Refuse planning permission for Horsey Toll Anaerobic Waste Plant!

Petition Closed

Refuse planning permission for Horsey Toll Anaerobic Waste Plant!

This petition had 986 supporters
horseytollwasteplant started this petition to Planning control at Peterborough City Council

After withdrawing it in January, EnviTec Biogas have re-submitted their planning application for:

"Erection of Gas to Grid Anaerobic Digestion Plant to comprise four digester tanks, technical operations building, silage clamp, storage lagoons, four liquid waste tanks, Gas Flare, Gas Upgrading System (GUS) and Gas Entry Unit (GEU), separator, cooling unit, transformer, heating kiosk and two underground propane tanks"

Site: "Land adjacent to Horsey Toll Farm, Whittlesey Road, Peterborough" (Peterborough Road (A605)) (Please note: Cardea is too new for this map!) 

This is a huge development that involves significant amounts of waste and hazardous substances.

The site is intended as an “100,000 tonne per annum” Anaerobic Digestion Plant and  “The operation of the plant would require the import of approximately 64,000 tonnes of feedstock annually"

“A total of 24 tonnes of propane gas would be stored on site in two tanks or 12 tonnes each.""the tanks require re filling once every two weeks"


  1. “The nearest residential properties are located on Belton Road in Stanground, about 200m south west of the main part of the application site and 185m from the southern site perimeter. A number of properties on Beeston Drive in Stanground are located about 60m west of the access track.” The 60m homes run parallel, opposite the access road.  
  2. The entrance/access road runs directly over a bridge, which narrow boats can be seen regularly up and down on and is adjoined to the River Nene, which is much closer to the main site than its entrance. See Photographs below in Updates.
  3. Wildlife - 

    Evidence of: Wood mouse, Roe Deer, Muntjac, Reed Bunting, Stoat and Brown Hare were all highlighted in the Ecology, Badger and Water Vole Surverys.

    Active Water Vole burrows were found with the closest being 55 metres from the main site and a feeding station was found within the site area in 2014.

    Badgers – In 2015 “The first Outlier sett was located in the small woodland plantation approximately 35 metres to the east of the development site” “Badger was filmed within the vicinity of the disused sett on three nights” and “On each occasion the badger passed in close proximity to the sett, but did not attempt to remove the mesh, or dig around it, to re-occupy the sett.” “even though the mesh was inspected closely by badger, on one occasion”. Demonstrating that Badgers are clearly present in the area.

    See Photographs below in Updates of the areas waterways and of the nesting swans in the pond 60 metres parallel to the access road, who keep returning to their nesting site each year and whom have only a few days ago hatched their most recent sygnets!

  4. Pollution - “A set of three surface water attenuation ponds, each measuring 40.5 by 31.6m at the waterline, would be used to collect surface water runoff from the area before discharging it at a controlled rate into nearby watercourses." Allowing even easier access for potential distasters to the River Nene and its waterways. See Photographs below in Updates.
  5. Odour - 

    Odour Assessment (Page 5) states that:

    “Storage of digestate can be a significant odour release.”

    “Feed stock preparation can be significant source of emission.”

    “The odour emissions from the Silage Clamp may be significant.”

    “Raw materials storage and handling can be significant source of emission.”

    “The operator will ensure that vehicle access doors will be opened no longer than is necessary to permit vehicle ingress/egress. The design of vehicle access may include the use of fast acting door and air curtains to minimised fugitive emissions.”

    Response to public consultation states that: “At present there are no proposals to use manure as a feedstock for the Horsey Toll plant although Environment Agency permitting controls do allow such." "in the unlikely event manure is used for this plant, liquid manure would be transported into the site via a sealed tanker. The tanker would be parked adjacent the tanks during the unloading operation and the liquid would be pumped into the sealed system to minimise any odour escape." "Any solid manure would be unloaded inside the building, arriving by covered trailer." Why would any of this be included in the plan or comments, if it was never going to become an outcome?

  6. Noise - See below point 8. for traffic levels expected for noise and Noise Report Update and photographs below.
  7. Visibility -                                                             The Lead Local Flood Authority at Cambridgeshire County Council stated they “usuallyrefrain from permitting sites using “above the ground SuDS features in Flood Zone 3.”

                                                                                    Historic England discusses Horsey Hill Fort, which is scheduled as a Historic Monument and states "Although the structures are being constructed below present ground level and will be surrounded by a bund, it is likely that these will be visible behind this development, from the ramparts of the Fort, and that a modest degree of additional harm to its significance would be caused by this development within its setting.”

    "Two of the surface water ponds would be located within the area of lowered ground level, while the third pond would be constructed on land at original ground level.” Please also note: This third pond is outside the "bund" area.

