DOCSLIB.ORG

Sedgemoor District Local Plan Review of the 'Countryside Around Settlements' Policy (CNE4) October 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sedgemoor District Local Plan Review of the 'Countryside Around Settlements' Policy (CNE4) October 2016 Sedgemoor District Local Plan Review of the ‘Countryside around Settlements’ policy (CNE4) October 2016 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Context 3. Methodology 4. Assessment Results a. East of Cannington, Cannington (Green Wedge) b. West of Cannington, Cannington (Green Wedge) c. East Brent ‘triangle’ and land west of A370, East Brent (Green Edge) d. Land south of Church Street, Mark (Green Edge) e. Land south of Combe Batch, Wedmore (Green Edge) f. Land north of Manor Lane, Wedmore (Green Edge) g. West of the Parrett, Bridgwater (Green Wedge) h. Land between Whitegates roundabout and Bowline Close, Wembdon (Strategic Gap) i. Land north and south of A39, Wembdon (Green Wedge and Strategic Gap) j. The Meads, Bridgwater (Green Wedge) k. East Bridgwater, Bridgwater (Green Edge) l. River Parrett east of Bridgwater, Bridgwater (Green Wedge) m. Land between North Petherton and Junction 24, North Petherton (Strategic Gap) n. North of Silver Street, Cheddar (Green Edge) o. South of Station Road, Brent Knoll (Green Edge) p. Coast between Burnham and Brean, Berrow (Coastal Edge) q. Land east of Burnham, Burnham-on-Sea (Green Edge) 5. Bibliography 1. Introduction The Countryside around Settlements or ‘Green Wedge, Green Edge and Strategic Gap’ policy (CNE4) that was previously saved from the Local Plan 1991 – 2011 is the policy that is the subject of this review. The purpose of this review is to determine the appropriateness of this policy as there is no longer support from the National Planning Policy Framework to blanket designate large swathes of countryside adjacent to settlements. The areas that had been identified as Green Wedges, Green Edges and Strategic Gaps do however form a key component of the districts Green Infrastructure, as identified in the Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011). This review seeks to assess whether the Green Wedges, Green Edges and Strategic Gaps continue to perform the functions that were set out in the original Local Plan 1991 – 2011 policy and whether they do form a key component of the district’s green infrastructure. This is a technical report that assesses the physical characteristics of the sites, reviews the planning history of the sites and carries out an informal appraisal of the sensitivity of the landscape and visual receptors. The outcome of the assessment will result in the suggestion of changes to the existing boundaries of the sites, if applicable. The report will form part of the evidence base that will inform Local Plan policy during the current review of the Core Strategy. The existing total land area of ‘Countryside around Settlements’ within Sedgemoor is approximately 1389.4 hectares, this equates to 2.45% of the total 56,790 hectare land area of Sedgemoor. Following this assessment process there have been some boundary changes proposed, these changes if accepted, will result in a total ‘Countryside around Settlements’ area of 1314.3 hectares or 2.31% of the total land area of Sedgemoor. Each of the seventeen ‘Countryside around Settlements’ sites within Sedgemoor district (identified as policy CNE4 in the 1991 – 2011 Local Plan and saved in the Core Strategy 2006 - 2027) will be assessed as part of this report. There are four types of designation; Green Wedges, Green Edges, Coastal Edges and Strategic Gaps. The sites within Sedgemoor are: 1. East of Cannington, Cannington (Green Wedge) 2. West of Cannington, Cannington (Green Wedge) 3. East Brent ‘triangle’ and land west of A370, East Brent (Green Edge) 4. Land south of Church Street, Mark (Green Edge) 5. Land south of Combe Batch, Wedmore (Green Edge) 6. Land north of Manor Lane, Wedmore (Green Edge) 7. West of the Parrett between Bridgwater and Chilton Trinity, Bridgwater (Green Wedge) 8. Tract of land between Whitegates roundabout and Bowline Close, Wembdon (Strategic Gap) 9. Land north and south of A39, Wembdon (Green Wedge and Strategic Gap) 10. The Meads, Bridgwater (Green Wedge) 11. East Bridgwater, Bridgwater (Green Edge) 12. River Parrett east of Bridgwater, Bridgwater (Green Wedge) 13. Land between North Petherton and Junction 24, North Petherton (Strategic Gap) 14. North of Silver Street, Cheddar (Green Edge) 15. South of Station Road, Brent Knoll (Green Edge) 16. Coast between Burnham and Brean, Berrow (Coastal Edge) 17. Land east of Burnham, Burnham-on-Sea (Green Edge) 2. Context National context Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework and Guidance do not specifically support the retention of Green Wedges, they do support the creation and