February 2004

The Community Working Party Report and Recommendation to WINKLEIGH PARISH COUNCIL regarding proposal for

A RENEWABLE ENERGY BIOMASS ELECTRICITY GENERATING POWER STATION & INTERDEPENDENT BUSINESSES ON WINKLEIGH AIRFIELD (WINK1)

  CONTENTS

Copyright© February 2004 Winkleigh Village Community Working Party have asserted their right under the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 to be identified as the authors of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Winkleigh Village Community Working Party or Winkleigh Parish Council, Devon, UK.

REPORTS

Winkleigh Village Community Working Party 6th February 2004

TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

    ACTION PLAN

1. TRAFFIC SURVEY.

The traffic survey was carried out on Thursday 21^st August 2003

Time of survey: 07.00 hours-19.00 hours

Venue of survey: Entrance to Four Seasons village on the A3124 close to the proposed power station site

The total volume of traffic passing in both directions during the twelve-hour period was 3,325 vehicles.

The total number of 3,4,5 and 6 axle lorries was 152.

N.B. Two axle lorries are not included in the following calculations as the majority were small builders trucks and it is not considered they will be used for carrying biomass material.

Additional surveys were carried out by John Bowers at various points around the village and are available if required.

Advice sort on traffic survey from Tony Bradford, County Energy Directive.

2. CALCULATION OF BIOMASS FUEL REQUIRED FOR WINBEG 1 AND WINBEG 1 AND WINBEG 2.

The biomass fuel requirements calculations are based on figures obtained from the manager of the, now closed, Selby power station. The fuels they used consisted of Miscanthus, SRC and forest residues. They were sourced from within a 50mile radius.

The fuel requirement for the 10MW power station was 62,000 tonnes (wet) or 43,000 tonnes (dry) per annum. Based on a 50% wet/50% dry mix an average of 52,000 tonnes was required per annum or 143 tonnes per day.

From this it can be derived that for Winbeg 1 (28MW’s) 145,600 tonnes of a 50% wet/50% dry mix would be required per annum or 398 tonnes per day. Winbeg 1 and Winbeg 2 would require 291,000 tonnes per year or 797 tonnes per day.

In July 2003 Roger Barton refuted, in a question put to him, that Winbeg 1 would require 3,000 tonnes of fuel per week and then went on to say that the likely fuel mix would be 1,038 tonnes of Miscanthus (35%), 777 tonnes of SRC (20%). This leaves a 45% requirement of some other fuel source or 1,334 tonnes giving a total weekly fuel requirement of 2,965 tonnes. The Selby figures, upon which this report is based, work out at 2,786 tonnes per week.

3. CALCULATION OF THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF LORRIES REQUIRED TO SERVICE THE POWER STATION.

The lorry requirement is again based on figures obtained from Selby.

They required 15 lorries per day to transport the 143 tonnes of fuel into the plant, which equates to 9.5 tonnes per load.

Based on these figures Winbeg 1 would require 42 loads per day plus say 5 lorries per day for carrying out waste material and servicing the plant. This gives a total of 94 passes.

Winbeg 1 and 2 and the spin off businesses would require 84 lorries per plus say 35 lorries per day for carrying out waste, servicing the plant and the spin off industries. This gives a total of 238 passes.

4. CALCULATION OF PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LORRIES ENTERING & LEAVING POWER STATION SITE

Winbeg 1 based on 94 passes = 62% increase.

Winbeg 1, 2 and the spin off industries = 156% increase.

Supporting graphs are available if required.

In a press release dated 19^th July 2003 Roger Barton stated that overall traffic would decrease due to deployment of energy crops! He then goes on to say that 40-50 trucks will be required for carrying the biomass into the plant per day for Winbeg 1. This figure ties in closely with our own calculations. He has not said how many will be required for Winbeg 2 and the spin off industries.

5. CALCULATION OF THE EMMISSIONS FROM THESE EXTRA LORRIES.

We have been unable to obtain any meaningful figures because of the unknown transportation that will be used.