  8. Increased traffic (particularly HGV’s) at the junctions near the Pondersbridge exit from Whittlesey Road (A605).         

    Locals and passing traffic at the right time of day will be very familiar with these junctions; particularly when most have adopted to avoid them by, where possible and as fast as possible usually, taking back roads and local roads straight passed all of the schools etc!

    There are already foundations built for fields of more housing at Cardea, so who knows where the tail backs will end before any extra HGV traffic is added.

    "The applicant anticipates that vehicle movements associated with the import of feedstock to the site and the export of digestate would generate between 160 and 190 deliveries (ie. 320 to 380 vehicle movements) per calendar month.” OR 40 to 48 deliveries per week, 7 to 8 deliveries per day, over 6 days - monday to saturday.

    There is also the 2 x 12 tonne propane gas tanks, which need to be refilled every 2 weeks and construction traffic to consider. 

    The construction process is envisaged to take between six to nine months.”

  9. Employment - 

    Although construction, would involve continuation of employment and the application states there will be 4 members of staff, working full time when the site is operational; and it could be argued that the HGV drivers and farmers will be provided with a continuation of work, the site would do the exactly the same thing somewhere else!

    The possibility that the site will create more problems than solutions, as documented with other Anaerobic Digestion Sites, will increase the probability that current employment in the area will decrease when most of the businesses current staff: in schools, nurseries, shops, supermarkets, salons, pubs, other local businesses and its proud residents move, or should it be try to move!

  10. The Environmental Assessment has been funded by the company and is quoted that the purpose is to support the company’s proposal. 

    The Response to consultation document states that “The most likely environmental impacts are adverse impacts arising from the visual impact of the large buildings and tanks in a generally flat and open environment; HGV traffic associated with the import of material to the site; odour/air quality; and in relation to the construction of the proposed plant the generation of noise, dust, vibration from piling operations and vehicle traffic.”

    The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability."

  11. Amenity - If planning permission is granted, the environment and residents in Peterborough will be drastically effected. This site will drastically reduce the areas amenity and should, without question, be sited as per Government's recommendations require; in an "appropriate place!"
  12. Quality of life - 

    Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1, Part II, Article 1, Protection of Property, states that:

    Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”


  13. This site is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for this type of development!

Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council have agreed that Peterborough City Council will be the determining authority for the application.

The proposers are based 2 hours away, in Staffordshire and EnviTec Biogas promotional material displays images of Biogas sites in the middle of fields, with farm animals as part of the scene, rather than rivers and/or homes.

The argument that the proposal falls within the Government's recommended guidelines, or as EnviTec's usual promotional material would suggest is within their recommended brand focus, is questionable at the very least!


EnviTec Biogas View a 10 minute animated film: How does a biogas plant work? OR skip to the end to view other postings from EnviTec Biogas and draw your own conclusions! 

Planning documents Click Documents, then click View Associated Documents.


QUICKVIEW: See photographs below in Updates.


Close view of location - 16/00080/MMFUL Site plan–19144–102 Rev 0

Wide view of location - 16/00080/MMFUL Location plan–19144 101 Rev 0

Layout - 16/00080/MMFUL Proposed site layout–19144–003 Rev G

Planning comments are always considered, but particularly more so, when views appear from different individuals with their own perspective, even if the concluding points are similar.  

Councillor's Chris Harper, Brian RushRay Bisby and MP Shailesh Vara are all objecting and working together to ensure this application is rejected! (If you are an MP, Councillor, or business supporting this campaign, please let us know, we would gladly add your name and link to this information!)

We would also like to thank Councillor's John Shearman Kim Aitken Ann Sylvester whom have also considered our perspective and signed this petition, so thank you very much!  

Please forward any comments to your chosen representatives as well, but please contact them/us if you would like to offer any further assistance with this campaign! 


A signature is excellent, but your opinions to the authority are invaluable!!

Please note: A paper petition is available from Chris Harper, please sign both! Fishtastic in Cardea have agreed to have the forms available to sign, but we are campaigning door to door. Other businesses do have the petitions available to sign, so please ask! Contact us if you would like to make sure we get your signature, or if you would like to have petition forms available for others to sign.  

Comment on or before FRIDAY 20th MAY 2016     

Reference: Peterborough City Council: 16/00080/MMFUL


Our email:

Comment online: Comments & Registration

Post: Peterborough City Council Planning Department, Town Hall, Bridge Street, Peterborough, PE1 1HQ

Visit: Bayard Place, Broadway, Peterborough Mon/Tue/Thu/Fri  9am-5pm Wed 11am-5pm

Petition Closed

This petition had 986 supporters

Share this petition