enhancement of green infrastructure, of which Green Wedges are a key component. NPPF definition of green infrastructure: “A network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities.” Paragraph 99 of the NPPF states that: “When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable (to climate change), care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through sustainable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure.” Paragraph 114 of the NPPF states that: “Local planning authorities should set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.” The NPPF also makes provision for communities to allocate land as Local Green Space. Sites that were nominated through the Core Strategy review consultation process have been assessed for their suitability as a Local Green Space (see the separate Local Green Space assessment report). Some of those sites that were promoted were part of existing Green Wedges. The purpose of the Green Wedge policy is distinctly different to the purpose of Local Green Space designations and so it is not appropriate to assess each Green Wedge/Strategic Gap as a potential Local Green Space allocation. Communities can identify Local Green Space sites through the Neighbourhood Planning process (introduced by the Localism Act). The Planning Portal definition of a Green Wedge is: “Green Wedges comprise the open areas around and between parts of settlements, which maintain the distinction between the countryside and built up areas, prevent the coalescence (merging) of adjacent places and can also provide recreational opportunities.” The previous context set by cancelled Planning Policy Guidance Note 7: Countryside (superseded by PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas in 2004) was: Local countryside designations “Over the years local authorities have introduced a multiplicity of local countryside designations, such as Areas of Great Landscape Value. These local designations carry less weight than national designations, and development plans should not apply the same policies to them. They may unduly restrict acceptable development and economic activity without identifying the particular features of the local countryside which need to be respected or enhanced. Local planning authorities should only maintain or extend local countryside designations where there is good reason to believe that normal planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection. They should state in their development plans what it is that requires extra protection and why. When they review their development plans, they should rigorously consider the function and justification of existing local countryside designations. They should ensure that they are soundly based on a formal assessment of the qualities of the countryside, or the contribution of sites such as "strategic gaps" or "green wedges" to urban form and urban areas.” That context was then amended by Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (superseded by the NPPF in 2012), which stated: The countryside around urban areas “26. While the policies in PPG2 continue to apply in green belts, local planning authorities should ensure that planning policies in LDDs address the particular land use issues and opportunities to be found in the countryside around all urban areas, recognising its importance to those who live or work there, and also in providing the nearest and most accessible countryside to urban residents. Planning authorities should aim to secure environmental improvements and maximise a range of beneficial uses of this land, whilst reducing potential conflicts between neighbouring land uses. This should include improvement of public access (e.g. through support for country parks and community forests) and facilitating the provision of appropriate sport and recreation facilities.” The Natural England definition of Green Infrastructure from their Green Infrastructure Guidance (2009) is: “Green Infrastructure is a strategically planned and delivered network comprising the broadest range of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering those ecological services and quality of life benefits required by the communities it serves and needed to underpin sustainability. Its design and management should also respect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of an area with regard to habitats and landscape types. Green Infrastructure includes established green spaces and new sites and should thread through and surround the built environment and connect the urban area to its wider rural hinterland. Consequently it needs to be delivered at all spatial scales from sub-regional to local neighbourhood levels, accommodating both
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North and Mid Somerset CFMP
    ` Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan Consultation Draft (v5) (March 2008) We are the Environment Agency. It’s our job to look after your environment and make it a better place – for you, and for future generations. Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and the ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and healthier. The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a better place. Published by: Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive, Aztec West Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409 © Environment Agency March 2008 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Environment Agency Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan – Consultation Draft (Mar 2008) Document issue history ISSUE BOX Issue date Version Status Revisions Originated Checked Approved Issued to by by by 15 Nov 07 1 Draft JM/JK/JT JM KT/RR 13 Dec 07 2 Draft v2 Response to JM/JK/JT JM/KT KT/RR Regional QRP 4 Feb 08 3 Draft v3 Action Plan JM/JK/JT JM KT/RR & Other Revisions 12 Feb 08 4 Draft v4 Minor JM JM KT/RR Revisions 20 Mar 08 5 Draft v5 Minor JM/JK/JT JM/KT Public consultation Revisions Consultation Contact details The Parrett CFMP will be reviewed within the next 5 to 6 years. Any comments collated during this period will be considered at the time of review. Any comments should be addressed to: Ken Tatem Regional strategic and Development Planning Environment Agency Rivers House East Quay Bridgwater Somerset TA6 4YS or send an email to: [email protected] Environment Agency Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan – Consultation Draft (Mar 2008) Foreword Parrett DRAFT Catchment Flood Management Plan I am pleased to introduce the draft Parrett Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP).
    [Show full text]
  • Cannington Local Visual Landscape Study
    CANNINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2016-2032 APPENDIX 2: CANNINGTON LOCAL VISUAL LANDSCAPE STUDY GUIDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, REGENERATION AND CONSERVATION OF CANNINGTON Produced on behalf of Cannington Parish Council by Rob Morgan June 2019 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 2. Consultation ............................................................................................... 4 3. Ridgeline .................................................................................................... 6 4. North-western slopes ................................................................................. 8 5. Western Approaches ................................................................................ 11 6. Summary of Views of Particular Importance ............................................ 15 7. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 16 Appendix A – Local Plan Consultation Letter ........................................................ 16 Appendix B – Extract from SDC Local Plan 2011 – 2032, page 170 ....................... 20 1. Introduction 1.1. The village of Cannington has developed at the foot of an escarpment of land which separates the rural settlement from the flood plain of the River Parrett to the north. While there have been some linear intrusions up the slope, following the line of the roads at Rodway and Chads Hill, the vast majority of the village is located around
    [Show full text]
  • (Entomological Section. Away in Khaki
    The Entomological Section. xxxiii except three small pieces of Romanesque pattern, in type similar to those previously discovered. 4. Iron. Two parts of keys, much corroded, have been found, and some other fragments of iron too much decayed to be identified. 5. Bronze. A of of molten bronze quantity fragments ; also a piece which appears to be a chip from a bell, about 3 x 2 x lin. Nearly all this bronze was found on the floor level of the Dorter sub-vault in the compartment furthest south adjoining the east wall of the Refectory. Here was found also much of the lead and evidence of cavities for fires in the floor level, which may have been used for melting metals after the dissolution of the Abbey. 6. Lead. A number of fragments of windows and molten lead also a worked of lattice about the size ; finely piece of a lozenge-shaped window quarry. (Specimens of similar work " in windows at Warwick are figured in Lewis Day's Windows," 1909, p. 301). 7. Coins. Four of bronze. 8. Kitchen Remains. In the layer of dark clay imme- diately underlying the floor of the Dorter sub-vault and ex- tending beyond the excavations a great number of animal bones and other kitchen refuse were found. The bones have yet to be identified. Amongst the fish remains may be noted a vertebra of a porpoise, also mussel and periwinkle shells. The were numerous these remains oyster-shells very ; were without doubt deposited here before the present buildings were erected. (Entomological Section. President Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Catchment Report 2015