6. CONSIDERED MOST LIKELY ROUTES FOR CARRYING BIOMASS FUEL.

It is difficult to ascertain at this stage where the Miscanthus and SRC is likely to be grown and where the other biomass fuels will be sourced.

We have attached a diagrammatic route map of the roads leading in and around Winkleigh..

The two nearest arterial routes are approximately 14 and 22 miles from the proposed site, namely the A30 at Whiddon Down and the A39 at Bideford.

We consider the following are the most likely routes:

Whiddon Down. (From the east.)

From the M5 at Exeter, onto the A30 and then onto the A3124 at Whiddon Down.

Okehampton. (From the west.)

From Cornwall, along the A30 onto the A386 to the south west of Okehampton, turning off at Follygate onto the A3072 through Sampford Courtney and finally north onto the A3124.

From north Cornwall along the A3072, through Holsworthy to Hatherleigh, turning south at Hatherleigh onto the A386 and then east to pick up the A3072. again to Sampford Courtney.

Bideford. (From the north.)

From Bideford off the A39 and onto the A3124, through the narrow streets at Torrington and Beaford.

Description of Roads

Beaford with its narrow road running through the centre of the village must be of paramount concern.

The A3124 is an upgraded B road and all routes have long stretches of winding, narrow road.

Additionally the road from Whiddon has stretches with sharp inclines. It is not uncommon for the general flow of traffic to be slowed down by HGV’s.

‘A’ roads should be a minimum of 25ft in width, wide enough to allow two HGV’ s to pass without stopping or either vehicle crossing the centre line. We doubt this is the case on sections of the A3124 e.g. in Beaford village.

The roads approaching the Holsworthy power station were in an appalling state due to the HGV’s passing over them. £60,000 has recently been spent on them and more is needed. John Wilde, manager of the County Councils local service depot has expressed concern at the cost and claimed in the press and claimed that they had not been told of the full extent of the traffic required to service the plant.

There is serious concern, should the power station be built, as to where the funds will come from to repair the already appalling road surface of the A3124 on the approaches to the site.

In an approach made to John Wilde he suggested that extra funds to improve the roads were unlikely. He cannot comment on the proposed project until a planning application is received when he will be pleased to talk to us.

7. WORST POTENTIAL DANGER SPOTS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF WINKLEIGH

• Crossing the road from the village to the new sports centre.

• Road from Seckington Cross to entrance to Four Seasons Residential Park.

• Seckington Cross

• Other nearby locations in Beaford, Sampford Courtenay, Monkokehampton & Chawleigh, etc.

We consider it imperative that these black spots are placed high on the agenda for scrutiny.

Garth Carter Tel: 01837 680125 E-mail: cartergrth@aol.com

Ken Howarth.Tel: 01837 680160 E-mail: kenneth.john@9freeserve.co.uk Peter Johnson Tel: 01837 83144 Final report submitted: 06-02-04

winkleigh village community working party February 2004

WILDLIFE

 Devon Wildlife Trust responded to our request for information:

"…..while developments such as this have a significant role to play in reducing overall CO2 emissions…….the potential for the project to have detrimental effects on the area’s biodiversity should not be overlooked"

"… we have reviewed the Scoping Report according to how it addresses our two main areas of concern:

Devon Wildlife Trust go on to say:

" In particular, and of greatest importance, is the expressed aim of assessing secondary impacts on "designated sites and protected species". We feel that this assessment should not be limited in this manner, and should be applied to wider biodiversity interests. Similarly, it is important that the study does not overlook potential disturbance to, or loss of, habitats other than those

supporting protected species"

On wider implications, the Devon Wildlife Trust say ….." care will be needed to ensure that this demand on agricultural land in the area does not place extra pressure on key habitats such as culm grassland"

" ……..the Scoping report’s approach to this is particularly disappointing. Devon Wildlife Trust believes that, as the success of the project is so closely linked with the local provision of biomass fuels, any assessment of the project’s impact must include a detailed study of the effects of land use change on key habitats"

Devon WildlifeTrust goes on to say that a strategic assessment of the catchment area should be carried out, looking at the suitability of cultivation of biomass crops. Such an assessment would use existing data as a starting point for the identification of key habitats in the area including culm grassland, where cultivation of biomass crops would conflict with existing biodiversity priorities.

