Secondly, it will allow them to work more safely in what are challenging and dangerous situations where there is a significant risk of harm and injury. Thirdly, it will allow them to serve the community more effectively and prevent unnecessary loss of life and property. It is also imperative that their training facility is in a secure, isolated location away from public gaze. The containers within which most of the training will take place will become superheated and can not be located safely on land which is publicly accessible. There is also a significant operational advantage in being able to train firefighters initially out of public view to prepare them for real events which will take place in public.
SUITABILITY OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS FOR CONVERSION
5.23. As set out within the description of the site usage, we plan to use a mix of ISO containers along with re-using existing Nissen huts upon the site to support the use.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 20 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
5.24. Two Nissen huts have been repaired and renovated with others requiring limited renovation to bring about their re-use. They are already joined by exiting hardstanding from the former military use of the site and therefore no additional built development is required to bring about this important new use of the site. The ISO containers will sit upon existing hardstanding and are temporary structures.
SUMMARY
5.25. The use itself would be more akin to a commercial/community reuse and is thus considered acceptable in principle in this location. This site would utilise a previously developed site which features existing buildings which are capable of conversion. No new hardstanding or additional built development would be required and the ISO containers would be temporary in nature.
5.26. The use itself would mean that the Fire and Rescue Service are not required to travel to High Wycombe, a journey of approximately 65 miles. As such this site would be significantly more sustainable in all respects.
VISUAL IMPACT
5.27. The re-use of this site is split into two parts, the re-use of existing former defence buildings and the stationing of ISO containers upon existing hardstanding.
RE-USE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
5.28. There are four buildings which lie to the south of the woodland area to be converted. There are four other huts within the wood linked by existing hardstanding. One of these is earmarked for the storage of wood to be used within the containers and will require some minor renovation.
5.29. The buildings to be used as part of this scheme are either to the south side of existing wood or within the main body of it. Accordingly they lie in secluded locations which are not readily visible from any public viewpoint either crossing or around the site. As such the re-use of these buildings and any activity surrounding them would result in almost no change to their current visual impact.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 21 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
THE ISO CONTAINERS
5.30. The ISO containers which form the main training equipment for the centre would lie upon existing hardstanding adjacent to the wood and the existing northern boundary of the airfield. This boundary is currently defined by a chain link fence and a 2-3m high hedge of a relatively mature stature.
5.31. A single height container has a height of 2.5m and thus would not protrude above the height of the adjacent hedging in the main. The „villa‟ would involve two containers stacked, which would have an overall height of 5m. This would be slightly above the height of the existing hedging. However, this would still effectively soften views of the villa from longer distance views into the site from the north.
5.32. Given the relative lack of proximity of any public viewpoints to the site, or the presence of any dwellings and taking into account the presence of the existing hedge and adjacent woodland it is not considered that the containers would have a materially harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
5.33. While the existing hedging is deciduous, we plan to further augment it to provide a more robust natural screen. This can be controlled by way of an appropriately worded condition.
IMPACT TO RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
5.34. The site is located at the north end of the airfield and accordingly is over 1300m from the nearest dwelling (southeast) and the topography of the site is such that the majority of the development would not be visible to any nearby dwelling.
5.35. The distances involved are also such that any noise associated with the re-use of this site would not result in harm to the amenity of any dwelling. In respect of air quality, we have considered this issue in more depth within the air quality section below, however in summary it shows that there would be no harm to any nearby residents either individually or cumulatively taking in account the permitted AD plant.
5.36. Accordingly the proposed use would not result in harm to residential amenity.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 22 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
IMPACT TO ECOLOGY
5.37. In preparation of the planning applications for the AD plant and the wind farm a great deal of survey work was undertaken over the entire site to ascertain the extant ecology. Accordingly the woodland to which the site adjoins and the nearby drainage pond have previously been surveyed and as part of ongoing planning applications on the site. These surveys have been kept up to date.
5.38. An Ecological Assessment forms part of this application and concludes that based upon the survey work and with the implementation of the recommendations set out within the report, there is no reason to suggest that any ecological designations, habitats or protected species will be significantly harmed by the proposals.
5.39. While Great Crested Newts are known to inhabit the pond to the south east of the application site, the site lies on the edge of the maximum migratory range of 250m and as such the use is considered highly unlikely to adversely affect any newts inhabiting the pond.
5.40. It is suggested that a precautionary approach be in place in respect of the deconstruction of rubble piles adjacent to Buildings B1 and B4. A suitably worded condition could control this aspect.
IMPACT TO FLOOD RISK AND HYDROLOGY
5.41. The proposed use involves the use of water to put out fires and as such the proposal needs to consider the impact of this use upon the hydrology of the area. As the site is also over 1Ha in size, a Flood Risk Assessment is required. RSK have undertaken a Flood Risk and Drainage Impact Assessment in respect of the proposed use at this site and this forms part of the planning application.
5.42. The report concludes that as the site is not at direct risk of tidal or fluvial flooding, mitigation requirements in terms of flood prevention are not required. However it is recommended that mitigation should be implemented to reduce the risk of contamination as a result of the activities upon the site.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 23 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
5.43. It is recommended that local containment is introduced between the proposed ground and the balancing pond to the south east. This is to ensure that any accidental spillages or excess water does not enter the pond directly.
5.44. This local containment would consist of a gravel filled pit and a small bund (see left). This would provide an additional retention area which will also have the function of treating surface water flow and provide additional storage volume. This would provide the additional volume of 0.5m³ which has been calculated as a worst case scenario.
5.45. We propose to accept the recommendation in the report and integrate it into the change of use of the site. Again, this mitigation can be controlled by way of condition.
AIR QUALITY
5.46. The proposed use involves the burning of wood within the containers placed upon the site to generate each training situation. Conditions within the containers are such that in the main any smoke produced is burnt off and only a lean plume emerges from the chimney of each container, mainly comprised of steam.
5.47. To assess air quality issues, GF Environmental Limited were instructed to consider and model the air quality aspects of the new use. The report assessed each unit individually and also considered how the air quality would interact with the recently permitted AD Plant to the south of the application site.
5.48. The conclusions state that impact in terms of NO2 is generally confined to within 40m of the training centre and impact at nearby residential receptors are typically
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 24 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
~1µg m-³ or less. These can be considered as environmentally insignificant and are
likely to have negligible impact on air quality. Similar conclusions for particles (PM10
and PM2.5) were also reached.
5.49. In respect of the interaction with the permitted AD plant, the hourly average NO2 contribution from the Fire Training Facility is small in comparison to that of the AD plant and as with the conclusions reached individually, the cumulative impact can also be screened out as environmentally insignificant. Similar conclusions for
particles (PM10 and PM2.5) were also reached.
5.50. Accordingly the proposed Fire Training Facility is not considered to result in harm to the air quality of the area either individually or cumulatively.
ACCESS AND PARKING
5.51. Access to the site will be from the north via the B645 Kimbolton Road. There is an existing access which links onto the internal network of hardstanding and would provide easy access to the site. The southern entrance is generally reserved for the AD plant uses, but would be available in an emergency if required. No additional hardstanding would be required to ensure access to the site.
5.52. Parking would be upon existing hardstanding adjacent to the training containers as shown upon the attached plans. The provision given would be more than sufficient for the present and future use of the site.
5.53. Accordingly the access and parking provisions are considered acceptable and no changes are required.
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES UPON CHELVESTON AIRFIELD
5.54. The site has planning permission for an AD plant and planning permission recently refused for a wind farm upon the site. Parts of the site are also used for agriculture.
AGRICULTURAL USE
5.55. The majority of the site is currently within agricultural use and grazed by sheep in the main. This includes the field adjacent to the siting of the containers and the
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 25 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
existing former defence buildings. The site is currently segregated by existing fencing and gates with the main access road through the centre of the site kept clear of livestock at all times.
5.56. It is proposed that fencing surrounding the portion of the wider site to be used for the Fire Training Centre would be repaired where defective to ensure that animals are unable to access this part of the site during times of operation. This will ensure the two uses are kept separate.
5.57. Existing gates and fencing ensure that livestock are kept separate from the access and as such the introduction of the new use would not result in harm to the existing agricultural use of the site.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PLANT
5.58. The AD plant is to the south of the Fire Training Facility site and as such is located at such a distance that the uses would not realistically integrate.
5.59. The access to the north is the primary access to the Fire Training Facility and is listed as an emergency access for the AD plant. Given the low probability of use and the low usage levels of the Fire Training Facility the interaction of uses is not considered to result in harm in traffic terms.
5.60. As considered within the air quality section, the cumulative impact of the Fire Training use with the AD Plant would be minimal and would not result in harm. As such no cumulative impact would result in harm.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 26 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
WIND FARM
5.61. The application for a wind farm upon the airfield site was refused planning permission in March 2011 by Bedford Borough Council and East Northants Council. While these applications were refused, the ability to appeal the decisions remains available and accordingly we must consider the eventuality that permission may be given on appeal and consider how the proposed use would interact with any wind farm.
5.62. As can be seen from the most recent layout plan for the site, there is only one turbine within any proximity to the proposed application site. However, this is still over 250m from the hardstanding which would accommodate the containers and would be over 350m from the existing former defence buildings to be converted.
5.63. The presence of this turbine would neither impact the access or the use of the site should planning permission be given.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 27 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
6.0 DESIGN &ACCESS STATEMENT
6.1. In accordance with The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006 a Design and Access Statement must accompany planning applications of this nature. Many of the points have already been covered in the preceding sections and therefore this element will seek to summarise those findings in the format advocated by the CABE best practice guidance:
USE
6.2. A fire training centre requires a relatively isolated location away from population centres such that the burning of materials and the activities associated with the training element does not result in harm to residential amenity.
6.3. The use of the wider Chelveston Airfield site is currently agricultural, although planning permission has been granted for an AD plant within the centre of the site. The proposed use would not interfere with that use and would utilise what is a spare part of the site.
6.4. The proposed use of the site would make use of existing buildings upon the site and would utilise existing hardstanding for the stationing of the training containers. As such no additional development would be required beyond the installation of a septic tank and water tank.
6.5. The use is considered to be acceptable in this location in that it would be compatible with the existing permitted uses upon the site and would not result in harm to the rural appearance of the site.
AMOUNT
6.6. The planning application involves the change of use of the existing buildings and the use of hardstanding for the stationing of containers. The amount of new operational development is minimal and confined to the installation of a septic tank and water tank only. The number of containers in relation to the size of the site is considered appropriate, especially given the concealed nature of the site and existing boundary treatments.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 28 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
6.7. The amount of development proposed would not result in visual harm, or actual harm to any surrounding user as has been set out within previous sections of this document. Nor would the amount of development interfere with the permitted AD plant or the proposed wind farm either individually or cumulatively.
LAYOUT
6.8. The layout of the scheme is driven by the location of existing hardstanding and buildings. The buildings to be re-used are located adjacent to a large area of woodland and as such are relatively concealed from longer distance views into the site. There are additional huts within the woodland itself, with one proposed to be used as part of this scheme.
6.9. The hardstanding to be used is located adjacent to the boundary of the site, which is defined by a 2m high chain link fence with adjacent 3m high hedgerow. The proposed containers would be located upon this existing hardstanding. While there are other areas of hardstanding available within the site, this is considered the most appropriate given the presence of nearby existing Nissen huts.
6.10. Accordingly the layout is considered to be appropriate and makes best use of existing buildings and hardstanding upon the site in line with the sustainability agenda expressed within PPS1 and PPS7.
SCALE
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 29 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
6.11. The scale of the development is limited in that the existing former defence buildings to be utilised will require no external alterations and will therefore remain as existing. The containers to be used have a height of 2.5m, but with the use of two stacked upon each other to construct the villa arrangement, the maximum height of the containers on site will be approximately 5m.
6.12. The containers will be effectively screened from main public views by existing woodland and hedgerows. Any visibility will be mitigated by the colouring of the containers in goosewing grey and the presence of proposed additional planting along the boundary of the site. The containers would be significantly lower than the height of the adjacent woodland.
6.13. As such the scale of development, taking into account the overall scale of the airfield site, is not considered harmful and would be visually subservient to the appearance of the existing woodland and as such would not be of a scale which would be considered harmful.
LANDSCAPING
6.14. There is extensive woodland surrounding the site and an existing hedgerow to the boundary of the site. It is proposed that additional planting will be made to ensure that additional screening is created. This will help to subsume the proposed development into the landscape.
6.15. It is proposed that any additional landscaping will consist of local species and will effectively augment the existing hedge. This will be considered in more detail as part of a landscaping scheme which can be controlled by way of condition.
6.16. It is proposed as part of the hydrology statement that a small bund be created to the east of the proposed location of the containers. This would be a low bund of approximately 1m in height and as such would have minimal impact upon the appearance of the area.
APPEARANCE
6.17. The appearance of the existing former defence buildings will remain as existing and no external changes will be made except for some limited renovation. The
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 30 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
containers to be used are standard ISO containers and will be finished goosewing grey, although should the Council wish, they can be painted any colour required. It is considered that this colour scheme will ensure that the containers remain discrete within the wider landscape.
6.18. Given the existing and proposed landscaping surrounding the site, and the limited level of development proposed, the visual appearance of the proposed scheme will be limited and not harmful in appearance.
ACCESS
6.19. Access to the site will be taken from the Kimbolton Road and will utilise existing hardstanding. No additional hardstanding will be required to bring about the access. Adequate parking space will be accommodated upon existing hardstanding and as such the access to the site is considered acceptable given the type and volume of traffic proposed.
SUMMARY
6.20. The more in depth policy justification and further in-depth evaluation is included in the main body of the report, however all aspects of the scheme are considered acceptable.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 31 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1. It is considered that the proposed Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service Fire Training Facility would be acceptable in principle at this location and acceptable in practice. The principle of the proposal is acceptable as it re-uses existing buildings and hard standing areas and is located within a former military airfield which is both brownfield and previously developed land. Of material consideration is the benefit generated by the provision of additional live fire training facilities which would be unique to Northamptonshire, helping to materially improve the ability of the County‟s firefighters to deal with hazardous situations, improve the safety of their working conditions and increase their ability to save life.
7.2. It has been conclusively shown within the suite of documents which form the planning application that the proposed use would not result in harm to the character of the surrounding countryside, visual amenity, air quality, hydrology or the ecological value of the site or any protected species.
7.3. The proposal is a sustainable form of development which makes valuable use of part of this former military airfield and delivers a material benefit to firefighters in Northamptonshire and the wider community. We therefore commend the proposals to the Council.
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 32 A104205 – CHELVESTON AIRFIELD (NORTH), CHELVESTON PLANNING, DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT
Chelveston Airfield Chelveston
PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE 33 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE
FIRE TRAINING FACILITY, FORMER CHELVESTON RAF BASE
Ecological Assessment
July 2011 2529.EcoAs.vf1
Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.dv1 Ecological Assessment DRAFT
COPYRIGHT
The copyright of this document remains with Aspect Ecology. The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Aspect Ecology.
PROTECTED SPECIES
This report contains sensitive information relating to protected species. The information contained herein should not be disseminated without the prior consent of Aspect Ecology.
LEGAL GUIDANCE
The information set out within this report in no way constitutes a legal opinion on the relevant legislation. The opinion of a legal professional should be sought if further advice is required.
Aspect Ecology Ltd Hardwick Business Park Noral Way Banbury Oxfordshire OX16 2AF
t 01295 276066 f 01295 265072
e [email protected] w www.aspect-ecology.com
APRIL 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 1
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...... 2
2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY...... 2
3. ECOLOGICAL DESIGNATIONS ...... 5
4. HABITATS & ECOLOGICAL FEATURES...... 6
5. FAUNAL USE OF THE SITE ...... 9
6. ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSALS...... 13
7. POLICY REVIEW ...... 24
8. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS...... 27
PLANS
PLAN 2529/ECO1 Site Location
PLAN 2529/ECO2 Ecological Designations
PLAN 2529/ECO3 Habitats & Ecological Features
PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTOGRAPH 1 Buildings B1 – B4
PHOTOGRAPH 2 Building B8 (example structure of buildings B5 – B8)
PHOTOGRAPH 3 Grass-covered hard-standing
PHOTOGRAPH 4 Off-site planted woodland
PHOTOGRAPH 5 Off-site pasture field
PHOTOGRAPH 6 Off-site pond
PHOTOGRAPH 7 Rubble piles adjacent to building B1
PHOTOGRAPH 8 Dead tree T1
PHOTOGRAPH 9 Mature pollarded Ash tree T2
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Information obtained from Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) and Nature on the Map (Natural England) online databases
APPENDIX 2 Information obtained from the National Biodiversity Network database
APPENDIX 3 Summary tables of Great Crested Newt surveys
Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background & Proposals
1.1.1. Aspect Ecology was commissioned in March 2011 by Northamptonshire County Council Fire and Rescue Service to undertake an ecological assessment in respect of land in the north-western corner of the former RAF Base Chelveston (see Plan 2529/ECO1). As stated in paragraph 2.2.1 below, numerous previous ecological studies have been conducted by Aspect Ecology at the site and wider study area in relation to other planning applications.
1.1.2. The proposals are for the re-use of the existing former military buildings and areas of hard-standing to create a new fire training facility.