    Catchment report 2015 www.wessexwater.co.uk Introduction Welcome to the first edition of our annual catchment report. In the past water authorities organised themselves according to river catchments and often controlled land use around water sources to prevent contamination of groundwater. However, after privatisation the focus shifted to upgrading water and sewage treatment infrastructure to provide greater guarantees that drinking water and effluent standards would be met within short timescales. While major improvements were made to the quality of our drinking water and treated effluent, they came at a high price in terms of capital and operational costs such as additional treatment chemicals and an increased carbon footprint, due to the energy used. More recently, there has been an upsurge in interest in catchment management as a less resource-intensive way to protect groundwater, streams and rivers. Since 2005 we have been carrying out catchment work in cooperation with farmers to optimise nutrient and pesticide inputs to land. This often means dealing with the causes of problems by looking at land use, management practices and even the behaviour of individuals. Addressing the issue at source is much more sustainable than investing in additional water treatment that is expensive to build and operate and leaves the problem in the environment. At the same time we have been amassing data on the condition of the rivers and estuaries in our region to ensure that any subsequent investment is proportional and based on solid evidence. We have also been working on different ways to engage with the public and influence behaviour to help protect water supplies and sewers and, in turn, the water environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannington Flood Defence Scheme Cannington Somerset Archaeological Evaluation
    Cannington Flood Defence Scheme Cannington Somerset Archaeological Evaluation for Environment Agency CA Project: 4591 CA Report: 13617 November 2013 Cannington Flood Defence Scheme Cannington Somerset Archaeological Evaluation CA Project: 4591 CA Report: 13617 prepared by Steven Sheldon, Project Officer date 20 November 2013 checked by Richard Young, Project Manager date 25 November 2013 approved by Laurent Coleman, Principle Project Manager signed date 26 November 2013 issue 01 This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission. © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Building 11 Unit 4 Stanley House Kemble Enterprise Park Cromwell Business Centre Walworth Road Kemble, Cirencester Howard Way, Newport Pagnell Andover, Hampshire Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ MK16 9QS SP10 5LH t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 218320 t. 01264 347630 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected] © Cotswold Archaeology Cannington Flood Defence Scheme, Cannington, Somerset: Archaeological Evaluation CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 4 The site .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pawlett Hams Water Supply Pipeline Project 2017 Parrett Internal Drainage Board Environmental Report
    Parrett Internal Drainage Board Pawlett Hams supply pipeline project 2017 Environmental Report Pawlett Hams Water Supply Pipeline Project 2017 Parrett Internal Drainage Board Environmental Report - including Environmental Impact, Habitats Regulations and Water Framework Directive Assessments Philip Brewin – Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium Ecologist 21st April 2017 Version 3 Pawlett Hams supply pipeline failure after embankment slip in Oct 2015 Page 1 Parrett Internal Drainage Board Pawlett Hams supply pipeline project 2017 Environmental Report Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 2 Economic case and outcome measures ...................................................................... 4 3 Links to strategies and other schemes ....................................................................... 4 3.1 Water Level Management Plans ................................................................................ 4 3.2 Flood and coastal risk management of the Parrett Estuary ........................................ 4 4 Preferred option ............................................................................................................ 5 5 Alternative options ...................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Do nothing ................................................................................................................11 5.2 Do minimum ..............................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Hinkley Point C Consent Order Application
