Agenda Item No. 5A

Committee: Regulatory Planning Committee

Date: 6 August 2008

Report by: Director of Transport and Environment

Proposal: Brighton and Hove Wastewater Treatment Project

Site Address: New Waste Water Treatment Works & Sludge Recycling Centre at Peacehaven, Wastewater Flow Transfer Infrastructure from East Saltdean to the proposed Wastewater Treatment Works & Onward to a new Long Sea Outfall at Friar’s Bay, a New Pumping Station at Portobello in Telscombe Cliffs, Sewer Connections and Access Shafts.

Applicant: Southern Water Services Ltd

Application LW/537/CM (EIA) No’s Key Issues: Need Policy Framework Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) Alternative sites Traffic impact Landscape impact Recreational impacts Rights of Way Air Quality Noise Ecology & nature conservation Water protection Impact of shaft and tunnelling works Cultural heritage Compatibility with land uses Agricultural impact Waste minimisation

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee is recommended to approve the application subject to completion of the following procedure by the Director of Transport and Environment:

1) To refer the application to the Secretary of State as being in conflict with provisions of parts of the development plan;

2) Subject to confirmation from the Secretary of State that she does not wish to call in the application and the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement/unilateral undertaking including the resolution of the matters in paragraph 3.13.; to authorise the grant of planning permission subject to the conditions along the lines set out in Appendix 3 of this report.

CONSIDERATION BY DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT

1. Introduction

1.1 Southern Water submitted a planning application to this Authority in January 2008 for the development of the Brighton & Hove Wastewater Treatment Works and associated infrastructure, from the County Boundary to Friar’s Bay Peacehaven within East Sussex. The part of the proposal from Black Rock to the County boundary, which lies within the administrative boundary of Brighton & Hove, was granted planning permission in December 2005. This application relates solely to those elements within the administrative boundary of East Sussex. The proposal requires the undertaking of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and an Environmental Statement (ES) comprising some 14 volumes was submitted as part of the application as well as a Design and Access statement and a Site Selection Review report. Additional supplementary information and plans have been submitted together with a unilateral undertaking.

1.2 The proposed development has been the subject of two previous planning applications (ref: LW/429/CM (EIA) and LW/453/CM (EIA)) submitted in April 2005 and September 2005 as duplicates of one another. The applicant appealed against the non determination of planning application LW/429/CM (EIA) in September 2005 which the Planning Committee considered its view on in April 2005 and subsequently its view on the duplicate application in June 2006. A public inquiry was held in June & July 2006. The resultant decision was made by the Secretaries of State who dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission on 26th July 2007. Decisions on the associated Compulsory Purchase Orders and the Acquisition Extinguishment Orders were deferred. The duplicate planning application LW/453/CM (EIA) submitted in September 2005 was withdrawn by the applicant in October 2006 and therefore was never determined.

2. The Site

2.1 The application site consists of a linear site, which follows the alignment of a proposed wastewater treatment transfer tunnel, between Saltdean East to the west of East Sussex, along the A259, passing Saltdean East and Telscombe Tye and onto the existing pumping station at Portobello. Thereafter, it aligns through Telscombe Cliffs and the western part of Peacehaven to undeveloped land on the south side of Lower Hoddern Farm where the treatment works is proposed. It then continues south-eastwards through the eastern part of Peacehaven and onto the coastal promenade at Friars Bay, from where wastewater would be discharged via a Long Sea Outfall (LSO) outside the administrative boundary of the County, which is marked by the mean low water mark.

2.2 The site of the Wastewater Treatment Works /Sludge Recycling Centre (WTW/SRC) comprises agricultural land within a dry valley with access shown from the end of Hoyle Road. Part of the site lies within the boundary of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This area lies immediately adjacent to the proposed development but is not affected by any permanent works. There is a public bridleway (Peacehaven 7a) which crosses the site and a public footpath to the east, as well as informal established footpaths on the edge of the urban area to this part of Peacehaven.

2.3 Within Telscombe, between the A259 and the foot of the chalk cliffs, there is an existing Wastewater Treatment Works at Portobello, which discharges flows from the present catchment area through a Long Sea Outfall. These flows are subject to preliminary treatment (screening and grit removal) only. It is proposed to construct an intermediate pumping station at the Portobello site to transfer the flows of wastewater from Brighton & Hove and intermediate catchments to the proposed new Peacehaven WTW/SRC. The site is within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and consists of grassed areas and a steeply inclined access to the treatment works. A public footpath and steps to the beach adjoin the eastern boundary. Beyond the boundary is the Badgers Watch Public House which is a grade II listed building. The cliffs at Friars Bay and Portobello form part of the designated Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

3. The Proposal

3.1 The development involves the provision of a WTW/SRC at Lower Hoddern Farm Peacehaven and the associated infrastructure to enable wastewater to be forwarded to the works from the catchment, including the necessary pumping facilities, and a new Long Sea Outfall (LSO) at Friars Bay between Peacehaven and Newhaven. The proposed development would serve the Brighton & Hove catchment area, including Brighton & Hove together with Roedean, Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Rottingdean, Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs and Peacehaven.

3.2 The proposal for which this application relates will require three main tunnels; the first runs from within the Brighton & Hove part of the development at Black Rock to Portobello to transfer flows in a new interceptor sewer, which would replace an existing Victorian sewer that suffers from saline water intrusion and is in need of repair. This part of the tunnelling falls within the ESCC boundary between a new shaft at Saltdean and the new shaft at Saltdean East. The new sewer is to be built above sea level and when operational will allow the existing sewer to be repaired and used to forward storm water flows to the existing LSO at Portobello. A plan is attached to the additional information accompanying this agenda item, showing a diagrammatic layout of the present and proposed arrangement of infrastructure with this proposal. The second tunnel is to link Portobello to the new WTW/SRC and the third tunnel is to allow the treated water to be discharged to the sea through the new LSO. The first tunnel is to be constructed from Ovingdean and the last two from the WTW/SRC site at Peacehaven with spoil being used to re profile the landform and provide screening to the works. The method of tunnel construction from the WTW/SRC site involves the provision of a temporary railway to carry tunnelling segments and spoil entirely within the newly formed tunnels.

3.3 The proposed development in East Sussex would include the following works:

• a 3 metres diameter shaft at Saltdean East, to intercept an existing sewer on land to the north of the A259 South Coast Road, approximately 50m west of the junction with Hamsey Road in the grounds of Martlett House; • a permanent new waste water pumping station on the existing site at Portobello (which will take flows of waste water received from the west and those received from the Peacehaven/ Telscombe catchment’s) involving the lifting of flows arriving from Marine Drive pumping station to a higher level in order to allow wastewater to flow by gravity towards the new WTW/SRC at Peacehaven. Three linked shafts are proposed, two 6 metres in diameter and the third 17.5 metres in diameter. • a 3 metres diameter shaft in the south eastern section of the Meridian Centre Car Park off Greenwich Way in Peacehaven (this is to allow emergency access to the tunnel which is being driven from the WTW/SRC site to Portobello; • construction and use of a waste water treatment works and sludge recycling centre on land at Lower Hoddern Farm, Peacehaven, which would include the following:

ƒ a new access from Hoyle Road; ƒ landscaping and terrain remodelling including reuse of tunnelled materials; ƒ flow transfer infrastructure and access shafts; ƒ buildings housing waste water (including cess) treatment and sludge digestion, drying and recycling plant, machinery and equipment; ƒ external waste water (including cess) treatment and sludge digestion, drying and recycling plant, machinery and structures; ƒ facility to accept cesspit waste; ƒ provision of an odour treatment vent stack to a height of 8m above roofline; ƒ Provision of a Combined Heat and Power plant and associated vent stack; ƒ Provision of a Green Roof on eastern and southern sections of the works; ƒ use of part of the site as amenity land including the provision of a platform for potential future sports pitch provision; ƒ the diversion of existing rights of way affecting the site; ƒ a secure inner fence and an outer post-and-wire site fence; ƒ a temporary construction compound with a secure site fence or hoarding. • a tunnel service shaft on open land to the north of the highway at Peacehaven Heights, to the south of the A259 South Coast Road. This is to be used to recover the tunnelling machine when it has completed the bore from the WTW/SRC site, and allow a different ‘pipejack’ tunnelling machine to be installed for the construction of the remaining length of the Long Sea Outfall (LSO) tunnel. • a tunnel service shaft on the coastal under cliff promenade below Peacehaven Heights, to the south of the A259 South Coast Road; • an underground waste water transfer tunnel following a coastal route from Saltdean south-east to Portobello and then onto the wastewater treatment works and south-east to Friars Bay continuing into the LSO. This tunnel is to have an inside diameter of 2.4m for most of its length.

3.4 The WTW/SRC site is located at the northern edge of Peacehaven on arable land, which forms part of Lower Hoddern Farm. The WTW/SRC is to treat flows from the Brighton & Hove catchment area to provide preliminary treatment (screening and grit removal), primary treatment (settlement of solids), and secondary treatment (biological treatment to remove solids and organic matter). In addition, the facility would provide treatment for cesspit waste collected from septic tanks from parts of the local area, which are not connected to the mains sewerage system, and for raw sludge cake from the Newhaven WTW, which does not have the capacity to digest or dry sludge. The sludge import and export facilities, together with the sludge drying and odour control facilities would be located within a single large building, the SRC. According to the applicant, this building will ensure the capture of fugitive foul odours from sludge processing and handling activities, as well as keeping vehicle movements under one roof. The odour control plant within the SRC would include multiple stages of ‘chemical’ scrubbing before discharging the treated air to the atmosphere via the extraction vent. All wastewater treatment outside the building is to include covers and the capture of any foul air. A new element introduced to the scheme since the previous application is the provision of a combined heat and power (CHP) facility which will utilise biogas produced by the sludge digestion process to generate electricity and heat. The applicant has indicated that the CHP facility will provide approximately a quarter of the treatment works power demands including the use of the generated heat within the anaerobic digesters.

3.5 Allowance has been made for future additions to the WTW, if required by changes in the treatment standards, to provide tertiary treatment. Space for ultra- violet and nutrient treatment of wastewater and associated equipment has been reserved within the site layout and an area to the west of the site.

3.6 Access to the site would be from the west of the site from the A259 via Hoyle Road, Greenwich Way and Sutton Avenue and involve the construction of a new access route 6m in width through the site. The connection to Hoyle Road would be made via a new section of road currently proposed by another developer in connection with adjacent employment land from Hoyle Road to Bolney Avenue.

3.7 The WTW/SRC compound would occupy an elliptical area, within a security fence, that measures 410m in length by 126m in width, together with an adjacent fenced ‘operational area’, which extends to 14.3ha which will be enclosed by a post and wire fence. The WTW/SRC building would be set into the base of the dry valley feature that presently exists on the site with ground levels in the western future tertiary treatment area being lowered by heights varying between approximately 3- 7m and in the eastern SRC building approximately 2-13m. The odour control stack would be approximately 2.5m in diameter and is to be located above the SRC, with a height of approximately 8 metres above the roofline of the building. Boiler and CHP flues would protrude approximately 3 metres above the roofline of the building. The SRC building which occupies the eastern section of the works and the southern section of the works will be contained under a ‘green roof’ structure which will be laid on the top of a corrugated metal roof deck upon which a growing medium will be placed and pre grown turf laid with an irrigation system included below.

3.8 The proposal includes a substantial element of land re-profiling in an attempt to screen and contain views of the WTW/SRC and to blend with the wider rolling chalk downland setting. The reduction in existing ground levels to 23m AOD where the proposed future tertiary treatment area is located will create additional spoil which will be utilised for screening mounds to the north and west of the building and to the east to raise land levels and contain views of the works from the north, west and east. The eastern mound will rise to 36.5m AOD some 13.5m above the lowest point of the landform as it presently exists, the landform is intended to blend with the existing undulating landform which surrounds the site. The mound would also include native scrub planting which would provide an additional level of screening of the proposed works. To the south of the works the building will be contained by mounding which continues along from the newly formed eastern mound and will also include the provision of new native woodland and scrub areas. Areas of grassland are also proposed surrounding all sides of the development. Two small ponds are proposed to improve the habitat for the great crested newt population which currently inhabit the disused agricultural reservoir to the south of the proposed WTW/SRC building.

3.9 Bridleway 7a crosses the site and a permanent diversion is proposed which follows a path on the western boundary of the WTW/SRC and then continues to the north. In addition Footpath No.8 which lies along the eastern boundary of the construction area would be separated by fencing so that its use can be retained.

3.10 Proposed construction times at the WTW/SRC and shaft work sites would be from 07.00 to 19.00 Mondays to Fridays and from 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. Some 24 hour working would be required at shaft sites during tunnelling operations. It is expected that once commissioned, the works will be staffed on a 24 hour basis with deliveries and the export of finished soil conditioner product confined to between 07.30 and 16.00.

3.11 The proposed pumping station at Portobello involves the main shaft some 27m deep by 17.5m diameter, a secondary shaft approximately 15m deep together with an underground building that is formed by the excavation of chalk to realign the internal site access to the existing works. The roof of the pumping station would be covered with soil to allow for it to be grassed, effectively forming a ‘green roof’ type structure. Access to the pumping station and existing works would remain as it presently exists. The existing boundary wall beside the A259 is to be replaced with a raked brick, flint and mortar wall. In addition an area of existing hard standing at the pumping station site and existing redundant fences near the cliff edge will be removed.

3.12 The Friars Bay long sea outfall requires a separate consent from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The element of the proposals below mean low water mark is, therefore, not within the control of the County Council as Waste Planning Authority.

3.13 The applicant has also proposed a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking which briefly includes the following terms;

• The removal of hard standing and redundant fence posts at the Portobello pumping station; • The provision of open space works including an area for future use as sports pitches. This offer includes the leasing of the open space to a nominated public sector body with a commuted maintenance sum of £200,000 to be provided. • A payment to the Lewes District Council of £500,000 for the future implementation of the sports pitches and/or a pavilion. • The provision of and maintenance of the proposed green roof; • Provision of and compliance with the proposed Operational Environmental Management Plan; • Provision of and compliance with the submitted Odour Management Plan; • Construction Traffic Routeing and speed limits on the WTW access road; • The sum of £105,000 towards an environmental monitoring post; • Compliance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan; • The commissioning of surveys before and after tunnelling works take place and damage repair arrangements ; • A dispute resolution procedure.

4. Planning history

4.1 Southern Water submitted a planning application for new wastewater treatment facilities at Portobello in 1997. The application was refused by the County Council and subsequently dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State accepted that there was no dispute over the need for and national interest in the proposal, since the provision of enhanced wastewater treatment works for the Portobello catchment is a requirement of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. However, the appeal was dismissed on the following grounds; • the proposal would cause a significant and substantial element of harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Government and Structure Plan policy objectives; • that there would be large scale damage to the Site of Special Scientific Interest in conflict with Structure Plan policy EN17 which seeks to protect such sites and their settings; • the proposal would seriously harm the character and appearance of the undeveloped coast; • there is a realistic prospect of there being a site available as an alternative to Portobello that would be less harmful in terms of adverse planning consequences.

4.2 In coming to his decision, the Secretary of State also considered that the additional expenditure that would be incurred by locating the facility at an alternative site would be an acceptable cost in terms of Best Practicable Environmental Option which PPG 10 advised was relevant to decisions about the siting of waste management facilities. It was considered that the cost of going to an alternative site, in order to avoid harm to interests of acknowledged importance, is a price worth paying.

4.3 Following on from the Portobello decision, and liaison with local authority officers, Southern Water submitted a planning application (LW/429/CM(EIA) in April 2005 for a similar development as that which is currently proposed but with differing design solutions for the WTW/SRC building and operational area. This proposal attracted 852 letters of objections with the main grounds being; the impact of additional traffic on the A259 and the local road network; the effects of odour; the proximity principle; Greenfield and brownfield sites; discharge from the new outfall; the omission of Tertiary Treatment; subsidence; the effect on public rights of way and a range of other non substantive issues. In September 2005 Southern Water appealed against non-determination of the part of the project which fell within East Sussex. A duplicate application (LW/453/CM(EIA) was submitted at the same time as the appeal was lodged and duly considered by the former Regulatory Committee in April and again in June 2006. It was not possible to conclude negotiations and issue a decision notice on the duplicate application, and it was subsequently withdrawn by Southern Water in October 2006. The applicant’s appeal was heard at a public inquiry in June and July 2006. The appeal was dismissed by the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in July 2007.

4.4 The appeal decision comprises the report by the Planning Inspector dated 15th November 2006 and the Secretaries of State’s decision letter dated 26th July 2007. The key conclusions of the appeal decision were as follows:

• The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspector that, on policies concerned with development strategy and principles, there was a significant degree of policy support for the appeal scheme, and that this continued through into the emerging policy documents; • However, they agreed with the Inspector that the conflict of the proposed details with the policies for the protection of the local landscape at the main site at Lower Hoddern Farm, Peacehaven (“the main site”) would be such that, on balance, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. Consequently, they went on to consider whether there were any material considerations that suggested that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. • Need o The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspector that the scheme is a major development for which there is an acknowledged urgent need to meet European and national water legislation. o The Secretaries of State had regard to the fact that subsequent to the close of the Inquiry, the European Court of Justice delivered a ruling on 27 January 2007 that the UK had failed to comply with Articles 4(1) and 4(3) of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), by failing to provide adequate treatment for urban waste waters for 13 communities, including Brighton and they afforded this ruling considerable weight. • Catchment o They had regard to the fact that the recently adopted East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan did not seek to draw a distinction between waste from within Brighton and Hove and from within East Sussex. They noted that the plan is concerned with the catchments and with serving the needs of the Plan area; • Site Selection o The Secretaries of State noted East Sussex County Council’s position that: ƒ it accepted the principle of locating this development at the site, subject to concerns on a number of details and to mitigating its potential effects ƒ that after a lengthy site selection process, the County Council’s consultants concluded that there was no better alternative site. o The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspector’s conclusion that no better site for the WTW/SRC had been demonstrated, and that the principle of locating the WTW/SRC at Lower Hoddern Farm is appropriate, subject to the details of the proposal proving to be satisfactory in landscape terms, particularly in respect of the Downland landscape. • Landscape and Visual Impact o The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspector that there would be adverse visual and landscape effects during the lengthy construction period of the WTW/SRC, and that, in operational terms, the proposals would be a particularly intrusive and alien feature whose visual and landscape impact on this edge of the Downs and edge of Peacehaven locality would be seriously damaging, especially because of the exposed eastern elevation and particularly in views from eastern elevations. o However, the Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspector that there were measures that could be undertaken to mitigate substantially the harmful impacts, in particular, planted eastern mounding based on amended plans [submitted to the inquiry] and possibly a “green roof”, but that these could not be secured through the appeal by planning condition as they had not undergone a process of public consultation.

4.5 A number of other issues were dealt with in the Inspectors Report with the Secretaries of State concluding that these did not constitute grounds for refusal. These are dealt with in turn later on in this report.

4.6 In their conclusions on the planning appeal, the Secretaries of State considered on balance that the proposals would not accord with the development plan, specifically policies to protect the landscape. They considered that there was an urgent and pressing need for modern standards of wastewater treatment for the Brighton, Hove and Peacehaven catchment and that no better option had been demonstrated for the main site which together with the associated sites/routes etc for associated infrastructure, represented the best opportunity to provide a scheme to meet our European and national statutory obligations. However, they concluded that Southern Water’s preferred scheme would have an unacceptably damaging visual and landscape impact on the area at the edge of the Downs and of Peacehaven. However, they considered that there were measures that could be taken which could mitigate substantially the harmful impacts of the WTW/SRC based on;

o Planted eastern mounding based on amended plans [submitted to the Inquiry]; o Using spoil from a lowering of the proposed storage/future tertiary treatment area; and o Incorporation of a green roof.

4.7 They concluded that such measures could not be secured through the appeal but a scheme that incorporated these measures would mitigate substantially the harmful impacts of the development. The Secretaries of State concluded, on balance, that:

“the benefits of this much needed scheme, including those of the S106 Obligation, are not such as to outweigh the conflict with the development plan and the visual and landscape harm it would cause.”

4.8 Since the committees consideration of the previous applications planning permission was granted on appeal for residential development on the south side of the WTW/SRC and is currently being implemented.

4.9 The Secretary of State Decision in respect of the Community Stadium for Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club may also be considered of relevance, as it relates to a major development proposal within a similar catchment area to the proposed WTW/SRC scheme. This Inquiry considered the suitability of alternative sites for the stadium in the city and the Inspector ruled that no other site had a “reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted”. The decision reinforces the importance of an assessment of alternative sites in the context of proposals offsetting the AONB and the prospect of them being granted planning permission.

5. Consultations and representations

5.1 Lewes District Council 1) Supports the need in the Brighton and Hove catchment area for significant improvements to the area’s wastewater treatment infrastructure and the quality of discharge into the sea in order to meet European and national standards; 2) Maintains that Lower Hodden Farm is an inappropriate location for the WTW/SRC and believes that there is at least one better site within the Brighton and Hove City Council area; 3) Notes amendments to the site design regarding landscaping and the incorporation of a green roof and the attempt to respond positively to the objections raised by the Secretaries of State; 4) strongly object on the basis that the proposed mitigation measures to offset the effect on the PT16 land are inadequate stating that the proposal should deliver full implementation of the PT16 land; 5) strongly object on the basis that the level of financial contribution which is currently being offered by Southern Water for monitoring of the environmental impacts of construction is inadequate.

5.2 In the event that permission is granted, urge that full and careful consideration is given to:

• the visual impact of the WTW/SRC (including the representations of the South Downs Joint Committee); • that noise, air quality and odour control management plans are secured for both the construction and operational phases (in accordance with the detailed advice of Lewes District Council’s Environmental Health Officer); • that a management plan be secured dealing with the routeing of construction traffic, having regard to the Safe Routes to Schools initiative in Peacehaven; • that proper compensation and mitigation be secured to offset the loss of future recreation land allocated under Policy PT16 of the Lewes District Local Plan; • Regard should be had to the Secretaries of State’s recommended conditions including measures to address the possible effects of tunnelling on residential properties above the tunnel.

5.3 Lastly, it is recommended that officers are authorised to progress works on the detailed proposals for the PT16 recreational land, liaising with Peacehaven Town Council, East Sussex County Council and Southern Water as appropriate in the event that planning permission be granted.

5.4 Peacehaven Town Council recommends refusal reiterated at its meeting on 22 July 2008, as there is unsuitable access to the WTW/SRC site, as it is proposed to use part of the safe routes to school currently used by pupils of the Peacehaven Infants School and Peacehaven Community School. The access is also proposed to go through an industrial estate which will discourage potential improvements and employment opportunities. In addition, the proposed access shaft within the Meridian Centre car park will require the re-opening of an entrance to a road leading to the leisure centre and Community School which was closed as part of the safe routes to school scheme.