1.2. Site Characteristics
1.2.1. The site is located in the north-western corner of the former RAF Base in Chelveston. The site itself is composed of an area of hard-standing colonised by grassland and a partially colonised tarmac road, which leads to five disused Nissan hut-style structures. Other habitats adjacent to the site and within the wider survey area include plantation woodland, pasture, a hedgerow, a pond and a further 3 disused Nissan hut-style structures.
1.3. Ecological Assessment
1.3.1. This document assesses the ecological interest of the site as a whole. The importance of the habitats and species present is evaluated. Where necessary, mitigation measures are recommended so as to safeguard any significant existing ecological interest within the site and where appropriate, opportunities for ecological enhancement are proposed with reference to national and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs).
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 1 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
2.1. The methodology utilised for the survey work can be split into 3 main areas: a desktop study, habitat survey, and faunal survey. These are discussed in more detail below.
2.2. Desktop Study
2.2.1. The following documents, which relate to proposed developments of a larger scale, in the wider study area of the RAF base were reviewed due to the detailed background information which had been collated and the extensive survey work which had been undertaken.
Biomass Application: • Ecological Assessment (April 2008) ECO-1026.EcoAs(Biomass).vf
Wind Farm Application: • Chapter 13 of Environmental Statement (2009) • Chapter 12 of Environmental Statement (2010) • Updated ES Addendum (October 2010) ECO-1026.ES Addendum.vf
2.2.2. In order to update the background information on the site and its immediate surroundings information on statutory designated sites was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database, which utilises data provided by Natural England, and Natural England’s website (www.natureonthemap.org.uk). This information is reproduced at Appendix 1, and where appropriate on Plan ECO2.
2.2.3. The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) database was also searched for any relevant biological records of nature conservation interest within the locality. Relevant information is reproduced at Appendix 2.
2.3. Habitat Survey
2.3.1. The site and immediately adjacent habitats were surveyed in March 2011 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the land contained within the boundaries of the site and to identify the main habitats associated with the site.
2.3.2. The survey work was based on extended Phase 1 survey methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 20101), as recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail.
2.3.3. Using the above method, the site and adjacent land was classified into areas of similar botanical community types, with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified.
1 Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit. JNCC, 2010.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 2 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
2.3.4. All of the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent at different seasons. The survey was undertaken within the seasonal period for botanical work; accordingly, it is considered that a robust assessment of the intrinsic ecological interest of the site was made.
2.4. Faunal Surveys
2.4.1. General faunal activity, such as mammals or birds observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys was recorded. Specific attention was also paid to the potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species, and specific survey work was undertaken for bats and Badger Meles meles.
Bats2
2.4.2. Buildings. The buildings within the site (B1 – B5) are to be renovated/refurbished and re-used under the proposals and were therefore subject to internal, where possible, and external inspection surveys using ladders, torches, mirrors and binoculars where necessary to check for potential bat use.
2.4.3. Evidence of the presence of bats was searched for with particular attention paid to any roof spaces and gaps between rafters and beams. Specific searches were made for bat droppings that can indicate present or past use and the extent of use, whilst other signs that can indicate the possible presence of bats were also searched for, e.g. presence of stained areas or feeding remains.
2.4.4. The opportunity was also taken to conduct inspections, based on the methodology above, of the three buildings (B6-B8) located on the north- western edge of the plantation woodland.
2.4.5. Trees. An examination of the trees within the plantation woodland and immediately adjacent to the site was undertaken to search for the presence of features which could be of potential value to roosting bats such as splits, cracks, rot holes, coverings of Ivy, peeling bark or similar. The potential for the trees to support roosting bats has been ranked in accordance with the criteria set out in the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines: • Category 1 – confirmed bat roost tree with field evidence of the presence of bats (e.g. droppings, scratch marks, grease marks or urine staining). • Category 2a – trees that have a high potential to support bat roosts. This includes trees displaying extensive splits, cavities, rot/woodpecker holes, large areas of peeling bark, dense Ivy cover and or a combination of those features listed above which may also be uncommon in the local area. • Category 2b – trees with a moderate/low potential to support bat roosts. This includes trees with a small number of features offering shelter for roosting bats, such as splits, cavities, rot/woodpecker holes, Ivy cover or peeling bark. Such features may be less substantial or extensive than on high potential trees, and more exposed to the elements.
2 Surveys based on: English Nature (2004) “Bat Mitigation Guidelines” & Bat Conservation Trust (2007) “Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines”
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 3 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
• Category 3 – trees with negligible potential to support bat roosts, often immature trees, displaying no suitable features.
2.4.6. Where appropriate, a schedule is then produced documenting the presence of any such features.
Badgers3
2.4.7. The Badger survey comprised two main elements. Firstly, searching thoroughly for evidence of Badger setts. For any setts that were encountered, each sett entrance was noted and plotted even if the entrance appeared disused. The following information was recorded:
• The number and location of well used or very active entrances; these are clear from any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently. • The number and location of inactive entrances; these are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance. • The number of disused entrances; these have not been in use for some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be and the remains of the spoil heap.
2.4.8. Secondly, Badger activity such as well-worn paths and push-throughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs were recorded so as to build up a picture of the use of the site by Badgers.
2.5. Survey Constraints/Limitations
2.5.1. Buildings B2 and B4 could not be inspected internally, as the new doors which have been installed as part of a recent renovation/refurbishment were locked. However, based on the design and construction of these buildings, in combination of the findings of the external inspection surveys, these buildings are considered to be of negligible potential for roosting bats and any internal inspection of these buildings would be very unlikely to indicate otherwise and are therefore not considered to be a significant constraint.
3 Based on: Mammal Society (1989) “Occasional Publication No. 9 – Surveying Badgers”
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 4 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
3. ECOLOGICAL DESIGNATIONS
3.1. Statutory Designations
3.1.1. The statutory designations of nature conservation interest that occur within the local area are shown on Plan 2529/ECO2 and summarised below in Table 1. The nearest statutory designation is Yeldon Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located approximately 2.1km to the south- west of the site. The next nearest statutory designation is Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI located approximately 4.5km to the north-west of the site.
3.2. Non-statutory Designations
3.2.1. The non-statutory designations of nature conservation interest that occur within the local area are shown on Plan 2529/ECO2 and summarised below in Table 1. The nearest non-statutory designation is Stanwick Pasture County Wildlife Site (CWS) located approximately 0.8km to the north-west of the site. The next nearest non-statutory designation is Beggars Lane CWS located approximately 1.9km to the north-west of the site.
Approximate Distance and Name Designation Brief Description Direction from site Statutory Designations Yelden Botanically rich unimproved neutral SSSI 2.1km SW Meadows grassland, with old species-rich hedgerows. Active and exhausted sand and gravel pits supporting habitats including open water, Upper Nene marsh, rush pasture, rough grassland, Valley Gravel SSSI 4.5km NW scattered scrub and rare wet floodplain Pits woodland. This is a nationally important site for its breeding water bird assemblage. Non-statutory Designations Stanwick A mosaic of scrub, woodland and rough CWS 0.8km NW Pasture grassland. Beggars Lane CWS A species-rich road verge. 1.9km NW Caldecott CWS A species-rich road verge. 2.1km SW Verge Yeldon Field CWS Grassland and hedgerows. 2.5km SW
Table 1: Table of nature conservation designations in the vicinity of the site.
3.2.2. Ancient Woodland. There are no areas of ancient woodland situated within or adjacent to the site. The nearest ancient woodland is Wimsells Wood, which is located approximately 4.7km south-east of the site.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 5 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
4. HABITATS & ECOLOGICAL FEATURES
4.1. The following habitats/ecological features were identified within/adjacent to the site:
• Buildings • Hard-standing / Recolonising Ground • Plantation Woodland / Scrub • Hedgerow • Pasture • Pond
4.2. The locations of these habitat types and features are represented on Plan 2529/ECO3 and described in detail below.
4.3. Buildings
4.3.1. The buildings are labelled B1 – B8, as shown on Plan 2529/ECO3, and are described below:
4.3.2. Buildings B1 – B4 are Nissan hut-style structures located in the north of the application site, and on the eastern edge of the off-site plantation woodland (see Photograph 1). Two of the structures (B2 and B4) appear to have been relatively recently refurbished/renovated, with new brickwork and doors located at the ends of the structures. The other two structures (B1 and B3) have fallen into disrepair, with cracked, damaged brickwork, missing doors and partially collapsing roofs.
4.3.3. Buildings B5 is located within the plantation woodland and is of the same design and construction as buildings B1-B4, although is in the same dilapidated state as buildings B1 and B3.
4.3.4. Buildings B6 – B8 are also Nissan hut-style structures of a similar design and construction to buildings B1-B5, but lie on the north-western edge of the off-site plantation woodland (see Photograph 2). All three buildings appear to be in a similar poor state of disrepair, with crumbling walls and to some extent collapsing roofs. These buildings appear to have been used previously for storage or as workshops.
4.4. Hard-standing / Recolonising Ground
4.4.1. Hard-standing dominates the south-western section of the site and also forms the concrete and tarmac tracks to the on-site and off-site buildings in and around the off-site woodland. The tracks remain relatively free from encroaching vegetation and have likely been recently cleared, albeit small areas of re-colonising hard-standing remain in places (see Plan 2529/ECO3). Species present in these areas include Germander Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys, Cranesbill Geranium sp., Plantain Plantago sp., Chickweed Stellaria media, Willowherb Epilobium sp. and Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare. The on-site tracks are noted to connect within existing concrete farm tracks.
4.4.2. In contrast, a further section of hard-standing in the south-west of the site features earth mounds with grassland (see Photograph 3). The grassland
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 6 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
has the same species composition as the nearby off-site pasture (see section 4.7), and also has a short-sward height.
4.4.3. Rubble and soil piles, measuring approximately 1m2 are present in the north of the site, adjacent to buildings B1 and B4.
4.5. Plantation Woodland / Scrub
4.5.1. An off-site plantation woodland partially bounds the site to the north and west. The woodland is relatively young plantation containing few semi- mature trees (see Photograph 4). The canopy is dominated by Ash Fraxinus excelsior, Oak Quercus sp. and Willow Salix sp., with Field Maple Acer campestre and Poplar Populus sp. present to a lesser extent. The understorey is limited to sparse occurrences of Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, Dog-rose Rosa canina and Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., whilst the ground flora is relatively species-poor with Lords-and-Ladies Arum maculatum almost overshadowed by local patches of Willowherbs and tall ruderal vegetation composed of Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata and Docks Rumex sp..
4.5.2. A small area of Bramble and Hawthorn scrub is also present on site, located adjacent to the grass-covered earth mounds described in section 4.4.
4.6. Hedgerow
4.6.1. A hedgerow lies approximately 5m to the west of the site, demarcating a boundary between pasture and an arable field. The hedgerow is planted as a single row, dominated by Hawthorn and appears to be relatively gappy and unmanaged, and associated with which is a partly wet ditch largely encroached by Bramble scrub.
4.7. Pasture
4.7.1. Pasture lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site (see Photograph 5). The pasture has a short-sward height and is grazed by sheep, although none were present within the field at the time of survey. The pasture has a species composition typical of this habitat type, comprising Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne, Cock’s-foot Dactylis sp., Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus, fine-leaved fescues Festucas spp., and occasional Tufted Hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa. Occasional scrapes and other disturbed areas have become colonised by tall ruderal species dominated by Common Nettle.
4.8. Pond
4.8.1. A pond lies off-site, approximately 200m east of the application site (see Photograph 6). The pond is relatively large but generally forms a thin rectangular-shaped lagoon with steep-sided grassed banks situated adjacent to a farm track. The lagoon appears to be fed by a culvert located at its southern end but at the time of survey in March 2011 it contained very little water. Vegetation recorded within and around the pond includes abundant Greater Reedmace Typha latifolia with frequent Brooklime Veronica beccabunga and more occasional Water-plantain Alisma plantago- aquatica, and Water Mint Mentha aquatica.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 7 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
4.9. Invasive species
4.9.1. During the course of the survey work undertaken at the site, no evidence for the presence of any exotic invasive plant species was recorded. Species specifically searched for included those listed on Schedule 9 Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, such as Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica and Giant Hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum. The survey work was undertaken in March when species, such as Japanese Knotweed may still be in their dormant phase, having died back to below ground level. However, Japanese Knotweed in particular is often evident during the winter by the presence of dead stems. None were recorded during the survey work undertaken and as such, it appears no extensive stands of Japanese Knotweed are present within the site.
4.9.2. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned a number of records of plant Species of Principal Importance within the local area (see Appendix 2), however more detailed information was not provided, and therefore the exact locations of the records in relation to the site cannot be determined. No evidence for the presence of any of these species within the site was recorded during the survey work undertaken.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 8 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
5. FAUNAL USE OF THE SITE
5.1. During the survey work, general observations were made of any faunal use of the site with specific attention paid to the potential presence of protected or notable species, and specific surveys were undertaken for Badger and bats.
5.2. Mammals
Bats
Roosts
5.2.1. Buildings. All five buildings (B1-B5) within the site, as well as the off-site structures (B6-B8) are constructed from prefabricated materials, with a corrugated sheet metal outer shell curved around an internal metal framework. These buildings appear to previously have been used for storage or as workshops.
5.2.2. Buildings B1, B3 and B5-B8 are in a dilapidated condition, with crumbling walls and concrete rendering creating potential roosting opportunities for crevice dwelling bats. Small gaps are also infrequently present between the prefabricated roofing materials and the brickwork. However, no evidence of use by bats in the form of droppings, staining or scratches, etc., was recorded during the detailed inspection of these features and the remaining external fabric of the building.
5.2.3. Air vents within the brickwork, as well as sections of crumbling brickwalls and sections of collapsing roofing materials provide potential access for bats into these buildings. However, no evidence to indicate use by bats was recorded from the internal inspection surveys of these buildings.
5.2.4. Two buildings (B2 and B4) appear to have been recently renovated, as the ends of these buildings are bricked up and fitted with new doors, such that they are well sealed. Any gaps associated with the external fabric of the building are superficial and are of an insufficient depth to support roosting bats. Air vent within the brickwork, have potential to provide access for bats into the structure, however no evidence of use by bats in the form of droppings, staining or scratches, etc., was recorded during the detailed inspection of these features and in-any-event, the building has been refurbished/renovated and are therefore likely to have received significant disturbance.
5.2.5. Trees. There are no trees within the site, although a dead tree (identified as T1 on Plan 2529/ECO3) located relatively centrally within the plantation woodland features woodpecker holes and cracks extending the length of the tree, that offer some potential for roosting bats. A second tree; a mature previously pollarded Ash; located off-site adjacent approximately 20m south-west of the site (see T2 on Plan 2529/ECO3) was also found to exhibit features that offer some limited potential for roosting bats, namely a large central cavity that may extend into some branches. Accordingly, under BCT guidelines, these trees are considered to have a moderate/low potential to support bat roosts, and therefore falls within Category 2b.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 9 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
5.2.6. Overall, it is therefore considered unlikely that any bat roosts will be adversely affected by the proposals.
Foraging / Commuting Features
5.2.7. The application site is comprised of buildings, hard-standing and intensively managed grassland; habitats which offer poor foraging potential for bats and likely are of little use as navigation aides for commuting bats. Greater foraging potential is afforded by the off-site woodland and hedgerows, which also connect with other navigational features and habitats of foraging value in the wider landscape. Indeed Common Pipistrelle (45kHz) was recorded at varying levels along the wooded belt which stretches between the plantation and the pond, during manual walked transect surveys and remote detector survey work undertaken in 2009 and 2010.
5.2.8. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned no records of bats within the site, but did return a single record of Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus within the same 10x10km grid square as the site, and records of an unspecified Long-eared bat species Plecotus sp., and an unspecified Pipistrelle species Pipistrellus sp. within the 10x10km grid square north of the site (see Appendix 2). However, more detailed information was not provided, and therefore the exact locations of the records in relation to the site cannot be determined.
Badger
5.2.9. No Badger setts were found within the site, nor were any latrines or dung pits recorded. However, there are several known Badger setts in the wider area and given that a small number of foraging scrapes were recorded in the off-site plantation, it is possible that Badgers may pass through the site on occasion.
5.2.10. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned no records of Badger within or adjacent to the site, and indeed, the nearest record of Badger to the site is located approximately 4km to the east of the site, and is dated from 1982 (see Appendix 2).
Other Mammals
5.2.11. No evidence of any other protected, rare or notable mammal species was recorded within the site.
5.2.12. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned no records of protected, rare or notable mammal species within or adjacent to the site, albeit there are several records of Brown Hare Lepus europaeus within the local area, and this species has been recorded during previous surveys in the locality of the site. However, this species is considered unlikely to utilise the site due to the intensive management of the grassland and the extent to which unsuitable habitats, namely hardstanding and buildings, dominate the site. Further records include Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus; the nearest of which is located approximately 2.1km north-east of the site; and Otter Lutra lutra; the nearest of which is located approximately 2.6km south-east of the site; along with Hedgehog, Red Squirrel and Water Vole, which were recorded within 10x10km grid squares adjacent to the site (see Appendix 2). However, further details were not
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 10 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
provided for these records, and therefore their exact locations in relation to the site cannot be determined.