Devon Wildlife Trust concludes that "the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Winkleigh Biomass Plant includes this assessment. "To focus solely on the airfield development represents too narrow a definition of a project that is so closely linked with land use change in the surrounding area."

(Richard White, Conservation Policy Manager- Devon Wildlife Trust) Gerard Fawcitt (February 2004)

ARCHAEOLOGY

1. INTRODUCTION This short report identifies the potential archaeological implications of the construction and use of the proposed Peninsular Power Limited (PP) biomass electricity generator (WINBEG) on Winkleigh airfield. The report represents a summary overview, and is not informed by the results of a formal archaeological assessment. This report also predates a planning application, and is made in advance of the release of full details of the proposal. A potential for disturbance to the archaeological record can be considered in two distinct areas:

• The proposal development site (the site), situated on the airfield itself.
• The land intended for the growth of the fuel crops (fuel crop land), in the surrounding area.

1.2 The fuel crop land Limited PP information identifies Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow and poplar, and miscanthus grass, as fuel sources for WINBEG. The location and extent of the land intended for the growth of these fuels remains unknown. Reported requirements suggest the need for some 10,000 hectares of land, situated within a 40km radius of the site.

2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS In advance of any formal archaeological assessment of the proposed WINBEG scheme, only the following general comments can be made regarding any potential impact on the archaeological record.

2.1 The site The construction and use of the Winkleigh airfield during the last war has been considered in brief (Cotey, 1995), and its role in the D-Day landings noted in particular. The importance of World War II airfields as a whole has also been recognised in a recent English Heritage publication (English Heritage, 2003a). The airfield has been subject to a study by the ACE Archaeology Club (Daynes, et al 1999), which has identified the varying levels of preservation of the existing features. While many upstanding elements of the airfield have been lost, a number of the remaining structures survive in a remarkably good condition. The airfield’s east-west runway lies within the main body of the proposed site. This is reported to survive in a reasonable condition, considering the lack of upkeep. A very well preserved sub-surface Royal Observation Corps (ROC) monitoring post is also situated within the main body of the proposed site. The airfield control tower represents the main feature of archaeological interest in the vicinity of the site. This overlooks the proposed site, and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM no. 33053). The proposed development is understood to involve the construction of sizeable industrial buildings on the position of the airfield’s main runway. This would involve the destruction or burial of part of this feature. Any potential physical impact on other airfield features, or the ROC monitoring position, remains unknown. It should be stressed that the existence of archaeological features that may predate the airfield is not known at present, and awaits the attention of future archaeological assessment and evaluation. Prehistoric activity is recorded in the area of the village, and the use of any high ground in the vicinity during this period must be considered. The control tower will not be subject to any known physical disturbance. However, an impact on the setting of this nationally important and protected monument must be considered. Any appreciation of the setting of the control tower within the context of the airfield it controlled will be altered by the location of structures in a central position on the runway. Equally any appreciation of the setting of the monument within its historical context from the airfield itself must also be significantly impaired.