5.5 The site is green field and should not be used when brown field sites are available in Brighton & Hove. The final outlet for the treated waste water should be as near as possible to the source. The proposal is considered to be contrary to PPG10 and is not the BPEO because of the brown field sites closer to the majority of the waste; is contrary to the proximity principle; the town is unsuitable for the construction traffic proposed. As a result of recently approved housing schemes and consent for the Falmer Stadium development Peacehaven’s infrastructure will not be able to cope with the additional amount of construction traffic and on going servicing of vehicles. It is considered that the changes to the development are cosmetic and do not reduce the footprint bulk or height. The proposal to cut through the PT16 land would be of little benefit without an adequate drainage system. There seems to be no proposal to pre and post works survey properties on the tunnel route and no reason why the town should deal with Brighton and Hove waste. If the County Council was minded to approve a higher offer should be made to the community of Peacehaven.

5.6 Telscombe Town Council raises objections regarding the following elements; 1) the site is not the best environmental option and there are three more suitable brownfield sites within Brighton; 2) there are concerns over the proposed tunnelling under properties; 3) Further landscaping is required at Portobello because it is suffering from neglect and because of it status as a SSSI and AONB; 4) The access steps at Portobello are in need of considerable improvement posing Health and Safety risks; 5) the electricity sub station is in need of improvement and this should be faced with flint and a shallow pitched slate roof should be added. NB: (Southern Water have agreed to liaise with the Town Council on the proposals for sea front enhancement).

5.7 Newhaven Town Council welcomes the fact that Brighton & Hove is working towards treating its waste water but has concerns that the proximity principle dealing with waste as close as possible to where it has been produced, does not appear to have been applied. It also reiterates its objections to any treatment works being in Newhaven to serve Brighton and Hove.

5.8 Piddinghoe Parish Council opposes the application because of; the incursion of a very large industrial development within a green area between Peacehaven and Piddinghoe; the potential adverse effects on air quality; the potential for pollution from the LSO to lead to deterioration in the water quality within the River Ouse and the additional traffic transferred onto the C7 Lewes to Newhaven Road.

5.9 The Environment Agency raises no objections and is satisfied with the applicants Flood Risk Assessment. They request conditions requiring a scheme of surface water drainage and a remediation strategy should contamination be identified on the site, as well as a number of informatives. Furthermore, the Agency notes that the site is on a Major Aquifer.

5.10 Natural England raises no objections in relation to the marine impacts of the scheme. However, they note that many species surveys are now several years old and state that updates to the Great Crested Newt surveys may be required by NE’s licensing unit. They also request that updated surveys for cliff nesting birds, kittiwake and peregrine are undertaken before works commence and are accordingly conditioned. Natural England is pleased that the landscape impacts have been fully assessed and raise no objection to the design of the building and welcome the implementation of a green roof.

5.11 The South Downs Joint Committee raises no objection subject to it being demonstrated that the Peacehaven east site is the BPEO and meets the principles of Waste Strategy 2000 and PPS10; that the scheme includes provision for UV treatment; that the works include sustainability measures such as water recycling and energy recovery; the building is redesigned with a green roof and managed; there is no adverse effect on the rights of way or on the AONB/National Park in terms of air quality or odour arising from the WTW/SRC or Portobello; the external lighting should cause no adverse impact on the AONB/National Park; spoil from tunnelling should have no unacceptable impact on vehicle movements along the A259 or on AONB and that if permission is granted conditions should be attached covering materials/landscaping at the earliest opportunity with areas of chalk grassland being created and managed to maintain their biodiversity and landscape value. Appropriate details for lighting and post and wire fences should be submitted and the sensitive design of the access road should be ensured as well as the submission of an odour management plan.

5.12 The South Downs Society raises no objections, provided that it is demonstrated that the proposed site is indeed the Best Practicable Environmental Option. If it is demonstrated that the proposal is the BPEO the amendments to the landscaping and design of the scheme are noted and the Council are encouraged to ensure that the detailing is of the highest standard to minimise adverse impacts on the Sussex Downs AONB and designated National Park. The society maintains its position from the previous application that any approval should be subject to; the site being the BPEO; the appropriate provision of future tertiary treatment; the incorporation of sustainability measures; the protection of rights of way from air quality and odour; the impact of soil disposal on vehicle movements; the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to materials, landscaping, the ongoing management and maintenance of landscaped areas, post and wire fencing, lighting and the sensitive design of the access road.

5.13 The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of consent subject to routeing controls, conditions and amendments in the detailed design. They are satisfied that the increases in traffic proposed during construction and operation stages of the project do not raise significant cause for concern in highway capacity terms, subject to a routeing agreement during the construction phase to safeguard school routes and residential areas. In connection with the safe routes to school, the HGV approved route is the only route which the Highway Authority are satisfied with and, in principle, no objections are raised on safety grounds as a result of the predicted traffic generation. The detailed configuration of the access from Hoyle Road is accepted in principle, subject to the access to the proposed works, via a turning head, being constructed to an adoptable standard, and the northern end of the Bolney Avenue Industrial Estate being closed off to vehicular traffic to avoid overspill of construction, operational and employee traffic into residential areas. The access should be constructed to an adoptable standard to enable it to service land to the east, identified as an extension to the business park in the Lewes District Local Plan.

5.14 The temporary access to the drop shaft site within the Meridian Centre Car Park is satisfactory, subject to; a condition to provide for on site turning to ensure vehicles leave the site in a forward gear and the construction of this temporary access to the appropriate standard.

5.15 It is noted that the plans allow for retention of the County Council’s Highway drainage lagoon but that to meet operational requirements access to the lagoon should be secured and the existing drainage easements should be maintained.

5.16 The Ramblers Association object to the proposal on a number of grounds which can be broadly summarised as the following; general aggrievement at the lack of consultation; the land is unsuitable as it is a Greenfield site and within an AONB; it flouts the proximity principle; odour will have a negative impact upon local amenity; reprofiling of the proposed site will impinge on the open aspect of the area; the Portobello site will impinge on the open aspect of the area; the Portobello site will impinge views of the AONB; public rights of way will be affected by offensive odours;

5.17 EDF Energy Networks has no objections provide its rights regarding access and maintenance to any of its cables is maintained.

5.18 South East Water has indicated that provided the rerouting of their underground water mains around the site is undertaken they have no reason to object.

5.19 Southern Gas Networks has drawn attention to the presence of low/medium/intermediate gas pies to parts of the development and the importance of confirming their position.

5.20 Dr Desmond Turner MP for Brighton Kemp Town objects and considers that the changes to the application are inadequate to address the concerns about visual impact; that the features created by land contouring are inappropriate; the impact of fencing is underestimated; noise and odour problems have not been resolved; the site selection process has been cursory; there will be an unacceptable impact on local housing, and that Southern Water need to demonstrate that there is no Brownfield alternative.

5.21 Peter Skinner MEP (South East Region); is against the development because it is on a green field site close to homes and will have an impact on the new National Park. He requests an independent impact assessment of the proposed tunnelling, smells, noise and appearance of the works to ensure local householders are able to enjoy their property.

5.22 REGEN (Peacehaven and Telscombe Regeneration Partnership) objects because the land is allocated for public open space and sports pitches; the proposal is not the BPEO; there are Brownfield sites near the bulk of the waste arisings; the plan is not in keeping with the proximity principle and tertiary treatment should be included. If the proposal is supported, to mitigate the developments impact sport pitches and an all weather pitch should be provided with a pavilion car parking and the inclusion of a BMX/Moto X area as well as works to enhance the Portobello area including the more sympathetic treatment of the southern wall to the pumping station.

5.23 Save our Seabirds object to the location of the WTW/SRC and the need to transfer waste water from Brighton and Hove to Peacehaven; they consider tertiary treatment should be included.

5.24 Meridian Branch Labour Party object strongly to the concept of a factory building on a beautiful Greenfield site on the edge of the AONB and consider alternative sites should be looked at, particularly brownfield sites away from the AONB, especially as Southern Water rejected Lower Hoddern farm on landscape grounds in 1999. It is considered that the works will be visible in the landscape because of the nature of its size and will therefore be an eyesore. Its proximity to housing will give rise to odour which will be offensive to a large number of people. The increase in traffic will add to the volumes on the A259 and any damage to the road from tunnelling will have a severe effect. The works should include tertiary treatment whereby the water can be used for human consumption.

5.25 The branch opposes the timing for the determination of the application in August when many people are away. It is requested that a decision is delayed until September so that the committee cannot be accused of foul play.

5.26 Saltdean Swimmers object because tertiary treatment has not been included, the Peacehaven site is not the BPEO, that there are brownfield sites near the bulk of the waste; the proposal is not in keeping with the proximity principle; and relocation could negate the need for tunnelling. The restoration of the Portobello site is requested if the works is built at Peacehaven because of the neglect of the site by Southern Water. Works should involve more sympathetic treatment of the southern wall to the Portobello pumping station and other enhancements, including the Southern Water owned electricity sub station to compensate for inappropriate development over the years and works affecting the beaches at Telscombe.

5.27 Age Concern (Peacehaven and Telscombe) oppose the plans because alternative brownfield sites are available; the impact on road infrastructure is too great; emissions will be harmful it will exacerbate water shortages and the changes from the last application are cosmetic.

5.28 The application has been the subject of consultation with the local community and has been advertised as a departure to the development plan. In total some 201 letters of representations have been received as a result of the initial consultation and as a result of the departure advertisement. These raise objections to the application, the detailed nature of which are set out in Appendix 1 to this report: The main grounds for objection are:-

• that the planning rules & guidance do not provide for what is best for community and that the application should be reviewed by Government through an independent body to consider all alternative sites; • that the proposed location of the works goes against the proximity principle and should be located closer to main waste source within Brighton & Hove, thereby protecting Greenfield sites from development; • The proposal conflicts with the allocation of the site for public space and sports pitches; • There will be unacceptable impacts on residents during construction, tunnelling (11 kilometres) and operations. • Brownfield site considered more appropriate, particularly as it is in accordance with government guidance and avoids use of protected downland. • Involves inappropriate development close to residential properties & local amenities. • Noise and vibration impacts will be unacceptable. • There will be an adverse effect on wildlife, both terrestrial & marine. • The scale and appearance of the works cannot be adequately screened and is out of keeping with the area. • Site is too close to a built up area, main shopping area, schools and housing. • There would be no economic benefit to Peacehaven and regeneration projects will suffer, causing people to leave the area and the economy to stagnate. • Lower Hoddern Farm agricultural enterprise will suffer. • Increase in traffic would cause congestion and pollution along the A259, and effect the “safe routes to school”. • the proposal is not a green solution in terms of energy conservation and carbon production. • increase of HGVs would cause noise, congestion, pollution and environmental damage to local communities, and undermine cliff stability adjacent to A259. • there would be an associated increase in noise from traffic and works that would be unbearable & destroy tranquillity of area. • 24 hour tunnelling will cause vibrations through the ground and will have an adverse effect on local residents • cumulative effects on infrastructure resulting from Falmer Stadium and Bovis Homes developments. • there will be a deterioration of air quality from the effects of odour, including smells from fertiliser pellets, particularly given topography and microclimate of the site. • Adverse effect on bathing water quality from mixing wastewater discharge with those from the existing outfalls at Newhaven. • tertiary treatment should be included as part of any proposal for wastewater treatment works, thus reducing potential for viruses & pollutants. • Disturbance and effect on enjoyment of public rights of way. • Adverse effect on the Badgers Watch Pub and the setting of the listed building • The plan is just the same as the previous application with only cosmetic differences.

5.29 Observations are made in respect of welcoming the plan to remove hard standing at Portobello on the cliff top and the provision of a flint wall to replace the brick wall.

6. The Development Plan policies and other documents of relevance to this decision are:

6.1 Regional Spatial Strategy-Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9): Policies: INF2 (sustainable provision of water services); Policies: W2 (sustainable design); W12 (use of waste technologies to achieve the highest pollution control standards); W17 (location of waste management facilities).

6.2 East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: Policies: S1(b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (n), (o), (q), (r), (s) (sustainability); S2 (infrastructure); S4 (a), (h), (i), (j) (strategic pattern of development); S5 (development boundaries); S10 (a) (countryside); TR1 (i), (h) (integrated transport); TR3 (a), (c), (d), (e) (accessibility); TR4 (f) (walking); TR16 (parking standards); TR18 (cycle parking); TR30 (lorry routing); EN1 (environment); EN2 (a), (f) (development within and adjacent to AONB); EN3 (character of AONB); EN4 (open downland in AONB); EN9 (extensive and noisy countryside activities); EN6 (the coast); EN7 (urban fringe areas); EN11 (water quality); EN13 (air quality); EN14 (light pollution); EN17 (nature conservation); LT4 (d) (tourism impacts); LT13 (sports facilities); LT16 (informal recreation).

6.3 East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan Policies: WLP1 (a), (d), (f) (waste strategy); WLP2 (a), (b), (c) (transport strategy); WLP3 (a), (b), (c); (AONB); WLP 11 (a), (b), (c) (waste minimisation); WLP24 (b), (d), (e) (land raising with inert waste); WLP30 (a), (b) (waste water); WLP30A (a), (b) (waste water and sewage sludge in the Brighton & Hove/Peacehaven catchment); WLP35 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (general amenity); WLP36 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) (transport considerations); WLP37 (c), (d) (surface water runoff); WLP38 (a), (b), (c) (surface and groundwater); WLP 39 (a), (b), (c), (d) (design considerations); WLP40 (environmental improvements).

6.4 Lewes District Local Plan, 2003: Policies: ST2 (a), (b) (general infrastructure); ST3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) (design, form and setting of development); ST7 (external lighting); ST11 (landscaping); ST14 (protection of water supply); ST30 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (protection of land and air quality); CT1 (i), (j) (planning boundary); CT2 (a), (b), (c) (AONB); PT6 (Employment Uses), RE1 (provision of sport, recreation and play); RE5 (public rights of way); T1 (travel demand); T9 (traffic calming); T10 (pedestrian routes); PT12 (the coast and countryside); PT13 (Protection of cliff top), PT16 (outdoor sports provision).

7 Considerations

Introduction

7.1 The proposal before Members is an application for an amended scheme of which there is a long and complex planning history in the search for a suitable site for an upgraded waste water treatment works to serve the Brighton, Hove and Peacehaven catchment area. The application previously considered at Lower Hoddern Farm, has been the subject of a public inquiry which resulted in the Inspector and Secretaries of State concluding that permission should be refused. Having considered in detail all relevant policy and other material considerations, the Secretaries of State’s decisions to refuse planning permission focused on one outstanding issue: the visual and landscape impact of the applicant’s preferred scheme for the main facilities at Peacehaven. However, the Secretaries of State considered that there were specific landscape measures that could be undertaken which would mitigate substantially the harmful impacts of the development. Whilst they concluded that such measures could not be secured through the appeal, their conclusions represented a clear ‘steer’ to the applicant to address the identified conflict with the development plan which the design of the appeal scheme gave rise to.

7.2 In response to the Secretaries of State’s decision the applicant has revised and amended the scheme in light of the detailed findings and matters raised within the Inspector’s Report and subsequent negotiations with Council Officers. It should be noted that except for proposed changes to the design of the main site at Peacehaven, the scheme as currently submitted is identical in virtually all other respects to the scheme considered by the Inspector and the Secretaries of State.

7.3 Members should note that the Inspector’s Report and Secretary of States decision letter are a significant material consideration in the determination of this application. The new application needs to be considered on its merits. However, In light of the Secretaries of State’s decision it is considered that the primary considerations in assessing the current application will be:

• The extent to which the revised proposals overcome the Secretaries of State reasons for dismissing the appeal and refusing the previous application; • Whether there have been any material changes in circumstances since the public inquiry, Inspector’s Report and Secretaries of State decision that need to be reviewed and would cause the Council to come to a different view to that which it felt previously or by the Secretaries of State, on any of the substantive issues affecting the proposals; and • The outcome of discussions and negotiations between County Council’s Officers and the District and Town Councils with Southern Water regarding detailed elements of the revised scheme.

7.4 This application amounts to a major development proposal with infrastructure in various locations within Peacehaven and Telscombe, and a substantial new Waste Treatment Works (WTW) and Sludge Recycling Centre (SRC) within the countryside and adjacent to the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The WTW/SRC is in close proximity to existing housing and housing presently under construction on the edge of Peacehaven and involves vehicular access through the Town to the A.259. The application is accompanied by a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which has examined all the potential environmental effects and measures to reduce or prevent significant adverse effects arising.

7.5 During the deliberation of the application the County Council engaged consultants to review the adequacy of the Environmental Statement (ES) and its accompanying documentation to ensure that it was compliant with the relevant legislation governing Environmental Impact Assessment and in accordance with recognised best practice as set out by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). This exercise concluded that the ES was adequate and fit for purpose and subject to minor points of clarification was in accordance with legislative requirements and recognised best practice. A schedule of the points of clarification was issued to the applicant and a matrix of responses was received which clarified the required matters in an acceptable manner and did not require changes to the Environmental Assessment.

7.6 The previous appeal decisions, both determined by Secretaries of State, the first in 2001 and the second in 2007 have each concluded that there is an accepted urgent need for a WTW to serve the Brighton and Hove catchment area which includes the Towns of Telscombe, Peacehaven and Saltdean East within East Sussex. Nevertheless, the Secretaries of State decision in relation to the most recent proposal was that the proposed scheme was in conflict with the Development Plan. In light of this decision and the planning policies for this area together with previous debates regarding site selection, it is considered that it is appropriate to revisit the evidence base that led Officers and the Secretaries of State to conclude that there was no better alternative site to ensure that those conclusions and findings were still valid.

7.7 To address this issue the applicant has submitted a full site selection review and update which is largely based on the exercise and documentation submitted with the previous planning applications and the subject of scrutiny and consideration at the 2006 public inquiry. This full site selection review concluded that no better site has been demonstrated and therefore the Lower Hoddern Peacehaven site provided the best opportunity to meet European and National statutory obligations. This site selection review has been undertaken in light of the 2007 appeal decision, amendments to the scheme and the result of a back checking exercise, to identify whether there have been any changes in circumstance since the last inquiry which would lead to a re-evaluation of whether the Peacehaven site remains the most appropriate site. As with the previous applications this has required detailed examination of the application and supporting information by Officers and a review and update by the County Council’s consultants of their 2006 alternative sites assessment study. The County Council’s consultants have concluded that the proposed scheme based on the main site at Peacehaven is still the best solution and there are no better available alternatives. The detailed examination of alternative sites is considered in paragraphs 7.38 to 7.73 below).

Need

7.8 To comply with the European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the associated Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations, Southern Water is required to provide wastewater treatment to a secondary standard for the Brighton & Hove catchment area. Compliance will improve the quality of waste water discharged to the sea.

7. 9 The Secretaries of State have recognised in both previous appeal decisions that there was an urgent need to provide for enhanced wastewater treatment works to comply with the Regulations and that such provision was in the national interest. The 2007 appeal decision stated the following; ‘this is a major development for which there is an acknowledged urgent need to meet European and National Legislation. This catchment is one of the last in Western Europe not to benefit from modern standards of wastewater treatment. The WTW/SRC would provide for a cleaner sea, which would be important for water quality and the tourism and leisure economy of the Sussex Coast. The need and its urgency are widely acknowledged, a fact that was agreed at the time of the decision on the Portobello appeal in 2001.’

7.10 The Inspector at the Waste Local Plan Inquiry also noted in his Report that there is an urgent requirement for enhanced wastewater treatment provision. It is therefore acknowledged that there is a pressing requirement for the provision of enhanced treatment of the waste water arising within the Brighton & Hove catchment to meet European Directives and if anything the urgency has increased in light of the time that has lapsed since consideration of the previous planning applications and subsequent appeal decisions and in light of action against the UK Government by the European Court of Justice referred to earlier in this report. This can be translated into an increased national need given that this is the last major coastal works where compliance is required in the UK, leaving the British Government open to possible fines from the EU. In January 2007 the European Court of Justice ruled that the UK had failed to provide adequate treatment of wastewater in this location. Secondary treatment should have been provided by 31st December 2000 to meet the requirements of the Directive. The Commission is progressing through the follow up procedure to the first judgment and a second written warning was received in October 2007. Whilst it is not at present possible to estimate when the UK Government is likely to receive a second judgment and possible financial penalties it is known that the Commission expect compliance with an adverse judgment within three years which would likely be early 2010. The fines imposed would be payable by the UK Government and can be a lump sum and daily, until compliance is achieved with daily fines potentially amounting to a significant financial penalty.

7.11 The proposals also involve the acceptance and processing of sewage sludge and cess waste, which will involve delivery by heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) to the site. It is accepted that the Peacehaven works will produce a significant quantity of sewage sludge from the receiving waters amounting to 8300 tonnes per annum and that there is also a need to handle the 1700 tonnes of sludge produced from the nearby Newhaven WTW. Sludge from this works is currently transported by lorry tankers to West Sussex for processing. It is also accepted that sludge recycling facilities cannot reasonably be provided at all WTW’s and that the transfer of such sludge to Peacehaven is not unreasonable and that it allows vehicle distances to be reduced. The treatment of waste in this way allows it to be dried and recycled to be used on land as a soil conditioner. Possible uncertainties over its future use on agricultural land were raised during deliberations of the application and in response the applicant submitted its Sludge Strategy of June 2005 which confirmed that its use on agricultural land is heavily regulated within the UK by the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations of 1989 and the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 which enact in UK law the requirements of EC directive ‘86/278/EEC’. In discussions the applicant has sought to reaffirm its previous position that the handling of waste in this manner by its beneficial application to land is considered to be particularly sustainable and consistent with general waste strategies to move waste management towards the top of the waste hierarchy. In these terms it is agreed that it contributes towards the Waste Local Plan’s strategy within Policy WLP1 which seeks to a) have regard to the waste hierarchy and avoid landfillling, b) contribute towards the elimination of the disposal of untreated waste to land and e) contribute to achieving net self sufficiency in waste management within the plan area.