5.3. Amphibians
5.3.1. No aquatic habitats are present within the site, although a pond lies approximately 200m east of the application site. Previous survey work undertaken at the pond between 2007 and 2010 recorded a medium sized population of Great Crested Newts, which forms part of a metapopulation for the entire former RAF base (see summary of survey data at Appendix 3). The terrestrial habitats within the site are largely sub-optimal for Great Crested Newts, offering little, if any, value as a foraging resource. The rubble piles located adjacent to buildings B1 and B4 (see Photograph 7) have some, albeit very low, potential to act as refugia, which is further limited by the rubble piles’ recent construction evidenced by low patchy levels of vegetative growth, and the partial enclosure of the site by unsuitable habitat in the form of sheep grazed pasture.
5.3.2. No evidence of any other protected, rare or notable amphibian species was recorded within the site.
5.3.3. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned no records of protected, rare or notable amphibian species within 5km of the site. The nearest record returned for Great Crested Newt is located approximately 5.7km south-east of the site, and is dated 1973 (see Appendix 2).
5.4. Reptiles
5.4.1. The application site is dominated by buildings, hard-standing and intensively managed grassland, habitats and ecological features which do not provide favourable habitat for reptiles. The rubble piles, however, have some limited potential to provide shelter for common reptiles.
5.4.2. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned no reptile records within 5km of the site. Indeed no reptiles were recorded during the surveys of the airfield conducted in 2006.
5.5. Birds
5.5.1. Only Woodpigeon Columba palumbus was recorded within the site, one being perched within building B3 in the north of the site, whilst another was flushed from building B1. A number of common birds including Greenfinch Carduelis chloris, Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Fieldfare Turdus pilaris, Robin Erithacus rubecula, Wren Troglodytes troglodytes, Blackbird Turdus merula, Great Tit Parus major, Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus, Magpie Pica pica, Carrion Crow Corvus corone and Woodpigeon were recorded within the woodland. A Buzzard Buteo buteo was also observed flying the woodland.
5.5.2. Birds which have been recorded nesting within, or immediately adjacent to the site, during a breeding bird survey of the airfield in 2010 include Blackbird, Dunnock Prunella modularis and Chaffinch. Birds recorded nesting in the adjacent plantation and other surrounding habitats during the same survey include Wood Pigeon, Stock Dove Columba oenas, Dunnock and Blue Tit.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 11 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
5.5.3. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned records of several bird Species of Principal Importance within the local area, including the Schedule 1 species: Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (see Appendix 2). However, further details were not provided, and therefore the exact location of the records in relation to the site cannot be determined.
5.6. Invertebrates
5.6.1. The areas of grassland are expected to support a limited range of common invertebrate species. However, given the nature of the habitats present, it is unlikely that any protected, rare or notable invertebrate species inhabit the site.
5.6.2. Background Records. Data obtained from the NBN database returned records of a number of invertebrate Species of Principal Importance within the local area (see Appendix 2), however further details were not provided, and therefore the exact location of the records in relation to the site cannot be determined.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 12 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
6. ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSALS
6.1. Principles of Ecological Evaluation
6.1.1. The evaluation of ecological features and resources should be based on sound professional judgement whilst also drawing on the latest available industry guidance and research. The approach taken in this chapter is based on that described in ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom’ published by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM), 2006. In evaluating ecological features and resources the following key factors are taken into account:
Geographic Frame of Reference
6.1.2. The value of an ecological feature or resource is determined within a defined geographical context using the following frame of reference:
• International • National • Regional • County (or Metropolitan) • District (or Unitary Authority, City or Borough) • Local (or Parish) • At the Site level only
6.1.3. Within this frame of reference, certain sites may carry a statutory ecological designation, e.g. Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for internationally important sites or Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for sites of national importance.
6.1.4. Sites of more localised nature conservation importance do not receive statutory protection but may be designated by Local Planning Authorities or other bodies, e.g. Wildlife Trusts. Such non-statutory designations or “Local Sites”4 include County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) and Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCIs), for example.
Biodiversity Value
Habitats
6.1.5. In certain cases, the value of a habitat can be measured against known selection criteria, e.g. SAC selection criteria, “Guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs” and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. However, for the majority of commonly encountered sites, the most relevant habitat evaluation will be at a more localised level and based on relevant factors such as antiquity, size, species-diversity, potential, naturalness, rarity, fragility and typicalness (Ratcliffe, 1977). The ability to restore or re-create the habitat can also be an important consideration, for example in the case of ancient woodland.
6.1.6. Regard should also be given to habitats listed as priorities for conservation under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) in accordance with Section 41
4 DEFRA (2006) “Local Sites – Guidance on their Identification, Selection and Management”
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 13 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, so called “Habitats of Principal Importance”, as the likely effect of a development on such habitats is a potential material consideration within the planning process. Certain habitats may also be listed within more regionally or locally specific BAPs, albeit the listing of a particular habitat under a BAP does not in itself imply any specific level of importance.
Species
6.1.7. The assessment of the value of a species is based on factors including distribution, status, historical trends, population size and rarity. With respect to rarity, this can apply across the geographic frame of reference and particular regard is given to populations where the UK holds a large or significant proportion of the international population of a species.
6.1.8. For certain species groups, e.g. waterfowl, there are established criteria that can be used for defining nationally and internationally important populations.
6.1.9. Regard should also be given to species listed as priorities for conservation under the UK BAP in accordance with Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006, so called “Species of Principal Importance”. Certain species may also be listed within more regionally or locally specific BAPs, albeit as with habitats the listing of a particular species under a BAP does not in itself imply any specific level of importance.
Secondary or Supporting Value
6.1.10. Some habitats or features that are of no intrinsic biodiversity value may nonetheless perform an ecological function, e.g. as a buffer. In addition, certain features of the landscape which by virtue of their linear or continuous nature (e.g. rivers) or their function as “stepping stones” (e.g. small woods) may be of value for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.
Other Value
6.1.11. Other tertiary factors may also be relevant in evaluating the value of a particular ecological receptor including social and economic factors.
6.2. The Five Point Approach
6.2.1. Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9)5 describes the Government’s national policies on the protection of biodiversity [and geological] conservation through the planning system. PPS9 emphasises the need for planning authorities to ensure that the potential effects of planning decisions on biodiversity conservation are fully considered. A five-point best practice approach6,7,8 to the assessment of such effects within the development control process is recommended:
5 ODPM (2005) “Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” 6 Royal Town Planning Institute (1999) “Planning for Biodiversity – Good Practice Guide” 7 ODPM (2006) “Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice” 8 PAS 2010 “Planning to Halt the Loss of Biodiversity, Biodiversity Conservation Standards for Planning in the United Kingdom – Code of Practice.”
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 14 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
1. Information – gathering a sufficient evidence base on which to make sound planning decisions 2. Avoidance – adverse effects on habitats and species should be avoided where possible 3. Mitigation – where it is unavoidable, mitigation measures should be employed to minimise adverse effects 4. Compensation – where residual effects remain after mitigation it may be necessary to provide compensation to offset any harm 5. New benefits – many planning decisions present the opportunity to deliver enhancements for habitats or species
6.2.2. The assessment of ecological effects set out within this chapter are based on the above five-point approach, where appropriate.
6.3. Ecological Designations
6.3.1. Ecological designations within the vicinity of the site are described in section 3 of this report and are shown on Plan 2529/ECO2.
6.3.2. Statutory Designations. No statutory designations lie within or adjacent to the site. As stated in section 3.1 above, the nearest statutory designation is Yeldon Meadows SSSI whose nearest boundary is located approximately 2.1km south-west of the site.
6.3.3. Yeldon Meadows is well separated from the site by a number of fields and country lanes (see Plan 2529/ECO2), and is therefore unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposals.
6.3.4. Non-statutory Designations. No non-statutory designations lie within or adjacent to the site. As stated in section 3.2 above, the nearest non- statutory designation is Stanwick Pasture CWS located approximately 0.8km north-west of the site.
6.3.5. Stanwick Pasture and all other non-statutory designations are well separated from the site by arable fields and roads (see Plan 2529/ECO2), and are therefore unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposals.
6.4. Habitats and Ecological Features
6.4.1. Buildings and Hard-standing / Recolonising Ground. These habitats are considered to be of inherently low or negligible ecological value and therefore any losses of these habitats to the proposals are of negligible significance.
6.4.2. Grassland. The grassland which has established over the hard-standing is relatively small in size, species-poor and intensively managed and is therefore considered to be of low-negligible ecological value at the site level. The partial loss of this habitat under the proposals is considered to be of minor-negligible ecological significance.
6.4.3. Plantation Woodland / Scrub. Although the plantation/scrub is composed largely of native species, the planted nature of the woodland, as well as its young age, sparse understorey and species-poor ground flora limits its
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 15 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
ecological value to be at most of low ecological value at the local level. Nonetheless, the woodland will be fully retained under the proposals and precautions, if necessary, will be taken to safeguard the trees during the construction works in accordance with arboricultural best practice BS 5837, where appropriate.
6.4.4. Hedgerow. A hedgerow composed of native species lies off-site but in close proximity to the western boundary of the application site. The hedgerow is considered to be of at least low ecological value at the local level but in any event will not be encroached upon by the proposals.
6.4.5. Pond. The pond is well separated from the application site and will not be encroached upon by the proposals. Due to the slope of the land there is some minor potential for the pond to be indirectly affected from any accidental pollution run-off during the construction works. Accordingly, the following safeguards will be adopted.
Construction safeguards
6.4.6. In order to minimise any adverse effects on the pond during the development of the application site, best management practice will be followed in accordance with the advice issued by the Environment Agency in its Pollution Prevention Guidelines or relevant updated documents. This will essentially reduce potential pollution effects to nil. This will include relevant safeguards such as:
• Storage areas for chemicals, fuels, etc. will be sited well away from the pond, and stored on an impervious base within an oil- tight bund with no drainage outlet;
• Where possible, and with prior agreement of the sewage undertaker, silty water should be disposed of to the foul sewer.
• Water washing of vehicles, particularly those carrying fresh concrete and cement, mixing plant, etc. will be carried out in a contained area as far from the pond as practical to avoid contaminated water entering the pond;
6.4.7. Refuelling of plant will take place in a designated area, preferably on an impermeable surface.
6.4.8. Pasture. The pasture is composed of species which are common and widespread in the local and national context, and is intensively managed through grazing and is therefore of low ecological value at the site level. The pasture will not be lost under the proposals, although there is potential that vehicles may track across the pasture during the construction phase of the development, potentially compacting soil and scraping the grass. This temporary disturbance to the grass is considered to be of negligible ecological significance, particularly as any disturbed grass areas are expected to re-establish rapidly post-construction.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 16 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
6.5. Faunal Species
Bats
6.5.1. Legislation. All British bats are classed as European Protected Species and therefore receive protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, making it an offence inter alia to:
• Deliberately kill, injure or capture a bat; • Deliberately disturb bats, including in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to reproduce or to rear or nurture their young, or their ability to hibernate or migrate, or which is likely to affect significantly their local distribution or abundance; • Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat.
6.5.2. In addition, all British bats are also listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which contains further provisions making it an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which any bat uses for shelter or protection; or • Disturb bats while occupying a structure or place that it uses for that purpose.
6.5.3. If proposed development work is likely to result in an offence a licence will need to be obtained from Natural England which would be subject to appropriate measures to safeguard bats.
6.5.4. There are 17 breeding bat species in Britain. Many of them are considered threatened due to a variety of factors including habitat loss and disturbance/damage to roosts. Of these 17 species, a number regularly use buildings and trees as roost sites.
6.5.5. Roosting - Buildings. The architectural design of the buildings B1-B8, are such that they do not provide unique opportunities for roosting bats and the buildings do not exhibit any special features commonly used by bats such as timbers with mortise joints, accessible loft voids or hanging tiles, for example. Based on the guidance set out within the Bat Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2004) it is therefore considered that the above factors strongly indicates a decreased likelihood of bats being present within the building.
6.5.6. The suitability of buildings B1, B3 and B4-B8 for roosting bats is further reduced by the use of prefabricated materials within the construction of the buildings, and the dilapidated condition they are now in. These factors likely result in rapid and frequent variations in temperature and these buildings are therefore unlikely to provide the more stable microclimatic conditions typically favoured by roosting bats. Importantly, no evidence of the presence, or potential presence, of bats was recorded during the detailed external and internal inspection surveys of these buildings.
6.5.7. Buildings B2 and B4 are well sealed and due to the recent renovation/refurbishment are likely to have experienced significant disturbance. No evidence of the presence, or potential presence, of bats
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 17 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
was recorded during the detailed external inspection survey of these buildings.
6.5.8. In summary, on balance it is considered that the buildings provide negligible roosting opportunities for bats and it is reasonably unlikely that any bat roosts are present.
6.5.9. Roosting - Trees. The majority of the trees within the woodland are young, and exhibit no features that could support roosting bats. These trees therefore fall within Category 3 according to the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines, and are considered to be of negligible potential for roosting bats. A single dead tree of unknown species (see T1 on Plan 2529/ECO3 for indicative location, and Photograph 8) exhibits features such as woodpecker holes and cracks within the trunk offering some potential for roosting bats. Accordingly, under BCT guidelines, this tree is considered to have a moderate/low potential to support roosting bats, and therefore falls within Category 2b. Nonetheless, T1 lies within the centre of the woodland, well back from the application site and any access tracks, and will therefore not be affected by the proposals.
6.5.10. A mature previously pollarded Ash; located off-site adjacent to the hedgerow mentioned in section 6.4.4. (see T2 on Plan 2529/ECO3 and Photograph 9) was also found to exhibit features that offer some limited potential for roosting bats, namely a large central cavity that may extend into some branches. Accordingly, this tree is considered to have a moderate/low potential to support bat roosts, and therefore falls within Category 2b.
6.5.11. Both these trees are located off-site, and no works are planned within the proposals that will directly affect them. Nevertheless, safeguards will be put in place (see section 6.5.13) to ensure any roosting potential is not indirectly affected. Overall, it is therefore considered unlikely that any bat roosts will be adversely affected by the proposals.
6.5.12. Foraging / Commuting. The habitats within the site afford limited foraging and commuting potential for bats. Greater foraging potential is afforded by the nearby off-site plantation woodland and hedgerow, close to which bats were recorded foraging and commuting during survey work undertaken in 2009 and 2010.
6.5.13. Action. Accordingly, to maintain any use of the off-site plantation, hedgerow and associated trees considered to exhibit features of potential interest to roosting bats, any new lighting scheme for the development will be sensitively designed so as to minimise night-time illumination of these habitats and features.
Amphibians
6.5.14. Although Great Crested Newts are regularly encountered throughout much of lowland England and Wales, the UK holds a large percentage of the world population of the species. As such, the UK has an international obligation to conserve the species and it receives full protection under domestic and European legislation. Specifically, Great Crested Newt is classified as a European Protected Species and therefore receives
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 18 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, making it an offence inter alia to:
• Deliberately kill, injure or capture a Great Crested Newt; • Deliberately disturb Great Crested Newts, including in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to reproduce or to hibernate, or migrate, or which is likely to affect significantly their local distribution or abundance; • Deliberately take or destroy the eggs of a Great Crested Newt; • Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a Great Crested Newt.
6.5.15. In addition, Great Crested Newt is also listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which contains further provisions making it an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which any Great Crested Newt uses for shelter or protection; or • Disturb any Great Crested Newt while occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.
6.5.16. If proposed development work is likely to result in an offence a licence may need to be obtained from Natural England which would be subject to appropriate measures to safeguard Great Crested Newt.
6.5.17. Evaluation. As detailed in section 5.5 above, there are no aquatic habitats, and little in the way of terrestrial habitats suitable for Great Crested Newts located within the application site. The rubble piles are considered to have some very low potential to provide shelter for newts and other herpetofauna, however this is limited by the relatively recent construction of the rubble piles, their position on the edge of the maximum migratory range (250m) of the pond9, and partial obstruction from the pond via sub-optimal habitat (pasture), such that based on Natural England's risk assessment table within the Great Crested Newt licence application (WML-A14-2, see extract at 6.5.19 below), the development of the above site (0.5ha) is considered highly unlikely to result in an offence. On balance, it is therefore considered reasonably unlikely that any Great Crested Newts will be encountered during the proposed works.
6.5.18. Action. Based on the above assessment, in line with the guidance contained within Natural England’s Great Crested Newt licence application suitable reasonable avoidance measures will be undertaken as described below.
Reasonable Avoidance Measures
• Works will be undertaken between March and mid-June when Newts are most likely to be within waterbodies. • The dismantling of rubble piles by hand will be undertaken under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist.
9 English Nature Research Report Number 576, ‘An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus’.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 19 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
• In the highly unlikely event that Great Crested Newts are encountered during the works, relevant works will stop immediately and advice sought from Natural England. If deemed necessary by Natural England, works will only proceed following the grant of a licence.
6.5.19. Extract taken from Natural England’s Great Crested Newt licence application form:
Reptiles
6.5.20. All 6 species of British reptile are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However, a higher level of protection is afforded to Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis and Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca than to Adder Vipera berus, Grass Snake Natrix natrix, Slow- worm Anguis fragilis and Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara.
6.5.21. For all British reptile species, Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) contains provisions making it an offence to intentionally:
• Kill or injure; or to • Sell, offer for sale or trade any British reptile.
6.5.22. Because Slow-worm, Common Lizard, Grass Snake and Adder are relatively widespread British species, their habitat is not directly protected. Nevertheless, because of their partial protection, disturbing or destroying their habitat whilst they are present may lead to an offence.