    Development Hinkley Point C Consent Order Application Compulsory Purchase Information Doc Ref 6.1 October 2011 Statement of Reasons Any plans, drawings and materials submitted by EDF Energy as part of the Application to the Infrastructure Planning Commission are protected by copyright. You may only use this material (including taking copies of it) in order to (1) inspect those plans, drawings and materials at a more convenient time or place; or (2) to facilitate the exercise of a right to participate in the pre-examination or examination stages of the Application which is available under the Planning Act 2008 and related regulations. Further copies must not be taken without the prior permission of EDF Energy. edfenergy.com EDF Energy Ltd 40 Grosvenor Place London SW1X 7EN. Registered in England & Wales. Company registration number 2366852. © Copyright EDF Energy All rights reserved 2011. The official emblems of the London 2012 Games are © 2007 The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd. All rights reserved. Statement of Reasons (Document 6.1) Regulation 5(2)(h) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................3 1.1 The Application................................................................................................................3 1.2 The Purpose of the Statement of Reasons......................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Cannington Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2032
    CANNINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2016-2032 REGULATION 14 (PRE-SUBMISSION) AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION DRAFT GUIDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, REGENERATION AND CONSERVATION OF CANNINGTON March 2021 CONTENTS 1. FOREWORD 2 2. INTRODUCTION 3 3. GLOBAL ISSUES WITH A LOCAL IMPACT 22 4. WHAT DOES THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN AIM TO ACHIEVE? 25 5. INTRODUCTION TO POLICIES 28 6. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT 29 7. THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 39 8. TRANSPORT 63 9. BUSINESS & THE ECONOMY 68 10. EDUCATION & TRAINING FACILITIES 74 11. COMMUNITY PROJECTS & ASPIRATIONS 79 12 & 13. APPENDICES SEE SEPARATE FILES Photographs: we would like to thank Mr George Pope LRPS and Rose Allen for letting us use their images of Cannington. March 2021 | Cannington Neighbourhood Plan 1 1. FOREWORD 1.1 We (the Parish Council) began the journey of making a Neighbourhood Plan in 2016 with help from members of the local community who were not Parish Councillors. Since that time we held community consultation to help us understand and confirm the key issues of importance locally and sought to finalise a Plan by 2018 with 2-3 years being an average length of time that most Neighbourhood Plans seem to take to develop. During the process, we engaged consultants to help us move the Plan forward and sought the informal views of officers at Sedgemoor District Council on our draft policies in the Plan. However, with limited local volunteer, Councillor and Parish Clerk time to complete the Plan for consultation meant that we were not in a position to consult on our first full version of the Plan until the start of 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Many SPIRAEA, Z
    ROSACEA. 97 3. Bridgwater ; MelvilL Hedges on the slopes of the Blackdown hills. Roadside between Ford and Bromp- ton Ralph. 4. Brympton ; J. Sowerby. Near Chard. 6. Hedges between Chard and Winsham, rather frequent. 7. Hedge near Pen Selwood. 5. Europe and W. Asia. (Azores : Canaries). Will- komm says " Hab. sponte in Ital., Dalmat., Tauria." Koch " ex Oriente allata." England, Ireland. Not in Gloucestershire ? I do not always find it easy to distinguish Prunus Avium from P. Cerasus , and doubt much as to the value of some of the book characters. The under surface of the leaves is said to be pubescent in P. Avium, but glabrous in P. Cerasus. I find it to be much the same in both, viz. thinly hairy. Many continental authors derive a character from the petioles, say- ing of P. Avium "petioles with one or two (large) glands at the top ;" and of P. Cerasus " glands on the petioles none or mounting to the lower teeth of the leaves." I am convinced, however, that no reliance can be placed on this. Perhaps the shape of the adult leaves and the suckers of P. Cerasus afford the best characters. [P. PADUS, L. Alien ; woods, where I suspect it has always been originally planted. May. 9. Brockley Combe ; F. B. C. Clevedon ; W. E. Green. 10. St. Anne's Wood, Brislington ; T. B. Flower (Phyt. I. 68). Leigh Woods ; Swete. Roddenbury Wood, Longleat ; just within the county, probably planted ; H. F. Parsons. Europe ; N. Africa ; N. and W. Asia Himalaya. ; England (northern), Scotland, Ireland. Not in Devon, Dorset, nor Wilts.] II.