7.12 The applicant also proposes to use the WTW/SRC for the deposit of cesspit waste involving some 120 tanker deliveries per week based on information within the Environmental Statement. Previously, the specific need for this waste to be imported to this site was of concern because of the absence of clear sources and the potential that increasing quantities may be transferred from inland rural sites where the cess is currently treated. This matter was the subject of consideration at the public inquiry in 2006. In reaching a conclusion on this issue and having listened to the evidence and arguments of both parties the Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectors conclusions which stated the following;

‘I am satisfied that there is a local need for cess treatment, that there are sound sustainability arguments for meeting that need at the main treatment works in terms of proximity and of the use of high quality disposal facilities that would be provided in any event, and that these factors clearly outweigh any impacts that the proposal to treat cess at the main site would have’

7.13 The applicant confirmed during its previous submission that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 they are required to accept cess waste and that presently this takes place in Hailsham, Uckfield, Scaynes Hill and Goddards Green. In light of the Inspector’s conclusion that there is sufficient local need for cess and the relative distribution of existing cess treatment it is considered that its treatment at the Peacehaven works would embrace the requirements of the proximity principle as required by Waste Local Policy WLP1 a), would contribute towards co-location of facilities as required by WLP1 d) and would assist in achieving net self sufficiency in waste management as required by WLP 1e). In addition the facility to treat cesspit waste at the Peacehaven site would accord with WLP2 a) relating to the transport strategy which seeks to locate facilities as closely as practicable to the sources of waste that will be managed by it and WLP2 c) which seeks to minimise the length and number of road traffic movements subject to compliance with WLP 36 which is assessed below under ‘Traffic Impact’. Whilst concerns have been raised that the site might be used to receive and treat cess transported from other catchment areas with a resultant increase in traffic impacts, the applicant has advised that the physical and operational capacity of the facilities to receive and treat cess at Peacehaven will ensure that predicted average daily vehicle movements of vehicles carrying cess waste will not be exceeded.

7.14 In addition to meeting the Urban Wastewater Directive, Southern Water have been required to meet the Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC), which provides for improvements to water quality on bathing beaches. Southern Water undertook substantial improvements to the drainage system in Brighton & Hove in the 1990’s, including the provision of a storm water tunnel. This has reduced overflows directly onto bathing beaches and assisted in the ‘blue flag’ award for Brighton & Hove beaches.

7.15 Circular 17/91 – Water Industry Investment – Planning considerations - provides guidance to local planning authorities on the planning implications of the investment programme being undertaken by the water industry. The Circular indicates that, in appropriate cases, applicants may have to demonstrate there is a weighty national or local need for a particular type of development in a particular location and this consideration may be sufficient to outweigh important planning objections. It is further identified that care should be exercised over the location of treatment works in sensitive areas such as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Circular also states that the development should, as far as possible, be “good neighbours” in their impact on the local environment. Measures to minimise smell and visual intrusion should receive attention.

7.16 The Circular acknowledges that improvement schemes will require extensive works and that the head works and treatment plant are an integral part of the outfall and, for reasons of hydraulics and cost, must be reasonably near the former. It is indicated that the scope for water companies to vary the location is therefore limited and usually, although not always, WTW’s will be too large to accommodate underground. Planning authorities should also bear in mind that additional treatment plant may be need to be added later. The need for such facilities in particular locations, and in the absence of alternative locations, is a matter for the applicant to address.

Policy Framework

7.17 In order to treat wastewater to appropriate standards, Southern Water has applied for consent for a new wastewater treatment works at Peacehaven to serve the Brighton & Hove catchment area. The European Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWTD) (91/271/EEC), which has been transposed via the Urban Waste Water England & Wales Regulations 1994, requires the discharge of sewage and for other sludges to have additional treatment based on the population served and the sensitivity of the receiving waters. Currently such treatment is required by the Environment Agency to be to secondary levels. Whilst tertiary levels of treatment are not currently required the application provides an area of the site (western plateaux) where this could be accommodated should the need arise in the future.

7.18 The statutory development plan is the starting point in the consideration of these development proposals. It is necessary to examine the proposed WTW/SRC at Peacehaven and associated infrastructure against the specific development plan policies listed in section 5 of this report, namely RPG9, the Structure Plan, Waste Local Plan and the Lewes District Local Plan. Additional guidance outlined in this section, and any other material considerations are examined having regard, inter alia, on whether there has been a substantial material change in circumstance since consideration of the previous application at the 2006 public inquiry. Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, adopted structure and local plan policies were generally saved for three years from the date of the Act (September 2004). The East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan and the Lewes District Local Plan policies were automatically saved until September 2007, after which time the remaining ‘saved’ policies have been agreed with The Government Office and it is only these saved policies which are relevant in the determination of this planning application. The new development plan system has not reached the stage where replacement development plans carry great weight as material considerations for development control purposes.

7.19 Regional Policy Guidance (RPG) 9, which is the statutory Regional Spatial Strategy until replaced by the South East Plan, sets out key development principles including; that greenfield development should normally take place only after other alternatives have been considered, and should have regard to the full social, environmental and transport costs of location. Development should also be located and designed to enable more sustainable use of natural resource and the effective management of waste and a reducing in pollution of water. Another key development principle is that there should be protection and enhancement of the Region’s biodiversity and mutually important conservation areas, and the enhancement of its landscape heritage. Policy INF2 raises issues about the sustainable provision of water services.

7.20 There are regional and waste development plan policies that need to be considered. Policy W17 of RPG9 – Waste & Minerals, covers the location of waste management facilities and states that priority should be given to safeguarding and expanding suitable sites with an existing waste management use and good transport connections.

7.21 The East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan includes strategic policies to provide for a more environmentally sustainable future and the protection of the environment. It should be noted that since consideration of the previous application all structure plan policies relating to waste have been deleted.

7.22 The East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan contains relevant general policies which cover criteria to achieve sustainable development including proposals representing BPEO, development affecting AONBs, traffic conditions and amenity. Policy WLP30 specifically identifies that proposals for wastewater facilities will be permitted where the development is a necessary extension or replacement of existing infrastructure or where it is demonstrated that it is required to meet environmental standards or improve waste management. Policy WLP30A confirms an area of search for a new wastewater treatment works for the Brighton & Hove / Peacehaven drainage catchments extending from The Downs to the east of the River Ouse, northwards to the A.27 and westwards to the River Adur at Shoreham Harbour.

7.23 The Lewes District Local Plan policies cover, among other considerations, the design, form and setting of developments and their impacts on local amenity and the landscape. There is a specific policy (PT16) allocating part of the application site for public open spaces and sports pitches.

7.24 At the time of the 2005 planning submission, Waste Strategy 2000 set out the Government’s strategy for sustainable waste management which was amended in July 2005 to remove explicit references to BPEO to be replaced with broad planning principles for assessing sites for waste management facilities, including the waste hierarchy, protection of human health and individuals, communities and organisations taking responsibility for their own waste, and consideration of alternative options in a systematic way.

7.25 The Government published a revised Waste Strategy in May 2007 – Waste Strategy for England 2007 which records the progress made in England since 2000 by way of increased rates of recycling and composting, the reduction of waste sent to landfill and an overall reduction in the growth of municipal waste arising. The new strategy builds on Waste Strategy 2000 by setting higher national targets for recycling and composting of household waste and the recovery of municipal waste. Whilst the concept of the Best Practicable Environmental Option is not expressly referred to, the waste hierarchy remains as a general guide to the relative environmental benefits of different waste management options. The objectives are similar but the emphasis of the new strategy is weighted to a greater extent towards waste prevention and re-use.

7.26 Relevant Government guidance includes Planning Policy Statement (PPS10) – ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ which follows the principles in the revision of Waste Strategy 2000. Although BPEO is no longer referred to in the guidance, the tenets of this approach are to be maintained by future documents having Sustainability Appraisals and by the application of its main principles to individual proposals, particularly those on sites not allocated in a development plan. In addition, it emphasises the need to achieve sustainable development, securing waste development without endangering human health or the environment, and to reflect the concerns and interests of communities. It requires priority to be given to the use of previously developed land.

7.27 Planning Policy Statement 1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (PPS1) highlights the role of planning in achieving sustainable development and seeks to ensure that planning facilitates the provision of suitable land for development to improve quality of life; contribute toward sustainable economic development, protect the natural and historic environments as well as the quality and character of the countryside. In addition PPS 1 seeks to ensure high quality of design and resource efficiency as well as the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities. PPS 1 is also accompanied by a companion guide ‘Planning and Climate Change’ which sets out how spatial planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change and take into account the unavoidable consequences.

7.28 Planning Policy Statement 9- ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (PPS9) highlights the sustainable development objectives, and aims to ensure that development has minimal impacts upon biodiversity/geological diversity, and should enhance and restore it wherever possible.

7.29 Planning Policy Statement 7 – ‘Planning and Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (PPS7) states that new development in open countryside away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated for development should be strictly controlled. Preference is to be given to the re-use of previously developed ‘brownfield’ sites in preference to developing ‘greenfield sites’ except where no brownfield sites are available or perform very poorly in terms of sustainability compared to greenfield sites.

7.30 I will now examine this application against these development plan policies and the issues raised by this development.

Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)

7.31 The principle of BPEO has now been replaced with broad planning principles that should be used when making decisions about the best approaches to managing waste and assessing potential sites for waste management facilities, including the waste hierarchy, protection of human health and individuals, communities and organisations taking responsibility for their own waste, and consideration of alternative options in a systematic way. The Government in the future expects that Sustainability Appraisals will provide a suitable framework for assessment, although in practice there are substantial similarities between the BPEO process and Sustainability Appraisals.

7.32 Policies within the Waste Local Plan (Policy WLP1 (a)) which has not had a Sustainable Appraisal retain reference to BPEO therefore it remains relevant to the assessment of proposals for waste management facilities.

7.33 To enable the proposal to be considered against this policy test the applicant has submitted a site selection review which sought to ‘back check’ and where appropriate update the previous site selection exercise which was considered at the 2006 public inquiry. The previous selection process was derived from the key principles of BPEO as required by the development plan with the Inspector concluding;

‘it is clear that there is no perfect site that is free from environmental and other constraints; as was said more than once at the inquiry, the appeal site was selected as the ‘least worst’ option.’

7.34 It then followed that the Inspector concluded the following in relation to the selected site which was subsequently agreed by the Secretary of State;

‘in conclusion on this subject, I agree with the stance taken by ESCC. No better site has been demonstrated.’

7.35 As a result of the importance entrenched within development plan policy and national guidance regarding site selection and the findings of the 2006 public inquiry I have sought to ensure that the revised site selection analysis has been undertaken in a transparent manner to ensure that the conclusions reached by the Inspector and Secretaries of State are still valid and have not been affected by any material changes in circumstances. To assist with this the County Council appointed consultants to undertake an assessment of the review submitted by the Applicant and a review of the applicant’s Environmental Statement chapter dealing with alternatives. The submitted report concludes that the exercise undertaken to establish if there have been any changes in circumstance is robust and a review of the methodology and findings concludes that the selected still remains appropriate.

7.36 Having regard to the above, the Secretaries of States decision letter and Inspectors Report from the 2006 public inquiry which concluded that the site was the ‘least worst’ option and no other alternative had been demonstrated, I am satisfied that the these conclusions remain reasonable. It can therefore be confirmed that the proposal still represents the BPEO and is therefore compliant with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP1a.

7.37 As with the previous application a number of third parties do not consider that the proposal does represent the BPEO, as the site is not in closest proximity to the main part of the wastewater arisings and is on the fringe of the catchment area. However, at the strategic level I am satisfied that sufficient compliance has been shown by the applicant, in the proposals submitted to demonstrate BPEO for the management of this waste. A conclusion on the Peacehaven site representing BPEO requires an appraisal of alternative sites.

Alternative Sites

7.38 The application site is a Greenfield location outside the built up area within the countryside, part of which lies within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but with the built element of the scheme being outside the AONB. The site lies close to the boundary of the proposed South Downs National Park. Development Plan policies require that agriculture and woodland should remain the main land uses and change will be strictly controlled under Structure Plan Policy S5. No new development will be permitted unless it complies with countryside policies and has demonstrated that such a location is necessary (Structure Plan Policies S10/S4). Proposals for new development are required to demonstrate that such a location is necessary (Structure Plan Policy S10.) The proposal also involves the use of a greenfield site, partly within the Sussex Downs AONB, with the building indicated immediately adjacent to the AONB. To ensure development is environmentally sustainable, the effective renewal and re-use of ‘brown’ sites is a guiding principle, in order to reduce the need for greenfield sites (Structure Plan Policies S1e) & S4a)). This, together with other impacts, requires a very close examination of the site selection process, in order to confirm that the assessment of environmental impacts has been consistent, and that there is not a better site within the catchment that could deliver a WTW/SRC with greater overall environmental benefits.

7.39 It is acknowledged by the applicant that the existing wastewater collection system focuses on two key engineering nodes; Black Rock, where 85% of catchment flows are received and Portobello where the Long Sea Outfall (LSO) is located. A storm water tunnel beneath the seafront of Brighton & Hove ends at Black Rock, where there is a pumping station to pump flows onto Portobello once a storm has subsided.

7.40 Between Black Rock and Portobello, an interceptor sewer picks up local flows from the Brighton Marina, Ovingdean, Rottingdean and Saltdean. Flows from Peacehaven and Telscombe are received separately at Portobello. Short Sea Emergency outfalls are provided at Portobello, adjacent to the existing LSO, and at the Albion Groyne by Brighton Pier. An additional outfall is proposed, as part of the Brighton & Hove element of this planning application, at Black Rock.

7.41 In planning policy terms, Waste Local Plan Policy WLP30A makes provision for a new Wastewater Treatment facility for the Brighton & Hove/Peacehaven drainage catchments and to process the sludge arisings. The area of search is limited by the Plan area boundary to the west (i.e. Shoreham Harbour), The Downs east of the River Ouse (Bishopstone), the A27 trunk road corridor to the north and the sea to the south. The Peacehaven site is within this area of search and, whilst it may be considered distant from the point where the majority of wastewater is collected, in the context of this policy I do not consider that it is a sustainable reason to oppose the selected location for the works.

7.42 In the assessment of alternative sites the Inspector at the previous inquiry highlighted that the site selection process had been derived from BPEO led methodology involving factors such as land use planning; greenfield/brownfield; proximity principle; regeneration; environmental effects; deliverability; operational suitability; ability to expand; and resource use. In consideration of this methodology the inspector noted;

“The site selection process paperwork is substantial and the exercise was thorough and logical’

7.43 In light of these conclusions there has not been the need to substantially revisit the appropriateness of the site selection methodology save for a review of the applicant’s site selection document and the on going appropriateness of the methodology in light of changing circumstances which has been undertaken by appointed consultants.

7.44 Turning to he Inspectors views on the overall site selection exercise his conclusion was that;

“no one has suggested any potential site that had not already been considered in the selection process. Moreover, it is clear that there is no perfect site that is free from environmental and other constraints; as was said more than once at the inquiry, the appeal site was selected as the ‘least worst’ option”

‘It is not possible to, as has been claimed, to look solely at brownfield locations on the basis of Government guidance and to say that, for a Greenfield site to be acceptable, there must be no alternative site”

‘In conclusion on this subject, I agree with the stance taken by ESCC. No better site has been demonstrated. The principle of locating the WTW/SRC at Lower Hoddern Farm is appropriate but this is subject to the details of the proposal – possibly with modifications - proving to be satisfactory in planning terms, particularly in respect of the Downland landscape and the other environmental impacts of the scheme such as odour and noise, as well as the traffic effects and questions concerning open space and recreation.’

In the overall conclusion on the planning appeal, the Inspector states:

‘The result of a comprehensive site selection exercise led from some 66 initial sites to the selection of the main site at Peacehaven. Those opposing the appeal proposals at the inquiry were unable to suggest any sites, including the Kaiak proposal that had not already been considered in the selection exercise. The main site is, as repeated at the inquiry with some distaste for the term, the “least worst” option. No better site has been demonstrated but, as ESCC says, this is subject to the details of the proposal proving satisfactory in planning terms….’

7.45 The Inspector’s conclusions on site selection were agreed by the Secretaries of State and are therefore the starting point in the consideration of alternatives in this application.

7.46 In view of the current representations made in respect of alternative sites it is worth briefly reiterating the site selection exercise that has previously been undertaken and formulated the basis of the previous application and subsequent appeal. The applicant’s preliminary search identified potential locations for a wastewater treatment works within the catchment extending from the River Adur in the west to the Downs east of the River Ouse to the east. This resulted in an initial long list of some 60 potential locations which, following investigation, was increased to 66 locations. A more detailed evaluation of 44 of these locations took place against various criteria including planning policy, engineering and environmental aspects to embrace BPEO principles, including the proximity principle. These findings led Southern Water to shortlist eight potential sites for more detailed appraisal, including Black Rock/Kemp Town, Brighton; Upper and Lower Sheepcote Valley, Brighton; Ovingdean; Shoreham Harbour; Lower Hoddern Farm Peacehaven, Brookside Tip Newhaven and North Quay Newhaven.

7.47 The position still remains from the last application that in any assessment of the proposal, it needs to be shown that there is no better site having regard to PPS 10 and relevant development plan policies. The reasons for the selection of a green field site rather than a brownfield site better related to existing infrastructure must also be shown to be satisfactorily demonstrated. The alternative site options analysis is both comprehensive and transparent, including the consideration of options to provide a sewage sludge recycling facility and a wastewater treatment works, both together and on different sites, recognising that the latter could allow traffic impacts to be minimised through transfer pipes rather than road transport.

7.48 Despite the conclusions of the Inspector and Secretaries of State the issue of alternative sites is considered to be of fundamental importance to the determination of the application, not only because of the policy context, but also the length of time that has elapsed since the last consideration of alternatives and the on going concern of third parties.

7.49 As with the previous applications the planning and engineering consultants Entec have been employed to provide advice on the site selection process This work has reflected the approach of the applicants in undertaking a review of any changes in circumstance that may modify or alter the conclusions of a) The Secretaries of State and Inspector; b) The applicant or c) The previous Entec review. Since the engineering content of the current proposal remains the same as for the previous application, the focus of Entec’s review has been on planning issues. The Entec review has concluded that the Applicant has provided a thorough review of a large number of policies and potential changes in circumstance since the closure of the 2006 public inquiry and those decisions taken to reject certain sites have been given additional support by the identified changes. The overall conclusion of Entec’s new assessment is that there has been no material change in circumstance since July 2006 that would indicate that any site other than Peacehaven should be considered as the preferred option.

7.50 The following sections set out below reflect the broad conclusions of the original Entec assessment of the eight short listed sites and then briefly summarise the result of the updated review.

Shoreham Harbour

Position at 2005 7.51 There are significant policy and sustainability constraints which militate against a grant of planning permission. There are also practical constraints in terms of the need to acquire operational port land via a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and the potential for the CPO not to be upheld due to the land being recently redeveloped and in use for port related uses and the existence of better alternative sites.

Position at 2008 7.52 Although there are plans to regenerate Shoreham Harbour no application has been received. The identified site has been the subject of further port related development which leaves little readily suitable land for a WTW/SRC which lessens the acceptability of the Shoreham Harbour site. As such the conclusions in Entec’s original report still remain valid with its availability reduced further.

Black Rock/Kemp Town Gas Works (split sites)

Position at 2005 7.53 This scheme, despite being the most sustainable in locational terms, has been ranked the lowest. It is not considered to be a realistic prospect for securing planning permission. Brighton & Hove Council’s opposition as landowner and the need for a CPO is a further constraint and, in view of the important planning policy constraints, the lack of suitable replacement open space and the availability of more suitable sites there is potential for the CPO not to be upheld.

Position at 2008 7.54 There have been no changes in circumstance to alter the ranking of these sites. The potential development of the Brighton International Arena has been proposed at Black Rock which would take up half of the overall site but as yet no planning application has been submitted. In addition planning permission has been granted for the regeneration of Brighton Marina which could adversely affect the suitability of the site for a WTW because of its proximity. It is concluded that no changes to Entec’s original report are required as the main issues had already been considered.

Upper Sheepcote

Position at 2005 7.55 This site is not considered to be a realistic prospect as there are alternative sites that are more appropriate in engineering and planning terms.

Position at 2008 7.56 No changes have been made to conclusions of the original assessment, the redevelopment of Wilson Avenue School has been considered as it is in the vicinity of the site, but the use of the site continues to be for recreational, educational use and is of sufficient distance to not give rise to changes in the scoring and ranking of the site.

Lower Sheepcote

Position at 2005 7.57 Overall this site performs poorly in planning terms, because of the playing fields it would displace, its undeveloped status, the amenity issues at the gasworks, the contamination issues at the gasworks and the effect the scheme would have on other regeneration proposals at the gasworks. It is not considered a realistic prospect for securing planning permission, in view of the planning constraints and because there are more appropriate sites overall.

Position at 2008 7.58 As with Upper Sheepcote no changes have been made to the conclusions of the original assessment, the redevelopment of Wilson Avenue School has been considered as it is in the vicinity of the site, but the use of the site continues to be for recreational, educational use and is of sufficient distance to not give rise to changes in the scoring and ranking of the site.

Ovingdean South

Position at 2005 7.59 The location of the site within the proposed National Park represents a major risk to the project, if this status is confirmed. In which case, the site would have to pass the stringent PPS7 test of no more suitable alternative sites. In Entec’s view it would fail the test since there are more suitable alternative sites. In these circumstances a CPO would be likely to fail.

Position at 2008 7.60 There have been no changes in circumstance that have altered the conclusions or recommendations of the original assessment. Whilst it is noted that this site may potentially be included in the National Park there is not sufficient grounds at this stage to alter any conclusions.

Peacehaven East

Position at 2005 7.61 The site has the advantage that there are not overriding planning or engineering constraints that would militate against it securing planning permission.

Position at 2008 7.62 There have been a number of changes to the scores within the Entec methodology which are a direct result of the following two material changes in circumstance; • The designation of new Archaeologically Sensitive Areas which had an adverse effect on the previous score; • The granting and subsequent implementation of the Bovis Homes development to the south reduces the score in relation to ‘local amenity’;

7.63 The effect of these changes has resulted in the sites ranking reducing.

Peacehaven East (Stage II)

Position at 2005 7.64 The site is a Greenfield location, part of which lies within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but with the built element of the scheme being outside the AONB. The site lies close to the boundary of the proposed South Downs National Park. It lies near the urban edge of Peacehaven which will move closer to the site when two areas designated for housing development in the Lewes District Local Plan are released. It lies within the catchment area and Waste Local Plan area of search. The site is of sufficient size to accommodate all of the main facilities with room for future expansion. Having regard to the balance of strategic and detailed planning issues, sustainability issues and engineering issues, this site has emerged from Entec’s comparative assessment of alternatives as the ‘least worst’ location which is consistent with the findings of Southern Water’s comparative assessment. This is considered to enhance the prospects of a successful planning application and successful CPO.

7.65 The application scheme includes revised vehicular access to avoid highway construction works with this part of the AONB. The proposed site includes an area designated in the Lewes District Local Plan for public open space and sports pitches to serve the Peacehaven area and the proposed access would bisect this area. However, the proposed development provides a potential vehicle for securing delivery of these facilities subject to a satisfactory scheme being agreed.