6.5.23. Evaluation. As detailed in section 5.6 above, there is little, if any, in the way of suitable reptile habitat within the application site. As such, it is considered
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 20 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
that there is negligible potential for reptiles within the site. However, the rubble piles located adjacent to buildings B1 and B4 are considered to have some very limited potential to provide shelter for common reptiles.
6.5.24. Action. Accordingly, during the careful dismantling of these rubble piles carried out for Great Crested Newt (see section 6.5.18), a watching brief will also be maintained for common reptile species. Any reptiles found will be carefully moved to suitable habitat outside the site.
Birds
6.5.25. Legislation. Section 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is concerned with the protection of wild birds. With certain exceptions, all wild birds are protected such that is an offence to intentionally:
• Kill, injure or take any wild bird; • Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst in use* or being built; • Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.
∗ The nests of birds that re-use their nests as listed under Schedule ZA1, e.g. Golden Eagle, are protected against taking, damage or destruction irrespective of whether they are in use or not.
6.5.26. Species listed under Schedule 1 of the Act receive greater protection such that they are also protected against intentional or reckless disturbance whilst building a nest or whilst they are in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young. The dependent young of Schedule 1 birds are also protected against intentional or reckless disturbance. Offences in respect of Schedule 1 species are subject to special, i.e. greater, penalties.
6.5.27. Conservation Status. The RSPB categorise British bird species in terms of conservation importance based on a number of criteria including the level of threat to a species’ population status 10. Species are listed as Green, Amber or Red. Red Listed species are considered to be of the highest conservation concern being either globally threatened and or experiencing a high/rapid level of population decline ($50% over the past 25 years).
6.5.28. Only a single bird species, namely Wood Pigeon, was recorded within the site during the most recent survey. During previous survey work at the site Blackbird, Dunnock, Chaffinch, Stock Dove Columba oenas, Dunnock and Blue Tit were also recorded nesting at the site, or within habitat immediately adjacent to the site. None of these bird species are found on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) or the RSPB’s Red List.
6.5.29. Breeding. The habitats present on site are dominated by buildings, hardsurfacing and intensively managed semi-natural habitats which do not generally offer suitable breeding opportunities for any of the birds, which were observed within the site and adjacent habitats. Although Skylark and Lapwing are known to nest elsewhere in the airfield, no ground nesting birds have been recorded at the application site.
10 RSPB “The population status of birds in the UK - Birds of Conservation Concern: 2009”
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 21 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
6.5.30. Overall, in consideration of the small proportion of the site which is available to foraging / nesting birds, the site is not considered to be of significant ornithological value. However, in consideration that Wood Pigeon were seen within buildings B1 and B3, in order to avoid a potential offence, the renovation and refurbishment of these buildings will be undertaken outside of the nesting season (i.e. outside March – August inclusive). Should this not be possible, a nesting bird survey of buildings B1 and B3 will be conducted by a suitably qualified ecologist, and should any active nests be recorded these will be protected until the birds have fledged or the nests are no longer in use.
6.5.31. Foraging. In consideration that the site is dominated by buildings and hard- standing and due to the intensively managed nature of the site, the habitats present at the site afford limited foraging potential for birds and as such the site does not represent a significant foraging resource. Greater foraging potential is afforded by the off-site woodland, hedgerows and nearby arable fields that surround the site.
6.5.32. Importantly, no evidence for the presence of rare or notable birds was recorded during the survey work undertaken or returned from the desktop study for the site.
Summary
6.5.33. Overall, no evidence of any Species of Principal Importance was recorded during the survey of the site. Therefore there is no reason to suggest that any effect to any Species of Principal Importance would arise from the development.
6.6. Further considerations on general ecology of the site and immediately surrounding land.
6.6.1. Air Quality. GF Environmental Limited have produced a report entitled `An Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield`, dated May 2011, which assesses the potential impact of the proposed development of the site on air quality. The modelling incorporates the results of a sensitive analysis from an earlier study to determine which model parameters would produce the most realistic set of predictions and worst-case predictions. The overall conclusion from the detailed air quality assessment is “that the operation of the proposed Live Fire Training Centre on MOD land at Chelveston is likely to have an insignificant impact on air quality in the vicinity of the site”. In addition, the report states that the hourly average NO2 Process Contribution from the Fire Training Centre units is small in comparison to the [granted] Renewable Energy Park. Therefore, any impact on ecology from a change in air quality is considered reasonably unlikely to be significant.
6.6.2. Human Disturbance and Littering. In consideration that there are no sensitive ecological receptors within or immediately adjacent to the site, any increase in the level of disturbance is considered unlikely to cause a significant adverse effect on ecology. In regards to littering, measures have been taken to prevent littering by incorporating a dedicated enclosed eating area within the proposals.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 22 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
6.6.3. Lighting. There are no sensitive features supporting protected species that would be disturbed by any work taking place outside daylight hours. Nonetheless should the LPA seek additional assurance on this issue, an appropriate condition could be placed on any planning consent.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 23 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
7. POLICY REVIEW
7.1. The planning policy framework that relates to nature conservation issues in the district of East Northamptonshire is issued at three main administrative levels – Nationally through Planning Policy Statement 9, at the Regional level through the East Midlands Regional Plan and at the Local level through the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan (adopted 1996). Any proposed development will be judged in relation to the policies contained in these planning documents.
7.2. National Policy
Planning Policy Statement 9
7.2.1. Guidance on National Policy for biodiversity and geological conservation is provided by the Department of the Environment Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9), published in August 2005. PPS9 confirms the Government's commitment to the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.
7.2.2. PPS9 requires Local Authorities to fully consider the effect of planning decisions on biodiversity and geological conservation, and ensure that appropriate weight is attached to statutory nature conservation designations, protected species and biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.
7.2.3. It also considers the potential biodiversity and geological conservation gains which can be secured within developments, including the use of planning obligations.
7.2.4. National Policy therefore implicitly recognises the importance of biodiversity and that with sensitive planning and design, development and conservation of the natural heritage can co-exist and benefits can, in certain circumstances, be obtained.
7.3. Regional Policy
East Midlands Regional Plan
7.3.1. The current document in use for planning control purposes in the district of East Northamptonshire is the East Midlands Regional Plan, which was issued in March 2009, at which time it replaced the previous 2005 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).
7.3.2. The Regional Plan contains 1 policy that relates to nature conservation.
7.3.3. Policy 29 is concerned with ensuring the East Midlands region contributes toward objectives set out in the UKBAP, through creation of new habitats or enhancement of existing habitats in areas identified as being key wildlife habitats within the region. In addition, the policy aims to implement mechanisms to ensure that development does not have an adverse impact on BAP habitats and species and that an overall net gain of these species and habitats is achieved.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 24 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
7.4. Local Policy
East Northamptonshire District Local Plan
7.4.1. The site lies entirely within the district of East Northamptonshire. The document in use for planning control purposes within East Northamptonshire is the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan (adopted 1996)
7.4.2. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out that Local Planning Policy in England should take the form of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) to replace previous Local Plans. However, given the emerging nature of LDFs, the Act decreed that existing Local Plans would remain in force until 28 September 2007 (three years from the commencement of The Act). This period has now ended, however the LDF for East Northamptonshire will not be adopted for some time.
7.4.3. Accordingly, under powers granted by the act, the Secretary of State has ‘saved’ a number of policies from the existing adopted East Northamptonshire District Local Plan, while the remaining policies within the Local Plan are no longer in force. Any development proposals will be judged against these policies until such time as the LDF is adopted.
7.4.4. Two policies relating to nature conservation (EN8 and EN9) have been ‘saved’ from the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan.
7.4.5. Policy EN8 is concerned with the protection of statutory designated or proposed sites of interest to nature conservation, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR) or Local Nature Reserves (LNR). Development that may directly or indirectly adversely affect these sites will not be permitted unless effective and appropriate mitigation measures are put in place.
7.4.6. Policy EN9 is concerned with the protection of non-statutory locally designated sites of interest to nature conservation including County Wildlife Sites, ‘Nature Conservation Zones’ and ‘River Reaches of Nature Conservation Importance’. Development that may adversely affect these sites will not be permitted unless it can be ensured that the special interest of the area is protected.
7.5. Policy Discussion
Ecological Designations
7.5.1. The site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designation. As set out previously in section 6.3 no ecological designations will be adversely affected by the proposed development.
7.5.2. Therefore the proposals accord with relevant provisions of national policy and policy 29 of the East Midlands Regional Plan, and policies EN8 and EN9 of the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 25 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
Habitats
7.5.3. As previously described in section 6.4 above, no habitats of significant ecological interest will be adversely affected by the proposals, which therefore accords with relevant provisions of national policy and regional policies.
Protected Species
7.5.4. No evidence of protected species was recorded at the site during the survey, although it is possible, albeit highly unlikely, that Great Crested Newts and common reptiles may be encountered during the dismantling of the on-site rubble/soil piles. It is also expected that common birds utilise the woodland, trees and hedgerow directly adjacent to the site whilst nesting. However, the implementation of measures, as set out in this report, is expected to safeguard these species (groups) under the proposals.
7.5.5. The proposals therefore accord with relevant provisions of national policy and regional policy 29.
7.6. Policy Conclusion
7.6.1. It is considered that, following the recommendations set out in this report, the proposed development would fully accord with the relevant provisions of policies relating to nature conservation at the national, regional and local levels.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 26 Fire Training Facility, Former RAF Base Chelveston 2529.EcoAs.vf1 Ecological Assessment
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1. Aspect Ecology was commissioned in March 2011 by Northamptonshire County Council Fire and Rescue Service to undertake an ecological assessment in respect of land in the north-western corner of the former RAF Base Chelveston.
8.2. The site was surveyed in March 2011 based around extended Phase 1 methodology as recommended by Natural England. In addition, a general appraisal of faunal species was undertaken to record the potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species, with specific surveys conducted in respect of bats and Badger.
8.3. Ecological Designations. The site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designation. The nearest statutory designation to the site is Yeldon Meadows SSSI located approximately 2.1km south-west of the site. The nearest non-statutory designation is Stanwick Pasture CWS located approximately 0.8km north-west of the site. These and other ecological designations are well separated from the site by a network of agricultural fields and roads, and will not therefore be adversely affected by the proposals.
8.4. Habitats. The site is dominated by buildings, hard-standing and intensively managed grassland, which are considered to be of low to negligible ecological value at the site/local level, and their partial loss under the proposals is considered to be of minor – negligible ecological significance. Nearby adjacent habitats, such as the plantation woodland, hedgerow and individual trees, are considered to be of greater ecological value than those within the site and will be fully retained under the proposals. In addition, measures will be employed during construction to safeguard these habitats/ecological features.
8.5. Protected Species. No evidence of the actual presence of any protected species was recorded at the site during the survey. The rubble piles within the site are considered to be of some potential, albeit very low, for Great Crested Newts and common reptiles. Accordingly, as a precaution the rubble piles will be carefully dismantled, by hand, under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist, at a suitable time of year (March to mid-June).
8.6. Common birds may use the open buildings at the site for nesting, and as all wild birds receive protection whilst nesting, in order to avoid a potential offence any clearance of nesting habitat or renovation/refurbishment of the buildings will be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (i.e. outside March to August inclusive) or if within the nesting season only after the negative result of bird nesting survey.
8.7. Conclusion. In conclusion, based on the evidence obtained from detailed ecological survey work and with the implementation of the recommendations set out in this report, there is no reason to suggest that any ecological designations, habitats of nature conservation interest or any protected species will be significantly harmed by the proposals.
JULY 2011/ ASPECT ECOLOGY 27 PLANS PLAN 2529/ECO1
Site Location
PLAN 2529/ECO2
Ecological Designations
PLAN 2529/ECO3
Habitats & Ecological Features
PHOTOGRAPHS
ECO2529 - FIRE TRAINING FACILITY, FORMER CHELVESTON RAF BASE
PHOTOGRAPH 1: Buildings B1 - B4 PHOTOGRAPH 2: Building B8 (example structure of buildings B5 - B8)
PHOTOGRAPH 3: Grass-covered hard-standing PHOTOGRAPH 4: Off-site planted woodland ECO2529 - FIRE TRAINING FACILITY, FORMER CHELVESTON RAF BASE
PHOTOGRAPH 5:Off-site pasture field PHOTOGRAPH 6: Off-site pond
PHOTOGRAPH 7:Rubble piles adjacent to building B1 PHOTOGRAPH 8:Dead tree T1 ECO2529 - FIRE TRAINING FACILITY, FORMER CHELVESTON RAF BASE
PHOTOGRAPH 9:Mature pollarded Ash tree T2 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
Information obtained from Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) and Nature on the Map (Natural England) online databases.
ECO2529 Designated Sites Site Check Report Report generated on April 8 2011.
You clicked on the point: Grid Ref: TL 010 695 Full Grid Ref: 501083 , 269563
The following features have been found within 5,000 metres of your search point:
Counties, Metropolitan Districts and Unitary Authorities (GB) Name Geographic Level CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY
NUTS1 - Government Office Regions (GB) Name Reference Hotlink EAST MIDLANDS UKF http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/nuts_em.asp EAST OF ENGLAND UKH http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/nuts_eofe.asp
Local Nature Reserves (England) There are no features within your search area.
National Nature Reserves (England) There are no features within your search area.
Ramsar Sites (England) There are no features within your search area.
Special Protection Areas (England) There are no features within your search area.
Special Areas of Conservation (England) There are no features within your search area.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest Units (England) Reference Name Citation Site Unit Condition 1052229 YELDEN MEADOWS 1000300 FAVOURABLE 1083325 UPPER NENE VALLEY GRAVEL PITS 1028900 FAVOURABLE
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Reference Name Citation 1082789 UPPER NENE VALLEY GRAVEL PITS 2000494 1002877 YELDEN MEADOWS 1005059
To save the report, select "Save As" from the File menu. Give the report a name of your choice and save it in "Web Page, HTML only" format. You can then open your report using your web browser software.
Print Report | Close Window ECO2529 - non-stat
© Crown Copyright and database right 2011. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100022021. © Crown copyright. Licence number 100022432. © Natural England 2007. This page was produced from the Nature on the Map website at 08/04/2011 11:36:45 ECO2529 - internationa
© Crown Copyright and database right 2011. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100022021. © Crown copyright. Licence number 100022432. © Natural England 2007. This page was produced from the Nature on the Map website at 08/04/2011 11:35:36 ECO2529 - stat
© Crown Copyright and database right 2011. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100022021. © Crown copyright. Licence number 100022432. © Natural England 2007. This page was produced from the Nature on the Map website at 08/04/2011 11:34:12 APPENDIX 2
Information obtained from the National Biodiversity Network database
Chelveston, Northamptonshire Information Obtained from the National Biodiversity Network Database
Search Area: OS grid-squares SP97, TL07, SP96 and TL06 Date of Search: April 2011
Aspect Ecology ECO2509.NBN.xl Mammals
Bats
Brown Long-eared Plecotus aunitus
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Little Addington SP9573 1987 Thrapston SP97 1972 Irchester SP9065 1984 Rushden SP9665 1987 Riseley Church TL0363 1987 Risely TL039630 19/10/1987 Titchmarsh TL0478 1986
Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu stricto
Site name Gridref Date Recorded No site name available TL06 08/06/2000 No site name available TL06 09/06/2003 No site name available TL06 16/06/2003
Daubentons Myotis daubentonii
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Rushden SP9367 16/10/1988
Long-eared bat species Plecotus sp.
Site name Gridref Date Recorded No site name available SP9871 1984 Thrapston SP9978 1986 No site name available SP998727 09/06/1986 No site name available SP9978 26/07/1985 No site name available SP9074 03/04/1985 Irchester SP9366 June, 1965 Bythorn Church TL07 28/03/1990 Titchmarsh TL0279 1987
Natterers Myotis nattereri
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Great Addington Manor House SP9575 1987 Site name protected SP9575 25/09/1987 Irchester SP96 Between 1950 and 1994
Noctule Nyctalus noctula
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Irchester SP96 1965 Rushden,nr SP9365 1980 Irchester SP9366 1988
Pipistrelle Pipistrellus sp.