2.2 The fuel crop land It is widely recognised that the roots of SRC crops have the potential to cause significant disturbance to buried archaeological remains. On the basis of ongoing studies of bracken disturbance of archaeological deposits, the rhizome formation of miscanthus is also thought to possess this potential. Forestry Commission research into the character of SRC willow and poplar root growth has acknowledged the routine use of deep-cultivation methods in advance of SRC planting (Crow and Houston, Forthcoming, 2-3). The English Heritage publication Ripping up History. Archaeology under the Plough (English Heritage, 2003b) has identified the considerable damage that ploughing is inflicting on archaeological deposits, not least the intrusive deep-cultivation methods employed in forestry. A very real and significant impact on the archaeological heritage of a wide area of northern, western and mid Devon must be considered as a result of the growth of the anticipated 10,000 hectares of fuel crops. Potential disturbance of archaeological deposits would result from both root/rhizome intrusion, and most significantly from plough damage in advance of planting. Any assurance that archaeological fieldwork undertaken at known sites in advance of planting would counter the damage to buried remains, must be seen as an inadequate response to the preservation of the archaeological record in the region. Northern Devon has experienced relatively little archaeological research, resulting in a corresponding lack of knowledge regarding the location or character of archaeological sites in the area. What research that has been undertaken, in response to modern planning law (Planning Permission Guidance notes 16), has indicated relatively high levels of archaeological preservation in the area: an area of predominant pasture and limited cultivation in the past. Known archaeological sites in the area must represent only a fraction of the preserved sub-surface remains. English Heritage, The Council for British Archaeology, Devon County Council Archaeological Services and the Devon Archaeological Society have all expressed concerns regarding this element of the proposed scheme.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cotey, R. 1995. The history of Winkleigh Airfield 1939-1995. Winkleigh Publications.

Crow, P and Houston, T.J. Forthcoming. The influence of soil and coppice cycle on the rooting habit

of short rotation coppice poplar and willow.

Daynes, J., Fisher, G. and Purnell, D. 1999. Winkleigh Airfield. ACE Archaeology Club.

English Heritage. 2003a. Historic military aviation sites. Management and Conservation. English

Heritage.

English Heritage. 2003b. Ripping up history. Archaeology under the plough. English Heritage.

November 2003.

Winkleigh Village Community Working Party

ENVIRONMENAL GROUP October 2003

WATER & WASTE

1 WATER

Supply.

The source of the water supply is yet to be established but it is presumed that this would be provided by SW Water. It is possible that the existing mains water supply to the airfield site might be adequate, but if this proved not to be the case then the statutory undertakers would be required to supplement the system accordingly. The quantity of water that the power station will require for its operational phase is not yet advised, nor for the subsequent phases and the additional requirements of the associated industries. It is also possible that a large volume of water will be required to be stored on the site to cover possible shortfalls in the regular supply (through breakdown or similar).

Waste

The different wastes will need a range of treatments and action to reach particular standards before any final effluent discharges to the local watercourses would be permitted by the Environment Agency.

• Storm water run-off arising from buildings and areas of hard paving eg roads, car parks and storage areas of a generally impervious nature.

• Industrial wastes arising from factories and other industrial activities eg. The Cellulosic Fibres Plant, the Bio Ethanol Plant, the Wood Pellet Mill, and the Fin Fish Protein Unit. Included also is the waste cooling water possibly arising from condensers.

• Domestic sewage.

Storm water discharge.

The site will contain large areas of buildings and hard paving which will give rise to SW runoff. Of particular concern are those areas designated to fuel storage. PPL have stated that until the necessary supply of acceptable Biomass fuel (energy crops) becomes available, use will be made of alternative non-crop fuels such as forestry residues and wood waste. The use of such alternatives could occur over a long term period as the anticipated programme stated by PPL is 6 years to achieve 50% use of energy crops, (therefore maybe 10 years or more before achieving 100%). It is of great concern that the storm water run-off from long-term uncovered storage of such materials (both non-energy and energy crops) would give rise to a highly unsatisfactory waste effluent, the treatment of which could prove difficult and will require careful monitoring. The proposed use of a moat and lagoons to capture the run-off is identified by PPL and all waste water treatment before its eventual discharge to watercourses will have to meet the water quality standards required by the Environmental Agency.

2. WASTE

Industrial Wastes.