Position at 2008 7.66 As with the Peacehaven East site there have been a number of changes to the scoring of this site as a result of the Bovis Homes development and the designation of Archaeologically Sensitive Areas. However, despite these changes the ranking for the site has not changed and it remains in second place below the Shoreham Harbour site, however, as previously stated the Shoreham Harbour site has overriding constraints

Brookside Farm Tip, Newhaven

Position at 2005 7.67 The option is not considered to be a realistic prospect for securing planning permission in view of the particular planning and engineering disadvantages and the availability of more suitable alternative sites. This reduces the prospects of a successful CPO.

Position at 2008 7.68 There have been no changes in circumstance that would alter the conclusions of the original assessment. This judgement has been reached after review of other notable developments within the vicinity of the site such as the proposed Port Extensions and the new energy from waste plant at Newhaven.

North Quay, Newhaven

Position at 2005 7.69 There are significant planning and engineering constraints that militate against this option. The option is not considered to be a realistic prospect for securing planning permission in view of the particular planning and engineering disadvantages and the availability of more suitable alternative sites. This reduces the prospects of a successful CPO.

Position at 2008 7.70 There have been several changes to the scores for this site as a result of the permission granted for an Energy Recovery Facility plant which occupies a large part of the North Quay site, and which is currently being implemented. For this reason alone the potential of the site for development has been significantly reduced. In addition the site’s location within the indicative flood plain could significantly constrain the area as being viable for the development of a WTW/SRC as a result of the requirement for such important infrastructure to be operational at all times, even during flood events.

Portobello, Telscombe

7.71 As with the previous application, the proposed site currently lies in the AONB but it is likely to be excluded from the proposed National Park. Confirmation of the designation boundary has been delayed. It is considered that, even if the site was excluded from the National Park boundary there are sufficient other major constraints to prevent a grant of planning permission if, as is the case, the existence of alternative more suitable sites has been demonstrated.

Summary

7.72 The overall conclusion is that the current application site proposal consistently emerges as the highest performing site in both planning and engineering terms, and that there is not a significantly better site in overall environmental terms. The conclusion regarding the suitability in engineering terms is derived from previous work undertaken by Entec. Some revisions to the submitted scheme were recommended by the Entec study in 2005 to improve its environmental qualities such as reducing the density of planting proposed to maintain open Downland views; traffic management measures on or near the proposed access road; a long term management plan for the area of informal recreation proposed; the allocation of land in perpetuity for public open space; the setting out and long term management of the proposed playing fields, and a review of the odour abatement options including the location of the stack. Elsewhere on the scheme it is suggested, amongst other matters, that the Portobello pumping station proposals are reviewed to improve both its overall appearance and odour mitigation measures, and that the location of the East Saltdean Shaft and the management of these works be reviewed to reduce the impact during construction on local residents.

7.73 Having examined the approach to this work, the criteria selected and discussed both the planning and engineering conclusions, I am satisfied that the decision reached has been fully justified, that there has been no material change in circumstance which alter the conclusions and I consider that they are well founded. In light of the development plan policies that apply to the various sites and the need to consider whether there is a better site, this assessment must be given weight in coming to a decision on the application proposals. A Wastewater Treatment Works must be provided and a suitable site found. On the basis of the consultant’s findings I do not consider it reasonable to conclude that there are better alternative sites, even if aspects of the current proposal are not considered readily acceptable on other grounds or necessarily in full conformity with development plan policies. This in no way should lessen the rigour of the assessment of the acceptability of the proposal on other environmental issues.

Traffic impact

7.74 The application proposals involve the generation of additional levels of traffic, both during construction of the works and associated infrastructure, and during its operational life. All traffic serving the WTW/SRC would access it via the local distributor roads of Sutton Avenue, which is a 7 metres wide road with footways, and Greenwich Way from the A259 South Coast Road. These roads serve the Town Centre, including the Meridian Centre Sports Hall and Peacehaven Community School, as well as the industrial estate. The road is therefore designed to accept these levels of traffic, including HGV’s. The connection to Hoyle Road would be made via a new section of road currently proposed by another developer from Hoyle Road to Bolney Avenue in accordance with Local Plan Policy PT6.

7.75 It is acknowledged that there are high levels of traffic on the A259, particularly at peak times, which can cause congestion between Newhaven and Rottingdean. This is reflected in the applicant’s traffic flow data along the A259 which indicates between 17,000 and 29,000 vehicles per typical weekday.

7.76 The construction programme will take place in a phased manner and it is anticipated that construction vehicles movements could amount to around 47 vehicles per day in addition to around 100 vehicles movements of on site personnel. The applicant has indicated that there will be occasions when the HGV movements will substantially exceed 47 highlighting an expectation that there would be 12 occasions throughout construction when HGV movements would be between 90 and 134. The construction vehicle activity would generally take place Monday – Friday between the hours of 0700 – 1900. It is important to ensure, that as far as possible this development does not add significantly to existing traffic levels and that any such impacts are mitigated. In terms of additional Light Goods Vehicles (LGV) and HGV traffic during the construction phase, this is estimated to amount to 0.60% increase on the A259 and a 33.8% increase in HGV movements along Greenwich Way, which is considered capable of accommodating this temporary traffic, because of its design as an Industrial Road. In operational terms, the only work site that would result in permanent traffic movements is the WTW/SRC site. It is anticipated that there would be an average of 174 HGV movements (87 loads) per week, including 20 movements from the importation of sludge from the Newhaven WTW and 120 movements of cesspit deliveries. For 4 months per year there would be a further 18 HGV movements per day associated with the removal of dried product from the works. Such levels would result in a traffic increase of less than 1% on Greenwich Way and do not attract a highway capacity concern.

7.77 In terms of highway safety it is accepted that it will be important to ensure that during construction works all vehicles to the WTW/SRC will be routed to the A259 via Greenwich Way and Sutton Avenue in order to safeguard school routes and residential areas. The Greenwich Way/Sutton Avenue access is close to three schools, for which a safe routes scheme has been implemented, including pedestrian crossings and footway provision. Because the predicted increase in traffic is not indicated to be significant in highway terms, the application proposals are not considered to conflict, to an unacceptable extent, with these existing arrangements. The application proposals also provide for a cycle/ footpath link from the eastern part of Peacehaven which, when fully developed, would provide separate access to the town centre. A routeing agreement is considered appropriate to ensure that the construction traffic does not deviate from the proposed access routes and, therefore, potentially compromise residential amenity or the safety of pedestrian routes.

7.78 The vehicular access arrangements from Greenwich Way to the WTW/SRC have largely derived from previous recommendations in relation to land identified within Policy PT6 of the Lewes District Local plan for employment use. The layout of a spur off Hoyle Road, the formation of a turning head, and access between Farringdon Enterprise Estate and business uses at the western end of Hoyle Road have all been approved under planning applications submitted to Lewes District Council.

7.79 The traffic assessment of the application by the Highway Authority has confirmed that the proposed movements of vehicles will not have an adverse effect on safety or capacity during the operational and construction stages of this development. Whilst there will be small additions to the flows on the A259, and the local network, I do not consider these to be sufficient to justify a refusal on highway grounds. These conclusions reflect those of the Inspector for the 2006 public inquiry and whilst there has been a relatively small percentage increase in construction vehicle traffic it is not considered that this is in any way significant enough to alter or modify the views previously taken by the County Council, Inspector or Secretary of State. I therefore consider that the proposals are consistent with Structure Plan Policy TR1 which seeks to ensure new development reduces the need to travel and makes the best use of transport corridors whilst encouraging other sustainable forms of transport, and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP36 which seeks to ensure that waste facilities do not have adverse impacts on highway safety or the highway network, this view is subject to the imposition of standard highway conditions to any consent. In addition it is considered that the proposals are consistent with the objectives of Structure Plan Policy TR30 relating to Lorry Routeing.

Landscape impact

7.80 The proposal will have both temporary and permanent visual effects on the landscape at the Lower Hoddern Farm and Portobello pumping station sites, and these are considered separately below. Temporary visual effects would centre on the shaft construction sites at Saltdean East, the Meridian Centre car park, The Highway at Friars Bay and the Friars Bay Promenade. Traffic movements associated with construction will also contribute to these visual effects.

Lower Hoddern Farm

7.81 The principal impacts of the development will be at the Lower Hoddern Farm site, where the WTW/SRC is being proposed. This site sits beyond the urban area of Peacehaven, in an area of undulating downland countryside. It is particularly prominent in local views from the Peacehaven Community School and the Peacehaven Sports Park, where one currently enjoys a spectacular sweeping vista across the site to the South Downs towards Beddingham Hill and Mount Caburn to the north east. Closer views of the site and the existing valley feature exist from Public Rights of Way which run north to south, either through or adjacent to the site. There are more distant views of the site in the landscape, including those from the east including the A.259.

7.82 The development must be considered in relation to particularly those policies in the Structure Plan which seek to show that an environmental impact has been minimised (Policy S1b) as well as PPS7 above; it has protected and enhanced the attractiveness and individual character of the urban /rural area (Policy S1f); accords with the objectives of and prevents damage to the AONB (Policy S1j) (and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP1f); strongly protects the AONB from major development (Policy S4h) enhances the character and quality of the landscape including where appropriate, the creation of new equally good and distinctive local character (Policy EN1) (LDLP Policy CT2); and by careful control, minimises the impact of any development on the setting of the AONB landscape (Policies EN2a) & f); that development is derived from the character and qualities of the countryside and does not have a significant adverse effect on views or quiet enjoyment of the AONB: (policy EN3); and a compensating environmental resource will be provided to offset or compensate for any adverse impacts associated with the development (Waste Local Plan Policy WLP3 & WLP40).

7.83 The landscape impact of urban fringe areas will be subject to positive measures to improve landscape character and encourage appropriate recreational use, and public access (Structure Plan Policy EN7). There is emphasis within the development plan on waste management activities being housed within buildings which have more imaginative designs and sympathetic materials with the design, siting and external appearance respecting the site and topography. Proposals which would have unacceptable adverse visual effects or would have an unacceptable effect on adjoining land uses by virtue of the scale and location of the development which cannot be mitigated will not be permitted. (Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 39). Development will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in LDLP Policy ST3 having regard to the design, form and setting of the development including its scale, height, massing and character.

7.84 The Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) boundary currently sits immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed WTW/SRC building, but within the application site, tapering further away to the east. The AONB boundary is not related to any physical feature on the ground. The proposed national park boundary is proposed between 300 metres and 250 metres to the north, and at present no formal decision has been made to confirm the acceptability of this boundary. The associated ground works within the application site extend into the AONB to the north but would be outside the proposed National Park. In planning policy terms the proposal must be assessed in relation to the current AONB policy.

7.85 The WTW/SRC involves a major physical development, beyond the existing urban area, in the countryside. The permanent land take of the project at Peacehaven would extend to an area of approximately 29.1ha (excluding Hoyle Road Junction). The operational land requirement would cover approximately 14.3ha, of which approximately 4.9ha would be occupied by built development of the WTW/SRC. The WTW/SRC would be partially covered by a green roof of approximately 1.7ha. It is a challenging location for the development, particularly in landscape terms, because of the sensitivities of its location and the openness of the landscape, where there is a very sudden transition from the urban edge to rural open downland landscape. In this sense little has changed since consideration of the previous applications and I will therefore summarise the previous proposals before addressing the key messages and conclusions of the Inspector and Secretary of State at the previous public inquiry in relation to these.

7.86 In parallel with the current application the key driver in developing an architectural design for the previous WTW/SRC scheme was to assimilate the proposal within the landscape. To achieve this, the works and access (as is currently proposed) were sited largely within the base of a dry valley, within the countryside, to take advantage of the natural landform of the location. Landscaping of the surrounding land was proposed, utilising spoil from the associated tunneling works and on site excavations, to largely conceal the building from views to the north, south and west with naturalistic grass slopes. From the higher ground to the east, the approach was to develop a built form which took advantage of the surrounding land forms and arranged the layout of the site in such a way that buildings screened those elements of the plant, which for safety and practical reasons could not be enclosed. In this context, two buildings were designed, with an integral roof structure providing a wrap around link and screen to the operational structures on the south side of the works. The outward appearance was of an elliptical shaped building, with rooflines and elevations of a curved form, constructed from a zinc material with a non- reflective finish, with other ground around being remodelled to screen the works with naturalistic grass slopes.

7.87 The landscape and visual impact of the above proposals was the subject of much evidence and discussion at the previous public inquiry. The following highlights the Inspector’s key conclusions on these matters;

‘Firstly, the suggestion that the development would sit comfortably within the valley is overly optimistic as much of the valley would be taken up by the WTW/SRC and the cutting into the valley sides and the land moulding would leave little semblance of the former valley. Secondly, the matt surfaced grey metal coloured external sheeting would emphasise the alien nature of the development. Thirdly, the unscreened eastern elevation (see plan LAN64D1 = S67), with a low mound up to 26m AOD east of the building and no planting, would leave the building exposed to view from that direction as well as it being highly visible when looking down from the higher land in the east near the A259 road. From such vantage points, the building could be described as having the appearance of a submarine or even an unidentified flying object. And fourthly, although the design concept of the building would be better understood if it were left open to view, and this would be a more honest approach, these considerations would be of limited weight when compared with the resultant visual and landscape effects. As currently proposed by SW, the WTW/SRC would constitute a particularly intrusive and alien feature. In its presently proposed form, the visual impact of the proposals on SW’s preferred plan LAN64D1 for the main site would be seriously damaging.’

‘Suggestions for amendments have been made, particularly by ESCC, and it is to these matters that I now turn.’

‘I start with the easterly elevation. Additional screening would be needed to seek to hide this end of the building to views from the east, in the same way that the other sides are screened. The Council suggests high earth mounding and planting to the east of the building, with the spoil for this coming from a lowering of the proposed level of the product storage/potential tertiary treatment area at the opposite end of the oval site, a matter that I will consider in more detail below. Unlike SW’s plan LAN64D1, with its limited eastern mounding to a height of 26m AOD and no planting on the mound, ESCC suggests (plan 002A - the last plan in E23) a mound rising to 35m AOD, with a retaining wall at its western side near to the building and planting on the easterly slope. SW’s response to that plan (LAN64E = S69) – which it agrees could not be secured by the imposition of a planning condition - would provide for a grassed mound of similar height but with a steep slope in place of the retaining wall and no tree or shrub planting. While this would screen the walls of the building, the roof - which it will be recalled would rise to 43m AOD plus an 8m high vent stack – would remain highly visible. Nevertheless, a mound of the size indicated on plans LAN64E or 002A, with tree planting, would reduce the degree of intrusion and assist in assimilating this very large grey metal-faced structure into this Downland landscape.

‘In addition, SDJC suggests a “green roof” of an appropriate vegetation mix for the building. I have no doubt that such a roof, combined with the above mounding, would be a major factor in reducing the visual impact of the building on the main site, particularly with regard to the views of it from elevated locations. While SDJC accepts that a lightweight sedum roof would be likely to be inappropriate because of its colour changes throughout the year, it points out that a roof of chalk grassland growing on the type of thin soils that are characteristic of the Downs has not been shown by SW to be wholly impractical. I agree.’

‘SW accepts that lowering of the proposed level of the land at the westerly end of the oval site from 36m to 32m AOD could be secured by condition but ESCC argues that a level of 30m AOD would be needed. Again, I agree with ESCC. While the external product storage on this area could be effectively screened even with a ground level of 32m AOD, the land is also reserved for possible tertiary treatment of an unspecified form at a future unknown date, with plant and buildings of unknown size, design and height. It would be sensible planning to keep the level of this area as low as possible to assist the provision of any future scheme for tertiary treatment, as well as to provide the spoil for the easterly mound.

‘In conclusion on the proposed WTW/SRC, there would be adverse visual and landscape effects during the lengthy construction period. In operational terms, the proposed WTW/SRC in SW’s preferred scheme (LAN64D1 = S67) would be a particularly intrusive and alien feature whose visual and landscape impact on this edge of Downs and edge of Peacehaven locality would be seriously damaging, especially because of the exposed eastern elevation and, particularly in views from elevated locations, the roof. There are measures that could be undertaken – planted eastern mounding, based on the amended plans LAN64E (S69) and ESCC’s plan 002A, and a green roof - to mitigate substantially the harmful impacts but they could not be secured in relation to this appeal by the imposition of a planning condition.’

7.88 With the Inspector’s conclusions as a starting point for the new landscape strategy the Applicant has sought to provide a solution that mitigates, as far as is possible, the adverse landscape and visual effects identified by the Inspector and agreed by the Secretary of State. Key amendments include a reduction in existing ground levels to the eastern section of the works to 23m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) and the new landscape mounding rising to 44.5m AOD to screen views from the north and west. In the western area of the works which is identified for future tertiary treatment, ground levels have been reduced to 29m AOD. From the east the SRC would be contained within a newly formed mound which rises to 36.5m AOD and would include scrub planting. To the south of the building the new mounding would rise to 40m AOD with the addition of areas of scrub planting. A roof structure would link the WTW and SRC and would have a canopy that would cover the access road along side of the building and bring the roof close to the surrounding landforms that are being created. This constitutes additional mitigation from the previously proposed structure as the roof extends further beyond the walls of the building which coupled with a ‘green grass roof finish’ is intended to provide greater integration within the surrounding downland landscape. These measures together with the proposed landforms and planting are intended to more effectively screen and integrate the built development into its surroundings inclusive of those uncovered elements of the proposal which constitute the WTW into the surrounding landform.

7.89 The green roof would constitute a 1.7ha area of seeded grass which the applicant states will be of an appropriate mix to visually link with the grassland on the proposed mounding. They have also stated that the grass mix and turf will be specially selected to relate to the surrounding grass mixes, for hardiness, low growth and low maintenance and to suit the exposed coastal location.

7.90 The grass would be grown over a specialised drainage reservoir which both allows rainwater to drain off the roof and acts as a reservoir of retained water to keep the grass growing. The green roof system would be installed by an approved contractor with the applicant stating that this would be covered a design and installation warranty. It is proposed that the grass roof will be cut four times during the first growing season, and will be the subject of two maintenance visits per annum to cut grass and clear weeds.

7.91 It is clear that the applicants have sought to incorporate the views of the Inspector and Secretaries of State in proposing the new landscape strategy for the WTW. I consider from a landscape point of view the green roof has the prospect of providing much greater containment of the WTW/SRC and therefore a more satisfactory impact in this landscape. I accept that there is little more that can be done to screen the proposed works in this open setting. To ensure that this will be a robust and successful solution assurances have been sought from independent consultants. This has confirmed that the Green Roof would be successful and achieve its intended objectives whilst highlighting that mechanisms should be in place to provide for its monitoring and enforcement should any adverse events happen. The independent review has generally endorsed the Applicants approach to the Green Roof solution and confirmed the importance of suitable mechanisms and guarantees to be put in place to ensure the projects success.

7.92 Notwithstanding the above conclusions the County Council has sought from the applicant further evidence that full consideration had been given to all landscape solutions for the site including burying much of the facility underground which might provide the prospect of greater landscape benefit. In the Applicant’s Environmental Statement it is indicated that there is no landscape and visual benefit from under grounding of the plant. In response to a request to provide this assessment work the applicant has indicated that;

• The WTW could be located within a concealed concrete box with sludge treatment processes an adjacent open hollow with access via a tunneled road; • Excavations would give rise to 600,000 – 650,000m3 of spoil in comparison to 380,000m3 for the proposed scheme; • This would: o extend the duration of the construction phase; o significantly increase the amount of spoil and give rise to a need for subsequent disposal off site;

• There would be o Increased construction air quality and noise effects; o Increased health and safety operational implications through normal requirements for above ground plant to avoid the risk of build up of poisonous gases; o Increased Cost; o A restricted plant layout reducing operational flexibility; o Increased power consumption for ventilation and odour treatment; o Reduced noise effects.

7.93 This option was also considered as part of Entec’s previous assessment of alternatives where it was concluded that the lowering of the works would increase the capital costs, increase the effect of construction vehicles and may not significantly improve the screening of works from all viewpoints.

7.94 In consideration of the applicant’s stated position and the previous conclusions of Entec it is important to understand that the request for additional evidence derives from the policy imperative in this location to ensure that this large scale development is as fully integrated within this acknowledged sensitive landscape. In this regard it is a weakness of the applicant’s submission that the evidence provided on landscape grounds as to the suitability or otherwise of the underground option is limited and indeed Entec’s previous conclusions were based on anecdotal evidence and not a robust landscape exercise/assessment. The applicant has sought to highlight the increased construction effects, the operational implications and the capital cost of the alternative underground option as the reason for it not being progressed.

7.95 However, it is clear from the Inspector’s recommendations that the key issue which required resolving was the adverse landscape and visual impacts of the permanent building structure and works. Although the Secretaries of State considered the landscape and visual effects of the scheme sufficiently important to dismiss the previous appeal the additional construction effects and increased capital costs associated with an alternative design solution are not the overriding consideration in this case. However, these are factors to be weighed in the balance. The most important consideration is the extent to which the current proposed solution is effective in resolving the adverse landscape and visual impacts of the permanent building structure and works.

7.96 It is apparent that a great deal of thought has been given to the design solution for the proposed works with specific attention to screening views from all directions and viewpoints. It is accepted that the proposed site location is the most appropriate in light of the proven need for the project and the findings of the alternative site selection review. However, the design solution being adopted is dependent on the Green Roof becoming established and remaining in place in perpetuity. Because the particular design solution is over such a large area and is embraced within a narrow 150-200mm layer above the roof it is important to confirm that the adopted techniques and management arrangements will ensure that the roof will be seen as part of the chalk downland landscape throughout its lifetime and in times of drought or rain.

7.97 Through a legal obligation the applicant has confirmed the replacement of roof planting and any required repair to correct any defects which impact on the quality of coverage and its associated landscape objectives. In addition the obligation includes the opportunity for my landscape officer to participate in a review of the performance of the turf comprised within the green roof. The applicant has provided evidence of other green roofs that have been successful with vegetation and appearance mirroring their surroundings and it is considered that these provide examples of the successful implementation of green roofs, albeit within different contexts. In this respect it is considered that the provisions within the legal agreement are sufficient to enable the Council to ensure the success of the green roof solution and ensure that the Council has the ability to monitor and enforce should the regime not work. The applicant has stated that its position within the operational environmental management plan which provides for maintenance visits will achieve the required management and address the concerns of officers raised at the outset of the proposals regarding the likely success of the scheme and its long term maintenance.

7.98 It is clear from the Inspectors previous conclusions that the detailed design of the revised landscape solution was the crucial aspect to the likely acceptability of the proposal in this location as stated below from the Inspector’s report;

‘The principle of locating the WTW/SRC at Lower Hodden Farm is appropriate but this is subject to the details of the proposal – possibly with modifications – proving to be satisfactory in planning terms particularly in respect of the Downland landscape and the other environmental impacts of the scheme’.

7.99 The Inspector recognised the importance of the detail of the proposals in ensuring integration within the downland landscape. I consider that the design solution and the measures in place to achieve the intended objectives through the applicants Operational Environmental Management Plan and the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking provide appropriate mechanisms sufficient to support this important element of the proposals.