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Stanwick SP97 1982 Thrapston SP97 1982 Raunds SP97 1982 No site name available SP9973 1983 Thrapston SP9978 1987 Denford SP9976 1987 No site name available SP9972 30/05/1983 Islip SP9879 1990 Thrapston SP9978 1988 No site name available SP9973 31/01/1985 Cranford SP9277 1980 Cranford SP97 1982 Burton Latimer SP9075 1986 Raunds SP9972 Recorded before 1982 Rushden SP9567 1988 Irchester SP9265 1988 Rushden SP9567 1988 Higham Ferrers - Ditchford SP96 1979 No site name available SP9666 1983 No site name available SP9466 1984 Rushden SP9566 1987 Higham Ferrers SP9567 1987 No site name available SP9466 24/07/1985 No site name available SP9669 08/06/1985 No site name available SP9567 01/09/1985 Irchester SP9265 1990 Irthlingborough SP9369 1980 Rushden SP9666 1987 Rushden SP9566 1981 Wellingborough SP9067 1981 Rushden SP975641 20/07/1988 Keysoe TL06 1972 Hargrave TL0371 1981 Hargrave TL07 1982
Other Mammals Badger Meles meles
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Burton Latimer SP97 1981 No site name available SP97 1980 No site name available SP97 1983 Irthlingborough SP9571 1966 No site name available SP97 Recorded before 1970 Irchester SP9063 1966 Ditchford SP96 1981 No site name available SP96 Recorded before 1970 Woolaston SP9062 1966 Swineshead,S of TL0564 1979 Keysoe TL0662 1977 Swineshead TL0664 1977 Tilbrook,nr TL0569 01/03/1982 Titchmarsh TL0279 July, 1976 Titchmarsh TL0578 July, 1976 Brown Hare Lepus europaeus
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Mallows Cotton SP97 1981 No site name available SP97 1984 Islip SP97 1982 Twywell SP97 1981 Finedon SP9371 1966 Burton Latimer SP97 1981 No site name available SP96 1981 Rushden SP9466 1966 Higham Ferrers SP96 1981 Irchester SP96 1979 Souldrop,W of SP96 July, 1966 Higham Ferrers SP96 1982 Wollaston SP96 1982 Sharnbrook SP9860 1977 No site name available SP96 1980 Kimbolton TL0968 1971 No site name available TL06 1971 No site name available TL0169 1981 Keysoe TL06 1973 Kimbolton TL06 1972 South Hargrave TL06 1982 Brington TL07 1969 No site name available TL07 1983 Brington TL07 1971 Brington TL0875 1970 No site name available TL07 1984 Brington TL0875 1972 No site name available TL07 1974 No site name available TL07 1973
Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Riseley TL06 1973 Brington TL0876 1968 Hargrave TL0370 1978
Hazel Dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Cranford Wood SP9379 1976 Cranford Wood SP937794 1976
Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus
Site name Gridref Date Recorded No site name available SP9675 1984 No site name available SP97 1982 No site name available SP97 1980 Mallows Cotton SP97 1981 No site name available SP97 1983 No site name available SP9673 1984 Irthingborough SP97 1981 Finedon SP9272 1966 Turywell SP97 1981 No site name available SP96 1982 Podington SP9462 1965 Irchester SP96 1981 Irchester SP9065 02/07/1965 Rushden SP9567 1966 No site name available SP96 1983 No site name available SP96 1980
Irchester SP96 1979 No site name available TL06 1971 No site name available TL07 1982 Hargrave TL07 1981 Brington TL0875 1969 Brington TL0876 1971 Old Weston TL07 1972 Brington TL0875 1970 Brington TL0875 1972 Brington TL07 02/05/1978 No site name available TL07 1973
Otter Lutra lutra
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Raunds area SP97 1978 Pertenhall River Kym Trib TL093646 13/10/2001 Shelton River Til TL035687 19/10/2001 Tilbrook River Kym TL082694 19/10/2001 Risley River Kym Trib TL054642 19/10/2001
Polecat Mustela putorius
Site name Gridref Date Recorded No site name available SP996616 16/09/1994
Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris
Site name Gridref Date Recorded No site name available SP96 1959
Water Vole Arvicola amphibius
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Islip SP9979 1966 Islip Mill SP9979 1966 Mallows Cotton SP97 1981 No site name available SP97 1980 Twywell SP97 1982 Ditchford SP9368 1959 Rushden SP96 1966 Higham Ferrars SP96 1979 No site name available SP96 1980 Risely TL0564 1971 Catworth TL0875 1972 Brington TL0875 1970 No site name available TL07 1980 Brington TL0875 1969 Reptiles Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Sharnbrook SP96 23/07/1980 Hinwick,Bedford SP936616 14/05/1977 Sharnbrook Summit SP9662 30/06/1973 Hinwick SP936616 14/05/1977 Hinwick SP936616 14/05/1977 SHARNBROOK SUMMIT & RAILWAY CUTTING SP9662 30/06/1973 WYNINGTON PARISH SP963641 05/07/1986 SHARNBROOK SUMMIT & RAILWAY CUTTING SP96 23/07/1980 COLWORTH HOUSE SP96 13/06/1981 WELLINGBOROUGH SP9068 1990 SHIRLEY ROAD, RUSHDEN NORTHANTS SP9566 May, 1989 Hinwick SP936616 14/05/1977 SHIRLEY ROAD, RUSHDEN NORTHANTS SP9566 August, 1989 SHIRLEY ROAD, RUSHDEN NORTHANTS SP9566 June, 1988 SHIRLEY ROAD, RUSHDEN NORTHANTS SP9566 July, 1989 SHARNBROOK SUMMIT & RAILWAY CUTTING SP968623 1978 RUSHDEN SP9567 1990 Hinwick SP936616 14/05/1977
Grass Snake Natrix natrix
Site name Gridref Date Recorded
BURTON LATIMER SP9074 1990 CRANFORD SP9276 1990 GRANFORD ST JOHN SP9376 1990 Harwick SP9361 Recorded before 1950 Knotting,West Wood SP9862 April, 1977 BOZEAT SP9060 1990 WEST WOOD, KNOTTING SP9862 April, 1977 WEST WOOD SP96 23/04/1977 SOULDROP SP987615 1986 PODINGTON SP932637 05/07/1986 Kimbolton TL06 1952 Kimbolton TL0967 Between 1833 and 1959 Riseley TL046633 13/07/1984 MELCHBOURNE PARK TL06 June, 1985
Amphibians Common Toad Bufo bufo
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Sharnbrook SP980602 21/07/1977 Hinwick,nr SP928606 11/05/1979 Hinwick SP96 22/07/1978 Sharnbrook,Colworth House SP980602 21/07/1977 Kimbolton TL06 1953 Kimbolton TL06 1955 Kimbolton TL06 1952 Kimbolton TL0967 1960
Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus
Site name Gridref Date Recorded Wymington Village Pond SP954645 1979 Irchester Park SP915660 1985 Wymington SP954645 1979 Wymington SP954645 1979 Wymington SP954645 1979 IRCHESTER PK SP915660 1985 Swineshead-Melchbourne Road TL053658 26/05/1973 Swineshead TL054659 1978 Kimbolton TL095679 1971 Swineshead,nr TL053658 26/05/1973 Kimbolton TL0967 1960 Melchbourne-Swineshead TL053652 26/05/1973 Swineshead TL054659 1978 KIMBOLTON VICARAGE TL098678 Recorded before 1995 RISELEY TL038628 1990 KIMBOLTON VICARAGE TL098678 1971 SWINESHEAD MELCHBOURNE RD TL053658 1973 Swineshead TL054659 1978 Kimbolton TL095679 1971
Birds
The following Species of Principal Importance have a distribution in the SP97, TL07, SP96 and TL06 10x10km grid squares:
Common Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) Common Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) Common Grasshopper Warbler (Locustella naevia) Common Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Corn Bunting (Emberiza calandra) Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) Eurasian Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus) European Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur) Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) Hawfinch (Coccothraustes coccothraustes) Hedge Accentor (Prunella modularis) Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) Lesser Redpoll (Carduelis cabaret) Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor) Marsh Tit (Poecile palustris) Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) Reed Bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) Savi's Warbler (Locustella luscinioides) Sky Lark (Alauda arvensis) Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) Spotted Flycatcher (Muscicapa striata) Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis) Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) Willow Tit (Poecile montanus) Wood Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) Invertebrates
The following Species of Principal Importance have a distribution in the SP97, TL07, SP96 and TL06 10x10km grid squares:
Butterflies: Dingy Skipper (Erynnis tages) Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus malvae) Small Blue (Cupido minimus) Small Heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) Wall (Lasiommata megera) White Admiral (Limenitis camilla) White-letter Hairstreak (Satyrium w-album) Wood White (Leptidea sinapis)
Moths: August Thorn (Ennomos quercinaria) Beaded Chestnut (Agrochola lychnidis) Blood-vein (Timandra comae) Bordered Gothic (Heliophobus reticulata) Brindled Beauty (Lycia hirtaria) Broom Moth (Melanchra pisi) Brown-spot Pinion (Agrochola litura) Buff Ermine (Spilosoma luteum) Centre-barred Sallow (Atethmia centrago) Cinnabar (Tyria jacobaeae) Crescent (Celaena leucostigma) Dark Brocade (Blepharita adusta) Dark Spinach (Pelurga comitata) Dark-barred Twin-spot Carpet (Xanthorhoe ferrugata) Deep-brown Dart (Aporophyla lutulenta) Dot Moth (Melanchra persicariae) Double Dart (Graphiphora augur) Dusky Brocade (Apamea remissa) Dusky Thorn (Ennomos fuscantaria) Dusky-lemon Sallow (Xanthia gilvago) Ear Moth (Amphipoea oculea) Feathered Gothic (Tholera decimalis) Figure of Eight (Diloba caeruleocephala) Flounced Chestnut (Agrochola helvola) Four-spotted (Tyta luctuosa) Garden Dart (Euxoa nigricans) Garden Tiger (Arctia caja) Ghost Moth (Hepialus humuli) Goat Moth (Cossus cossus) Green-brindled Crescent (Allophyes oxyacanthae) Grey Dagger (Acronicta psi) Hedge Rustic (Tholera cespitis) Knot Grass (Acronicta rumicis) Lackey (Malacosoma neustria) Large Nutmeg (Apamea anceps) Latticed Heath (Chiasmia clathrata) Liquorice Piercer (Grapholita pallifrontana) Minor Shoulder-knot (Brachylomia viminalis) Mottled Rustic (Caradrina morpheus) Mouse Moth (Amphipyra tragopoginis) Oak Hook-tip (Watsonalla binaria) Oak Lutestring (Cymatophorima diluta) Pale Eggar (Trichiura crataegi) Pale Shining Brown (Polia bombycina) Powdered Quaker (Orthosia gracilis) Pretty Chalk Carpet (Melanthia procellata) Rosy Minor (Mesoligia literosa) Rosy Rustic (Hydraecia micacea) Rustic (Hoplodrina blanda) Sallow (Xanthia icteritia) September Thorn (Ennomos erosaria) Shaded Broad-bar (Scotopteryx chenopodiata) Shoulder-striped Wainscot (Mythimna comma) Small Emerald (Hemistola chrysoprasaria) Small Phoenix (Ecliptopera silaceata) Small Square-spot (Diarsia rubi) Spinach (Eulithis mellinata) Sprawler (Asteroscopus sphinx) Streak (Chesias legatella) White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) White-spotted Pinion (Cosmia diffinis)
Other invertebrates: Round-mouthed Whorl Snail (Vertigo (Vertigo) genesii) Large Garden Bumble Bee (Bombus (Megabombus) ruderatus) Necklace Ground Beetle (Carabus (Morphocarabus) monilis) Fen Raft Spider (Dolomedes plantarius)
Plants The following Species of Principal Importance have a distribution in the SP97, TL07, SP96 and TL06 10x10km grid squares:
Flowering plants: Annual Knawel (Scleranthus annuus) Basil Thyme (Clinopodium acinos) Broad-fruited Cornsalad (Valerianella rimosa) Corn Buttercup (Ranunculus arvensis) Corn Cleavers (Galium tricornutum) Crested Cow-wheat (Melampyrum cristatum) Darnel (Lolium temulentum) Fine-leaved Sandwort (Minuartia hybrida) Grape-hyacinth (Muscari neglectum) Grass-wrack Pondweed (Potamogeton compressus) Pheasant's-eye (Adonis annua) Red Hemp-nettle (Galeopsis angustifolia) Shepherd's-needle (Scandix pecten-veneris) Spreading Hedge-parsley (Torilis arvensis) Tubular Water-dropwort (Oenanthe fistulosa) White Helleborine (Cephalanthera damasonium)
Non-flowering plants/fungi: Violet Crowncup (Sarcosphaera coronaria) Holly-fern (Polystichum lonchitis) Orange-fruited Elm-lichen (Caloplaca luteoalba)
APPENDIX 3
Summary Tables of Great Crested Newt Surveys
Survey Great Crested Month Weather Pond Smooth Newt Palmate Newt Visit Newt Site Site Site 1 Mid April 2007 Fine Total Total Total 1 39 12 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 4 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 45 0 15 0 0 Early May 2 Warm 2007 1 17 14 0 2 0 0 0 3 6 5 0 4 0 0 0 5 14 9 0 6 2 1 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 39 0 29 0 0 Early May Cool, light 3 2007 rain 1 16 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 23 6 0 6 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 48 0 8 0 0 Early June 4 Warm 2007 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 3 3 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 4 0 0
5 Mid June 2007 Warm
1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 0
6 Mid June 2007 Warm
1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 2 0 0
Survey Date Weather Pond Great Crested Newt Smooth Newt Palmate Newt Visit 1 4th/5th May Warm, Light Rain Site Total Site Total Site Total P1100 P2000 P3 24 26 0 P4000 P5 6 18 0 P6110 P7000 P8 0 32 0 45 0 0 2 11th/12th May Fine P1100 P2000 P3 2 11 0 P4000 P5560 P6000 P7000 P8 0 8 0 17 0 0 3 19th/20th May Fine, Light Rain P1000 P2000 P3 19 23 0 P4000 P5790 P6000 P7000 P8 0 26 0 32 0 0 4 6th/7th June Fine P1100 P2000 P3220 P4000 P5470 P6000 P7000 P8070900 5 13th/14th June Warm P1000 P2000 P3020 P4000 P5260 P6000 P7000 P8020800 6 17th/18th June Warm P1000 P2000 P3020 P4000 P5140 P6000 P7000 P8010600
. . . . . GF Environmental Limited .GF E
Northamptonshire Fire Service
Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
May 2011
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
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Figures, Tables and Equations ii
Authorisation Sheet iv
Summary v
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Site Location 1
2. Process Details 5 2.2 Operating Conditions and Emissions Data 5 2.3 Atmospheric Chemistry 6 2.4 Meteorological Data 6 2.5 Modelling Assumptions 7
3. Detailed Assessment of Air Quality Impacts 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 Assessing Significance 8 3.3 Demonstration Unit 9 3.4 Attack Unit 15 3.5 COBRA Unit 16 3.6 Villa Complex 18
i
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Figures, Tables and Equations
Figure 1 Location of the Proposed Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield 2 Figure 2 2004 Windrose for the Bedford Measurement Station 7
Figure 3 Maximum Hourly Average Process Contribution for NO2 – Demonstration Unit 11
Figure 4 Maximum Hourly Average Process Contribution for Particles (PM10) – Demonstration Unit 13
Table 1-1 Modelled Specific Receptor Locations 2 Table 1-2 Market Harborough Automatic Monitoring Station, 2010 3 Table 1-3 Estimated Background Pollutant Concentrations in the Vicinity of Chelveston 3 Table 2-1 Emission Source Parameters 6 Table 2-2 Modelled Emissions Data 6 Table 2-3 Modelled Meteorological Parameters 7 Table 3-1 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – Demonstration Unit 10 Table 3-2 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – Demonstration Unit 10
Table 3-3 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – Demonstration Unit 12 Table 3-4 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – Demonstration Unit 12
Table 3-5 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – Demonstration Unit 14 Table 3-6 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – Demonstration Unit 15 Table 3-7 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – Attack Unit 15 Table 3-8 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – Attack Unit 15
Table 3-9 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – Attack Unit 16 Table 3-10 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – Attack Unit 16
Table 3-11 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – Attack Unit 16 Table 3-12 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – Attack Unit 16 Table 3-13 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – COBRA Unit 17 Table 3-14 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit 17
Table 3-15 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – COBRA Unit 17 Table 3-16 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit 17
Table 3-17 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – COBRA Unit 17 Table 3-18 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit 17 Table 3-19 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – Villa Complex 18 Table 3-20 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – Villa Complex 18
Table 3-21 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – Villa Complex 18
ii
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Table 3-22 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – Villa Complex 18
Table 3-23 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – Villa Complex 19 Table 3-24 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – Villa Complex 19 Table 4-1 Emission Source Parameters 20 Table 4-2 Modelled Emissions Data 20 Table 4-3 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit and Renewable Energy Park22
Equation 1 Calculation of Hourly Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration 6
iii
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Authorisation Sheet Client: Northamptonshire Fire Service Project: Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Version: Final
PREPARED BY
Signature:
Name: Geoff Fynes
Position: Director, GF Environmental Ltd
Date: May 2011
AUTHORISED FOR ISSUE
Signature:
Name: Will Riley
Position: Principal Planner, Phillips Planning Services Ltd
Date: May 2011
DISTRIBUTION
Northamptonshire Fire Service
Northamptonshire County Council
Phillips Planning Services Ltd
iv
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Summary
Detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken in support of a planning application for a Live Fire Training Centre to be developed on former MOD land at Chelveston. The Centre will consist of a number of standard ISO containers and will accommodate two aspects of the training system; a Fire Behaviour Training (FBT) unit, and a “Cold Cut COBRA” unit.
Phase 1 of the development will involve two FBT units designated as Demonstrator and the other as Attack, and will be used to demonstrate pyrolysis, fire development and gas cooling techniques. The COBRA unit will involve two ISO containers connected together and will incorporate breeze blocks to simulate a wall at the front of the container. In Phase 2 of the development a larger Villa structure will be erected comprising twelve ISO containers sited three abreast and two long, and built on two storeys.
Each container is to be primed with twelve 8 foot by 4 foot wood boards, which will be set alight for the duration of the test. The burning of the wood boards will generate temperatures within the containers in excess of 600 ºC which will ensure that virtually all of the smoke and unburnt hydrocarbons will be fully combusted before they are vented from a flue on the roof of the container.
It is anticipated that about 100 one day training courses will be held per year, which would involve one training run in both the Demonstration and Attack units, and up to five training runs in the COBRA unit. The duration of wood burning during the training runs is approximately 45 minutes from start to finish. Accordingly, the potential impact of emissions from the burning of the wood board is likely to be most significant in terms of short term average increases in background pollutant concentrations, as the Centre is only likely to be operational for about 6% of the hours in a year.