The different effluents that will arise from the associated industries will obviously vary depending on the product, the materials used and production methods. Depending on the quantity and quality of such effluents, under normal circumstances they could possibly be discharged into a sewage treatment works providing that the quantity and strength of the industrial waste is not great enough to have a deleterious effect on the working of the treatment plant. In the case of Winkleigh Airfield however, there is no sewerage system or sewage treatment works available. In this case it may well be necessary therefore for such trade wastes to be stored on site in lined pits or sealed containers for eventual removal by tankers on a regular basis to a nearby treatment works for disposal (perhaps to Crediton !).

Domestic Sewage.

This will no doubt be dealt with by the construction of a drainage system and the installation of a suitable and appropriate treatment plant somewhere on the site. Its location has not yet been indicated by PPL. Again, this sewerage system must be designed to accommodate all phases of the proposed development.

The Devon County Council Biodiversity Action Plan identifies quite clearly that the Local authorities have a statutory duty under regulation 37 of the Habitat Scheme to have policies that encourage the management of rivers. Etc. (The Torridge Headwaters Project, for example, in which Torridge District Council is a Partner). The small stream to the south of the old airfield to which the eventual effluents would probably discharge (whether or not the construction of lagoons and reed beds take place) has very little annual flow. The amount of the water flow in any stream or river into which treated effluent is to be discharged is very important in assessing the available dilution. Larger streams and rivers can obviously take greater quantities of treated effluent without adversely affecting the water quality. This is not so in the case at the Airfield, and this gives cause for concern at this early stage.

I understand that the submission of an application for discharge consent for wastewater treated on site is necessary prior to the designing of the treatment system. This is presumably because any consent granted would set the standards to which any effluents must be treated. It is not known whether PPL have submitted the IPPC application, but it is important that it should cover both Phases of the power station development and include also the associated industries.

Harry Jones 23 October 03

Winkleigh Village Community Working Party

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP (1) December 2003

EMISSIONS – AIR QUALITY

1 TRAFFIC FLOWS

During construction and operation, traffic flows are predicted to increase by 10% or more. In fact, when fully operational, there will be a minimum of 70 fuel deliveries per day, or 140 traffic movements. There will be gaseous and particulate emissions from both public and private vehicles of PM10 and NO2.

2 COMBUSTION OF ORGANIC FUELS

Dangers of exceedence of emissions of NITROGEN OXIDES [possibly carcinogenic] and SULPHUR OXIDES [both responsible for acid rain] are of concern. Also greater increases in CO2 can contribute to the greenhouse effect and to acid deposition.

a) Wood Wastes

There is no guarantee, other than 24 hour monitoring of deliveries, that these wastes will be clean. Contaminated and treated woods contain creosote, arsenic, heavy metals, dioxins, furons and CCAs wood wastes will be used in the first three years of operation and thereafter as a smaller proportion of the fuels.

b) Dry Sewage Sludge

Contains heavy metals and alkalis

c) Chicken Manure

Contains ammonia.

d) Miscanthus And Willow

Contain NOx [Nitrogen Oxides]

e) Dust

Generation during construction, operation, delivery, handling, storage and loading. [See problems with Burlington Eco Energy, McNeil Power Station]

f) Odours

These are scoped out of E.I.A. Reason given is that fuels to be used are dry and odourless.

Concerns:

i) Miscanthus and willow retain 25%moisture on harvesting and are therefore not completely dry.

ii) Dry sewage sludge and chicken manure will smell if only with a slight moisture content in transit to site, during loading and in storage.[See page 9, Scoping Report states that "two open air fuel storage areas will be required." ]

The various proportion of the aforementioned fuels, which will be heated in varying quantities, will be difficult to control. The heating process will enable a mixture of chemicals to combine in what may be a dangerous cocktail of chemical compounds.

Serious contamination over Winkleigh and the surrounding area , from the chimneys, and subject to the prevailing winds, cannot be ruled out. Subsequently, there are concerns over hazards to health, to hydrology, to climate and to toxicity to flora and fauna.

The I.P.P.C. states that emissions must be below government guidelines, but since the government intended to take their model from the now failed ARBRE power station in Yorkshire, the question arises as to which baseline the government will be working from in monitoring these emissions.

