• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 28 March 2002 A Report by the Assistant Director (Development Control) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Application No 5/01/9028 District South Lakeland Applicant United Utilities Parish Broughton West Dawson House Liverpool Road, Great Sankey Date of Receipt 6 December 2000 Warrington ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL Proposed wastewater treatment works with associated access road and landscaping Land to the north of Foxfield Farm, Foxfield, Broughton in Furness ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 RECOMMENDATION 1.1 That the Appropriate Assessment set out in Appendix 1 is confirmed. 1.2 That planning permission is granted subject to the conditions in Appendix 2 to this report. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This is the first of four applications on this agenda which together constitute Phase 2 of the scheme to improve water quality in the Duddon Estuary. Phase 1 involved proposals for a treatment works and associated pumping stations around Soutergate and Kirkby which Committee determined last year. This application is for the major element of this phase of the scheme, the provision of a wastewater treatment works (WwTW). Sewage would be pumped to the site from pumping stations at Station House, Foxfield (application 5/01/9029) and at Greety Gate, near Broughton in Furness (application 5/02/9004). The fourth element proposes the provision of a package plant, at Skelly Crags, Foxfield (application 5/02/9003), as it is not possible to transfer flows across the railway to the proposed treatment works. 2.2 The proposed treatment works would be located on a low hill 300m to the west of the A595 and 400m north west of the village of Foxfield. It was one of three potential locations considered by the applicants. A site at Greety Gate, the original preferred option, was discounted after extensive site investigations due to ground conditions and the implications of artesian groundwater pressure. A second site east of the A595 with similar favourable ground conditions to the application site was rejected because of its proximity to recently converted holiday properties, a caravan park and golf course. 2.3 The proposed plant covers an area of approximately 0.9ha and would be constructed on two levels by excavating into the hillside. It would comprise a balancing tank, inlet works, primary tanks with a sludge pumping station, two 13 metre diameter filters, two humus tanks and a final effluent pumping station. The plant would also have an administration and control building, an odour control unit and a standby generator. 2.4 The administration/control building would be the largest structure on the site. It would measure 13m x 11m x 6.4m high to the ridge and have a natural local slate roof. The walls would be ‘roughcast/wet dash’ render with natural stone quoins at the corners and a natural stone plinth. Doors and louvres would be grey powder coated steel with windows of polycarbonate sheet glazing in stained hardwood frames. The building would provide a transformer room and control room together with an office, mess and welfare facilities. 2.5 Of the remaining structures most of the tanks and the filters are below 2m high (although the rotor on the filters increase their height to just under 4m). The only taller structures are the two sludge tanks with a height of 4.2m. 2.6 Work on the construction of the site would be restricted to 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays and 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays. No working would take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays without prior agreement. 2.7 Access to the site would be from the A595(T) through an existing industrial estate. It is estimated that construction works would give rise to 25 light vehicle movements and 5 heavy vehicle movements per day. When operational traffic movements would be mainly light vehicles with a sludge tanker visiting the site once a week. 2.8 The application includes a landscaping scheme. Excavated spoil from the treatment works site would be used to form shallow mounds close to the industrial estate which would be planted with trees and shrubs. Additional planting would take place around the treatment works. The extent of this planting has been reduced in an amendment to the scheme as submitted to take account of English Nature’s concerns about the affect of tree planting on the habitat of natterjack toads which are known to be in the area. 2.9 Construction would commence in April 2002 and be completed by March 2003. 3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 South Lakeland District Council (Planning) - No objections subject to: 1. Prior consultation with English Nature and other bodies to ensure that the nature conservation issues are fully considered. 2. The use of stone facing on the control building to ensure that it is in keeping with the local area. 3. Containers and tanks should be a dark colour to reduce their impact. 4. The access track should be surfaced with appropriate materials to lessen the impact of the proposal. 5. Proposed planting should be implemented prior to commencement of development on site to provide an adequate screen throughout the construction phase. 6. Additional tree planting to be undertaken. 3.2 South Lakeland District Council (Environmental Health) - The EHO recommends conditions in relation to noise and odour on the operational site, and conditions on the construction phase to control hours of working, noise and to prevent the burning of waste. 3.3 Duddon Parish Council - No objections. 3.4 Highway Authority - Access is to a trunk road and the Department of Transport must be consulted. Highways would prefer to see the access located further away from the main road to reduce the likelihood of conflict with vehicles on the industrial estate road. Passing places and traffic calming should be provided on the site access. 3.5 Environment Agency - The site is located within the tidal flood plain and can be categorised as a low to medium flood risk zone. The applicants should satisfy themselves that the impact of any flooding will not adversely affect their proposals. It is requested that a condition requiring submission of a scheme of surface water drainage be attached to any permission. The EA response contains informatives on the possible need for consents under legislation they administer, the presence of natterjack toads and the site’s proximity to the Duddon Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. 3.6 English Nature - It is considered that the proposed works are unlikely to significantly affect the ornithological, invertebrate or geological interest of the Duddon Estuary SSSI, SPA and Ramsar. However, the proposed works are located along a stretch of estuary which is home to a number of breeding populations of natterjack toads. English Nature advise that an appropriate assessment is required. This should address the final landscaping as English Nature would object to the plan on the grounds that the nature and location of tree planting would have a deleterious effect on the natterjack toads, compromising both their breeding and foraging areas. Further mitigation measures suggested by English Nature include the creation of new natterjack scrapes and restoration of historic scrapes and areas of the north-south ditch running to the Greety Gate outfall. In addition, some of the excavated materials could be placed to provide both daytime refuges and winter hibernation sites for the toads. It is vital for the long-term survival of the natterjack toad that areas surrounding the proposed works are subject to sympathetic long-term management and that monitoring is put in place to assess the success or otherwise of mitigation measures. The scope of the appropriate assessment should cover sites at Greety Gate and Skelly Crags. 3.7 No response had been received from the Highway Agency at the time this report was written. 3.8 No representations had been received at the time this report was written. 3.9 The local Member, Mr OH Pearson, has indicated that he supports the application. 4.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 4.1 Policy 60 of the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan indicates that planning permissions will be granted for wastewater treatment facilities. Proposals likely to have significant adverse effects on the environment or communities will only be permitted where they represent the best practicable environmental option. Structure Plan Policy 12 states that in areas of County Landscape, development required to meet local infrastructure needs, which cannot be located elsewhere will normally be permitted provided it is sited to minimise environmental impacts and meets a high standard of design. Policy 18 of the MWLP requires that developments which would have an adverse effect on species protected by law should only be permitted where the harm can be avoided by reducing disturbance to a minimum or by providing alternative habitats or other means. 4.2 The proposed site is located within an area of County Landscape on a low hill 400m north west of the village of Foxfield. The nearest property is Foxfield Farm 160m to the south and separated from the site by the railway. The next nearest property is about 350m to the north east of the proposed treatment works. The site would be visible from a number of viewpoints along the A595 and the small hill is also a clearly visible feature from higher ground to the north. However, all alternative locations are also within the area of County Landscape and have been discounted by the applicants either because of ground conditions or their proximity to other development. 4.3 The proposed WwTW would also be within 100m of the boundary of the Duddon Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area (a European site designated for its ornithological interest) and Ramsar (a wetland of international importance).

Load more

  11

Copy Link