The modelling was undertaken based on pollutant emissions for oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and Particles (PM10 and PM2.5) based on assumed emissions concentrations that are considered relevant to the burning of wood board in this application. Data relating to operational conditions were provided by Northamptonshire Fire Service. Hourly average meteorological data were obtained for the nearby Bedford measurement station and used to identify worst case dispersal conditions for the assessment.
The modelling incorporated the results of a sensitivity analysis from an earlier study to determine which model parameters (buildings, surface roughness, and the Bedford meteorological data sets) would produce the most realistic set of predictions and then the set of worst case predictions.
v
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
The results from detailed modelling were compared against the objective limits defined within the Air Quality Regulations, or Environmental Assessment Levels recommended in Environment Agency guidance.
Particular reference was given to the potential short term impact on local air quality of emissions from the Fire Training Centre at nearby residential properties. The maximum
hourly average process contribution for NO2 attributable to the operation of the Fire Training Centre was shown to occur within ~40m of the exhaust flues of the training units, with values decreasing rapidly with distance from the site. Process Contributions at nearby residential receptors were typically in the region of ~1 !g m-3 or less.
In relation to impact descriptors recommended by the Environment Agency, increases in
background NO2 concentrations at nearby residential receptors can be screened out as environmentally insignificant and are likely to have a negligible impact on local air quality. Similar conclusions were drawn for emissions of particulates, expressed as both Particles
(PM10) and Particles (PM2.5).
The nearby Chelveston Renewable Energy Park incorporates a biomass facility that includes an Anaerobic Digestion plant with two associated engines to burn the biogas generated by the process, in addition to three additional generators to be fuelled by liquid
biofuels. The hourly average NO2 Process Contribution due to emissions from Fire Training Centre units is small in comparison to that of the Renewable Energy Park, and the cumulative impact of emissions from the two facilities at nearby residential properties can be screened out as environmentally insignificant. Similar conclusions were drawn for emissions
of Particles (PM10) and Particles (PM2.5).
The overall conclusion from the detailed air quality assessment is that the operation of the proposed Live Fire Training Centre on former MOD land at Chelveston is likely to have an insignificant impact on air quality in the vicinity of the site, and the associated health impact descriptor would be that “Effects are unlikely to be noticed even by individuals who know they are sensitive to air pollutants”.
vi
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 GF Environmental was appointed by Northamptonshire Fire Service to undertake an air quality assessment of emissions from a proposed Live Fire Training Centre to be developed on former MOD land at Chelveston, adjacent to the Chelveston Renewable Energy Park. The Centre will consist of a number of standard ISO containers and will accommodate two aspects of the training system; a Fire Behaviour Training (FBT) unit, and a “Cold Cut COBRA” unit.
1.1.2 Phase 1 of the development will involve two FBT units designated as Demonstrator and Attack, and will be used to demonstrate pyrolysis, fire development and gas cooling techniques. The COBRA unit will involve two ISO containers connected together and will incorporate breeze blocks to simulate a wall at the front of the container. In Phase 2 of the development a larger Villa Unit will be erected comprising twelve ISO containers sited three abreast and two long, and built on two storeys.
1.1.3 Each container is to be primed with twelve 8 foot by 4 foot wood boards, which will be set alight for the duration of the test. The burning of the wood boards will generate temperatures within the containers in excess of 600ºC which will ensure that virtually all of the smoke and unburnt hydrocarbons will be fully combusted before they are vented from a flue on the roof of the container.
1.1.4 It is anticipated that about 100 one day training courses will be held per year, which would involve one training run in both the Demonstration and Attack units, and up to five training runs in the COBRA unit. The duration of wood burning during the training runs is approximately 45 minutes from start to finish. In this time, approximately 120 kg of wood board will be burned, equivalent to an hourly burn rate of 160 kg h-1. Accordingly, the potential impact of emissions from the burning of the wood board is likely to be most significant in terms of short term average increases in background pollutant concentrations, as the Centre is only likely to be operational for about 6% of the hours in a year.
1.1.5 This report describes the current state of air quality within the Chelveston area, and gives an indication of the potential impact of emissions to atmosphere on pollutant concentrations locally. 1.2 Site Location 1.2.1 The location of the Live Fire Training Centre is on former MOD land to the south-west of the village of Chelveston, Bedfordshire (See Figure 1).
1
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Figure 1 Location of the Proposed Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Licence number 100048653 1.2.2 The Fire Training Centre, indicated by the red box above, is situated in a rural location that is currently used for agricultural purposes, although Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd (CREL) is developing a Renewable Energy Park on adjacent land (Marked as Site in the above figure). The Renewable Energy Park incorporates a biomass facility that includes an Anaerobic Digestion plant with two associated biogas engines. In addition to the biogas engines, there are three additional generators to be fuelled by liquid biofuels.
1.2.3 The site is in an elevated position located on a “plateau” that overlooks the surrounding area, and is ~30 metres above the surrounding area. Accordingly, the site is well “ventilated” by the prevailing south-westerly winds and is exposed to pollutant concentrations that may be categorised as “Rural Background”.
1.2.4 A receptor grid covering an area 4 km x 5 km in a 101 x 81 grid with 50 metre spacing was incorporated into the model in order to assess the potential impact on air quality in the surrounding area of pollutant emissions from wood burning at the Fire Training Centre. In addition, ten specific receptor locations were modelled. Their details are presented in the following table.
Table 1-1 Modelled Specific Receptor Locations
Receptor Number Receptor name X(m) Y(m) Distance from the Centre (m) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 501562 270733 1,300 2 Lodge Farm 502437 269644 1,447 3 Hargrave 503677 270605 2,880 4 Shelton 503361 268848 2,475 5 Manor Farm 501610 268471 1,256 6 Yelden 501106 267261 2,306 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 499586 268082 2,043 8 Caldecott 499142 268775 2,011 9 Chelveston 499184 269486 1,809 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 499847 270666 1,589
2
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Existing Air Quality 1.2.5 Estimates of existing background air quality data for the proposed site were obtained from the DEFRA Background Maps website1. The proposed development site is considered to be a rural background site in terms of air quality designation. The nearest rural background site in the National Network of air quality monitoring stations operated by DEFRA is at Market Harborough, (NGR 483300, 295900) situated ~32 km north-west of Chelveston.
1.2.6 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and ozone (O3) are monitored at Market Harborough and the data for 2010 are presented in Table 1-2. The data presented are the annual average of the hourly average measured values.
Table 1-2 Market Harborough Automatic Monitoring Station, 2010
Nitrogen Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides as NO Ozone Year 2 (!g m-3) (!g m-3) (!g m-3) (!g m-3) 2010 1.8 11.7 14.4 46.5 2011* 1.5* 11.4* 13.9* - * Projected forward from 2010 data using the DEFRA “Year Adjustment Calculator” 1.2.7 Measured data for the Market Harborough monitoring station indicate that the 2010 annual -3 -3 average NO2 concentration was 11.7 !g m , equivalent to ~30% of the 40 !g m AQS objective value. Using the DEFRA Year Adjustment Calculator, this value was projected -3 forward to 2011 to give an estimated background NO2 concentration of 11.4 !g m .
1.2.8 The 2011 estimates of NO2, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations for a 1kmx1km grid square in the vicinity of the Biomass Plant (500500, 268500) was taken from the DEFRA air quality background maps2 for East Northamptonshire. The predicted annual average background -3 2 NO2 concentration for 2011 used within the assessment was 8.2 !g m for the 1 km grid square that incorporates the Fire Training Centre site. Estimates for other pollutants were also obtained from the DEFRA website and are summarised in Table 1-3. Table 1-3 Estimated Background Pollutant Concentrations in the Vicinity of Chelveston
Pollutant Baseline Year Concentration (!g m-3)
NO2 2011 8.2
NOx 2011 11.5
PM10 2011 14.9
PM2.5 2011 9.5 1.2.9 The DEFRA estimates for the area surrounding the development site were used to calculate the Predicted Environmental Concentration values (Process Contribution plus background) reported in the following sections.
1 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/maps/maps2008.html 2 http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/background08/pm25/91-pm25-2011.csv
3
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Air Quality Management Areas 1.2.10 Local Authorities are required to undertake a statutory review of air quality within their areas and if there is a risk of exceeding an Air Quality Standard or Objective Value then they are required to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Local Authorities closest to the development site are Bedford Borough Council and East Northamptonshire Borough Council.
1.2.11 East Northamptonshire Borough Council has undertaken an assessment of the air quality within the Borough and concluded that there was no requirement to declare an AQMA. Bedford Borough Council has declared an AQMA in the town centre in connection with
exceedence of the annual average NO2 objective value (AQMA 5). The AQMA is located approximately 20 km to the south and is considered to be too far away to be directly affected by emissions from the Fire Training Centre. The nearest residential receptors are situated approximately 2 km from the development site, and are shown in Figure 1.
4
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
2. Process Details
2.1.1 The ADMS model requires emission sources to be 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 flues associated with wood burning in the various training units at the Fire Training Centre.
2.1.2 It has been assumed that each unit will burn wood board at a rate of 160 kg h-1 (120 kg over a 45 minute training period), and that where there are two containers that make up a COBRA unit, and that each container will burn wood at the above rate.
2.1.3 For the Villa complex it has been assumed that there will be three units burning wood to provide the conditions temperature and smoke required for the large structure. Three flues were assumed for the Villa Complex and were considered as a single emission source with a diameter of an equivalent area to the three flues. 2.2 Operating Conditions and Emissions Data 2.2.1 Process information for inclusion within the modelling study was provided by Northamptonshire Fire Service. Estimates for emissions concentrations were based upon the following assumptions:
• The combustion of the wood board in the various training units is assumed to occur at high excess air levels to ensure complete combustion of unburnt hydrocarbons and smoke. A value of 15% excess oxygen, ~250% excess air has been assumed in theoretical fluegas calculations (See Appendix 1); • A theoretical fluegas volume associated with the combustion of the wood board was calculated using the chemical composition of “Particle Board” from the ECN Phyllis Database website3 (See Appendix 1). The calculation is based upon an assumed hourly wood combustion rate of 160 kg h-1 to provide a worst case short term assessment; -3 • The NOX emission concentration was assumed to be 300 mg m to provide a worst case assessment based upon measured data from wood combustion in biomass heating appliances of 200 to 300 mg m-3; -3 • The particulate emission concentration assumed to be 100 mg m on the basis that high temperature conditions and excess air levels within the ISO containers will minimise emissions of smoke, and at a concentration of ~100 mg m-3 particulate emissions will be discernable as a wispy plume. The assessment considered the impact of particulate emissions as both PM10 and PM2.5 to provide a worst case assessment for particulate release; and, • Wood burning at the Fire training Centre will only take place for about 6% of the hours of the year, accordingly, estimates of annual average increases in background pollutant concentrations will be insignificant, and the emphasis of the air quality assessment is therefore on the hourly average Process Contribution. 2.2.2 The modelled source and emissions data used in the assessment are summarised in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 respectively.
3 http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/dataTable.asp
5
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Table 2-1 Emission Source Parameters
Parameter Demonstration Unit Attack Unit COBRA Unit (1&2) Villa Unit Stack Height (m) 3.84 3.38 3.38 6.01 Stack Diameter (m) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.73* Efflux Temperature (°C) 600 600 600 600 Efflux Velocity (m s-1) 5.2 5.2 5.2 9.1 *Effective diameter of three flues considered as a single emission point Table 2-2 Modelled Emissions Data
Mass Emission Rate (g/s) Substance Demonstration Unit Attack Unit COBRA Unit (1&2) Villa Unit
Nitrogen Oxides (as NO2) 0.208 0.208 0.208 0.625
Particles (PM10) 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.208
Particles (PM2.5) 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.208 2.2.3 The above emission rates are considered to represent a worst-case scenario at the maximum level likely to occur during a 45 minute training session. 2.3 Atmospheric Chemistry 2.3.1 The atmospheric chemistry module of ADMS was not used for calculating predicted ground-
level concentrations of NO2. Instead, a procedure recommended by the Environment Agency’s Air Quality Monitoring and Assessment Unit (AQMAU)4 was used to calculate
annual average and hourly average NO2 ground-level concentrations from model reported
annual average NOX concentrations.
2.3.2 The procedure is based upon the following formulae:
Equation 1 Calculation of Hourly Average NO2 Predicted Environmental Concentration
(Hourly NOX Modelled x 0.35) + (Annual NO2 Monitored x 2)
2.3.3 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). 2.4 Meteorological Data 2.4.1 Hourly averaged meteorological data from the Bedford measurement station were utilised in the detailed modelling assessment. The 2004 windrose for the Bedford measurement station is shown in Figure 2.
4 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Conversion_ratios_for__NOx_and_NO2_.pdf
6
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Figure 2 2004 Windrose for the Bedford Measurement Station
2.4.2 The data indicate a predominance of winds from a generally south-westerly direction. The meteorological data included nine parameters defined in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 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 (%) 2.5 Modelling Assumptions 2.5.1 In order to undertake the detailed assessment of the impact on local air quality of emissions from the Fire Training Centre, it has been necessary to make several assumptions which are summarised as follows:
• Modelling was undertaken for the individual flues of the various training units which were assumed to be operating individually and in isolation of the other units at that time. • The assessment focuses on short term impacts based upon hourly average Process Contributions, as the burning of wood within the Centre will only take place for about 6% of the hours in the year.
• Pollutant discharge rates were based upon an assumed NOX emission concentration of 300 mg m-3 and a particulate emission rate of 100 mg m-3, which are considered to be representative of the conditions likely to be experienced when burning wood to simulate the temperature and smoke density conditions in the training units. • Discharge parameters (efflux temperature, efflux velocity, etc) were based on data provided by Northamptonshire Fire Service. • The effects of adjacent structures were taken into account in the modelling procedures. • Hourly averaged meteorological data from the Bedford measurement station were used in the modelling. • Environmental Assessment Levels were based on the Air Quality Regulations and Limit Values.
7
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
3. Detailed Assessment of Air Quality Impacts
3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 The results from detailed modelling of emissions from the Fire Training Centre units are presented in the following section. Results are presented in terms of the maximum Process Contribution (PC), and also as the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) taking into account the PC and the estimated background concentration for the area. 3.2 Assessing Significance 3.2.1 The Environment Agency provides guidance for screening the significance of air quality impacts associated with the operation of industrial processes5. 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.
3.2.2 For pollutants considered as part of this assessment the following assessment thresholds were used, as recommended by the Environment Agency in EPR H1: • A PC less than 10% of the short-term (hourly) average objective limit should be considered as environmentally insignificant. UK Pollution Index and Banding Scheme 3.2.3 The following is taken from the DEFRA UK Air website6 and explains how the UK Government interprets and advises the general public about the quality of air that they may be exposed to and the associated health impacts.
5 Environment Agency, Horizontal Guidance Note H1 Annex (f), April 2010 6 http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/bandings
8
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
In the UK most air pollution information services use the index and banding system approved by the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution Episodes (COMEAP). The system uses a 1-10 index scheme, divided into four bands to provide more detail about air pollution levels in a simple way, similar to the sun index or pollen index. 1-3 (Low) 4-6 (Moderate) 7-9 (High) 10 (Very High) The overall air pollution index for a site or region is calculated from the highest concentration of five pollutants: Nitrogen Dioxide Sulphur Dioxide Ozone Carbon Monoxide
Particles < 10!m (PM10) Air Pollution Forecasts Air Quality Forecasts are issued on a regional basis for three different area types: In towns and cities near busy roads; Elsewhere in towns and cities; In rural areas. Forecasts are based on the prediction of air pollution index for the worst-case of the five pollutants listed above, for each region. Health Advice Latest studies report that: When air pollution is LOW (1-3) effects are unlikely to be noticed even by those who are sensitive to air pollution. When air pollution is MODERATE (4-6) sensitive people may notice mild effects but these are unlikely to need action. When air pollution is HIGH (7-9) sensitive people may notice significant effects and may need to take action. Asthmatics will find that their 'reliever' inhaler is likely to reverse the effects on the lung. When air pollution is VERY HIGH (10) effects on sensitive people, described for HIGH pollution, may worsen.
3.2.4 The above air pollution Index and Banding descriptors were incorporated into the discussion of the results from modelling.
3.2.5 Environmental Protection UK issued guidance on assessing the significance of air quality 7 impacts of development projects . However, the impact descriptors for NO2 and PM10 are based upon increases in annual average concentrations, and so are not relevant to the assessment for the Fire training Centre which focuses on hourly average increases.
3.2.6 The detailed modelling undertaken has assumed that only one of the training units will operate at any time. 3.3 Demonstration Unit
3.3.1 The results of the NO2 modelling for the Demonstration Unit are presented in Table 3-1, and represent the values at the location of maximum Process Contribution across the output grid, as well as at specific receptors representing residential properties in the vicinity of the site (See Figure 1).
7 Environmental Protection UK, Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update)
9
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 3.3.2 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 -3 background NO2 concentration for 2011 of 8.2 !g m and the conversion of the NOX released from the process, based upon an empirical formula recommended by the Environment Agency’s Air Quality Monitoring and Assessment Unit (Section 2.3).