  REFERENCES: Friends Of The Earth Website The Environment Agency Website Scoping Report-Scott Wilson Environmental Law Foundation Scoping Guidelines[Environment Agency] Greenpeace Website[ Re Proposal For Waste Wood Power Station On Express Park Bridgewater].   Marjorie Bowers (Working Party Group)

Winkleigh Village Community Working party February 2004

ENVIRONMENT GROUP (2)

EMISSIONS

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Report.

United States Environmental Protection Agency data below shows that gasification units emit more nitrogen oxides and dioxins than incinerators.

Dioxin is one of the most toxic substances known ; there is no safe level. Dioxin is a

" known human carcinogen". ( US Dept of Health and Human Services)

Nitrogen Oxides contribute to ozone pollution. Children and adults with lung disease or asthma risk lung damage from NOx pollution .

The US EPA Office of Air and Radiation

This agency states:

" Nitrogen Oxides react readily with common organic chemicals and even ozone. For example, NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture and other compounds to form nitric acid and related particles. Human health concerns include effects on breathing and the respiratory system, damage to lung tissue, and premature death"

Report to DTI Renewable Energy Development and Deployment Team

by UK Innovation Systems for New and Renewable Technologies.

Some summary findings from this report commissioned by the DTI are:

" Demonstration and early commercial biomass technologies suffer from high levels of technology and business risk. This is exacerbated by a lack of understanding among actors and problems with knowledge flow throughout the innovation systems"

"………. knowledge flows are currently not adequate to provide the policy, technology, finance and demand communities with understanding of, and confidence in, the economic and environmental implications of biomass systems."

"Demonstration projects would allow learning-by-doing and improve the commercial viability of biomass fuel chains"

G.Fawcitt February 2004

Winkleigh Village Communit Working Party February 200

Tourist Survey (still work in progress)

