Laundry Technology Centre Report

Laundry Technology Centre

Unit 10a, Drill Hall Business Centre, East Parade, Ilkley, West Yorkshire, LS29 8EZ United Kingdom

Tel: +44(0)1943 81 6545 Fax: +44(0) 1943 60 9326 E-mail: [email protected]

Site address: Old Laxey Laundrette Deepdale Complex, Glen Road, Laxey, ISLE OF MAN

For attention Mr and Mrs Henthorn

Correspondence address: The Cottage, Minorca Hill, Laxey, ISLE OF MAN

Date: 11TH March 2005

My name is Richard Melvyn Neale and I hold a BSc and PhD in Chemical Engineering. I have specialised in laundry engineering since 1980, spending eight years with Fabric Care Research Association (the last five as Director) before joining Laundry Technology Centre (LTC) in 1988. I am currently a Director of LTC.

LTC is a commercial company which relies for its income on the reports prepared for clients. It is not a trade association or trade technical centre. LTC reports without fear or favour based on the information described. Clients include the BBC and the media, Selfridges, Harrods and major retailers, P&G, Unilever and other major detergent suppliers, consumers and their legal advisors, major launderers and drycleaners and occasionally we work for the Courts directly.

My experience includes sitting for a period of fifteen years on the committee responsible for preparing 'Management of Health, Safety & Environment Guidelines' to produce the agreed interpretation of current UK legislation for the laundry sector. Representatives from the Health and Safety Executive participated in the work of this committee and the resultant document is now used both by launderers and by Factory Inspectors nationwide.

I have been asked to answer the queries raised by Mr F M Zerola in a letter to the Secretary of the Planning Committee dated 18th February 2005.

There is no reason for the laundrette to offer biological washing powders from their in-house vending systems because they are not suitable for all textiles and types of staining. Although there is no technical reason for the request, the laundrette operator could be

asked to supply only conventional detergents as a condition of the planning permission and there is no reason for them not to agree.

The worst case scenario for the use of biological washing agents is then if all of the laundrette machines are being used simultaneously by customers who bring their own biological detergents. The safety factors I have seen in the research work conducted by the major suppliers for the exposure levels to these products mean that even in the unlikely event of this scenario being realised, the emissions would not be at a level sufficient to pose a hazard to health.

Is there need for health surveillance as a condition of the planning permission?

For the reason given in the previous paragraph I can see no reason for health surveillance in respect of the emissions from the proposed resited laundrette.

Is there need for emission analysis including assessment of the effect of wind conditions?

Based on the small number of machines proposed here I can see no reason to recommend emission analysis if the envisaged use of the laundrette involves the use of domestic detergents and softeners by consumer customers. This conclusion applies also to any assessment of the effect of wind conditions.

The effect of small traces of lint in the emissions from tumble dryers is in my oopinion negligible. Lint from finished textiles being laundered is not a significant hazard and should not be confused with fibrous emissions in textile manufacture which are strictly controlled for other reasons.

Are members of the Planning Committee legally liable in respect of adverse health effects arising from planning consent?

I am neither competent nor qualified to offer legal advice, but from a technical point of view the risk of adverse health effects is already at an acceptably low level, being similar in every respect to normal domestic exposure.

Are there any features of the proposed relocation which necessitate positive proof that there will be no adverse health effects?

From the information supplied I can find no special features which would give me cause to recommend that positive proof of no adverse health effects is needed for this particular application.

Should the planning consent be rejected on the grounds of excessive noise from the equipment proposed?

Commercial laundrette equipment is designed to last for at least five years and usually ten or more. This longevity is achieved by much more robust bearing design than for domestic washing machines for example and this is why these machines are so quiet by comparison. I would not expect noise to be a significant problem with an installation of this size and in my previous investigations I have verified this with flats above and domestic premises on either side. Nevertheless the query is valid and should be addressed by an appropriate specialist report which I cannot give from the information to hand. A simple assessment should suffice and an in-depth investigation should only be commissioned if the results of this dictate that one is necessary.

Are there any other points which the Planning Committee need to take into account in granting planning consent?

Planning consent should be subject to the applicant complying with health, safety and environmental legislation as detailed in ‘Management of Health, Safety & Environment Guidelines’ or equivalent. This takes neighbour concerns fully into account as regards noise, emissions, detergents and so on.

Based on the information which I have seen I can see no reason to commission other site investigations by me. This looks like a straightforward application with no peculiar risks or special features.

Declaration

I understand that my duty is to the Planning Committee to present my technical opinion clearly and without showing bias to any party. I confirm that the opinions I have given are my true opinions, based on the information cited and the justifications given. I confirm that I understand my obligations and that I have discharged these to the best of my ability, knowledge and belief and that I shall continue to do so.

Richard Neale BSc, PhD, MIChemE, FGCL Chartered Chemical Engineer.

Ian Harris MGCL Director

Richard Neale BSc, PhD, MIChemE, FGCL Director