7.100 It is acknowledged that the Applicant has put in place a landscape solution that mitigates adverse impacts as far as is possible and provides for long term management. Judged against the salient planning policy considerations, including the Inspectors report, Waste Local Plan policies WLP3, WLP35a); Structure Plan Policies S1, EN2, and EN3 provide the key landscape tests.

7.101 The proposals, and particularly the site of the WTW/SRC, amount to a large scale development that is proposed outside the development boundary on a greenfield site. It also involves permanent built development bordering the Sussex Downs AONB with earth moving and moulding taking place within the AONB. The development comprises major waste infrastructure development of significant importance to the sub region of Brighton and Hove and the surrounding hinterland. Whilst it is apparent that mitigation arrangements are included within the development these in themselves do not extend to reduce and avoid landscape impacts. The sheer scale and form of the change limits the extent of such mitigation arrangements.

7.102 In this context it is therefore considered that there are unavoidable landscape impacts resulting from the proposal and particularly those which affect the character and quality of the AONB. I still consider that in landscape terms the proposal constitutes a departure from the development plan. It is therefore considered that it is not possible to demonstrate full compliance with Policies EN1, EN2a), f), EN3 and S1b of the Structure Plan, Policies WLP1f), WLP3 and WLP40 of the Waste Local Plan and Policies CT2 and CT3 of the LDLP. However, Waste Local Plan Policy WLP3 allows for approval of major waste proposals in the AONB if there is an overriding need and there is no alternative site outside the AONB and there are no adverse environmental effects having regard to measures of moderation and compensation for any loss that is acceptable.

Portobello pumping station

7.103 The Portobello site currently provides preliminary treatment of wastewater from the catchment area before discharge to the sea via a long sea outfall. The existing building and associated infrastructure is to remain as part of the arrangements for enhanced storm water flows. The whole site is currently within the AONB, albeit that the National Park proposal would exclude the site from the park and it would also lose its AONB status. The southern boundary to the National Park is to the north side of the A259

7.104 The proposed new pumping station is required to transfer flows from a new coastal interceptor sewer constructed from Black Rock to the new tunnel that continues to the WTW/SRC at Peacehaven. The applicants have indicated that this will allow a further control of flows, and therefore, optimises the use of the Portobello overflow arrangements. Various locations in the vicinity of Portobello were considered including Telscombe Tye; Chatsworth Park and Telscombe Grange, which is approximately 160m to the east of Portobello. Within the applicant’s land at Portobello four site options were considered within the existing chalk cliff. The preferred option, between the A.259 and the inclined works access road, was favoured because it was considered to offer less geotechnical risks and the visual impact could be minimised.

7.105 The works at Portobello involve a 27m deep shaft, some 17.5m in diameter, with connecting shafts to the incoming and outgoing sewers. The physical works involve the excavation of the chalk bank to the south of the existing access, to enable sufficient space for the shaft and associated entrances to be formed within an existing grassed area between the footway to the A259 and the internal site access to the existing Portobello works. The building will incorporate a roof that is covered in soil and grassed to match the surrounding land. The 117 metres length of south facing wall beside the A259 South Coast Road would be removed and replaced with a raked brick, flint and mortar wall to reflect the character of the similar local walls along the A259. Also proposed is the removal of an area of existing hardstanding at the pumping station site and existing redundant posts near the cliff edge.

7.106 Officers raised concerns as part of the previous application that the site already contains a number of structures and buildings that are out of character with the area. It was considered that there was an opportunity to compensate for the harm from this development by the careful selection of external finishes and some rationalisation of existing site development or other compensatory measures and there would be merit in moving the existing electricity sub station. As with the majority of issues I will also outline the key conclusions of the Inspector regarding the Portobello site, these were as follows;

‘I share the views of SW on this element of the scheme, that there would be moderate adverse landscape and minor/moderate adverse visual effects during construction but the operational effects would be neutral or minor. The impacts would be limited.’ ‘The suggested requirement to remove the electricity substation, which is not under the control of SW, would not be reasonable or justified’.

7.107 In light of the Inspector’s conclusions and the lack of any material changes in circumstance since closure of the inquiry it is considered that the landscape and visual impacts of the Portobello scheme are acceptable and compliant with Policies EN1, EN2a), f), EN3, EN4, and S1b of the Structure Plan, Policies WLP1f), WLP3 and WLP40 of the Waste Local Plan and Policies CT2 and CT3 of the LDLP.

Recreational Impacts

7.108 The application site includes some 9ha of land that is part of an 11.5ha allocation of land in the Lewes District Local Plan identified for public open spaces and sports pitches, to serve the Peacehaven area (Policy PT16). The allocation followed an assessment of such needs in the town and addresses a particular current deficiency. Policy PT16 includes criteria for the arrangement of this area of open space, including vehicular and pedestrian accesses, and the importance of maintaining open views into the surrounding countryside. PPG 17 –‘ Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ sets out the importance of open spaces, sport and recreation to people’s quality of life and the fundamental importance to delivering broader Government objectives of urban renaissance, promotion of social inclusion; healthy living and sustainable patterns of development. It confirms the need to undertake assessments of need and, therefore, underlines the approach adopted by the District Council in its Local Plan. Structure Plan Policy S1l) protects and enhances the provision of open and green spaces. Structure Plan Policy LT13 and Policy RE2 of the LDLP seek to prevent the loss of sporting facilities, unless it can be shown that there is an over provision or appropriate alternative provision of at least equivalent community benefit is made available.

7.109 The proposed landscaping to the WTW/SRC and construction of the new access from Hoyle Road, to serve the WTW/SRC, directly and adversely affects the Local Plan’s allocation, with the road cutting diagonally through the allocated area. The need to address these matters and provide appropriate compensatory measures for the identified adverse effects on the Policy PT16 land were matters considered at the public inquiry. The concerns centred on the following broad points;

• The alignment of the access road prejudiced the operational flexibility of any pitches; The steeply graded land either side of the access road provided negligible value for recreational purposes; • 1,895m2 of the Peacehaven Community School would be lost; • The application would displace two potential pitches resulting in provision for 4 rather than 6. • The introduction of traffic movements would not be consistent with the aims of recreational land;

7.110 Despite these concerns it was acknowledged that the Applicant had shown willingness to work with local authorities to deliver a new park for the town and that they would layout formal and informal pitches and maintain them until they had become established. In addition a package was offered which would provide a financial contribution towards associated park infrastructure and to convey the land to the appropriate Council for permanent use as open space.

7.111 The conclusions of the Inspector in reaching his decision on the previous application were;

‘If the details for the landscaping works flowing from the appeal proposal were to provide land moulding and leveling for the sports pitches, as now proposed, that would be a major public benefit from the appeal proposal. If the legal arguments, however, meant that the pitches could not be laid out and made available for use under the terms of any permission on this appeal - despite appropriate provision in the S106 Obligation - that would constitute a significant missed opportunity for the creation of a public facility. It would not, however, mean that the opportunity would necessarily be missed for all time but a revised application would be needed for the laying out and use of sports pitches on the levelled area together with - as the existing S106 Obligation is specific to the current appeal - a revised S106 Obligation.’

‘Thus, if the outcome of the current appeal could not secure the provision of the pitches, would that count as a significant factor to be weighed against the appeal proposal? It is argued, in that event, that the appeal scheme on the main site would interfere with the PT16 proposal because of the proposed access road through that area. I disagree. While the appeal would not, in these circumstances, secure the provision of the pitches, neither would it interfere with their provision, as the layout details outlined above clearly indicate, and the land levelling required by the aims of the policy would be achieved. The lack of an additional benefit would not count as a negative factor against the appeal in the decision-making process but it would mean that one of its plus factors would not be placed on the decision-making scales.’

7.112 To summarise the Inspector’s conclusions it is clear that the proposed landscaping and moulding to layout the sports pitches was considered to be a benefit of the scheme and if it could not be secured would be an opportunity missed. In addition it was not considered that the WTW/SRC would interfere with the Policy PT16 proposal as a suitable layout could still be achieved. In considering whether these conclusions still remain valid and that the open space provision should still be considered as a benefit in weighing up the proposals, it is necessary to have regard to the current proposals and compensatory provisions offered by the applicant.

7.113 Whilst the objective to provide recreational land and open space is understood there is no current agreement between the District Council and the local community on how the Policy PT16 land should be laid out. Of significance to the allocation is that Lewes District Council has received, as a result of the neighbouring Bovis Homes development, the sum of £668,168 specifically for the PT16 allocation. As a result of this it is acknowledged that the Applicant is not in a position to provide a fully worked up scheme and accordingly the current application does not specifically provide for recreational pitches within the allocated area.

7.114 The applicant has proposed an area of some 13.7ha comprising open space grassland, woodland, trees and scrub suitable for recreational use. The applicant has set out a package of proposals through a proposed unilateral undertaking which it considers will allow the delivery of the sports pitches, although this is likely to require the submission of a further planning application for the intended change of use. The main elements of the proposed unilateral undertaking are set out in the first page of Appendix 2 to this report but can be summarised as follows; The undertaking of the open space works, incorporating the creation of an area of grassland and landscaping including areas for future use as sports pitches with areas of scrub, tree- planting, and pedestrian and/or cyclist and/or equestrian ways, together with a commuted sum for maintenance and the provision of a sum for sports pitches and /or pavilion. In total the direct value is given as £805,000, but there would also be additional value from the acquisition of the land and associated cost. The applicant considers that that the provision of 13.9ha of open space with earthworks, landscaping planting, fencing and footpath/bridleway works have an estimated value of £2,350,000, but that the overall package value amounts to £3,110,000, before account is taken of the value of the 13.9ha of land and the professional costs associated with its acquisition.

7.115 To enable consideration of the revised package of measures for open space provision put forward by the applicant, it has been necessary to ensure that the community benefits would be realised given that there is conflict with the Policy PT16 area where the access road cuts a diagonal path through the allocation. It has been stressed that the quality of the open space/amenity area, and more importantly the need to ensure a high quality of pitches would be of vital importance in valuing the benefits and therefore determining the weight to attach to this element in the balance of the recommendation.

7.116 A greater level of understanding from the applicants has been sought in relation to how the land will be formed to ensure that a satisfactory quality and consistency of finish for potential pitches can be achieved. Additional information has also been requested regarding the details of land preparation and what mechanisms would be in place to control the laying out of the potential area of pitches to achieve the desired finish. The concerns stem from the need to clarify where the excavated chalk from the tunneling and the excavation of the WTW/SRC land is to be placed. There is potential for unsatisfactory sub base to the pitch area which would compromise the achievement of satisfactory land restoration and pitch establishment and give rise to inconsistent playing conditions and disproportionate maintenance costs, which could be passed unnecessarily to the local community. It is essential that material underlaying the pitches should be consistent and properly handled.

7.117 In response to these concerns through measures included within the proposed Unilateral Undertaking the Applicant has provided the necessary reassurances that the pitches will be laid out in a manner that will allow for their intended objectives to be achieved. Commitments within the proposed legal agreement allow for the County Council to maintain an element of control regarding the laying out of the pitches should any potential issues arise. The commitments are set out as follows;

"Over the whole of the area within the application site where surfaces are identified to be suitable for potential sports pitches, as shown on Figure 5.5.13 , Southern Water will ensure that the top 300mm consolidated depth of soil will be good quality indigenous topsoil. Below this, the next 1700mm consolidated depth of subsoil’s will be of similar composition and be treated to ensure similar performance in permeability and drainage. This is to apply whether the sports areas are over undisturbed soils or where filling has to take place. Where filling is needed in excess of 2m of depth, it is anticipated that locally won chalky or alluvial material will be used below 2m below finished level. Topsoil will be fine graded to exclude flints etc…..

7.118 In summary, whilst it has been identified that there is policy conflict regarding Policies PT16 and RE2 of the District Local Plan, the Inspector at the previous inquiry concluded that the position of the access road would not interfere with the Policy PT16 proposal. Although I believe there is scope to realign the access route to reduce this policy conflict and increase the area and flexibility of the implementation of the pitches and open space, I accept that the conclusions of the Inspector and Secretary of State are material considerations and it is clear that it was considered that any provision of works which would assist in the realisation of the Policy PT16 proposal and should only weigh in favour of the development and not against it. The current scheme has reduced its impact on the playing fields to Peacehaven Community School addressing a previous concern. Subject to the commitments outlined in Paragraph 7.115 being formally submitted it is considered that the proposal would not conflict with Structure Plan policies S1l) and LT13 and Policies PT16 and RE2 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

Rights of Way

7.119 Two public rights of way would be directly affected by the WTW/SRC development. Bridleway 7a which tracks northwards from Piddinghoe Close, off Arundel Avenue, would be temporarily blocked and diverted during construction and would be permanently diverted by realigning the path in an arc around the western end of the WTW. The applicant has made an Acquisition Extinguishment Order in respect of this. Visual observations at different times indicate that these paths, together with informal tracks around the edge of the urban area, are well used by the local community, including a significant proportion of dog walkers. To accord with Structure Plan Policy TR4f), measures to maintain and upgrade the network of Rights of Way are encouraged by the County Council. The value of informal recreation is recognised in Structure Plan Policy LT16, which seeks to maintain and improve the network of Rights of Way and open access land. LDLP Policy T10 seeks the provision of safe and secure routes and to complement convenient pedestrian and cycle links.

7.120 The applicant’s proposals will provide additional formal footpath and cycle way linkages across the eastern part of Peacehaven. The realigned bridleway route would place it within the area of land allocated for public open space and on the eastern edge of the area shown on the application to be levelled for recreation space. The bridleway is to cross the proposed site access road, which introduces some conflict of movements. To provide an acceptable level of safety a special road crossing facility is proposed including a Pegasus horse crossing, and the unilateral obligation includes controls on vehicular speeds along the access road. It is, therefore, considered that there is not sufficient conflict with the purposes of the bridleway that would have any adverse effect on users or result in diminishing numbers of those wishing to use the bridleway for recreational purposes.

7.121 Footpath 8 lies on the eastern boundary of the treatment works site and crosses the open valley feature in which the development is located. There are also other public rights of way in the surrounding area where views could be gained of the WTW/SRC development. There will be impacts from the development on the network of public rights of way in terms of their amenity, particularly during construction works when land regrading is taking place. These impacts will be transient, but will also involve some loss of amenity because of the impacts from the new development including traffic movements.

7.122 I consider that although there are potential conflicts with the use of a popular designated bridleway the mitigation arrangements proposed reduce any adverse effects and would not compromise the use of this important recreational resource. The proposals in relation to Rights of Way have not been the subject of any substantial changes in circumstance since the 2006 pubic inquiry where the issue was not considered to weigh against the proposal. Accordingly the proposal is considered consistent with Structure Plan Policies TR4f) and LT16, and Lewes District Local Plan Policy T10.

Air Quality

7.123 The applicant’s air quality assessment has appraised the effects on air quality from the development, including dust and traffic during construction, and the effects during operation from traffic, and the combustion of gases and odours. In the past, it has been recognised that wastewater treatment operations have odour impacts, which have resulted in their siting in remote locations, where their impacts on local amenity are reduced. It is now less common for works to be placed in uninhabited areas, recognising both the constraints of a planning system, which seeks to resist development in countryside locations, and the greater use of abatement systems to control any emissions to a high standard.

7.124 During the construction phase, much activity will be focused on the wastewater treatment works site, including the handling of waste excavated from associated infrastructure tunnels. There will be works at off site locations where drop shafts are proposed to be constructed, but the applicant considers dust control measures will be capable of eliminating or reducing emissions to a level such that nuisance is unlikely to occur at these locations. Within East Sussex, all the proposed drop shafts are largely to be used for construction worker access. The only exception is the Friars Bay shaft, which is also to be used to recover the tunneling machine, and the onward construction of the long sea outfall using the pipe jack tunneling technique.

7.125 During construction careful controls will need to be in place to mitigate the potential effects of dust to an acceptable level. In connection with the spoil movement and disposal arrangement at the WTW/SRC site, a detailed soil management strategy has been designed. I consider that the prospect for dust to cause a nuisance is limited and can be adequately controlled by the provision of a good quality site access road, together with wheel cleaning facilities and arrangements for dampening site roads and activity areas from where a nuisance may arise, as well as care regarding soil movement operations in very dry weather.

7.126 It is acknowledged by the applicant that, for the treatment works, odour control is a prime consideration. It is not practical to expect zero emissions of odour from this or any similar facility and, therefore, people in close vicinity to the waste water treatment works may detect odours from time to time.

7.127 The applicant considers that, during normal operations, modern well designed wastewater treatment works provide relatively low potential for odour generation. Odour control is an integral part of the design, with full containment of all odours arising from the handling of foul liquors and sludge within a building. There is also a comprehensive system to capture all foul odours generated by each treatment process at the site.

7.128 Sources of odour are proposed to be contained by engineering design and their treatment by odour control systems, with filtration of process air before release via a stack, which protrudes 8m above the highest point of the WTW/SRC building. The applicant has undertaken dispersion modeling of the anticipated emissions from the odour control stack, which includes an assessment of local topography and potential for ground level concentrations based on local meteorological data.

7.129 In addition to the WTW/SRC, there is a potential for odours from the associated infrastructure and specifically the vents, which allow the release of air when tunnels experience higher flows. The applicant considers that fugitive releases from vents during normal conditions should not result in any adverse effects to sensitive receptors. On the basis of advice provided by my air quality consultant and a technical note provided by the applicant, the flows being passed through the wastewater supply tunnels would not result in septicity likely to give rise to odour nuisance from the transfer of wastewater.

7.130 The vent at Portobello is to have an active carbon filter installed which should contain odour at that location. In any case, because of the diversion of flows from the existing works at the base of the cliffs, there should be an overall improvement in air quality at this location. All other drop shafts are to be sealed, with the exception of The Friars Bay dropshaft which is passing treated water that will be largely odourless.

7.131 The addition of the CHP plant within the application has been included in the Applicant’s air quality modeling and has been reviewed by the Council’s consultant and also the Lewes District Council EHO and neither have identified any adverse effects on air quality as a result of its inclusion, indeed the EHO highlights its additional sustainability benefits.

7.132 Before dealing with the specific issue surrounding odour as part of this application I will first turn to the conclusions of the Inspector within the Report of the previous inquiry These are partly centred on the views of the County Council regarding the applicants performance at the Pebsham (Hastings and Bexhill WTW/SRC) site which were as follows;

‘Comparisons with the Pebsham works are unfair because, although it gives rise to continuing odour problems, that plant is of a different design and with different controls from those now proposed for Peacehaven. While the difficulties at Pebsham would suggest that little weight can be placed on SW’s argument, in relation to Peacehaven, that it would not be in its interest for there to be any odour problems associated with its works, it is also clear to me that SW’s learning experience at Pebsham would be put to good effect from the outset at Peacehaven.’ For example, the Peacehaven works would provide a substantial level of containment, other than for plant that must be outside a building, and it would have over-designed controls and stand-by capacity. Also, critically, there has been put in place a legally enforceable Odour Management Plan (OMP) which provides for monitoring, risk assessments, the handling of complaints, audit control, review and, in Schedule 3 of the S106 Obligation, a binding dispute resolution procedure with strict timetables for action if disagreements could not be resolved between ESCC and SW amicably. If I thought that the level of odour that has occurred over a significant period at and around Pebsham and other SW works were to be repeated at Peacehaven, I would have no hesitation in recommending that the appeal proposal should not proceed. However, as stated above, in normal operations I have confidence that there would be no odour nuisance off-site and the submitted Obligation and OMP persuade me that suitable controls would be in place to deal with periods of maintenance and emergencies.’

7.133 Notwithstanding the views of the Inspector which were agreed by the Secretaries of State, the experience of modern purpose built waste water treatment works in East Sussex and their ability to contain odour has not been encouraging. The Pebsham WTW and SRC plant has been operational for over 5 years and still is the subject of notified failures and has given rise to a high number of complaints from local residents. There are similar experiences elsewhere in the South East. The Peacehaven plant would be closer than the Pebsham WTW/SRC to residential properties, being 146 metres from the nearest residential area to the east and further housing is planned. Winds have the potential to blow towards residential properties for around 35% of the time. Discussions regarding the experiences at Pebsham have taken place and the applicant has sought to draw attention to the conclusions of the Inspector regarding the appropriateness of their consideration.

7.134 It is accepted that the proposed plant is to feature an improved odour control system, with greater capacity, and all areas of wastewater will be either within a building or beneath covered areas. The system will chemically scrub odorous compounds from the air extracted from around the various process units of the plant before discharging them, via an exhaust stack, to the atmosphere. It is therefore, agreed that in light of the measures outlined above that direct comparisons with the Pebsham plant in relation to the operational arrangements for odour control are not appropriate. However, officers concerns have centred on the mechanisms that are in place regarding the efficient implementation of a customer complaints procedure and the ability of the procedures within Southern Water to receive and respond to incidents. Whilst Southern Water consider such arrangements are ‘generally effective’, the evidence available and the general public’s experience is I consider that the procedure is poor with the level of investigation and resolution disappointing. I understand there is evidence that Southern Water Technical Services Department, responsible for the receipt and logging of complaints, have difficulty in identifying treatment works and complaints are not always passed to the site for investigation and responded to despite a logged number. I recommend that the continuation of such a situation is not considered acceptable and should be avoided at any existing or new sites. There must be a quick and simple complaints system in place as part of the site controls to ensure that any problems are picked up at the earliest opportunity and responded to to avoid unnecessary harm to local amenity. It is therefore considered that appropriate reassurances regarding complaints and the mechanism for a satisfactory resolution must in place with any consent.

7.135 In response to the specific concerns raised regarding the complaints procedure that would be in place for the Peacehaven site the applicant has included a range of provisions within the Section 106 unilateral undertaking including the following;

• A commitment to ensure that all complaints be passed to the work site ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ to allow the received complaint to be investigated by site operatives within the next working day. • Provision of contact details of the relevant Southern Water personnel to the County Council and District Council EHO; and • Notification to the Council of the receipt of a complaint in all cases no more than one working day after the complaint is passed to them. • No later than 72 hours after receipt of a complaint the production of preliminary investigation report; and • Where further investigations and measures are required from the preliminary report a further report detailing progress in tackling the problem.

7.136 Given the proximity of the plant to residential properties and the clear potential for serious harm to residential amenity it is considered that there must be a quick and robust complaints mechanism in place which ensures that complaints are very quickly passed to the site at any time of day and night so that they can be investigated and acted upon. Accordingly, the arrangements detailed above are deemed to be sufficient and will give both the County Council and District Council the necessary reassurance that adverse incidents will be dealt with in an expedient and robust manner.