Table 3-1 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – Demonstration Unit
PC/PEC Exceedence Averaging Concentration Percentage of the Pollutant Statistic Unit -3 Threshold Period (!g m ) AQS/EAL (%) Short Term 1hr ~85 ~42 100% (PEC) -3 NO2 200* !g m Short Term 1hr ~68 ~34 100% (PC) Note: * AQS objective value relates to the 99.79th percentile of hourly average values while the results presented refer to the maximum (100%) value. 3.3.3 The model predicted that under Normal Operating conditions, the maximum hourly average -3 -3 NO2 PEC would be ~85 !g m , approximately 40% of the 40 !g m AQS objective value. The location of the maximum Process Contribution is ~40m to the north-east of the flue, and within the confines of the site, and therefore does not affect third parties. The maximum hourly -3 average NO2 PC across the receptor grid was ~68 !g m , or about one third of the AQS objective value. However, this is based upon a worst-case estimate at the location of the maximum Process Contribution, and for continuous, maximum output throughout the one hour training period. It should also be noted that the AQS objective value refers to the 99.79th percentile value, whereas the reported results refer to the maximum (100%) value across the 20 km2 receptor grid.
3.3.4 The above estimates are based upon worst-case emissions of NOX and an estimated -3 background concentration value for NO2 of 8.2 !g m for the general area around the Centre in 2011. It should be noted that the above results are greater than would be expected at the nearby residential receptors. The hourly average Process Contribution and Predicted
Environmental Concentration values for NO2 at nearby residential properties are presented in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – Demonstration Unit
Hourly NO Hourly NO Receptor 2 2 Receptor Name PC % AQS PEC % AQS Number -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 0.8 0.4% 17.2 8.6% 2 Lodge Farm 0.7 0.3% 17.1 8.5% 3 Hargrave 0.2 0.1% 16.6 8.3% 4 Shelton 0.3 0.2% 16.7 8.4% 5 Manor Farm 0.5 0.3% 16.9 8.5% 6 Yelden 0.3 0.1% 16.7 8.3% 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 0.3 0.2% 16.7 8.4% 8 Caldecott 0.4 0.2% 16.8 8.4% 9 Chelveston 0.4 0.2% 16.8 8.4% 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.3 0.2% 16.7 8.4%
10
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
3.3.5 In terms of the 10% significance threshold recommended by the Environment Agency, the
increase in hourly average NO2 concentrations at nearby residential receptors is very small and can be screened out as environmentally insignificant.
3.3.6 The hourly average Process Contribution for NO2 associated with the operation of the Demonstration Unit is presented graphically in the following figure.
Figure 3 Maximum Hourly Average Process Contribution for NO2 – Demonstration Unit
Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Licence number 100048653 3.3.7 The outer contour line represents an increase of 20 !g m-3 and is shown because it represents an increase of 10% of the hourly AQS objective value (200 !g m-3) above background. Therefore, in all areas outside this contour, the Process Contribution may be regarded as environmentally insignificant in relation to the Environment Agency’s significance criteria in Horizontal Guidance Note EPR H1 Annex (f). As can be seen, the 20 !g m-3 contour is restricted to an area that is very close to the Fire training Centre, and the impact at all of the identified specific receptors can be screened out as insignificant.
3.3.8 In relation to the UK Pollution Banding and Index system, air quality in terms of the hourly -3 average NO2 PEC (based upon the estimated annual average background of 8.2 !g m ) would be described as being in the “Low” band, with an “Index” of 1. This means that air quality would be considered to be good, and the associated health descriptor would be “Effects are unlikely to be noticed even by individuals who know they are sensitive to air pollutants”.
11
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
3.3.9 Accordingly, when the Fire Training Centre becomes operational, air quality in terms of NO2 is likely to be good, as defined by the UK Pollution Banding and Index system, and unlikely to be a cause for concern in relation to health effects for those living in the vicinity of the site.
Particles (PM10)
3.3.10 The results from modelling for Particles (PM10) are presented in Table 3-2, and represent the values at the location of maximum Process Contribution across the output grid, as well as at specific receptors representing residential properties in the vicinity of the site (See Figure 1).
3.3.11 The data presented are for both the maximum Process Contributions (PC) and the Predicted
Environmental Concentration (PEC) for PM10, assuming that all of the particulate release has a diameter of 10 !m or less. This is unlikely as there will be coarser particulates associated with the release to atmosphere. The PEC values take into account the estimated background -3 PM10 concentration for 2011 of 14.9 !g m .
Table 3-3 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – Demonstration Unit
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period (!g m-3)
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~100 PM10 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~72 3.3.12 The model predicted that under Normal Operating conditions, the maximum hourly average -3 PEC for Particles (PM10) would be ~100 !g m , and the maximum hourly average PC was ~70 !g m-3. However, this is based upon a worst-case estimate at the location of the maximum Process Contribution, which is ~40m from the flue of the Demonstration Unit, with values decreasing rapidly with distance, and for continuous, maximum output throughout the one hour training period. The assessment also assumes that all of the particulate emission will be 10 !m or smaller in diameter, which is highly unlikely as the emissions will contain coarser size fractions as there is no particulate arrestment plant associated with the flue.
3.3.13 The above estimates are based upon worst-case emissions of Particles (PM10) and an estimated background concentration value of 14.9 !g m-3 for the general area around the Centre in 2011. It should be noted that the above data relate to the location of maximum Process Contribution, and are therefore greater than other values across the remainder of the modelled output grid, and in particular, greater than would be expected at the nearby residential receptors.
3.3.14 The hourly average Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentration values
for Particles (PM10) at nearby residential properties are presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – Demonstration Unit
Hourly NO2 PC Hourly NO2 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.4 31.2 2 Lodge Farm 1.2 31.0 3 Hargrave 0.8 30.6 4 Shelton 0.9 30.7
12
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Hourly NO PC Hourly NO PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name 2 2 (!g m-3) (!g m-3) 5 Manor Farm 1.3 31.1 6 Yelden 0.6 30.4 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 1.0 30.8 8 Caldecott 1.0 30.8 9 Chelveston 1.1 30.9 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.9 30.7 3.3.15 In terms of the 10% significance threshold recommended by the Environment Agency, the
increase in hourly average concentrations of Particles (PM10) at nearby residential receptors can be screened out as environmentally insignificant.
3.3.16 The maximum hourly average Process Contribution for Particles (PM10) associated with the operation of the Demonstration Unit is presented graphically in the following figure.
Figure 4 Maximum Hourly Average Process Contribution for Particles (PM10) – Demonstration Unit
Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Licence number 100048653
3.3.17 The air quality standard for Particles (PM10) specifies a daily average objective value of 50 !g m-3, expressed as the 98.08th percentile value. As the air quality assessment for the Fire Training Centre is based upon the maximum hourly average increase in pollutant concentrations, the daily average AQS objective value has been adjusted using an empirical conversion factor to derive an hourly average equivalent in line with Environment Agency guidance8.
8 The Environment Agency, Work Instruction for Air Dispersion Modelling of Point Source Emissions, 8th September 2000
13
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
3.3.18 The 8.5 !g m-3 contour line is shown because it represents an increase of 10% of the hourly average environmental assessment level (85 !g m-3) above background, derived using the procedure above. As can be seen, the 8.5 !g m-3 contour is restricted to an area that is very close to the Fire Training Centre, and the impact at all of the identified specific receptors can be screened out as insignificant.
3.3.19 In relation to the UK Pollution Banding and Index system, air quality in terms of the hourly
average PEC for Particles (PM10) at nearby residential receptors (based upon the estimated annual average background of 14.9 !g m-3) would be described as being in the “Low” band, with an “Index” of 1. This means that air quality would be considered to be good, and the associated health descriptor would be “Effects are unlikely to be noticed even by individuals who know they are sensitive to air pollutants”.
3.3.20 Accordingly, when the Fire Training Centre becomes operational, air quality in terms of
Particles (PM10) is likely to be good, as defined by the UK Pollution Banding and Index system, and unlikely to be a cause for concern in relation to health effects for those living in the vicinity of the site.
Particles (PM2.5)
3.3.21 The results from modelling for Particles (PM2.5) are presented in Table 3-5, and represent the values at the location of maximum Process Contribution across the output grid, as well as at specific receptors representing residential properties in the vicinity of the site (See Figure 1).
3.3.22 The data presented are for both the maximum Process Contributions (PC) and the Predicted
Environmental Concentration (PEC) for PM2.5, assuming that all of the particulate release has a diameter of 2.5 !m or less, which is highly unlikely. The PEC values take into account the -3 estimated background PM2.5 concentration for 2011 of 9.5 !g m .
Table 3-5 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – Demonstration Unit
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period -3 (!g m )
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~90 PM2.5 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~72 3.3.23 The model predicted that under Normal Operating conditions, the maximum hourly average -3 PEC for Particles (PM2.5) would be ~90 !g m , and the maximum hourly average PC was ~70 !g m-3. However, this is based upon a worst-case estimate at the location of the maximum Process Contribution, which is ~40m from the flue of the Demonstration Unit, with values decreasing rapidly with distance, as well as for continuous, maximum output throughout the one hour training period. The assessment also assumes that all of the particulate emission will be 2.5 !m or smaller in diameter, which is highly unlikely as the emissions will contain coarser size fractions as there is no particulate arrestment plant associated with the flue.
14
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
3.3.24 The above estimates are based upon worst-case emissions of Particles (PM2.5) and an estimated background concentration value of 9.5 !g m-3 for the general area around the Centre in 2011. It should be noted that the above data relate to the location of maximum Process Contribution, and are therefore greater than other values across the remainder of the modelled output grid, and in particular, greater than would be expected at the nearby residential receptors.
3.3.25 The maximum hourly average Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration values for Particles (PM2.5) at nearby residential properties are presented in the following table.
Table 3-6 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – Demonstration Unit
Hourly PM2.5 PC Hourly PM2.5 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.4 20.4 2 Lodge Farm 1.1 20.1 3 Hargrave 0.6 19.6 4 Shelton 0.7 19.7 5 Manor Farm 1.1 20.1 6 Yelden 0.6 19.6 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 0.8 19.8 8 Caldecott 0.9 19.9 9 Chelveston 0.8 19.8 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.7 19.7
3.3.26 The air quality standard for Particles (PM2.5) specifies an annual average limit value of 25 !g m-3, which is an inappropriate basis for assessment of the significance of the hourly average Process Contribution due to wood burning at the Fire Training Centre. The results do show, however, that hourly average Process Contributions are likely to be a small fraction of the annual average limit value. 3.4 Attack Unit 3.4.1 The conclusions for the air quality assessment for the Attack Unit are the same as those for the Demonstration Unit. The results are summarised in the following tables.
Table 3-7 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – Attack Unit
PC/PEC Exceedence Averaging Concentration Percentage of the Pollutant Statistic Unit -3 Threshold Period (!g m ) AQS/EAL (%) Short Term 1hr ~73 ~37 100% (PEC) -3 NO2 200* !g m Short Term 1hr ~57 ~28 100% (PC) Note: * AQS objective value relates to the 99.79th percentile of hourly average values while the results presented refer to the maximum (100%) value.
Table 3-8 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – Attack Unit
Hourly NO2 PC Hourly NO2 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 % AQS -3 % AQS (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 0.8 0.4% 17.2 8.6% 2 Lodge Farm 0.7 0.3% 17.1 8.5% 3 Hargrave 0.2 0.1% 16.6 8.3%
15
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Hourly NO PC Hourly NO PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name 2 % AQS 2 % AQS (!g m-3) (!g m-3) 4 Shelton 0.3 0.2% 16.7 8.4% 5 Manor Farm 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 6 Yelden 0.3 0.1% 16.7 8.3% 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 0.3 0.2% 16.7 8.4% 8 Caldecott 0.4 0.2% 16.8 8.4% 9 Chelveston 0.4 0.2% 16.8 8.4% 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.3 0.2% 16.7 8.4%
Table 3-9 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – Attack Unit
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period (!g m-3)
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~92 PM10 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~63 Table 3-10 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – Attack Unit
Hourly PM10 PC Hourly PM10 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.4 31.2 2 Lodge Farm 1.2 31.0 3 Hargrave 0.8 30.6 4 Shelton 0.9 30.7 5 Manor Farm 1.3 31.1 6 Yelden 0.7 30.5 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 1.1 30.9 8 Caldecott 1.1 30.9 9 Chelveston 1.2 31.0 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 1.0 30.8
Table 3-11 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – Attack Unit
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period -3 (!g m )
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~81 PM2.5 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~62 Table 3-12 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – Attack Unit
Hourly PM2.5 PC Hourly PM2.5 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.4 20.4 2 Lodge Farm 1.1 20.1 3 Hargrave 0.6 19.6 4 Shelton 0.7 19.7 5 Manor Farm 1.1 20.1 6 Yelden 0.6 19.6 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 0.9 19.9 8 Caldecott 0.9 19.9 9 Chelveston 0.9 19.9 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.8 19.8 3.4.2 The above results confirm the conclusions for the Demonstration Unit that operation of the Attack Unit is unlikely to have a significant impact on local air quality and on the health of people living in nearby residential properties.
3.5 COBRA Unit 3.5.1 The conclusions for the air quality assessment for the Attack Unit are the same as those for the Demonstration Unit. The results are summarised in the following tables.
16
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Table 3-13 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – COBRA Unit
PC/PEC Exceedence Averaging Concentration Percentage of the Pollutant Statistic Unit -3 Threshold Period (!g m ) AQS/EAL (%) Short Term 1hr ~130 ~65 100% (PEC) -3 NO2 200* !g m Short Term 1hr ~110 ~57 100% (PC) Note: * AQS objective value relates to the 99.79th percentile of hourly average values while the results presented refer to the maximum (100%) value.
Table 3-14 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit
Hourly NO2 PC Hourly NO2 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 % AQS -3 % AQS (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.6 0.8% 18.0 9.0% 2 Lodge Farm 1.3 0.7% 17.7 8.9% 3 Hargrave 0.5 0.2% 16.9 8.4% 4 Shelton 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 5 Manor Farm 1.2 0.6% 17.6 8.8% 6 Yelden 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 0.7 0.3% 17.1 8.5% 8 Caldecott 0.8 0.4% 17.2 8.6% 9 Chelveston 0.7 0.3% 17.1 8.5% 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5%
Table 3-15 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – COBRA Unit
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period -3 (!g m )
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~150 PM10 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~120 Table 3-16 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit
Hourly PM10 PC Hourly PM10 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 2.8 32.6 2 Lodge Farm 2.3 32.1 3 Hargrave 1.5 31.3 4 Shelton 1.8 31.6 5 Manor Farm 2.7 32.5 6 Yelden 1.4 31.2 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 2.1 31.9 8 Caldecott 2.1 31.9 9 Chelveston 2.3 32.1 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 2.0 31.8
Table 3-17 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – COBRA Unit
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period -3 (!g m )
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~81 PM2.5 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~72 Table 3-18 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit
Hourly PM2.5 PC Hourly PM2.5 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 2.7 21.7 2 Lodge Farm 2.2 21.2 3 Hargrave 1.2 20.2 4 Shelton 1.5 20.5 5 Manor Farm 2.3 21.3
17
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Hourly PM PC Hourly PM PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name 2.5 2.5 (!g m-3) (!g m-3) 6 Yelden 1.2 20.2 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 1.8 20.8 8 Caldecott 1.8 20.8 9 Chelveston 1.7 20.7 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 1.7 20.7 3.5.2 The results for the COBRA Unit are higher than those for the Demonstration and Attack Units due to the fact that there is twice as much wood burned in the COBRA Unit. Nevertheless, the results confirm the conclusions for the Demonstration and Attack Units that operation of the COBRA Unit is unlikely to have a significant impact on local air quality and on the health of people living in nearby residential properties.
3.6 Villa Complex 3.6.1 The conclusions for the air quality assessment for the Villa Complex Unit are the same as those for the other types of Unit within the Fire Training Centre. The results are summarised in the following tables.
Table 3-19 Modelling Predictions for Nitrogen Dioxide – Villa Complex
PC/PEC Exceedence Averaging Concentration Percentage of the Pollutant Statistic Unit -3 Threshold Period (!g m ) AQS/EAL (%) Short Term 1hr ~89 ~44 100% (PEC) -3 NO2 200* !g m Short Term 1hr ~72 ~36 100% (PC) Note: * AQS objective value relates to the 99.79th percentile of hourly average values while the results presented refer to the maximum (100%) value.
