Plans for biomass boiler next to primary school rejected

Alec Doyle, Local democracy reporter

Plans to install a biomass boiler at a builders merchant next to a school have been refused amid concerns over the impact of emissions on primary school pupils.

Thorncliffe Building Supplies in Queensway wants to install a biomass boiler – which is fuelled by compressed wood pellets – and a 5mx5m fuel chip storage ‘hopper’ building on-site.

The proposed site sits just yards from Gwenfro Community Primary School and was subject to a potential call-in by Welsh Government ministers.

Now Wrexham County Borough Council’s Planning Committee has unanimously refused the application – a decision the applicant could still appeal.

It was revealed at the Planning Committee meeting on Monday that the boiler could be installed without planning permission regardless of the decision, as it is a medium-sized appliance. The only aspect of the plans requiring formal approval was the proposed fuel pellet storage area.

Nevertheless councillors formally rejected the proposal, citing concerns over the dispersal of emissions – the flue would not extend higher than the two-storey school building – lack of information on the type of fuel that would be used and missing information about how the flue stack emissions would be monitored.

Case officer Dafydd Thomas told the committee that Wrexham Council’s Public Protection team had conducted a site meeting at a similar site outside Wrexham where there is a larger wood pellet biomass boiler than the one proposed and found no concerns.

He added that the site was within a smoke control zone and smoke levels would be subject to restrictions.

Local member Cllr Brian Cameron was confounded by the response.

“I can’t believe what I’ve heard from officers,” he said. “There are 26 pupils at the school who suffer from asthma and 64 with other medical conditions. My main concern is the health and wellbeing of the children and staff and what effect fumes from the biomass boiler flue could have.”

Chair of governors at Gwenfro CP School Darren Jacks branded the proposal ‘unacceptable’.

“We have 320 children at Gwenfro,” he said. “The proposal places a combustion plant next to a school. It’s not a theoretical concern, combustion generates fine particulate matter and nitrous oxides.

“These are pollutants and poisonous gases that are directly relevant to respiratory health. Schools are the type of place where exposure must be avoided at all costs – in law children are defined as ‘sensitive receptors’.

“Children’s vulnerability is higher because their lungs are still developing. We encourage activity outdoors, we even conduct school lessons outdoors. I believe the burden should be placed on the applicant to demonstrate with robust evidence that there will be no unacceptable risk to the health at the school.

“The application is not only weak, it is fundamentally unreliable. It is missing minimum technical information needed to assess emissions and exposure. No confirmed emission abatement technology for particulates and nitrous oxides. There’s no fuel specification and no meaningful detail on discharge characteristics.

“It also says in the section where you provide details of waste generation that this is not applicable. This is plainly wrong. Biomass systems generate ash and associated waste. There is no information on storage, handling, removal frequency or disposal.

“In a school environment ash handling and storage are not trivial operational matters, they are potential sources of dust exposure.

“It’s interesting the applicant has carried out no meaningful community engagement. The form notes no neighbour or community consultation. This speaks volumes – this has been viewed as a commercial project without proper regard for the setting or the people affected.

“The manufacturers bundle in the pack even states that gas flue emission behaviour is not guaranteed, that in some circumstances gases can fail to rise – travelling along the rooflines and sinking towards windows.

“Next to a school this is simply unacceptable. The location is wrong and the risks are foreseeable.”

Consultation

Planning officer Philip Mullin said that the level of consultation had been appropriate and officers had considered the impact on the community.

“The planning application is required for the fuel chip hopper,” he said. “There would be nothing to stop the applicants putting in this boiler in their existing building – it would not require planning permission.

“There’s other legislation that covers the fears that have been raised. The officers here are fully aware of the consideration we need to show for children’s health and welfare.”`

But councillors were unconvinced – in part due to the amount of missing information within the application – taking the view that the boiler was included in the application and they needed further detail to ensure it could operate safely near the school.

Cllr Andy Williams said: “I think it’s unacceptable that public protection have been to a site that is similar, not the same and said they’ve got no objections.

“To have no concerns when they’ve been to see a boiler that is not the same is not acceptable. We should refuse it as we haven’t got the right information.

“Also will the height of the flue be above the height of the school? The school is two storeys high, it will surely shelter the flue from certain wind directions.”

Concerned

Cllr Anthony Wedlake added that he remained concerned about emissions so close to the school.

“There’s a fundamental difference between smoke and emission. There is a lot in the report about smoke but nothing about emission. The whole paper is completely silent on emissions. On that basis it’s completely unacceptable.

“On the basis that those potential emissions are clearly covered by the Future Generations Act as well as potentially other legislation, it would be negligent for us to do anything other than reject the application at this stage.”