7.137 The applicant has submitted an Odour Management Plan (OMP) as part of this application which includes a range of measures to control and maintain odour from the relevant process operations that will take place on the site. The implementation and compliance with the OMP is proposed to be secured through the applicant’s unilateral undertaking. The OMP includes a section covering monitoring and management of odours through a range of measures, including a daily walkover survey, monitoring and compliance with levels at the boundary limit of the WTW/SRC and performance monitoring, recording and incident reaction.

7.138 It is considered that the applicants air quality assessment and the previous conclusions of the Inspector are sufficient to conclude that the air quality impacts of the proposal are acceptable. The evidence provided within the Odour Management Plan regarding the procedures in place to investigate and resolve potential odour complaints and the commitments in the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking are considered to be acceptable and provide the necessary reassurance that complaints will be dealt with in an expedient and robust manner. It is, therefore, considered that the proposals comply with Structure Plan Policy S1 i), Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35 and LDLP Policy ST30 subject to a finalised version of the unilateral undertaking being submitted inclusive of the measures outlined within Paragraph 7.135.

Noise

7.139 Structure Plan Policy S1s) and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35 recognise that noise is a very intrusive aspect of modern living and that development proposals should not create unacceptable levels of noise. Policy ST13 of the Lewes District Local Plan seeks to locate potentially noisy developments in areas where noise will not be significant problem. It recognises particularly that the quietness of the AONB is a recreational asset, which should be protected. Planning Policy Guidance Note 24-“Planning and Noise”, provides guidance on the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. It recognises that noisy activities should, if possible, be sited away from noise sensitive land uses. Where separation is not possible, the practicality of controlling or mitigating the impact of noise through the use of conditions or planning obligations should be considered. Planning authorities must ensure that potentially noisy development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance, either by the imposition of conditions or mitigation arrangements, and in particular have regard to the fact that in some suburban and rural areas background levels are very low and noisy activities may be especially disruptive. Special consideration should be given to development where it effects quiet enjoyment of any AONBs.

7.140 The key noise issues relating to this proposal include the construction of the tunnels, which would require 24-hour working at the main tunnel drive sites, dropshaft location pumping stations, the main WTW/SRC, and the subsequent operation of the pumping station and the WTW/SRC. Vehicular movements would also contribute to noise, including the use of 35 tonne lorries that would transport spoil from the construction sites.

7.141 The potential temporary and permanent effects of noise on occupiers of residential and commercial properties, in the vicinity of work sites, is a key consideration to the acceptability of this development in the proposed locations. The boundary to the application site for the WTW/SRC is immediately adjacent to the rear gardens of properties in Cissbury Avenue and also land to the north of Arundel Road, which is presently being developed for housing. The boundary to the operational WTW will be 146m from the closest property and potential new housing areas are 200m to the south at the closest point.

7.142 All construction work is programmed over a 151 week period but will be of shorter duration at the dropshaft locations and is programmed for 127 weeks at the WTW. To contain noise, 2.4m high hoardings are to be erected around all the dropshaft construction site boundaries. At the WTW/SRC tunneling worksite a 2.4m solid site hoarding would be erected on the southern boundary with a 3m high bund provided on the southern and eastern construction site boundaries. Tunneling will be on a 24hour basis with railways within the driven tunnels having rail pads between the sleepers and rails, with special attention to the gaps between the rail joints to minimise groundbourne noise and vibration, the applicant has indicated that residents or other parties likely to be affected by tunnel boring activity will be notified in advance. The applicants have indicated that no significant effects are expected from construction and operational works at the Saltdean, Portobello and Meridian dropshaft sites. In terms of the main WTW work site, it is accepted that the noise levels in the area are generally low, particularly at night time. Construction and operational noise assessments by the applicant have concluded that noise levels are at the threshold of significance and therefore it is unlikely that a significant noise effect would occur.

7.143 There can be expected to be some impact on recreational users using the local rights of way, but it is accepted that these will be transitory, and alternative recreational areas are available. The applicants consider that traffic noise would be below the threshold of significance and that the significance of effects from construction and operation is therefore concluded to be neutral.

7.144 At the time of the previous public inquiry there were no significant areas of disagreement between the County Council and the applicant. The Inspector concluded that the issue of noise could be controlled satisfactorily through the imposition of planning conditions and the mechanisms within the unilateral undertaking provided by the CEMP and OEMP, both of which form part of this application.

7.145 In light of the previous general agreement regarding noise issues at the 2006 public inquiry the assessment has sought to identify amendments likely to result in a change of circumstance to the noise environment. In this respect the only additional new source of noise not previously considered is the inclusion of the CHP plant within the WTW. Additional mitigation has been included in the shape of increased hoardings at various locations, an enclosed soil separator at Friar’s Bay and a green roof at the main site. It is acknowledged that the provision of a green roof and additional bunding to the east of the site has the potential to add additional noise mitigation and the latter will further help reduce noise affecting properties in Cissbury Avenue.

7.146 In terms of construction work it is difficult to have a clear understanding at this stage of the location of all plant that will be involved. However, the anticipated noise levels for static equipment seem to be fair, as are the levels of noise from the operational plant. I would not expect operational plant to give rise to a loss of amenity, subject to controlling noise conditions which require operations to achieve certain limits. The applicant has committed to a range of measures within the CEMP and OEMP to minimise the impacts of noise, including noise monitoring. Subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure that both temporary and permanent noise levels protect local amenity the proposals are considered satisfactory.

7.147 The development of the Peacehaven WTW/SRC and particularly the construction works will require a certain level of monitoring that will have to be undertaken by the relevant authority, in this case Lewes District Council who will seek to protect from statutory nuisance and the County Council who will have to ensure compliance with any planning conditions.

7.148 As part of the previous application the applicant offered the provision of a financial sum of £20,000 as part of the Unilateral Undertaking to cover the additional cost of monitoring and this has now been increased to £105,000. It is considered that this is a reasonable particularly in light of circumstances at the applicant’s Pebsham site where experience indicates a significant effort in terms of monitoring in response to a large number of complaints.

7.149 It is considered that subject to the imposition of conditions and rigorous control within the CEMP and OEMP that the proposal is compliant with Structure Plan Policy S1s) and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

Ecology & nature conservation

7.150 In respect of this development, Structure Plan Policy EN17 and LDLP Policy ST9 provide for the protection of the existing natural resource of species, habitats and geological features. There are two principal areas of interest: the terrestrial and marine environments.

7.151 With regard to the terrestrial environment, the proposal may have some effect on the Brighton to Newhaven Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), particularly in relation to works at Friars Bay where the promenade shaft is at the foot of the cliffs. However, the works at this location are temporary and set within the existing sea defences, Natural England have not raised any objection in relation to potential direct impacts on the features of interest within the SSSI.

7.152 The monitoring of the chalk cliffs around the Portobello pumping station and the Promenade shaft during construction is necessary because birds, including Peregrine and Fulmar are known to nest in local cliffs, and there is a need to protect areas around any nest, including the possible provision of screens. The excavation of material at Portobello is outside the SSSI but because it provides an opportunity for the study of excavated material, site monitoring by a geologist is recommended with excavated material being made available. At the Highway drop shaft and the WTW/SRC worksites the trapping of reptiles and other protected species will be necessary prior to construction works.

7.153 Regarding the marine environment, it is likely that the proposed works to the Long Sea Outfall at Friars Bay will result in some adverse effect to the ecological interest of the seabed, including the area of the proposed Marine Site of Nature Conservation Importance (mSNCI), which covers the sub-tidal wave-cut platform between Brighton and Newhaven. Although the area where the outfall will be laid through open cast trenching does not apparently have a particular ecological interest, there would be some sediment release that could cause an adverse effect beyond the immediate site and the potential effects will need to be assessed. There are also concerns as to the potential timescale for the open trench areas to recover (up to 5 years) but the impacts have been minimised by the construction of the first 675 metres of the outfall offshore in a tunnel, so there will be no significant impacts on the intertidal and sub tidal chalk habitats. This section is outside the control of the County Council as Waste Planning Authority because it is beyond the low water mark.

7.154 Within the WTW/SRC element of the application site, there are some anticipated minor impacts from construction works, because of the existence of an area of shrub around the highway soakaway and a disused agricultural reservoir, which have been found to be habitats for great crested newts. Both these areas are to be protected, during the site works and an extension of these habitats provided as part of the permanent mitigation works. This is proposed to be extended to a general grassland area around the WTW/SRC and the formation of two additional ponds.

7.155 Natural England considers that its response to the previous application is still relevant which concluded that the proposals as a whole would not directly affect any SSSI or particular wildlife interest and they therefore have raised no objection. However, it is noted that many of the species surveys are now several years old and up dated Great Crested Newt surveys may be required by Natural England’s wildlife licensing unit. In response to this the applicant has indicated that these surveys have been conducted. In addition Natural England has requested updated surveys for cliff nesting birds, kittiwake and peregrine before works commence. It is not considered that these issues give rise to a change in consideration from the previous application and as such it is considered that overall there should be an ecological benefit from the permanent site works around the WTW/SRC. In ecological and nature conservation terms, the proposals comply with Structure Plan Policy EN17 and are acceptable subject to relevant conditions being attached to any consent, including details of the aftercare and management of the new habitat areas, and appropriate site trapping and protection arrangements. Overall it is considered that there is a net benefit to the nature conservation interest of the site through the provision of significant new areas of habitats and commitments within the proposed legal agreement toward long term management.

Water Protection

7.156 Under Structure Plan Policies S1g) & EN11, Waste Local Plan Policies WLP37 & WLP 38 and LDLP Policy ST14 impacts on ground and surface water quality are to be protected and where possible enhanced. In overall terms the proposal will significantly improve sea and bathing water quality. The site for the WTW/SRC is within a major aquifer area but not within a source protection zone from where public water supplies are directly obtained. Whilst the buildings are to be partially set within the land there are no ground water concerns as the water levels fall away towards the sea. The large area of built development does give rise to the potential for surface run off but it is considered that this has actually been reduced by the imposition of the proposed green roof which will contain its own irrigation system utilising any captured run off. A surface water drainage scheme shows arrangements for the collection and disposal of surface water within the works.

7.157 The new requirements of national planning policy guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk require all developments over 0.5 hectares to include a Flood Risk Assessment which the applicant has included as part of its Environmental Statement. The Environment Agency have reviewed the FRA and consider that it is a reasonable representation of the flood risks associated with the proposal, It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with the requirements of PPS 25 and in accord with Structure Plan Policies S1g) & EN11, Waste Local Plan Policies WLP37 & WLP 38 and LDLP Policy ST14.

Shaft sites

7.158 There are five shaft sites proposed within East Sussex that form part of the tunnel construction works. With the exception of the Portobello site access, once construction is completed covers would be the only permanent visible feature at ground level and do not give rise to any issues. There are issues associated with these works relating to dust, noise, vibration, floodlighting, visual intrusion and amenity at some of the sites. Loss of habitat and car parking represent further issues. The adverse impacts are to be contained by the implementation of detailed schemes and arrangements. The Highway dropshaft is close to residential properties and a motel (currently closed), and it will also be important that the impacts are contained. In respect of the promenade dropshaft this is to be serviced from the undercliff route to enable materials to reach the work area. Traffic management measures are required to ensure appropriate segregation with the users of the Promenade walk. The effects of all these works will be for a temporary period.

7.159 The Saltdean East shaft is the closest to residential properties with the dropshaft itself being 17m from the nearest property and the worksite boundary being 3m from the nearest property. The adjacent properties are all part of a nursing home complex ‘Martlet House’ where the occupants are present for most of the day using sitting rooms which directly overlook the shaft site and associated work area. Because of the impact on the outlook from the nursing home, the impacts on the occupant’s residential amenity is increased and particularly given the siting of the works connected with the construction of this dropshaft and associated access arrangements. Concerns were raised previously that some flexibility in the proposed works could reduce the identified effects and in consequence revised arrangements have been agreed which are embraced within the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Tunneling works

7.160 The tunneling works involve the use of conventional techniques appropriate to the local geological conditions. The majority of tunneling in East Sussex will involve the use of an earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine with the tunnel lined with reinforced concrete segments. Part of the LSO is to be constructed using the pipe jacking technique where tunnel sections are installed hydraulically. Both methods involve the full support of the ground above, and are largely to take place through good quality chalk, where the ground conditions are considered to be stable and the possibility of movement limited. Consequently, no adverse settlements to existing buildings and sub surface utility services are anticipated and accordingly damage should be negligible. Whilst one section of the tunnel beneath Buckhurst Road will be 8.46metres below the surface for the most part tunneling is more than 10 metres below properties. This issue was the subject of debate at the previous public inquiry mainly in relation to the concerns raised by third parties. The Inspector’s conclusion on this matter was as follows;

‘I suggested to SW at the inquiry that a commitment on such matters in the S106 Obligation - which might, for example, involve a dispute resolution procedure - would assist public confidence but this was not acted upon. With a ‘negligible’ risk of damage, SW would have had nothing to lose by giving such a commitment. Without it, residents who disputed SW’s findings on subsidence/property damage could be faced with the prospect of an expensive court case, as a statutory duty to pay compensation might still leave disputes unresolved as to whether signs of cracking or subsidence arose from tunnelling works or some other cause.’ ‘If it cannot be demonstrated that archaeological remains can be meaningfully preserved, in situ, then the County Archaeologist has requested that they be fully excavated and recorded.’ ‘Nevertheless, SW’s suggested agreed condition (No 26) on vibration during construction works would provide a very effective safeguard and be adequate to ensure that the question of vibration impacts would not militate against the appeal proposal.’

7.161 In response to the Inspector’s findings the applicant has put forward within its draft Unilateral Undertaking provisions to undertake a structural survey of relevant dwellings before tunneling commences and to make good any damage that has occurred as a result of the tunneling works. The proposals also allow for a dispute resolution where the findings of the second building survey are not agreed. On the basis of experience with other tunneling schemes and the good geology in this area, it is considered that the potential risk of damage to properties has been minimised and has been further ameliorated by the provision of the measures incorporated within the legal agreement relating to structural surveys.

Cultural Heritage

7.162 Immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of Portobello is the Badgers Watch, a two-storey, much extended building. It is the only listed building within Peacehaven and, whilst originally a farmhouse, it is now a public house. At the Portobello appeal of 2001, the appointed Inspector considered that the changes to this building had greatly diminished the significance of its isolated setting. There could be expected to be some impacts on the setting of the listed building during construction, depending on the precise locations of the hoardings and the work area, but given that these are of a temporary nature, and that the permanent works involve a grass finish to the roof, the permanent impact is not considered significant.

7.163 The worksite area for the WTW/SRC extends to some 39.2ha. Prior to the archaeological evaluation of the site there were no known archaeological sites, other than surface finds scatters, within or immediately adjacent to the project. However, the site survey for the project identified two previously unrecorded enclosure features likely to be of a similar prehistoric (Bronze Age to Iron Age) date. In addition, an excavation conducted immediately to the south of the project in 2007 within the Bovis Homes development, identified a series of enclosure and ditched trackways, of broadly similar Bronze Age and Iron Age date. One of the identified enclosure on the WTW/SRC worksite lies within the construction area of the project but it is considered that this can be preserved in situ subject to an assessment of potential compaction on archaeological remains during construction. The other identified enclosure lies outside the fenced construction area and therefore would be preserved in situ. Since submission of the previous application and consideration at the 2006 public inquiry six Archaeologically Sensitive Areas have been identified within the 1km study areas adopted as part of the Environmental Impact assessment works. The County Archaeologist has reviewed the planning application and its submitted documentation and it is concluded that an acceptable level of archaeological evaluation has taken place to inform the ES and that any identified effects can be addressed through a detailed programme of archaeological works which could be secured via condition.

7.164 The proposals include provision of an archaeological watching brief of each component location and a more detailed strip and map archaeological excavation exercise of the WTW/SRC site to minimise the overall effects on archaeology. These arrangements are considered in accordance with Government advice in PPG 16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ and Policies EN22 and EN24 of the Structure Plan which seek to protect and preserve areas of archaeological interest.

Compatibility with land uses

7.165 Further areas of land on the south side of the WTW/SRC application site are allocated for business uses in the Lewes Local Plan (Policy PT2, and PT5). This allocation requires access from Hoyle road and its achievement will not be compromised providing the extension to the highway proposed in this application is designed and adopted as public highway.

Agricultural impact

7.166 Structure Plan Policy S1n) and LDLP Policy CT14 seek to protect the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (grade 1,2 and 3a). The WTW/SRC would result in the loss of 39ha of agricultural land during the construction works, and the permanent loss of 29ha with 10ha being returned to agriculture following the deposit and grading of material excavated from the WTW/SRC site and the tunneling works. The agricultural land is primarily grade 3a in quality with smaller pockets of grade 2 and 3b and therefore graded as the best and most versatile. Subject to final the details of the landscaping of the site, I consider that such a loss of land is acceptable only on the basis of the exceptional need for this facility and the absence of an alternative site. In addition I am mindful that Government guidance contained within PPS7 ‘sustainable development in rural areas’ and DEFRA support for stewardship schemes has reduced the weight attached to agricultural land quality enhancing the relative importance of a broader range of sustainability considerations.

7.167 The Inspector and Secretaries of State accepted this balance of arguments at the previous public inquiry. Whilst the proposal conflicts with Structure Plan Policy S1n), having regard to this context and the importance of the landscape setting of the site within the urban fringe it is not considered that the proposal could be refused on grounds of loss of agricultural land. An important part of any agricultural restoration is the full implementation of an ‘aftercare’ scheme to ensure that the 10ha of land is restored to a similar or better quality.

Waste minimisation

7.168 Under Policy WLP11 of the Waste Local Plan all development is expected to minimise, reuse or recycle waste. Within the East Sussex portion of this development, inert wastes arising from the construction and associated tunneling works are largely to be retained and utilised around the WTW/SRC. This approach is permitted by Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 24 as providing for the enhancement of the development or its setting. It needs to be shown that other wastes have been minimised. The Applicant has provided information within the Construction Environmental Management Plan regarding its intentions for waste management which is applicable to the whole project and will be secured through legal agreement. Such measure include the re use of spoil from tunneling for re profiling and landscape treatment at Peacehaven and where this is not possible on other construction projects; disposal to landfill will only be considered as a last resort. In addition, all wastes will be subject to controlled collection and storage with all residual wastes removed by licensed carriers. All residual waste movements will be subject to waste transfer notes held by the construction manager. The requirement for a scheme which would provide for waste minimisation of materials arising from the works was considered by the Inspector at the previous inquiry who imposed a condition for the submission of the detailed strategy and method statement to ensure that the amount of materials being taken off has been minimised.

7.169 This is consistent with the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Construction and Demolition Waste. It is therefore considered that the imposition and adherence with a condition is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP11 and the SPD.

8. Conclusion

8.1 This application has been the subject of some considerable planning history and raises a number of significant planning issues which must be weighed against other important material considerations. The key areas where there are clear potential planning policy conflicts are the site’s greenfield countryside location partly within an AONB, the proximity of the proposed development to residential areas and potential impact on an area allocated for Public Open Space. In consideration of the policy conflicts a significant material consideration is the findings, conclusions and decision of the Secretaries of State after the previous public inquiry. The subsequent recommendations are therefore fully informed by these documents

8.2 It has been acknowledged for some time starting with the inquiry into Southern Water’s original proposals for a new Wastewater Treatment Works at Portobello in 2001 that there is an urgent and pressing need, in the national interest, for improved standards of waste water treatment for the Brighton & Hove area. The catchment is one of the last in Western Europe not to benefit from modern standards of wastewater treatment. The WTW/SRC will provide for cleaner sea, will improve water quality with subsequent positive impacts on the tourism and leisure economies of the Sussex Coast.

8.3 The submitted proposals for the WTW/SRC are considered to have demonstrated that at the strategic level they represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option and therefore comply with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP1a). Previously the Council raised concerns that the importation of cess waste did not represent BPEO. However, the Inspector and Secretary of State were satisfied that there is a local need for cess and there have been no material changes in circumstance to form a contrary view on this and it can therefore be concluded that this also represents BPEO.

8.4 The WTW/SRC application site is outside the built up area in a countryside location with the building immediately adjacent to the AONB. The selection of this site has again been the subject of much debate during the deliberations of this application, as well as with the previous applications and at the 2006 public inquiry. The County Council has sought a thorough review of the site selection exercise undertaken by the Applicant through the appointment of consultants. The evidence of both the applicant’s work and the authority’s appointed consultants was scrutinised at the last public inquiry and both the Inspector and Secretaries of State were satisfied that a rigorous process had been followed and that no other alternative site had been demonstrated which could accommodate this development. In order to confirm that these findings remain valid both the applicant and the appointed consultants have undertaken a through review of the previous works to identify any material changes in circumstance which might alter the conclusions previously reached and endorsed by the Secretary of State. This work has not identified any changes of significance that would warrant any other site becoming the most appropriate in planning terms. I therefore conclude that it has been demonstrated that this greenfield site is necessary and the proposal accords with Structure Plan Policy S10. I consider that the principle of the WTW/SRC development in this location remains acceptable.

8.5 Due to its scale and nature the proposal for the WTW/SRC raises significant challenges in terms of providing a landscaping solution that minimises the impact on the setting of the AONB and the wider downland landscape. The previous proposal was rejected by the Inspector and Secretaries of State as a result of the significant adverse landscape and visual impacts that would have resulted from the previous designs and the consequent conflicts with development plan policy. The findings of the previous inquiry whilst rejecting the proposed landscape solution did provide a number of possible amendments which could provide an acceptable solution, the two main suggestions were the provision of a green roof structure and also planted bunding to the east of the SRC to provide additional screening. As a result of these findings the applicant has made a fundamental change to the landscape design of the scheme through additional planting, bunding to the east and the provision of a green roof. It is considered that the amended scheme mitigates as far as is possible the landscape impact of the proposal but by reason of the scale and nature of change remains in technical conflict with Structure Plan Policies EN1; EN2a) f); EN3; and S1b; Policies WLP 1f); WLP3 and WLP40 of the Waste Local Plan and Policies CT2 and CT3 of the LDLP. Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 3 provides that such conflicts can be acceptable where there is an overriding need, no alternative site is available and there are no detrimental effects having regard to moderating measures and the provision of a compensating environmental resource for any loss that is acceptable.

8.6 It has been demonstrated that there is an overriding need for this development and that no suitable alternative sites exist outwith of the AONB. The detrimental effects on the environment and landscape have been moderated by effective screening and the use of a green roof. I therefore, consider that whilst unavoidable effects on the landscape have been identified that the proposed solution to assist in the integration of the development into the downland landscape mitigates as far as possible those effects that have been identified such that compliance with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP3 can be demonstrated. I therefore, conclude that the overriding need for the development outweighs the impacts on the landscape. In reaching this conclusion I have attached considerable weight to the findings of Consultants and the applicant that Peacehaven is the most appropriate site for the proposed development, so the acknowledged need in the national interest and also the previous conclusion of the Inspector and Secretaries of State.