    [Show full text]
  • Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
    Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Sedgemoor District Council Strategy and Development October 2015 [email protected] Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Sedgemoor District Council 2015 Revision Schedule Rev Author Date Status and Descripton 02 AReading October Published version incorporating changes to document and mapping 2015 following consultation feedback. 01 AReading July 2015 DRAFT document for consultation with Risk Management Authorities and other stakeholders. Sedgemoor District Council 2015 Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Sedgemoor District Council Study Area 5 3 Policy Context 8 4 Data Collection and Methodology 15 5 Broad-scale Assessment 26 6 Focused Assessments 28 7 Developer Guidance 38 8 Development Site Drainage 40 9 Emergency Planning 47 10 Summary & Recommendations 48 Appendix 1 - Mapping 52 Appendix 2 - Wessex Water Sewer Flooding Data 53 Appendix 3 - Emergency Planning Mapping 54 Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Sedgemoor District Council 2015 1 Introduction 1 Background 1.1 In 2008 Sedgemoor District Council completed a level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as part of the evidence base for the Council’s Core Strategy (1). The Core Strategy was later adopted in 2011 and is the current Development Plan for the District. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that Local Plans should be supported by an SFRA which should be prepared in consultation with the Environment Agency and other Risk Management Authorities (2). This document therefore updates the previous level 1 SFRA document to provide appropriate information to inform the Council’s Core Strategy (Local Plan) review process (2011-2032).
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 11 – Protected Areas
    River Basin Management Plan South West River Basin District Annex D: Protected area objectives Contents D.1 Introduction 2 D.2 Types and location of protected areas 3 D.3 Monitoring network 12 D.4 Objectives 19 D.5 Compliance (results of monitoring) including 22 actions (measures) for Surface Water Drinking Water Protected Areas and Natura 2000 Protected Areas D.6 Other information 152 D.1 Introduction The Water Framework Directive specifies that areas requiring special protection under other EC Directives and waters used for the abstraction of drinking water are identified as protected areas. These areas have their own objectives and standards. Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive requires Member States to achieve compliance with the standards and objectives set for each protected area by 22 December 2015, unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the protected area was established. Some areas may require special protection under more than one EC Directive or may have additional (surface water and/or groundwater) objectives. In these cases, all the objectives and standards must be met. Article 6 requires Member States to establish a register of protected areas. The types of protected areas that must be included in the register are: • areas designated for the abstraction of water for human consumption (Drinking Water Protected Areas); • areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (Freshwater Fish and Shellfish); • bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as Bathing Waters; • nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas identified as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones under the Nitrates Directive or areas designated as sensitive under Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD); • areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection including relevant Natura 2000 sites1.
    [Show full text]
  • Display PDF in Separate
    S O L c f c h V J e s t B o x 1 3 Environment Agency E n v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y South West Region Environment Protection 1997 EC Directive Compliance Report ■ August 1998 Compiled By: Dean Levy Technical Assistant (Quality Assessment) Water Quality Technical Series QA 98/01 M G Booth Regional Environment Protection Manager ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - SOUTH WEST REGION 1997 EC Directive Compliance Report This report is a compilation of the Head Office returns for compliance with EC Directives in 1997. The report highlights sites which were non-comp!iant in 1997 and includes a progress update on investigations at sites which failed in 1996. In addition historic compliance for each Directive is included for reference purposes. It is intended that the report should be used by Area and Regional staff in discussions of requirements for investigations into non-compliance. The report is also intended to highlight consenting issues for discussion, particularly regarding Dangerous Substances. CONTENTS Section Page 1 EC BATHING WATERS DIRECTIVE 5 1.) 1997 EC Bathing Waters Directive Compliance 6 1.1.1 1997 Compliance With Mandatory Coliform Standards 1.1.2 1997 Compliance With Guideline Coliform And Streptococci Standards 7 1.1.3 Reasons For Failure of Mandatory Standards At South West Bathing Waters During 1997 8 1.1.4 Summary Of Non-Compliance Against Guideline Microbiological Standards 14 1.2 Historic Bathing Waters Compliance (Mandatory Standards) 19 EC DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES DIRECTIVE LIST I 27 2.1 1997 EC Dangerous Substances Directive List
    [Show full text]