Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

Application Number 10/01580/AS

Location Land at North West of and adjoining Shirkoak Park, Woodchurch,

Grid Reference 939/366

Parish Council Woodchurch

Ward Weald South

Application New Sewage Treatment Plant including grassed irrigation Description plots to replace existing facility and double door kiosk. (retrospective)

Applicant Mr Alfie Best, Wyldecrest Parks Ltd, New Road, Rainham, Essex RM13 8DR

Agent Mr Chris Pullins, Protech UK, The Croft, Bower Road, Ashford, , Kent, TN25 6NN

Site Area 0.16 Hectares

(a) 136/2R (b) S (c) EA X, EHM(EP) X

Introduction

1. The application is reported to the planning committee at the request of one of the Ward Members, Councillor Mrs. Hicks. Site and Surroundings

2. The application site is located to the north west of the caravan park within a field where the existing sewage treatment plant (STP) is located.

3. The countryside forms part of the Low Weald Landscape Character Assessment Area (LCA).

4. Site location plans are attached to this report as Annex 1. Proposal

5. Full planning permission is sought to construct a new sewage treatment plant (STP) to replace the existing Bio Treatment plant (5 Marsh Industry Tanks) that is to be removed once the replacement plant has been fully 7.1 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

commissioned. Planning permission is required because the development relates to an engineering operation as well as operational development.

6. All new units (totalling three tanks positioned parallel to the Park) will be installed below ground level and the excavated spoil be used to level the surrounding area. Above ground there will be a monopitch roof double door kiosk measuring 1.838m x 1.225m in footprint and 1.250m at its maximum height. This will be located to the south western corner of the tanks. In addition, to accommodate the effluent there will be 3 irrigation grass areas measuring 40m x 12.5m and totalling an area of 1500m² located close to the road within a field to the north of the Park. It is understood that treated effluent will be pumped intermittently throughout a 24 hour day and distributed evenly across each area via a gravity feed from a distribution channel. The effluent passing over the grass will be collected in a channel from where it will be directed into the highway ditch.

7. The STP and kiosk have already been built and the grass irrigation plots are under construction. The application is therefore retrospective.

8. The application states the following in relation to maintenance: • Feed and collection channels will be swept occasionally and each plot will be rotated and when taken out of operation be allowed to dry out before the grass is cut. Cut grass will be collected and removed from the plot. It is anticipated that this will occur at least three times a year. • The Operator will ensure that the necessary annual maintenance of the receiving watercourse will be undertaken. This will include annual clearance of vegetation and if the flow capacity has been reduced, excavation of the ditch bed.

9. The applicant has obtained a licence from the Environment Agency to discharge into the watercourse. Planning History

10. No relevant planning history. Consultations

Ward Member: One of the Ward Members requests that the application is heard by the Planning Committee. Both Ward Members are Members of the Committee.

Portfolio Holder – Development Management: Comments as follows:

“At this early stage my thoughts on this application are as follows. Although on the face of it this would appear to be an application which might be expected to give rise 7.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

to concerns, it seems to me that there may well be no real objection to these proposals. The Environment Agency does not object. The Council’s EHO supports the application, as does the Parish Council. As things stand, I can see no real objection to this development.”

Neighbours: 136 neighbours notified; 2 letters of objection raising the following concerns:

(a) The application is not valid for the following reasons: • The land is incorrectly described in the application; • As far as can tell from inadequate plans, the STP is to be located on the Park itself and the treatment beds in an agricultural field and therefore separate applications are required with properly detailed and dimensioned plans; • The irrigation beds are raised above the field level which is not shown on the submitted plans; • Planning Permission is not sought for a change of use of land from agriculture nor for a widening of existing vehicular access – there is much difference between the occasional use of a gateway to a field and access to a site of over 120 residential units; (Development Control Managers comment: The application site address is correct and the plans clearly show that the STP is to be located on land to the rear of No. 109 Shirkoak Park. Whilst there are two application sites this can be dealt with under one planning application, especially given that they are related. The dimensions and location of the development is clear from the plans. There is no reason to say that the application is invalid. An existing agricultural access to the road has been slightly widened to allow for the equipment to be brought on to the site but this would not have required the benefit of planning permission. The access is not proposed to give access to the park. • Regularly see grass snakes, slow worm and lizards on adjacent land which is old pastures and therefore real possibilities that these species may exist together with potential for newts as numerous ponds nearly;

(b) If consent is given with no proper safeguards and conditions the land will effectively become part of Shirkoak Park - already understand the access has been used for the delivery of additional mobile.

(Development Control Managers comment: This application is only for built development and this is what would be permitted by virtue of any planning permission. Neither of the red line application site areas fall within what is considered to be the lawful part of the caravan park in any event. If planning

7.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

permission is granted for this operational development it will not grant planning permission for the use of the land for the stationing of caravans.

(c) The agricultural holding certificate has been signed saying that no part of the land is part of an agricultural holding – when in its previous ownership it was;

(d) The grass irrigation plots consist of raised up soil – probably 2 feet or more above the land to the north. Fear that the effluent will leak on to the adjacent land.

(e) Connect to the main drainage in the village would be by far the most satisfactory solution for all concerned.