8.7 The Portobello pumping station is an essential part of the related infrastructure for which there is demonstrated need within this part of the AONB. The Inspector and Secretaries of State were satisfied at the last public inquiry that the landscape impacts at Portobello were acceptable and it is not considered that there have been any material changes in circumstance to alter this view. As such it is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policies EN1; EN2 a) f); EN3; EN6 and S1b of the Structure Plan.

8.8 The proposals involve vehicular access through a part of the Peacehaven Community School playing field and an area identified for public open space and sports pitches to serve the Peacehaven area. In concluding on this issue the Inspector and Secretary of States previous decision is a material consideration and they both concluded that the proposal would not conflict with achievement of the Policy PT16 land and that any provision of the land to facilitate the pitches should be seen as a positive factor to be weighed in favour of the proposal and not against it. Whilst it is considered that the proposed access route could be aligned in a different manner through the Policy PT16 land it is not considered that the identified policy conflicts are significant so as to warrant refusal of the planning application. The applicant has committed to detailed methods of laying out the pitches and a compensation package within the proposed unilateral undertaking and as such it is considered that the proposal is compliant with LDLP Policies PT16 and RE2, and Structure Plan Policies LT13 and S1 l).

8.9 To accord with Policy LT16 and TR4 f) of the Structure Plan and Policy T10 of the LDLP the application proposals need to be developed to provide satisfactory levels of separation and safety, and better connections to the existing and proposed development. The impacts of traffic on the local highway network are considered to be acceptable on highway safety and capacity grounds and therefore conform with Structure Plan Policies TR1 h) & i); S1d); S4 j) and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP36.

8.10 In relation to Air Quality, development plan Policies S1 i) WLP 35 and ST30 seek protection and enhancement of air quality with WLP 35 specifically ensuring that there are adequate means of controlling odours and other emissions. The air quality assessment and proposed Odour Management Plan have been rigorously reviewed and technically assessed to ensure that the development will not give rise to any adverse effects. The Inspector at the previous public inquiry was satisfied that odour would not be an issue and that adequate measures would be in place to mitigate any identified effects. There have been no significant material changes to alter this view but I have sought reassurances over the customer complaints procedure in the light of the applicant’s failings at its Pebsham site and it is considered that subject to the implementation of the identified measures within a legal agreement or unilateral undertaking at Peacehaven that the proposal would not give rise to adverse effects on air quality and is subsequently compliant with Structure Plan Policy S1 j); Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 35 and LDLP Policy ST30.

8.11 To demonstrate compliance with planning policy on noise the proposal in parallel with air quality must show that it would not give rise to adverse noise impacts and ensure that rigorous measures are in place to control any potential sources of noise pollution. The Inspector at the previous public inquiry was generally satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to any substantial policy conflicts on noise terms. It is considered that since the time of the last public inquiry, the amendments made to the scheme have improved the scheme in terms of reducing its potential effect on noise and as such its overall noise impact has reduced and it is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with Structure Plan Policy S1 s) and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

8.12 In considering this development the potential impact on residential areas, including the homes of families and individuals in the vicinity of the proposed works, tunnel(s), shafts and vehicular access routes, have been considered in the context of Article 8 (1) of schedule 1 Part I to the Human Rights Act 1998. An assessment has been made of the likely environmental effects of the development and in particular those of odour and noise and vibration in relation to development plan policies which seek to avoid unacceptable harm. The distance separation between the works and homes together with the controls proposed through conditions and a legal agreement/unilateral undertaking are considered to provide appropriate protection to local environmental conditions. Without such controls the odour aspect of the proposals would be contrary to Structure Plan Policies S1 i); EN13 and EN16; and LDLP Policy ST30. The proposal has generally shown that it would not give rise to adverse effects on the local noise environmental and therefore it has been demonstrated that the proposal is in compliance with Structure Plan Policies S1 s); EN15 and W9 g)’ Waste Local Plan Policy WLP33 and LDLP Policy ST13. I am of the opinion that this does not impinge on human rights under Article 8 subject to appropriate controls being in place to protect residential amenity. This view was also shared by the Inspector and Secretaries of State in reaching a decision on the previous application and I see no reason or evidence to change these conclusions.

8.13 The ecological and nature conservation aspects of the development comply with Structure Plan Policy EN17 and are acceptable subject to conditions to protect existing habitats and provide for new areas of biodiversity.

8.14 Other aspects of the proposal are considered to be acceptable subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions. All necessary environmental information has been considered in reaching these recommendations and in accordance with Section 38 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the decision on this application should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.15 The considerations regarding this application must take account of the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the urgent and pressing need for WTW to serve this catchment. The decision on this application should be made against the overall balance of benefits which will be derived from the provision of a high standard of wastewater treatment to a community of over 300,000 within the catchment area. These issues have been highlighted as of vital importance by Inspectors and the Secretaries of State from both the Portobello public Inquiry and also at the previous Peacehaven Inquiry.

8.16 The application is one which has been subjected to rigorous examination at a previous public inquiry where the Inspector and Secretary of State both concluded that there was an identified need for the proposal in the national interest, that the Peacehaven site was the ‘least worst’ in planning terms and that amendments to the scheme relating to landscaping could provide an acceptable solution for the site. In light of these findings it is appropriate to attach substantial weight to the Inspector’s findings and the increased urgency of the need for the Brighton and Hove catchment to provide improved standards of waste water treatment. I have nevertheless independently reassessed the current proposals and considered them in relation to all relevant development plan policies and other material considerations. I am satisfied that potential policy conflicts have been mitigated or overcome by a combination of evidence supporting the selection of the proposed location for the main site and changes made to the proposed scheme. These findings when coupled with the other material considerations which provide substantial support for the proposed development should in my opinion prevail over any residual conflicts with the development plan. It is therefore considered that the proposal should be supported subject to referring the proposal to the Secretary of State as a departure and if not called in subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement/unilateral undertaking and the imposition of controlling conditions.

Reasons for Approval

8.17 The need for secondary treatment of waste water is driven by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations as transposed by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as amended by 98/15/EC). Untreated sewage discharges can have a significant impact on the environment. The collection and treatment of sewage, and appropriate disposal of the sewage sludge generated as a by-product of sewage treatment, are key contributors to our success in helping to maintain and improve the quality of coastal waters, lakes and rivers running through our cities, towns, villages and countryside. At the present time the Brighton and Hove catchment is one of the last remaining within Western Europe to not meet the targets that are set out within the directive. As a result of this Infraction proceedings against the UK Government in respect of this non-compliance are underway led by the European Court of Justice. It is recognized within paragraph 7.20 of the Waste Local Plan that there is an urgent and pressing need for the provision of enhanced wastewater treatment for Brighton & Hove. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in both the local and national interest and accords with Regional Planning Policy which seeks to secure sustainable provision of water services and enabling of timely investment in sewage treatment to maintain appropriate standards of water quality (RPG INF2).

8.18 The application is consistent with the waste strategy within the Waste Local Plan as outlined above and seeks to locate the WTW/SRC within the Brighton & Hove / Peacehaven catchment and is therefore compliant with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP30A. In addition the applicant has demonstrated that the development complies with key planning objectives whilst seeking to mitigate as far as possible the adverse effects which have been identified and can be concluded to be the BPEO and compliant with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP1a).

8.19 The applicant has undertaken a detailed assessment of the appropriateness of the chosen site and the issue of alternative sites through a comprehensive exercise submitted with the previous application, presented at the 2006 public inquiry and updated for the current application. At all three of these stages thorough reviews of the findings have been undertaken, either by external consultants or the Planning Inspectorate and Secretaries of State. At every stage the selection of the Peacehaven site has been concluded to be the most appropriate in light of a range of factors from environmental constraints and considerations through to land availability, engineering requirements and planning policy issues such as the sites part location within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such it is considered that the proposal is compliant with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP3 as there is an overriding need for the development and there are no alternative sites outside of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Structure Policies S10 and S4 where it must be demonstrated that proposals within the countryside are necessary.

8.20 In terms of the landscape and visual impacts it is considered that the application has sought to provide an innovative and robust design solution that mitigates as far as possible the potentially significant landscape and visual effects of the proposal including those impacts on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which partly lies within the WTW/SRC site and surrounds substantial parts of the associated developments. The Inspector and Secretaries of State from the previous public inquiry were clear that the proposed site at Lower Hodden Farm was the most appropriate location for the proposed works subject to further mitigation and the acceptability of the measures put in place to assist in the integration of the works within the surrounding downland landscape. It is clear that the applicants have sought to comply with the conclusions of the Inspector and Secretaries of State and it is considered that the proposal, in light of the identified need and process of site selection, provides the most adequate design solution to mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. However, as a result of the scale and change to the landscape brought about by the proposal it is still considered that it conflicts with Regional Planning Guidance Policy W2, Structure Plan Policies EN2 (a) and (f); EN3; EN4 and EN7; Waste Local Plan Policies WLP3 (a), (b) (c) and Lewes District Local Plan Policies ST11; and CT2 (a) (b) (c). Despite the identified conflict Policy WLP3 of the Waste Local Plan allows for certain exceptions whereby a major waste proposal may be acceptable within an AONB. It is considered that the overriding need for the development, the lack of a suitable alternative and the applicants attempts to mitigate the impacts as far as possible is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 3 and therefore allows for this proposal within the AONB.

8.21 The proposals make provision for the laying out of a platform to facilitate the future development of land for sports pitches on land allocated within the Lewes District Council Local Plan for the provision of open space and sports pitches. The Inspector and Secretaries of State were clear at the last public inquiry that the potential laying out of the pitches would be an opportunity missed if it were not achieved and should not weigh against the proposal if it were not achieved. The applicant has agreed to the laying out of the sports pitches to a standard such that it can be developed for future sports pitches as and when the appropriate authority wishes to do so. In addition it is proposed through a legal agreement a sum of £500,000 will be paid to assist with the future provision of pitches and associated facilities including a pavilion as well as the inclusion of maintenance measures within the Operational Environmental Management Plan. Sufficient reassurance from the Applicant’s that the material for the proposed platform will be monitored and laid out in an appropriate matter has been provided through an agreement in principle to include within the Unilateral Undertaking and as such it is considered that the laying out of a platform for future sports pitch provision provides for significant associated benefits as well as compensation for the potentially adverse effects of the scheme such that the proposal complies with Policy PT16 of the Lewes District Local Plan. There are though still some detailed matters to be finalised in the proposed legal agreement/unilateral undertaking as shown in the schedule attached to Appendix 2.

8.22 In terms of the strategic and local transport aspects and associated site arrangements the proposals conform with Structure Plan Policies S1c); S1 d); S4 j); TR1 h); TR1 i); TR3; TR16; TR18; TR30 together with Waste Local Plan Policies WLP36 e) and WLP 2 (a) (b) & (c) and it is considered that site traffic during the construction and operational phases of the development will not give rise to adverse effects on localized roads or the trunk road network. There is no conflict with Waste Local Plan Policies WLP2b) and WLP19b) and the objectives of Policy TR1 h) are partly met.

8.23 The proposal is for a modern Waste Water Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre designed to a high standard to ensure that its impacts such as those relating to air quality and odour are substantially mitigated at source and do not give rise to adverse effects on residential and local amenity. The applicant has demonstrated through commitments within a proposed legal agreement/unilateral undertaking and provisions in an Operational Environmental Management Plan that they are committed to monitoring the potential effects of the scheme in relation to noise, air quality, vibration and related matters and have committed to a range of measures to deal with complaints including dispute resolution where required. The proposal is therefore compliant with Regional Planning Guidance 9 Policy E7; Structure Plan Policies S1 (i); EN9; EN14 Waste Local Plan Policies WLP19 (d); WLP 35 (c), and Lewes District Local Plan Policy ST30, The applicants commitment to a financial contribution which may be served in a proposed legal agreement or unilateral undertaking towards environmental monitoring meets the requirements of Structure Plan Policy EN13.

8.24 The proposed permanent diversion of Bridleway 7a and the potential conflicts with footpath No. 8 are not considered to give rise to any adverse effects and therefore no policy conflicts are identified with Structure Plan Policy TR4f); LT16 and Lewes District Local Plan Policy T10

8.25 The development will not give rise to any significant adverse effects on ecology and nature conservation interests subject to the imposition of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures being implemented in accordance with the Applicant’s proposals. The proposal therefore complies with Structure Plan Policy EN17 and Lewes District Local Plan Policy ST9.

8.26 There have been no adverse effects identified on the water environment associated with the proposed development and the Applicants submitted Flood Risk Assessment has been agreed by the Environment Agency as being compliant with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk. Overall it is considered that the provision of secondary treatment of sewage for the Brighton and Hove catchment will have net benefits on the water environment, most notably the quality of the receiving bathing waters out at sea such that it is considered that the proposals comply with Structure Plan policies S1g); EN11, Waste Local Plan Policies WLP37 & WLP 38 and Lewes District Local Plan Policy ST14.

8.27 In formulating this recommendation, all the environmental considerations and the potential impacts from construction and operational activities that are considered to be material to this proposal have been examined. This has included analysing the applicants planning application, all the submitted environmental information, including the ES, any other supporting documentation and the comments from consultees and members of the public. I consider all material issues have been addressed in the ES and that it is considered to be comprehensive and adequate with no outstanding matters. Consequently the proposal would not result in significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated or compensated for, including the inclusion of appropriate conditions. A legal agreement/proposed unilateral undertaking which is necessary to control certain implications of the development has been put forward by Southern Water. A number of concerns have been raised with Southern Water (See Appendix 2) regarding this proposal. These concerns have not finally been resolved in detail but discussions are ongoing with the applicant and hopefully these matters can be resolved. In accordance with Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Order Act 2004 the decision on this application should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.28 In considering this development the potential impact on residential areas, including the homes of families and individuals in the vicinity of the proposed development and vehicular access routes, have been considered in the context of Article 8 (1) of Schedule 1 Part I of the Human Rights Act 1998. An assessment has been made of the likely environmental effects of the development and in particular those of visual impact, noise and air quality in relation to development plan policies which seek to avoid unacceptable harm. The distance separation between the development and homes together with the controls proposed through conditions and a legal agreement are considered to provide appropriate protection to local environmental conditions, if permitted. I am of the opinion that this proposal does not impinge on human rights under Article 8 subject to the appropriate controls being in place to protect residential amenity. With appropriate controls residential amenity will be protected to accord with Structure Plan Policies S1b) and S1s); Waste Local Plan Policies WLP 35b) and 35c) and guidance contained within PPG24 – Planning and Noise

8.29 A balancing act is required comparing the recognised urgent need for the proposed development against the planning policy framework, most notably the desire to avoid adverse effects on nationally designated landscapes such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is considered that the any potential conflicts with the planning policy framework as a whole are not sufficient to outweigh the pressing and ultimately over riding need for this proposal in the local, regional and national interest. The non compliance by UK Government with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is of major significance and should weigh heavily in favour of the proposal subject to the relevant impacts of the scheme being minimised and in recognition of sites identified appropriateness to accommodate the proposed works. In this regard it is considered that the applicant has developed a scheme which mitigates as far as possible the harmful effects of the scheme, most notably those on landscape such that the overriding need is sufficient to recommend approval of the application subject to the caveats identified in this section.

9. Formal Recommendation

9.1 To recommend to the Planning Committee to approve application LW/537/CM (EIA) subject to the completion of the following procedure and to authorise the Director of Transport and Environment or Head of Service - Planning:

a) To refer the application to the Secretary of State as being in conflict with provision of parts of the development plan.

b). Upon receiving confirmation from the Secretary of State that she does not wish to call in the application, to secure, in conjunction with the Director of Law and Personnel a legal agreement/satisfactory unilateral undertaking including covering resolution of the following matters:

• All complaints recorded by the company shall be passed onto the work site as soon as reasonably practicable and in all cases no more than 24 hours after the complaint is received to allow their investigation by site operatives.

• The County Council and District Council EHO shall have direct telephone and email access to the works site section leader or his/her deputy.

• The work site section leader or his/her deputy shall be responsible for notifying the County Council of the receipt of any complaint as soon as reasonably practicable and in all cases no more than 24 hours after the complaint is passed on to them.

• As soon as reasonably practicable and in all cases no later than 72 hours after the complaint is passed to site section leader or his/her deputy, a preliminary report of site investigations into the complaint shall be provided to the County Council with confirmation of the performance of the plant, including stack and other point sources, together with confirmation of metrological conditions at the time of the complaint.

• Where the need for further investigation or measures is specified in the preliminary report, further reports shall be provided to the Authority at 14 day intervals (commencing with the date of issue of the preliminary report) detailing progress in tackling the problem that gave rise to the complaint and these reports shall continue to be produced until such time as a report is issued providing appropriate evidence that the problem has been satisfactorily resolved.

• Where a number of complaints are received relating to the same incident, a single report will be prepared setting out the individual complaints which are being addressed in the report.

• Over the whole of the area within the application site where surfaces are identified to be suitable for potential sports pitches, (as shown on Figure 5.5.13), Southern Water will ensure that the top 300mm consolidated depth of soil will be good quality indigenous topsoil. Below this, the next 1700mm consolidated depth of subsoil’s will be of similar composition and be treated to ensure similar performance in permeability and drainage. This is to apply whether the sports areas are over undisturbed soils or where filling has to take place. Where filling is needed in excess of 2m of depth, it is anticipated that locally won chalky or alluvial material will be used below 2m below finished level. Topsoil will be fine graded to exclude flints, stones and other debris greater than 20mm in any dimension, and subsoil will be coarse graded to exclude flints, stones and other debris greater than 50mm in any dimension.

• The removal of hard standing and fence posts at the Portobello pumping station.

• The provision of open space works including an area for future use as Sports Pitches. This offer includes the leasing of the open space to a nominated public sector body with a commuted maintenance sum of £200,000 to be provided.

• The provision of and maintenance of the proposed green roof. Maintenance shall include the replacement of any diseased or dead planting, repair to any part of the roof which become unable to support living plant cover, correct any defects which impact on the quality and coverage of the green roof and associated landscaping, the allowing of a site visit no less that once every two years from the County Council’s landscape architect to review the performance of the green roof.

• A payment to Lewes District Council of £500,000 for the future implementation of sports pitches and a pavilion.

• The provision of and compliance with a submitted Operational Environmental Management Plan.

• The provision of and compliance with a submitted Odour Management Plan.

• The provision of and compliance with a submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan.

• An agreement to construction traffic routeing and that all vehicles using the private access road of the Waste Water treatment works comply with a speed limit of 10 miles per hour.

• The agreement to pay the sum of £105,000 towards an environmental monitoring post which will allow for the District Council to commission a consultant to monitor performance of the Applicants obligations including the monitoring of conditions.

• The commissioning of surveys before and after tunnelling works take place and arrangements for damage repair where required.

• The undertaking of a dispute resolution procedure in the event that operations should give to dispute over complaints against performance.

c) Upon completion of the legal agreement or satisfactory unilateral undertaking covering the matters in section b) above, to authorise The Director of Transport and Environment or Head of Service – Planning, to grant planning permission and agree conditions for planning application LW/537/CM (EIA) along the lines of Appendix 3 and to advertise the decision in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations. d) That the application be referred back to this Committee if the a legal agreement is not signed within three months of the receipt of any decision letter from the Secretary of State in respect of the ‘call-in’ of the application. Appendix 1 in here Appendix 2

List of Headings from Unilateral Undertaking.

1. Removal of hard standing and redundant fence posts at Portobello As per the 2006 undertaking. 2. Open space works Southern Water is to carry out the open space works, being the creation of an area of grassland and landscaping including areas for future use as sports pitches, and with areas of scrub, tree-planting, and pedestrian and/or cyclist and/or equestrian ways. The open space works shall be constructed on chalk sub-soil with an even and uniform fall no greater than 1:80, overlain with top soil. Chalky spoil will be overlain by 700 mm of subsoil and a further 300 mm of topsoil to provide a total depth of soil material over the top of the chalky material of one metre. Southern Water is to offer an agreement for lease of the open space land to a suitable public sector body. On granting the open space lease Southern Water will pay the public body the open space commuted maintenance sum of £200,000 (previously £175,000). 3. Sports pitch and pavilion contribution To pay to the District Council £500,000 for the provision of sports pitches and/or a pavilion. 4. Green roof maintenance 5. Compliance with Operational Environmental Management Plan 6. Compliance with Odour Management Plan 7. Construction traffic routeing and unauthorised spoil and speed limits on WTW access road 8. Contribution towards environmental monitoring post £105,000 (previously £20,000). 9. Compliance with Construction Environmental Management Plan 10. Tunnelling works – surveys and rapid response 11. Dispute resolution procedure

TOTAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION: £805,000 Appendix 2 Schedule in here

APPENDIX 3 List of Planning Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development will be carried out in accordance with the following site layout and elevational drawings (save in respect of those elements shown for illustrative or indicative purposes only) subject to any minor amendment as may be agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority:

RS-002 Red line drawings, (Saltdean East to Telscombe); RS-003 Red line drawings, (Telscombe to Meridian Centre); RS-004 Red line drawings, (WTW site and surroundings); RS-005 Red line drawings, (Peacehaven coast); RS-006 Red line drawings, (plan of outfall); RS-020 Portobello pumping station site plan as existing; RS-021 Portobello pumping station roof plan; RS-022 Portobello pumping station below ground plan; RS-023 Portobello pumping station elevations and sections; RS-024 Portobello pumping station: boundary wall detail and Cliffside enhancements; RS-025 Meridian car park shaft layout plan; RS-026 WTW site plan as existing; RS-027 WTW site plan as proposed; RS-028 WTW block plan; RS-029 WTW ground level plan; RS-030 WTW roof plan; RS-033/1 WTW South and west elevations; RS-033/2 WTW North and east elevations; RS-034 WTW long section and cross sections; RS-035 South and east elevations of SRC; RS-036 North and west elevations of SRC; RS-037 South and east elevations of PTW; RS-038 North and west elevations of PTW; RS-039 Ground floor and roof plans of boiler house/thickening building and CAPS building; RS-045 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: plan and section of access road; RS-046 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: plan of Hoyle Road extension and turnaround area; RS-056 Friar’s Bay LSO shafts – layout plans; and the proposed development shall be substantially in accordance with the following submitted plans;

RS-001 Wastewater transfer infrastructure Indicative project plan; RS-007 Wastewater transfer tunnels, indicative route plan; RS-008 Wastewater transfer tunnels, indicative route plan; RS-009 Wastewater transfer tunnels, indicative route plan; RS-010 Treated effluent transfer tunnel, indicative route plan; RS-011 Wastewater transfer tunnels, indicative vertical profile; RS-012 Wastewater transfer tunnels, indicative vertical profile; RS-013 Treated effluent transfer tunnel, indicative vertical profile; RS-014 Friars Bay long sea outfall, indicative plan and long section; RS-015 Indicative worksite area plans; RS-016 Indicative worksite area plans; RS-017 Indicative single diameter shaft; RS-018 Indicative 3 metre shaft with enlarged base; RS-019 Layout plan of proposed shaft and indication of sewer diversion - Saltdean East; RS-031 SRC ground floor plan; RS-032 PTW administration building, ground floor plan; RS-040 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: indicative structural landscaping; RS-041 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: indicative landscape earthworks; RS-042/1 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: indicative planting plan; RS-042/2 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: indicative landscape details; RS-043 Peacehaven WTW & SRC: indicative landscape sections; RS-044 Peacehaven WTW & SRC indicative worksite layout.