Table 3-20 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – Villa Complex
Hourly NO PC Hourly NO PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name 2 % AQS 2 % AQS (!g m-3) (!g m-3) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.1 0.6% 17.5 8.8% 2 Lodge Farm 0.9 0.5% 17.3 8.7% 3 Hargrave 0.4 0.2% 16.8 8.4% 4 Shelton 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 5 Manor Farm 1.2 0.6% 17.6 8.8% 6 Yelden 0.7 0.4% 17.1 8.6% 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 8 Caldecott 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 9 Chelveston 0.6 0.3% 17.0 8.5% 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 0.7 0.4% 17.1 8.6%
Table 3-21 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM10) – Villa Complex
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period -3 (!g m )
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~105 PM10 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~75 Table 3-22 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM10) at Specific Receptors – Villa Complex
Hourly PM10 PC Hourly PM10 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 2.0 31.8 2 Lodge Farm 1.8 31.6 3 Hargrave 1.0 30.8 4 Shelton 1.2 31.0
18
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Hourly PM PC Hourly PM PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name 10 10 (!g m-3) (!g m-3) 5 Manor Farm 1.6 31.4 6 Yelden 1.0 30.8 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 1.2 31.0 8 Caldecott 1.4 31.2 9 Chelveston 1.1 30.9 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 1.0 30.8
Table 3-23 Modelling Predictions for Particles (PM2.5) – Villa Complex
Concentration Pollutant Statistic Unit Averaging Period -3 (!g m )
Short Term 100% (PEC) -3 1hr ~93 PM2.5 !g m Short Term 100% (PC) 1hr ~74 Table 3-24 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for Particles (PM2.5) at Specific Receptors – Villa Complex
Hourly PM2.5 PC Hourly PM2.5 PEC Receptor Number Receptor Name -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) 1 Hargrave Lodge Farm 1.9 20.9 2 Lodge Farm 1.7 20.7 3 Hargrave 0.9 19.9 4 Shelton 1.1 20.1 5 Manor Farm 1.6 20.6 6 Yelden 1.0 20.0 7 Chelveston Base Crescent 1.1 20.1 8 Caldecott 1.3 20.3 9 Chelveston 1.1 20.1 10 Pastures Lodge Farm 1.0 20.0 3.6.2 The results for the Villa Complex Unit are similar to those for the Demonstration and Attack Units despite the fact that there is three times as much wood burned. The greater height of the Villa Complex is assumed to provide more effective dispersal of emissions. The results confirm the conclusions for the other Units that operation of the Villa Complex Unit is unlikely to have a significant impact on local air quality and on the health of people living in nearby residential properties.
19
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
4. Cumulative Impact with Chelveston Renewable Energy Park
4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 The Fire Training Centre is to be located on land adjacent to the Chelveston Renewable Energy Park which incorporates a biomass facility that includes an Anaerobic Digestion plant with two associated engines to burn the biogas generated by the process. In addition to the biogas engines, there are three additional generators to be fuelled by liquid biofuels and
provide up to 6 MWe of generating capacity.
4.1.2 The cumulative impact on local air quality of emissions from the Renewable Energy Park and the Fire Training Centre has been assessed. Details of emissions from the Renewable Energy Park were taken from an earlier report prepared by GF Environmental9, and are summarised in the following tables.
Table 4-1 Emission Source Parameters
Parameter Biogas Engines (2 off) Bioliquid Engines (3 off) Stack Height (m) 7 14.5 Stack Diameter (m) 0.3 0.85* Efflux Temperature (°C) 450 250 Efflux Velocity (m s-1) 40 31 *Effective diameter of all three flues considered as a single emission point Table 4-2 Modelled Emissions Data
Mass Emission Rate (g/s) Substance Biogas Engine Bioliquid Engine
Nitrogen Oxides (as NO2) 0.53 2.4 Sulphur Dioxide 0.055 0.6 Carbon Monoxide 1.49 1.1
Particulates (PM10) 0.0055 0.7 4.1.3 The emission rates represent a worst-case scenario at the maximum level likely to be released from the engines throughout the year.
4.1.4 The ADMS model for the Fire Training Centre was modified to incorporate emissions from the Renewable Energy Park. Scenarios were modelled to predict short term impacts on local air quality of emissions from the Renewable Energy Park with one of the training units operating. The results for the COBRA unit are illustrated in the following figure, and were selected because this facility was associated with the largest Process Contribution when considered in isolation.
9 GF Environmental Ltd, Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from Biofuel Combustion at Chelveston Renewable Energy Ltd, July 2010
20
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
Figure 5 Maximum Hourly Average Process Contribution for NO2 – Cumulative Impact of the COBRA Unit and the Renewable Energy Park
Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Licence number 100048653 4.1.5 The Process Contribution due to the operation of the Renewable Energy Park is shown in blue to differentiate it from that of the Fire Training Centre which is shown in black. The cumulative impact of the two facilities operating simultaneously is indicated by the red contour line.
4.1.6 The figure demonstrates that operation of the two facilities produces two distinct areas where -3 the hourly average NO2 Process Contribution is above 20 !g m , the 10% significance threshold specified the Environment Agency. These areas are confined to the immediate vicinity of the two facilities, with minimal interaction between the two at this concentration. It is only at lower concentrations of ~5 !g m-3 and below that there is an observable cumulative impact of emissions from the two facilities (red line), but this represents a value that is ~2 to 3% of the hourly average AQS objective value and can be screened out as environmentally insignificant.
4.1.7 This results from the cumulative impact assessment demonstrate that emissions from the Renewable Energy Park are dispersed effectively, and that the Process Contribution from wood burning within the COBRA Unit is small in comparison, and likely to have an
insignificant impact on short term background NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the site.
21
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
4.1.8 The maximum hourly average Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration values for NO2 at nearby residential properties are presented in Table 4-3, and compare the values associated with the COBRA Unit in isolation, and when considered cumulatively with the Renewable Energy Park.
Table 4-3 Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentrations for NO2 at Specific Receptors – COBRA Unit and Renewable Energy Park
Hourly NO2 PC Hourly NO2 PEC -3 -3 (!g m ) (!g m ) Receptor COBRA COBRA Unit & COBRA COBRA Unit & Receptor Name Number Unit Energy Park Unit Energy Park Hargrave Lodge 1 1.6 3.1 18.0 19.5 Farm 2 Lodge Farm 1.3 2.3 17.7 18.7 3 Hargrave 0.5 1.2 16.9 17.6 4 Shelton 0.6 1.5 17.0 17.9 5 Manor Farm 1.2 4.1 17.6 20.5 6 Yelden 0.6 3.0 17.0 19.4 Chelveston Base 7 0.7 3.2 17.1 19.6 Crescent 8 Caldecott 0.8 2.5 17.2 18.9 9 Chelveston 0.7 2.4 17.1 18.8 Pastures Lodge 10 0.6 2.1 17.0 18.5 Farm
4.1.9 As can be seen the maximum hourly average NO2 Process Contribution due to emissions from COBRA Unit is typically about half to one sixth of that due to the operation of the Renewable Energy Park. In terms of the 10% significance threshold recommended by the
Environment Agency, the cumulative increase in hourly average NO2 concentrations at all of the nearby residential receptors is very small and can be screened out as environmentally insignificant.
4.1.10 Similar conclusions were drawn for the Particles (PM10) and Particles (PM2.5), as well as for the other training units considered.
22
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
5. Conclusions
5.1.1 Detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken in support of a planning application for a Live Fire Training Centre to be developed on former MOD land at Chelveston. The Centre will consist of a number of standard ISO containers and will accommodate two aspects of the training system; a Fire Behaviour Training (FBT) unit, and a “Cold Cut COBRA” unit.
5.1.2 Phase 1 of the development will involve two FBT units designated as Demonstrator and the other as Attack, and will be used to demonstrate pyrolysis, fire development and gas cooling techniques. The COBRA unit will involve two ISO containers connected together and will incorporate breeze blocks to simulate a wall at the front of the container. In Phase 2 of the development a larger Villa structure will be erected comprising twelve ISO containers sited three abreast and two long, and built on two storeys.
5.1.3 Each container is to be primed with twelve 8 foot by 4 foot wood boards, which will be set alight for the duration of the test. The burning of the wood boards will generate temperatures within the containers in excess of 600 ºC which will ensure that virtually all of the smoke and unburnt hydrocarbons will be fully combusted before they are vented from a flue on the roof of the container.
5.1.4 It is anticipated that about 100 one day training courses will be held per year, which would involve one training run in both the Demonstration and Attack units, and up to five training runs in the COBRA unit. The duration of wood burning during the training runs is approximately 45 minutes from start to finish. Accordingly, the potential impact of emissions from the burning of the wood board is likely to be most significant in terms of short term average increases in background pollutant concentrations, as the Centre is only likely to be operational for about 6% of the hours in a year.
5.1.5 The modelling was undertaken based on pollutant emissions for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
Particles (PM10 and PM2.5) based on assumed emissions concentrations that are considered relevant to the burning of wood board in this application. Data relating to operational conditions were provided by Northamptonshire Fire Service. Hourly average meteorological data were obtained for the nearby Bedford measurement station and used to identify worst case dispersal conditions for the assessment.
5.1.6 The modelling incorporated the results of a sensitivity analysis from an earlier study to determine which model parameters (buildings, surface roughness, and the 2006 to 2010 meteorological data sets) would produce the most realistic set of predictions and then the set of worst case predictions.
5.1.7 The results from detailed modelling were compared against the objective limits defined within the Air Quality Regulations, or Environmental Assessment Levels recommended in Environment Agency guidance.
23
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
5.1.8 Particular reference was given to the potential short term impact on local air quality of emissions from the Fire Training Centre at nearby residential properties. The maximum hourly
average process contribution for NO2 attributable to the operation of the Fire Training Centre was shown to occur within ~40m of the exhaust flues of the training units, with values decreasing rapidly with distance from the site. Process Contributions at nearby residential receptors were typically in the region of ~1 !g m-3 or less.
5.1.9 In relation to impact descriptors recommended by the Environment Agency, increases in
background NO2 concentrations at nearby residential receptors can be screened out as environmentally insignificant and are likely to have a negligible impact on local air quality. Similar conclusions were drawn for emissions of particulates, expressed as both Particles
(PM10) and Particles (PM2.5).
5.1.10 The nearby Chelveston Renewable Energy Park incorporates a biomass facility that includes an Anaerobic Digestion plant with two associated engines to burn the biogas generated by the process, in addition to three additional generators to be fuelled by liquid biofuels. The
hourly average NO2 Process Contribution due to emissions from Fire Training Centre units is small in comparison to that of the Renewable Energy Park, and the cumulative impact of emissions from the two facilities at nearby residential properties can be screened out as environmentally insignificant. Similar conclusions were drawn for emissions of Particles
(PM10) and Particles (PM2.5).
5.1.11 The overall conclusion from the detailed air quality assessment is that the operation of the proposed Live Fire Training Centre on former MOD land at Chelveston is likely to have an insignificant impact on air quality in the vicinity of the site, and the associated health impact descriptor would be that “Effects are unlikely to be noticed even by individuals who know they are sensitive to air pollutants”.
24
Northamptonshire Fire Service GFE Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the Proposed Live Fire Training Centre at Chelveston Airfield
APPENDIX 1 Fluegas Calculations for Particle Board
25 Fluegas Calcs Particle Board
Compostition
Particle Board (ECN Ultimate Analysis, As Received Basis, % PHYLLIS Database) ( Moisture Check http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis ) % C H ONS Cl F Inerts Percent As Received Basis 12.0 42.90 5.30 37.50 0.30 0.04 0.01 0.0 1.8 99.8
Calculations of Stoichiometric Air Requirements for Complete Combustion
Combustion Air Requirements Air Requirements per kg of Waste (As Fired)
Enter Excess Excess Air % As Analysed O2 Level % Level % Carbon 42.90 15 254 Hydrogen 5.30 Nitrogen 0.30 Sulphur 0.04 Oxygen 37.50 Chlorine 0.01 Fluorine 0.000 Moisture 12.00 Ash 1.80 Total 99.8
Enter 0% for Stoichiometric Air Requirement
5.14 Calculation of Flue Gas Volume
kg O2 kg AIR m! AIR PRODUCTS OF CONCENTRATION OF CONCENTRATION OF % As Analysed Required Required Required COMBUSTION PRODUCTS, WET PRODUCTS, DRY
Carbon 42.90 1.14 1.573 kg 0.841 m! CO2 5.4 %v/v 5.7 %v/v Hydrogen 5.30 0.42 0.597 kg 0.783 m! H2O 5.0 %v/v 0.0 Nitrogen 0.30 13.770 kg 11.620 m! N2 74.4 %v/v 78.3 %v/v Sulphur 0.04 0.0004 0.0008 kg 0.0003 m! SO2 0.002 %v/v 53 mg/m! 0.002 %v/v 56 mg/m! Oxygen 37.50 3.027 kg 2.237 m! O2 14.3 %v/v 15.1 %v/v Chlorine 0.01 0.000 kg 0.000 m! HCl 0.00 %v/v 5 mg/m! 0.00 %v/v 6 mg/m! Fluorine 0.000 0.0000 kg 0.00000 m! HF 0.0000 %v/v 0 mg/m! 0.0000 %v/v 0 mg/m! Argon 0.000 0.2332 kg 0.13963 m! Ar 0.9 %v/v 0.9 %v/v Moisture 12.00 Ash 1.80 Total 99.8 1.191 18.22 14.87 19.201 kg 15.622 m! WET 100.00 100.00 Percentage Excess Air 254 18.604 kg 14.838 m! DRY Percentage Excess O2 15 Density 1.23 kg/m! (wet) Temperature of Fluegas (C) 600 Stoich Air Requirement (kg) Excess O2 kg Temperature of Fluegas (K) 873 5.143 3.027 14.00 Hourly Mass input of Wood (kg) 160 Volume of Gas at NTP 2,500 Nm3/hr @ 15 % O2 0.69 Nm3/s Volume of Gas at NTP 1,538 Nm3/hr @ 11 % O2 0.43 Nm3/s Volume of Gas at Temperature 7,993 Am3/hr @ 15 % O2 2.22 Am3/s Volume of Gas at Temperature 4,918 Am3/hr @ 11 % O2 1.37 Am3/s
1.323 kg O2 0.978 m! O2 Requirements at 11% O2 CONCENTRATION OF 8.208 kg N2 6.926 m! N2 PRODUCTS, DRY, 11% O2
0.139 kg Ar 0.083 m! Ar 9.5 %v/v CO2 H2O
3.027 kg O2 2.237 m! O2 Requirements at Condition 78.5 %v/v N2 13.770 kg N2 11.620 m! N2 33 ppm 94 mg/m! SO2 0.233 kg Ar 0.140 m! Ar 11.1 %v/v O2 6 ppm 10 mg/m! HCl -1.704 kg O2 -1.259 m! O2 Difference 0 ppm 0 mg/m! HF -5.562 kg N2 -4.694 m! N2 0.9 % v/v Ar -0.094 kg Ar -0.056 m! Ar 100.00
Prepared by Geoff Fynes 13/04/2011 Page 1
GFE GF Environmental Limited
8 Alcotts Green Sandhurst Gloucester GL2 9PE T +44 (0) 1452 730240 F +44 (0) 1452 730240 [email protected]
Will Riley Phillips Planning Services Ltd Kingsbrook House 7 Kingsway Bedford MK42 9BA 7th July 2011
Dear Will
Re: Update on the Air Quality Assessment for the Proposed Fire Training Centre, Chelveston Airfield
I write to provide an update to the air quality assessment that I recently undertook in connection with the Fire Training Centre that Northamptonshire Fire Service propose to build on land at the former Chelveston Airfield.
The aim of the air quality assessment was to quantify the worst case impact on local air quality as a result of the proposed fire training operations. As the Training Centre will operate intermittently and for up to an hour at a time, it was considered that short term impacts on air quality would be the most important considerations. Accordingly, the assessment focussed on the potential impact of emissions on hourly average ground level pollutant concentrations from burning wood within the various training units.
The conclusion from the assessment was that the impact on local air quality was likely to be very localised, within a small area surrounding the Fire Training Centre. By the time emissions have migrated towards nearby residential properties, dispersal and dilution of the associated pollutants would be such that the concentrations experienced by people living or working at these locations would be considered insignificant in terms of their potential health impacts. I referred specifically to the predicted increases in background pollutant concentrations in relation to the UK Pollution Banding Indices. In all cases the conclusion was that air quality would be considered to be good, and the associated health descriptor would be “Effects are unlikely to be noticed even by individuals who know they are sensitive to air pollutants”.
My understanding of the Fire Training Centre was that initially it would operate for about 100 days of the year, and so I focussed the air quality assessment on short term impacts. However, if the Centre was to operate for longer periods of time (additional hours per day, or additional days per year) the conclusions from the air quality assessment would be unchanged, as they relate to the worst case hourly average impact. The results are based upon the single hour of the year (8,760 in total) that provides worst case dispersal conditions for emissions from wood burning within the various units. Even if the Centre was to operate continuously for all 8,760 hours of the day, the conclusions for the short term impact would be unchanged.
Under such an unrealistic scenario, the long term impacts would also be considered insignificant at nearby residential premises as shown by the following figure which illustrates the maximum annual average increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations as a result of the operation of the Fire Training Centre.
GF Environmental Ltd
GFE GF Environmental Limited
Nitrogen dioxide is one of the pollutants for which the Government has specified an Air Quality Standard (AQS) of 40 µg m-3, expressed as an annual average value, for protection of the health of the general population. The outer contour line in the above figure represents an increase in -3 background NO2 concentration of 0.4 µg m , or 1% of the annual average AQS. In line with Environment Agency guidance, the increase in annual average NO2 concentration outside of this contour can be screened out as not significant in terms of potential health impacts for those living in the vicinity of the Fire Training Centre. It should be borne in mind that these results refer to a situation where the Fire Training Centre is operating continuously for the whole of the year, which is totally unrealistic.
I hope that the above information clarifies the situation regarding potential air quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed Fire Training Centre. The results from the air quality assessment demonstrate that if the Centre was to operate more frequently than is planned initially, then the conclusions would be unaffected. Accordingly, there is no reason from the perspective of air quality impacts to restrict the operation of the Fire Training Centre to its initially-envisaged .
Geoff Fynes Via email 7th July 2011
Page 2 of 2
GF Environmental Ltd