Woodchurch Parish Council: supports but would like referral to the Planning Committee and for the following comments to be taken into consideration: • The land is agricultural land but there is no application for a change of use; (Development Control Manager comment: No application for change of use is required and any permission will not grant a change of use for an extension of the park. Any permission will only allow the physical works of construction for the structures shown within the application.) • The Sewerage Consultant has stated that the grass on the sewerage beds will be cut and removed for the site at least 3 times a year. Why does it need to be removed – is it contaminated?; • There has been no wildlife ecology survey; • There are serious concerns that despite the Environment Agency’s statement to the contrary the effluent being discharged into the ditch on the Road is not up to discharge standard. (Development Control Manager comment: the quality of the discharge is a matter for the Environment Agency and the discharge to the ditch will require a separate permit. The Agency is already in discussions with the applicant). • Serious concerns were also expressed that work had been carried out prior to planning consent, Under the Court judgement sewage could have been removed from the site by tanker until proper consideration had been given to the application. Would like to know what action ABC is taking to address this. (Development Control Manager comment: it is not this council’s normal practice to take action against unauthorised development whilst it is considering an application to regularise the situation).

Environmental Health Manager: supports commenting that the recent issuing of a variation and consolidated permit by the Environment Agency, to allow the relocation of the original discharge from the Sewage Treatment Plant serving the Park, includes emission limits and monitoring requirements. The emission limits are significantly tighter than the previous consent and the operator will therefore need to improve the

7.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

quality of the effluent. To achieve the new emission limits a higher standard of effluent treatment is required. I understand the replacement STP has therefore been designed to provide the requisite standard of effluent treatment. The new development will allow the applicant to comply with the EA permit. As the existing STP will not be required after the new Plant commissioned then recommend condition requiring redundant plant to be removed and also time limit imposed for the removal of the redundant plant.

Environment Agency: raise no objection Planning Policy

11. The Development Plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy 2009, the saved policies in the adopted Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, the adopted LDF Core Strategy 2008, the and Rural Sites Development Plan document 2010 and the adopted Ashford Town Centre Area Action Plan 2010.

12. The relevant policies from the Development Plan relating to this application are as follows:-

Regional Spatial Strategy (South East Plan 2009)

CC1 – Sustainable Development

C4 – Landscape and Countryside Management

Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000

GP12 – Protecting the countryside and managing change

EN31 – Important habitats

Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008

CS1 – Guiding principles for sustainable development and high quality design

Tenterden and Rural Sites Development Plan Document 2010

TRS17 – Landscape Character and Design

TRS19 – Infrastructure provision to serve the needs of new developments

13. The following are also material to the determination of this application:-

7.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

Government Advice

PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development

PPS7 – Sustainable Development and the countryside

PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control Assessment

14. The key issues for consideration are:

• The principle of the proposed development.

• Impact upon character of the surrounding landscape.

• Impact upon residential amenity

• Other issues including ecology and pollution.

Principle of the proposed development

15. A new sewage treatment plant is required because the applicant is no longer able to discharge effluent into the neighbouring field. This is also an opportunity for the new plant to meet up to date standards in relation to the quality of effluent discharged which is in the interests of both the residents and the environment.

Impact on character of the surrounding landscape

16. The actual STP, that is to be located on land to the NW part of the Park, will mostly be located underground except for the equipment kiosk. This is of very modest proportions and the development would not result in harm to the character of the surrounding landscape. The grass irrigation plots located on land closer to the road have resulted in a slight change in the levels of the land. However, the site is well screened to the road by a mature hedge and I do not consider the visual change to be significantly harmful.

Residential amenity

17. The new STP would be located further away from the northern boundary of the rear of the mobile homes. The development would therefore be an improvement to the current situation.

7.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

Other material considerations

Protected species

18. Mention has been made of protected species being potentially affected by the development. Firstly it is necessary to consider whether the nature of the land would be suitable as terrestrial habitat for this type of species. It would not. Most of the development site would be returned to its existing condition of rough grassland and therefore there would not be any significant loss of habitat.

Pollution

19. I note the concerns of a neighbour about the quality of the effluent discharging from the new system and the potential impact this might have on their land. The efficiency of the sewage treatment plant does not fall within the remit of planning control and is a matter that will be controlled by the Environment Agency. The Council’s Environmental Health Manager is confident that the emission limits will be so controlled by the Environment Agency and failure to do so comes with a significant penalty, which is an incentive in itself. Human Rights Issues

20. I have also taken into account the human rights issues relevant to this application. In my view the “Assessment” section above and the Recommendations below represent an appropriate balance between the interests and rights of the applicant (to enjoy his land subject only to reasonable and proportionate controls by a public authority) and the interests and rights of those potentially affected by the proposal (to respect for private life and the home and peaceful enjoyment of their properties). Summary

21. The main issues in this case are:-

(a) The principle of the proposed development and visual impact (Policy TRS17 apply). There would be no significant adverse impact on the character of the settlement or the LCA.

(b) Other issues relating to pollution and ecology (Policy EN31) have been addressed in the report and any risk of pollution is covered by other legislation.

7.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 9 February 2010 ______

Recommendation

That for the following reasons the Planning Committee permit this application:

1. The scale, location and design of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the visual amenities of the locality.

2. The development would not be significantly harmful to the residential amenity of the nearby dwellings.

3. Environmental impacts have been considered and there would be no harm.

Permit

Subject to the following condition:

1. The existing Sewage Treatment Plant shall be removed from the site and the land restored to grass land within 3 months of the commissioning of the new Sewage Treatment Plant hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of pollution control. Background Papers

Letter from Environment Agency dated 16 December 2010

Comments from Environmental Health Manager 26 November 2010

Letter from A Hyder dated 13 December 2010

Letter from C L Anthony dated 8 December 2010

Comments from Woodchurch Parish Council dated 16 December 2010

Contact Officer: Mrs Lucy Holloway – Telephone: (01233) 330253

7.8 ______Page 1ofAnnex1atoReport10/01580/AS Planning Committee09February2011 Ashford BoroughCouncil

______7.9 ______

______Page 1ofAnnex1btoReport10/01580/AS Planning Committee09February2011 Ashford BoroughCouncil

______7.10 ______