Reason: To enable the County Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the site.

3. The area adjacent to the wastewater treatment works/sludge recycling facility proposed for general amenity shall be laid out in accordance with the detailed plans RS-040; RS041;RS-042/1and RS-042/2 unless alternative plans are submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure delivery of the amenity areas to the required standard and to ensure the future achievement of Open Space provision in accordance with Policy PT16 of the Lewes District Council Local Plan.

4. The height of the ridge levels of the buildings or the top of other wastewater treatment works or sludge recycling centre structures hereby approved shall not exceed the following dimensions related to Ordnance Survey datum unless otherwise agreed in writing with the waste planning authority:

· Vent stack 51.10 AOD · Boiler flue stack 46.10 AOD · Green Roof of sludge recycling centre building and preliminary treatment works building 43.10 AOD

Reason : To reduce the visual impact on the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policies S1b), S1f) EN1; EN2; EN3 and S4i.

5. The area shown for dried product storage and future treatment facilities on drawing RS-028 shall be finished to a level no higher than 29.00m AOD and no soil conditioner produced at the sludge recycling centre shall be stored at the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre site except within the areas identified for future treatment facilities and inter-process sludge storage on drawing RS-028 and such storage shall not exceed 3.5 metres in height unless with the prior consent in writing from the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policies S1b), S1f) EN1; EN2; EN3 and S4i.

6. No development for the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre shall take place until general details of the form and arrangement of the site construction compound for the waste water treatment works and sludge recycling centre have been submitted to and approved in writing by the waste planning authority. The details shall include the position of the compound and the means of access. The compound and any temporary associated works shall be removed within 12 months of the works becoming operational and the land restored to its previous condition unless agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the County Planning Authority to control and regulate the development in the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton * Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011. Policy EN1 and S1f).

7. No works shall commence on a site until a detailed strategy and method statement for securing and demonstrating that the amount of materials to be taken off that site resulting from the development has been minimised, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The statement shall include details of the extent to which materials arising from the construction activities will be reused on site and demonstrating that maximum use is being made of these materials on the relevant site. If such reuse on site is not practicable, then details shall be given of the extent to which the material will be reused, recycled, composted or otherwise disposed of. All materials from the construction associated with the development shall be dealt with in accordance with the approved strategy and method statement.

Reason: To minimise the amount of construction waste to be removed from the site for final disposal in accordance with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP11 , and the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Supplementary Planning Document –Construction and Demolition Waste.

8. With the exception of preparatory works, no development at a site, including any soil stripping operations, shall take place until a scheme for the control of dust during construction at that site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at that site in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To control emissions of dust in the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan Policy EN13 and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 35.

9. Prior to the commencement of construction work at a site (with the exception of preparatory works) a wheel cleaning facility shall be installed at that site in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be maintained in full and effective working order and available for use throughout the period of construction works, and shall be used so that no mud, dust or debris on its wheels is carried onto the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and highway safety to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policies EN13 and TR3c).

10. Prior to the commencement of construction work at the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre site (with the exception of preparatory works) and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, Schedule 2 Part 4) details of temporary fencing designed to prevent access to the construction site by persons or wildlife shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The fencing hereby approved shall be installed prior to commencement of construction works on site, and shall thereafter be retained until the completion of construction works, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and nature conservation to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy EN17.

11. Works for the movement, storage, replacement and restoration of topsoils and subsoils at the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre, including arrangements for their monitoring during the construction period and target restoration soil profiles, shall be carried out in accordance with a detailed plan to a scale of 1:500 and programme of works submitted to and approved in writing by the waste planning authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority, the finished levels shall not exceed those agreed and the works shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To protect soil resources and ensure the satisfactory landscaping and restoration of the site to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy EN17, EN1 and S1.

12. Prior to the commencement of the above-ground construction work (with the exception of preparatory works) at the site of the Portobello pumping station, samples of the external materials and finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Only those approved materials and finishes shall thereafter be used in the development of the pumping station.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. Policy EN1; EN2; EN3 and EN6.

13. Prior to the commencement of the above-ground construction work (with the exception of preparatory works) at the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre, details of the external materials and finishes, with the exception of the green roof, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Such details shall include the finishes to the chimneys and stacks, and the railings and eaves details to the ‘green roof’. Only those approved materials and finishes shall thereafter be used in the construction of the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling facility.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policies EN1 and S1f).

14. Seven days’ written notice of the commencement of construction work at the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre site shall be given to the Waste Planning Authority. No ground works shall take place within the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works (including watching brief, trial trenching and compaction analysis) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Upon commencement of construction, provision shall be made for the recording and removal of any finds of archaeological interest.

Reason: In order to provide a reasonable opportunity to record the archaeology of the site and to provide protection for any valuable archaeological remains uncovered in accordance with guidance contained with PPG16 – Planning and Archaeology.

15. Prior to the commencement of construction work (with the exception of preparatory works) at the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre, all trees, hedges and shrubs which are shown to be retained on the approved landscape scheme as detailed in Condition 13 along with the disused reservoir and adjoining scrub habitat depicted in the applicant’s plan RS040 shall be protected by one metre high chestnut paling fences (or an equivalent to be first agreed in writing with the waste planning authority) which shall be maintained for the duration of the construction of the development. The distance for tree protection shall be equivalent to not less than the spread from the trunk, or any other such distance as may be agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the specified landscape features in the interests of visual amenity and ecology and comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011. Policies EN1; EN2 and EN17.

16. Any existing trees, shrubs or hedges on the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre and at Meridian car park which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, uprooted or destroyed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar species unless the Waste Planning Authority gives written consent to any alternative arrangements.

Reason: To safeguard the specified landscape features in the interests of the visual amenity and ecology and comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 199. Policies EN1; EN2 and EN17.

17. With the exception of preparatory works, no construction work shall commence at the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre site until a detailed landscaping scheme for the area surrounding the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre is submitted to and approved in writing by the waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a contoured plan to a minimum scale of 1:500 and shall show: (i) the existing features to be retained; (ii) the detailed planting proposals; (iii) details of the permanent outer means of enclosure to the operational area and any other fences; (iv) details of any equestrian holding area at the bridleway / access road crossing point; (v) surfaces of footpaths and the bridleway, together with any appropriate drainage arrangements for the bridleway and equestrian holding areas; and (vi) details of the ponds including associated vegetation.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the context of the surrounding landscape in conformity with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policies EN1; EN2; S4i).

18. With the exception of any preparatory works, no construction work shall take place at the Saltdean East, Portobello, Meridian car park, the Highway or Friar’s Bay drop shaft sites until a detailed restoration scheme for that site including timescales for the implementation of the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the waste planning authority. In each case, all landscaping detailed within the approved scheme shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with that scheme and maintained for a minimum period of five years from the completion of the shaft construction work, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authoirty.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the context of the surrounding landscape and to comply with Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policies EN1 and S1f).

19. All planting, seeding or turfing contained within the landscaping scheme detailed in Condition 13 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the date when the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre facility is brought into operation. Any trees or shrubs planted under the approved scheme which within a period of five years from the completion of the Peacehaven element of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size or species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the context of the surrounding landscape and to comply with Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policy EN1 and S1f).

20. Prior to the use of a construction compound, a scheme for the temporary external illumination of that construction compound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the position, height, type and power of each light, and shall specify the operational controls that will be imposed on lighting. External illumination shall be in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the countryside location and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policies EN1; EN2; EN3; EN14 and S1s).

21. No development shall take place at the site of the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre until details of the design and finish of the access road, showing a vehicular carriageway restricted to six metres, to include details of the alignment of the access road where it meets the agricultural access, and including details of at-grade crossing facilities for bridleway reference Peacehaven 7a and proposed at-grade pedestrian crossing points have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The crossing arrangements for the right of way shall be implemented before the works become operational.

Reason: To secure an appropriate access in the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policy TR3.

22. During the construction of the Peacehaven Wastewater treatment works (WTW) and sludge recycling centre (SRC), the drop shafts at, The Highway, the Promenade, Friars Bay and the connecting tunnels, excluding the earthworks excavation and grading works referred to in Condition 24, works shall be subject to the following:

a) Between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 and 13.00 Saturday (inclusive), noise levels shall not exceed 55 dB LAeq.1h (free- field) at any residential boundary.

b) Between the hours of 13.00 and 22.00 Saturday, 07.00 and 22.00 Sunday, and 19.00 and 22.00 Monday to Friday (inclusive), noise levels shall not exceed the current background noise levels at any residential boundary, to be measured prior to the commencement of works and in accordance with the monitoring methodology set out by SWS in the ‘methodology for repeating baseline noise surveys prior to constructions’ dated 17 June 2008. c) At all times between the hours of 22.00 and 07.00, noise levels shall not exceed 42 dB LAeq 1hr (free-field) at any residential boundary.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

23. During the construction of the Portbello pumping station (PS) and the drop shafts at Saltdean East and the Meridian Centre car park, excluding the earthworks excavation and grading works referred to in Condition 24, works shall be subject to the following:

a) Between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 and 13.00 Saturday (inclusive), and between the hours of 13.00 and 22.00 Saturday, 07.00 and 22.00 Sunday, and 19.00 and 22.00 Monday to Friday (inclusive), noise levels shall not exceed the current baseline ambient noise levels at any residential boundary by more than + 3dB LAeq, 1h, to be measured prior to the commencement of works and in accordance with the monitoring methodology set out by SWS in the ‘methodology for repeating baseline noise surveys prior to constructions’ dated 17 June 2008.

b) At all times between the hours of 22.00 and 07.00, noise levels shall not exceed 42 dB LAeq 1hr (free-field) at any residential boundary.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35

24. During the earthworks excavation or grading works associated with the construction of the Peacehaven WTW and SRC, the Portobello PS and draft shafts at Saltdean East, Meridian Centre car park, The Highway, Friars Bay and the Promenade, works shall be subject to the following:

a) Between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00, Monday to Friday and 07.00 and 13.00 Saturday (inclusive), noise levels shall not exceed 65 dB LAeq.1h (free- field) at any residential boundary.

b) Excavation or grading works shall not take place at the sites identified in this planning condition outside the hours specified in part (a) above.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

25. No above-ground construction work1 shall take place other than between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 Mondays to Fridays (inclusive) and between the hours of 07.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, except with the prior written consent of the Waste Planning Authority. 1“Above-ground construction work” relates to the construction of above-ground structures, but expressly excludes work associated with underground operations such as work connected with tunnelling.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

26. During construction, vibration levels within residential properties, as measured in Accordance with British Standard 6472, shall not exceed a VDV16h of 0.8m/s1.75 between 07.00 and 23.00 hours or a VDV8h of 0.26 m/s1.75 between 23.00 and 07.00 hours, to prevent undue disturbance to residents. Vibration levels at the foundations of any building shall not exceed a PPV of 5 mm/s for continuous sources or 10mm/s for intermittent sources.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality.

27. The level of ground-borne noise emitted during the tunnelling operations associated with this development shall not exceed 40dB LAmax,S measured at the loudest node found within the ground floor habitable rooms of residential buildings.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

28. Except with the prior written agreement of the Waste Planning Authority, there shall be no HGV movements on the construction access route from the A259 via Sutton Avenue, Greenwich Way and Hoyle Road associated with the construction of the development other than between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 hours Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays or during an emergency. In the latter circumstance, details of the emergency (including date, time and reason for the HGV movement) shall be forwarded to the waste planning authority no later than 24 hours after the occurrence.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

29. Within six months of the commencement of construction activities at the Peacehaven Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre, a physical barrier to prevent the passage of motorised vehicles shall be installed at the existing northern section of Bolney Avenue, to the north of the junction with Rayford Close and the footway reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy TR1 and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 36.

30. Details of the design and type of permanent site security fencing for the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority before the completion of the construction of the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre.The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to first operation of the wastewater treatment works / sludge recycling centre.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy EN1; EN2 and S1f).

31. The principles of site surface drainage shown on drawing RS-055 shall be carried out in full prior to the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling facility coming into operation, unless an alternative scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority and thereafter carried out in accordance with the alternative approved scheme.

Reason: To prevent pollution and ensure the appropriate drainage of the site and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy S1 and EN11.

32. The extension of Hoyle Road and the redesign of the existing turning head within the industrial estate shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the East Sussex County Council highway specification for industrial roads and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, with a view to its subsequent adoption as a publicly maintainable highway. The road shall be completed to sub-base level before any drop shaft or foundation works are commenced on the WTW/SRC site and to wearing course level before the works is operational.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policy TR1 and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 36.

33. Within 12 months of this permission, details of covered cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to operation of the Peacehaven Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre.

Reason: To ensure the encouragement of alternative methods of transport to use the site and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991- 2011 Policy TR5.

34. Prior to the first operation of the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre at Peacehaven, a travel plan, in accordance with the aims and objectives of PPG13 (March 2001) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, and shall be implemented thereafter. The travel plan shall identify the measures Southern Water will take to encourage its staff to car- share and use other modes of transport, including buses and bicycles.

Reason: To ensure sustainable methods of transport are encouraged in accordance with the aims and objectives of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 - Transport.

35. The proposed new access at the Meridian Centre car park to facilitate vehicular access to the shaft site shall be located in the position shown on drawing number RS-025 and drawing no 63128/TUN/INF/0094 of Appendix 2.4.1. The access shall be constructed to the East Sussex County Council Specification for developers and shall include parking and turning space to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The parking and turning space shall be retained throughout the period of the temporary development and the access closed and reinstated upon completion of the works.

Reason: In the interests of the safety and amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy TR3.

36. Prior to the Peacehaven Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre coming into operation, details of an ecological management scheme for (i) the area extending to the operational area boundary fence line at the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre site as identified on drawing RS-040 and (ii) the disused reservoir including associated existing and proposed vegetation shall be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full unless otherwise agreed first in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the proper entitlement of an area of biodiversity. In the interests of nature conservation and to comply with the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011 Policy EN17.

37. No placement of soil or excavated material shall take place until marker posts and profile boards which relate to ordnance datum have been placed at no further than 50m intervals to indicate the area of approved soil or excavated material placement and the finished height of such material in accordance with the approved plans. All posts and boards shall be retained in place while the development is being carried out and if removed, displaced, damaged or destroyed at any time shall be replaced within seven days unless or until such time as removal is approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the disturbed land is correctly husbanded and is satisfactorily restored to the standard for its intended purpose and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton * Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy S1; EN17 and EN1.

38. An aftercare scheme, requiring that such steps as may be necessary to return those areas of land identified on plan no. RS-040 or any specific revision of it to be restored to the required standard for agriculture, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Waste Planning Authority within one year of commencement of works at the site of the wastewater treatment works / sludge recycling centre, and thereafter carried out.

Reason: To ensure the disturbed land is correctly husbanded and is satisfactorily restored to the standard required for agricultural use and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton * Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policy S1; EN17 and EN1.

39. Effluent shall not be pumped to the works until all those buildings and structures where odour control or sealed airtight covers are to be provided, as indicated in the submitted application, have been completed.

Reason: To prevent the release of odour release from the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy EN13 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011.

40. No foul waters shall be introduced to the proposed Portobello pumping station unless and until the activated carbon filters or such other odour control measures, as may be approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, are installed within the wet area vent odour control unit, as detailed on plans 63128/WUD/INF/0063 and 0064 (appendix 2.4.1 to the Environmental Statement). Such measures shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Reason: To minimise the potential for odour release from the site in the interests of the amenity of the locality and in accordance with Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

41. No sludge shall be imported to the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre except for the importation of dewatered sludge from the Newhaven Wastewater Treatment Works, other than during periods of dryer maintenance at the Ford and Hastings treatment works or in an emergency (whereupon the applicant must notify the Waste Planning Authority in writing of such occurrences within 24 hours of them taking place, or the following working day if such working took place at the weekend) or otherwise with the prior written consent of the waste planning authority.

Reason: To restrict the importation of sludge to that identified in the planning application in the interests the amenity of the locality and to comply with Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

42. There shall be no illumination of the external faces of buildings, structures or other parts of the proposed wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre site or site access road other than in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall show a standard of illumination for environmental zone E1 of the Institute of Lighting Engineers guidance notes for the reduction of obtrusive light with the position, height, type and power of each light and indicate the need in safety and security terms, and the circumstances in which the light shall be activated. The submitted scheme shall specify the measures proposed to minimise both direct views of luminaires and light pollution in the sky above the development. Thereafter the artificial illumination of the site shall take place only in accordance with the approved lighting scheme.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the countryside location and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011 Policies EN1; EN2; EN3; EN14 and S1s).

43. The level of noise emitted from the operational wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre, as measured in accordance with BS 4142, shall not exceed a Rating Level of 32 dB LaTr ((free-field) between the hours of 07.00 and 22.00 and 29 dB LaTr (free-field) between the hours of 22.00 and 07.00, as measured at the residential boundary at position A, B and C on the plan LW/537/CM (A). (Informative note: positions A, B and C refer to Cissbury Avenue, Capel Avenue and view Road respectively).

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

44. The level of operational noise emitted from the Portobello pumping station, as measured in accordance with BS 4142, shall not exceed a Rating Level of 43 dB LaTr (free-field), at a height of 1.5m above grade, when measured at the site boundary. The site boundary for noise monitoring purposes shall be taken as the existing site boundary to the north and east of the Pumping Station and the boundary of the nearest property to the west of the Pumping Station.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

45. Within dwellings, ground borne noise levels from fixed plant at the Peacehaven Wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre and the Portobello pumping shall not exceed 35 dB LAmax,S and vibration levels, as measured in accordance with BS 6472, shall not exceed a 16 hour daytime VDV of 0.4 ms -1.75 or an 8 hour night time VDV of 0.13 ms -1.75.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

46. The level of noise emitted from the operational Peacehaven WTW and SRC, as measured in accordance with BS 4142, shall not exceed a Rating Level of 40 dB LaTr (free-field) between the hours of 07.00 and 22.00 at a height of 1.5m above ground when measured at any point on a publicly accessible path or bridleway.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Waste Local Plan Policy WLP35.

47. The means of vehicular access and egress to the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre hereby approved shall be from Hoyle Road only during both construction and operational phases of the development.

Reason: To enable the County Planning Authority to regulate and control the development in the interests of the amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011 Policy TR3.

48. Only uncontaminated naturally occurring materials derived from the tunnelling operations undertaken from the Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre site, and from the excavations associated with the construction of the Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre site shall be permanently deposited on the land comprised within and adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Recycling Centre site unless with the prior written agreement of the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the importation of waste to the site, minimise the risk of pollution to the aquifer and water courses and protect the amenity of the area to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011. Policies S1g); EN11.

49. During the operation of the wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre hereby permitted, waste containing water or any other liquid shall only be removed from the site by underground pipeline or by vehicles using sealed tanks or containers. All other waste materials shall be removed using containers that are sealed or securely sheeted.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of the locality.

50. Any fuel, oil lubricant and other potential pollutants shall be handled on the site in such a manner as to prevent pollution of any watercourse or aquifer. For any liquid other than water, this shall include storage in suitable tanks and containers which shall be housed in an area surrounded by bund walls of sufficient height and construction so as to contain the equivalent of 110% of the total contents of all containers and associated pipework. The floor and walls of the bunded areas shall be impervious to both oil and water. The pipes should vent downwards into the bund.

Reason: To prevent pollution to land and water and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011 Policies S1g) and EN11.

51. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 16 Class A (e) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) no new permanent structure shall exceed a height of 38m AOD within that part of the operational area of the Wastewater Treatment Works that lies outside the canopy of the green roof shall not exceed 32.5m AOD in height within the area for dried product storage identified on plan RS- 028.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policies S1b), S1f) EN1; EN2; EN3 and S4i.

52. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 16 Class A (e) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) no new permanent structure shall be permitted at the Portobello pumping station within the application site boundary edged red on drawing RS-024.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan. 1991-2011. Policies S1b), S1f) EN1; EN2; EN3 and S4i.

53. Prior to the commencement of development of the Friar’s Bay Promenade shaft, the applicant shall commission an ornithological survey to identify the location of any nest sites including those of breeding peregrine falcons at that site. A scheme for avoiding disturbance of peregrines using these nest sites by people or activities on the development site will be submitted to the waste planning authority for written approval. This may include provision of a screen to reduce people being visible by breeding birds.

Reason: To contain disturbance to breeding peregrines and to comply with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan. 1991 – 2011. Policy EN17.

54. During construction of the Portobello pumping station site, reasonable access shall be permitted to the new chalk cliff face and chalk debris arising from the excavation for geological study by geologists and geology students, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the waste planning authority.

Reason: To enable the geological study and monitoring of the new chalk face.

INFORMATIVES

1. That the applicant undertakes a pre-commencement highway survey in conjunction with the divisional Engineer to ensure that any damage caused by the construction traffic is remedied upon completion of the construction works.

2. The applicant is requested to establish a local liaison group prior to the commencement of the work, which should include the local community representatives and the applicant, waste Planning authority, District Environmental Health Department to meet at regular intervals throughout the construction and commissioning periods and at least the first 12 months of the plants operational life, to monitor the development and the plants operation.

3. The applicant is reminded of the need for a Section 38 and Section 278 agreement with the County Council in advance of road construction works.

Rupert Clubb Director of Transport and Environment 28 July 2008 P6August-LW/537/CM(EIA)

Contact Officer: Peter Earl Tel No 01273 482650 Local Members Councillors Livings and Howson

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Application files LW/429/CM(EIA), LW/453/CM & LW/453/CM(EIA and case file LW/537/CM(EIA Lewes District Local Plan East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan East Sussex and Brighton & Hove County Structure Plan LW/537/CM(EIA)

A 2 7

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with Rupert Clubb Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the Rupert Clubb the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office BBEEnngg ( H(Hoonnss) ) CEng MMIICCEE Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright DDirierecctotor,r ,T Trraannssppoorrt ta anndd E Ennvvirioronnmmeenntt Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. ScSalcea 1le: 1:5000 and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. East Sussex County Council, 100019601, 2007 EEaasst tS Suusssseexx C Coouunntyty C Coouunnccilil East Sussex County Council, 100019601, 2008