BioChar Planning Application
Representation from Ludlow Town Council (LTC) on behalf of the residents of Ludlow.

Thank you Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter this morning and
to explain why LTC and the people of Ludlow do not support this application.

The BioChar project has two primary aims 1) to generate income & 2) to help Shropshire Council (SC) meet its climate change and carbon net zero targets.

I must start by saying that the scheme does have some merits. The process takes low grade biomass feedstock and converts it into heat, electricity, BioChar and carbon offsets credits all of which can be sold. So, I must congratulate the team on achieving the unachievable by finding the holy grail, they appear to have not only found the perpetually illusive money tree but also have become alchemists able to turn wood into gold. However, in reality we all know, as with everything in life you cannot get something for
nothing.

The business model for the scheme suggests that there will be insufficient feedstock
available locally so this will need to be not only purchased but transported from outside
the county.  This model of paying to burn trees and then selling carbon offsets may be
likened to toxic money laundering. Salving the conscience of tech giants and others
around the world who continue to pollute the atmosphere but doing very little to help
the council meet its climate change targets.

The primary output of the proposed plant is BioChar. Research informs us that the jury
is still firmly out on the stated benefits of BioChar used in agriculture as a soil improver.
I have spoken with farmers, members of the allotment’s association and
representatives from the NFU on the topic.

The majority view seems to be that BioChar can have a limited benefits when used as a mulch, say in a tree nursery, where it locks in moisture and prevents weed growth. It also helps retain heat in the growing medium helping rapid plant growth.

However, there is also a school of thought that, if used incorrectly, it can not only absorb moisture but also nutrients from its surroundings causing stress to invertebrates and the general heath of the biome.

Ludlow’s largest concern however is the proposed location of the plant next to a
housing estate and the potential for harm from air pollution. I must say that, as an
engineer, I was very impressed with the thoroughness, attention to detail and the
methodology of the computational fluid dynamic analysis of particulate and gaseous
emissions from the exhaust flue.
This excellent, albeit desk based, analysis reveals several potentially worrying facts concerning the levels of oxides if carbon, nitrogen and sulphur in the exhaust plume as a result of complex hydrocarbon combustion. These compounds can be responsible for acid rain and may potentially affect the health of the rivers and three Sites of Special Scientific Interest close by.

The plume distribution shows that in certain prevailing wind conditions it will envelope a large proportion of the homes on Blashfield Road.

The local residents were assured by SC that there would be no smell from the Bio-digester when it was installed on the site but had to endure years of stench, particularly with an easterly wind in the summer. You can imagine they are not at all happy to be told again that there will be no smell from the new plant. Although, on paper, the levels of Sulphur oxides are below the permitted levels set by legislation, the olfactory receptors in the nose are particularly sensitive to these rotten egg odours.

We strongly believe that the proposed location is too close to residential areas. Is it fair that people are not allowed to spend time in their gardens on a summer evening, or for their children to play outside without being subjected to smells and other potentially hazardous gasses bringing with it Ashma and other respiratory problems.

If SC believe that the plant is clean, odour free and has no negative effects the public or
the environment why do they not locate it in Sundorne, or Meole or Battlefield perhaps
instead of harming the beautiful green rolling landscape of South Shropshire and the
residents of Ludlow.

Trees are a wonderful resource that through photosynthesis absorb carbon dioxide and
emit oxygen while simultaneously capture and store carbon so if SC is serious about its
climate change obligations I suggest it plants more trees not cut them down to burn in
the pursuit of profit.

May I leave you with one last thought. When archaeologists dig trenches in say an iron
age settlement, they reveal old fire pits with the scorched blacken earth and charcoal
still present. It can take thousands of years to decay and be re-assimilated. Do you
really want to see the blackened carbon footprints of BioChar clearly visible across the
Shropshire landscape for eons?

So, I have explained to you the reasons why the LTC on behalf of the residents of
Ludlow, unanimously voted to object to this application. I therefore urge you do look
into your hearts and to do the right thing by choosing the environment and the health of
the public over revenue and profit.