	FACILITY OFFERED	CHARGES	ACCOMMODATION/ NUMBER OF BEDS	% OCCUPANCY LOW/HIGH SEASON
WINKLEIGH
Wagon Wheels Holiday Park	Self Catering	£30 – 40,000 income pa	23 x 6 bed holiday caravans (licensed for additional 191)
The Old Parsonage	Self Catering B & B	£275/£375 per week £22/£50 per person	4 people 6 people	100% over 30 week season 80% high season
Wheatland Farm	Self Catering	£190/£400 per week £169/£402 per week	3 Holiday Lodges 1 Holiday Cottage (4 people)	80%/100% new operation
The Old Shippon Wheatland Farm	Self Catering	£200/£400 per week	I Holiday Cottage (4 people)	New operation
Venton Farm	Self Catering	£100/£350 per week	2 Holiday Cottages	Attracting 50-60 families per year
Southcott Farm Off-road and cross-country riding holidays	Self Catering	TBA New for 2004	TBA New for 2004
Myrtle Cottage, South Street	Self Catering	£179/£431 per week	4 people	90% high season
Barnstaple St	Self Catering	£198/£431	4 beds
Wagon House	Self Catering B & B	£200/£300 per week	2 Double Rooms	97% High/30% Low
Little Acorns	B & B		3 double rooms, 1 single
Honey Cottage	B & B	£17.50/£20.00 pp/pn	2 Double rooms (4 people)	40%
Winkleigh Sports Centre	Facility offering Bowls, Table-Tennis, Snooker & Pool Floodlit Tennis Courts,	Charges vary
WEMBWORTHY
B & L Fletcher-Neil	Self Catering	£350/£1,200 per week	3 cottages (25 people)	100% over 32 week season
Taw Mill Cottages	Self Catering	£400+ per week £600+ per week	1 Cottage 1 Cottage	75%/100%
Lymington Arms	B & B	£22 pp/pn	7 Double Rooms	75% high season
DOLTON
Amy’s Cottage	Self Catering	£380 per week	5 people	100% over 40 week season
P. Edmonds	Self Catering	£8,000 per annum	6 people
Stafford Moor Fisheries	Self Catering	£900 per week per lodge	6 Lodges 36 people	100% over 52 week year
Stafford Moor Fisheries	Daily Fishing Licences	£5 each	40 per day (a pprox
Ham Farm Cottages	Self Catering	£412/£679 per week	7 Cottages/31 people	100% high season
Mead House	B & B	£20/£40 pp/pn	3 rooms/5 people	60% high season
Union Inn	B & B	£60/£75 pr/pn	3 Double Rooms/6 people	50% high season
Rams Head	B & B	£30 pr/pn single £50 pr/pn double	6 Rooms/11 people
Robin’s Cottage	B & B	£20 pp/pn (£10 children)	1 Family Room 1 Double Room	80% high season
S & F Richards	B & B	£20pr/pn £45 pr/pn	2 Double Rooms 1 Single Room	50% over 52 week year
Halston Nature Reserve	Acres of of deciduous woodland and pasture including 2.5km stretch of River Torridge, important for otters
HOLLOCOMBE
Horry Mill	Self Catering	£245/£480 per week		100% high season
St Michaels	Self Catering	£400/£900 per week	Converted Chapel 6 people	85% high season
RIDDLECOMBE
Riddlecombe Manor	Self Catering	£500 high season	Holiday Cottage 7 people
Brewers Cottage	Self Catering		Cottage 2 Rooms (4 people)
IDDESLEIGH
Little Barwick	Self Catering	£300 per week	5 people	100% 4 month season
Coach House	Self Catering
Farms for City Children (Charity)	Educarional Charity providing rural retreat and full farm activities for 1,000 city kids per year Self Catering in 2004		From 2004, will be offering holiday accom. set in 80 acres, sleeping up to 20 people
Rosemary Ward	Farmhouse B & B	£25 pp/pn	2 rooms (7 people)	95% 6 months per year
Duke of York	B & B	£30 pp/pn	7 Double Rooms	75%/100%
EGGESFORD
Labdon Farm	Self Catering		2 cottages (8 people)
Heywood Farm	Self Catering
Fox and Hounds Hotel	B+B Fishing holidays( 3 days fishing and B+B)	£40 + pp £145 pp	15 Bedrooms
INGLEIGH GREEN
Chris & Jane Oliver	Self Catering	£139/310 per week	2 Holiday Cottages 4 people	90% high season
ASHREIGNEY
Higher Northcott Farmhouse	Self Catering		1 Holiday Cottage	100% 20 weeks per year
Horridge Farm	Self Catering	£225/£365 per week	1 Holiday Cottage	50%/100%
MONKOKEHAMPTON
Seldon Farm	B & B	£25 pp/pn	2 Double Rooms (6 people)	85% high season
BROADWOODKELLY
Woodcroft House	B & B	£16.50/£19.50 pp/pn	3 Rooms
BEAFORD & ST.GILES DISTRICTS
Beaford House Hotel	B & B	£42pp/pn	12 Double Rooms
Gt. Barlington Farm	B & B	£19/£26 pp/pn	3 Double Rooms	100%
Wansley Barton	B & B	£22.50 pp/pn	3 Double Rooms	75% 6 months high season
Brook Cottage, Stoneyford	B & B	£20 pp/pn	3 Double Rooms
The Corner House, High Bullen	B & B	£20 pp/pn	3 Double Rooms	20%/75%
Mr & Mrs Parish High Bullen	Self Catering	£180/£300	4 people	100% high season
Cranford Inn Cottages Nr. High Bullen	Self Catering		8 Cottages 4 people each
Mr & Mrs Guiver	Self Catering	£132/£336	Cottage 1 bedroom	new operation
Beaford Arts Greenwarren House	Accredited courses 52 week yr Self Catering B & B	£25/£75 pp/pn	Capacity 54 people at any one time	100% 8 months of the year

GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY– Summary of Findings

February 2004

CONTENTS: