Sr140111dma Waste Water Treatment Mill Lane West Clyst

EEC/11/6/HQ

Development Control Committee 26 January 2011

County Matter: Waste Disposal East Devon District: Application for a New Planning Permission to Replace an Extant Planning Permission for the Provision of a New Waste Water Treatment Works and New Access Road at Agricultural Land Adjacent to Mill Lane, West Clyst, Exeter Applicant: South West Water Application No: 10/1004/CM Date application received by Devon County Council – 5 May 2010

Report of the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture

Please note that the following recommendation is subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be granted in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix III to Report EEC/10/225/HQ which is attached as Appendix I to this Report.

1. Summary

1.1 This Report relates to an application to extend the time limit for implementing an existing planning permission relating to the provision of a new waste water treatment facility on agricultural land adjacent to Mill Lane, West Clyst, Exeter. It summarises the responses to a screening opinion on the proposal in consultation with the Environment Agency, Natural England, and East Devon District Council following a deferral of the application at the meeting on 24 November 2010.

2. Background

2.1 At the meeting of the former Development Control Committee on 14 March 2007, following a site visit, Members considered Report EEC/07/69/HQ (attached as Appendix II to Report EEC/10/225/HQ) and, being satisfied as to the technical issues concerning flow rates, quality of discharge and flooding, resolved that the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture be authorised to grant planning permission [Minute *146 refers]. Conditional planning permission was granted on 8 June 2007, with a condition requiring that it be implemented within 3 years. In view of the fact that the planning permission had not been implemented, the Applicant sought its renewal on 5 May 2010.

2.2 Members considered Report EEC/10/225/HQ (see Appendix I to this Report) at the meeting on 24 November 2010, and resolved (Minute*87(f)) that a decision be deferred at the request of the legal representative acting on behalf of the landowner of the application site. The request for a deferral was on the basis that the landowner considered that the proposal should be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) primarily because, in his view, the proposal would be a sludge deposition site. The original proposal was subject of a Screening Opinion issued by Devon County Council, and the view was that whilst the development is listed in Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations, it was below the indicative thresholds and not within a designated sensitive area and therefore EIA was not required.

2.3 In October 2009 a new Order was brought into force allowing for applications to be made to extend the time limit for implementing existing planning permissions. The prime purpose of this new legislation was to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn. This application is made under the provisions of the new Order.

2.4 Government advice in dealing with this type of application is that local planning authorities take a positive and constructive approach which improves the prospect of sustainable development being taken forward quickly. The provision of a new waste water treatment works is vital for the planned developments in the East of Exeter area and Members will note the Development Control Committee in March 2007 judged the development to be acceptable. Whilst the Government advice makes it clear that the renewal of planning permission is not automatic, planning authorities in making decisions should focus on development plan policies and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of planning permission

2.5 Following this deferral, the County Council has carried out a screening opinion and has sought the views of the Environment Agency, Natural England, and East Devon District Council. Their responses are set out below in Section 4 of this Report.

3. The Proposal

3.1 Full information on the original proposal can be found on Appendix I to Report EEC/07/69/HQ, which forms part of Appendix I to this Report. In brief, the application was for a new waste water treatment works that would serve a number of planned developments in the East of Exeter area, namely the Cranbrook New Community, Skypark, the Intermodal Freight Terminal and Science Park. The underlying reason for the provision of a new works is the lack of capacity at the Countess Wear Sewage Treatment Works which currently serves this part of East Devon, via the Blue Ball Pumping Station.

4. Responses to the request for a Screening Opinion

4.1 Natural England (NE) – its main concern remains the same as it was in 2006 – primarily the potential impacts of the proposed STW on water quality and nutrient load to the surrounding watercourses, which are tributaries of the River Clyst and ultimately drain to the Exe Estuary SPA/Ramsar/SSSI.

4.2 NE states that the addition of the reedbeds to the original proposal creates an additional potential source of pollution and that it is not clear from the plans whether the reedbed will operate as a closed system or if there is potential for release of pollutants into the adjacent watercourses through drainage or flooding/run-off in high rainfall events.

4.3 NE concludes that providing it can be demonstrated that the reedbeds can be managed in a safe and controlled manner at all times , and that the discharge conditions set by the EA will be sufficiently high to prevent any increase in the nutrient load to the Exe Estuary SPA, it is Natural England’s view that an EIA would not be required on nature conservation grounds.

4.4 The Agent for South West Water (SWW) has commented on the NE response that because the reed bed system is for the treatment of the waste bio-solids from the MBR reactors, and not for the treatment of the effluent from the MBR plant, there would be no water discharging from the reed bed system to the environment. He adds that it would therefore operate as a closed system designed to avoid potential for the release of pollutants, and would be operated in a safe and controlled manner (in accordance with the procedure set down by the specialist reed bed designers/suppliers). He concludes that the discharge conditions of the treatment works effluent have been set by the EA, and that the reed beds are not an addition to the original proposal.

4.5 Following receipt of the above response from the Agent for SWW, NE comments that if the reedbed system “will operate as a closed system designed to avoid potential for the release of pollutants”, and the effluent standards set by the EA are significantly high to prevent increased nutrient loading to the Exe Estuary SPA, then NE does not consider an EIA will be required on nature conservation grounds.

4.6 Environment Agency – comments that although these are issues that will need to be addressed as part of the Environmental Permit, it is of the view that a full EIA is unlikely to be necessary. It further adds that development should proceed in accordance with the requirements of PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk), and that it has in the past approved a Flood Risk Assessment for the previously approved treatment works. It considers that it is likely that its approval would be forthcoming for a renewal of such a scheme, or a similar scheme that would have neutral impacts upon flood risks.

4.7 East Devon District Council – comments that consideration should be given to the potential impact of the discharge to the Exe Estuary SPA and SSSI, and the potential significance of impacts arising from the site’s location adjacent to a flood risk area. The District Council concludes that, subject to the views of the EA and NE, it is of the view that the proposal is not likely to give rise to significant effects in relation to any other impacts of such significance that are likely to require submission of an EIA.

4.8 In the light of the above comments, whilst it is accepted that the proposal does potentially contain an element of sludge deposition, nevertheless, this Authority remains of the view that the proposal is not EIA development

5. Conclusion/Recommendation

5.1 In that EIA is not required for this proposal, it is considered therefore that the application should be determined having regard to the consultation responses to the planning application, and to the comments set out in Report EEC/10/225/HQ (Appendix I to this Report). Furthermore, Members attention is drawn to the new procedures (brought into force in October 2009) allowing for applications to be made to extend the time limit for implementing existing planning permissions. The prime purpose of this new legislation was to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn.

5.2 The consideration of applications such as these is limited to changes in Development Plan Policies and other material changes since the grant of the original planning permission. The main issues in relation to the renewal application are discussed in Section 6 of the previous Report on this proposal attached at Appendix I.

5.3 It is concluded in that Report that there are no new significant material changes that have occurred since the granting of the original planning permission, and that the proposal is considered to be acceptable in the light of the consultation responses received. It is considered that the proposal remains in accordance with Devon County Waste Local Plan Policy WPP34, particularly as the proposal would contribute to meeting existing and future demands in the area.

5.4 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix III to Report EEC/10/225/HQ which is attached as Appendix I to this Report.

Stewart Redding County Development Officer

Electoral Division: Broadclyst & Whimple

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Mike Deaton

Room No. ABG Lucombe House

Tel No: (01392) 382130

Background Paper Date File Ref

1. Casework File Current 10/1004/CM 2. Previous Application 25 April 2007 EEC/07/121/HQ committee report sr140111dma sc/cr/waste water treatment mill lane west clyst 02 hq 140111

Appendix I To EEC/11/6/HQ

EEC/10/225/HQ

Development Control Committee 24 November 2010

Report of the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture

Please note that the following recommendation is subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be granted in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix III to this Report.

1. Summary

2. Background/Proposal

2.1 At the meeting of the former Development Control Committee on 14 March 2007, following a site visit, Members considered Report EEC/07/69/HQ, (attached as Appendix II to this Report) and, being satisfied as to the technical issues concerning flow rates, quality of discharge and flooding, resolved that the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture be authorised to grant planning permission [Minute *146 refers]. Conditional Planning permission was granted on 8 June 2007 (with a condition requiring that it be implemented within 3 years). In view of the fact that the planning permission had not been implemented, the Applicant sought its renewal on 5 May 2010.

2.2 Full information on the original proposal can be found on Appendix I to Report EEC/07/69/HQ which forms part of Appendix II to this report. In brief the application was for a new waste water treatment works that would serve a number of planned developments in the East of Exeter area, namely the Cranbrook New Community, Skypark, the Intermodal Freight Terminal and Science Park. The underlying reason for the provision of a new works is the lack of capacity at the Countess Wear Sewage Treatment Works which currently serves this part of East Devon, via the Blue Ball Pumping Station.

2.3 The site itself is on agricultural land within the valley of the River Clyst, and is about 5 hectares in area. The landscape character is of relatively large fields with hedgerows, hedgerow trees, and a scattering of individual buildings and farmsteads.

2.4 The facility would have an inlet works to screen solids, followed by a treatment facility which would be a membrane bioreactor system. Essentially this involves a digestion process which takes place in large tanks before the treated water is passed through a membrane, which removes bacteria and viruses, before being discharged into the River Clyst. The bio-solids from the process would be treated externally in a reed bed system. Over time the reed beds would be emptied and the material spread to land as a soil conditioner. There would be four separate reed bed areas with total areas of about 3 hectares in total.

2.5 The built element of the works would initially consist of a large building housing the membrane bioreactor with dimensions of 73m x 16m, with a height to eaves of 9.2m). A further two membrane bioreactor buildings would be built in two additional phases over an anticipated 20 year period, and would come on line to meet increases in population as developments proceed in the area.

2.6 Other buildings would include the inlet works building (20m x 15m with a height of 5m to eaves), and the control building (20 x 15m with a height of 5m to eaves). Buildings would be faced block work plinths, profile metal sheet walls and profile metal roofs.

2.7 Vehicular access would be from a new 3.5 metre wide access road running from a new junction onto Blackhorse Lane.

2.8 Since the granting of the planning consent the Applicant has sought to discharge the prior commencement planning conditions.

3. Consultation Responses

3.1 East Devon District Council – raises no objection as either Planning Authority or Environmental Health Authority.

3.2 East Devon District Council (Growth Point Partnership) - confirms that the Growth Point Partnership has been undertaking background studies to look at infrastructure planning in the whole of the Growth Point, to inform strategic planning and underpin emerging policy in the LDF documents for each of the Districts (Exeter County Council and East Devon District Council).

The Utilities Infrastructure Study work and Water Cycle Strategy have looked at both existing capacity and future demand for utility services in the Growth Point to inform future policy and to enable the Partnership to work collaboratively with utility providers and developers, to ensure that adequate provision is made on site, to meet the delivery programme.

The Partnership states that the Waste Water Treatment works at Mosshayne is an essential element of this Strategy and will serve both Cranbrook and Skypark (and presumably in the future, Exeter Airport). When developing a demand profile for future needs, the consultants used housing targets from the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy, which were higher than the housing numbers that are now planned though Exeter's and East Devon's LDF Documents. The Studies have concluded that there is no overriding constraint in terms of Water Treatment capacity, provided the new Waste Water Treatment Works is delivered. Taking this forward, it would be logical to assume that South West Water has planned for growth, in excess of what is currently being planned,, and therefore the introduction of new sites at Blackhorse etc., does not increase the overall net housing numbers planned in this catchment area.

In conclusion, the Partnership would like to support the application for the renewal of planning permission for the WWTW at Mosshayne Farm, in particular the reedbed system planned, which would be the most sustainable way to deliver this facility.

3.3 Environment Agency – has no objection to the application. It comments that the Flood Risk Assessment was agreed as part of the original application. It also endorses the Phase 2 contaminated land investigation and recommends that a planning condition be imposed relating to the submission of a scheme relating to management of risks associated with potential land contamination.

3.4 Clyst Honiton Parish Council – The Parish retains concern regarding flooding downstream of treatment plant at Clyst Honiton and on to Clyst St Mary, in relation to uncertain affects of climate change. It also considers that the risks of flooding are aggravated by the growth of vegetation in the river bed and on the banks of the River Clyst, which have dramatically reduced the capacity of the river to cope with flood water. It states that historically bed and banks were cleared annually to ensure adequate flow of the river.

3.5 Broadclyst Parish Council – No response received.

4. Advertisement/Representations

4.1 The application was advertised in accordance with the statutory publicity arrangements. As a result of these procedures two letters of objection have been received from occupiers of properties neighbouring the site. The landowners have also made a detailed submission on the application.

4.2 The objections from the neighbouring property owners are:

• loss of agricultural land • the site is at risk of flooding • the access from Blackhorse Lane is unsuitable • the proposal is an untested technology and could not cope with storm water • There would a loss of privacy • There would be an impact on wildlife interests • There would be an impact on footpath users • There would be an increase in light pollution.

4.3 The landowners (Mr and Mrs Gent) have made detailed comments on the proposal which are summarised below, with their letter attached as Appendix IV to this Report. Mrs and Mrs Gent consider that a number of issues have changed since the original application was submitted and these are new material considerations in the determination of this planning application. The issues raised include:

• Increase in capacity of the site to reach targets for developments in the East of Exeter area. • The site is large enough to house three bioreactors which would increase capacity and discharge of treated water to the River Clyst. • The application refers to ‘Phase One Flows’ and the reed beds are designed to deal with three times the capacity given in the application. • SWW may divert flows from Pinhoe and Broadclyst which were not listed in the application. • The Planning Authority should question using a new facility planned to cater for new developments, to cater for existing flows, as a significant amount of the existing flows contain significant amounts of storm water and groundwater. • SWW has confirmed that when working at full capacity it will need a fresh discharge pipe and discharge consent, which questions the choice of the site. • Since permission has been granted the floodplain has been re-defined and the access road is now in the flood plain. The capacity of the site will increase the number of vehicle movements, and when the access road is flooded the vehicles will have to use substandard agricultural track. • There was an error in calculating the discharge levels. The discharge level for 100l/s was given as 0.0063% whereas in fact it would be 0.63% of the river flow. Whilst this is still a small percentage, the full capacity at 300l/s will probably require discharge to tidal water. • During the discussion on the original application it was stated that the reed beds would act as a flood water attenuation feature. However, during periods of heavy rainfall the liquor from the sludge has to be returned to the bioreactor increasing the percentage of discharge consent used. • The sludge pumped into the reed beds exceeds the thresholds given for EIA development for ‘sludge deposition sites’ and the proposal should therefore be subject of EIA. • Subsequent information from SWW reveals that an alternative site at the freight terminal was rejected on grounds of it being rejected by the landowner rather than on planning grounds.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

5.1 In considering this application the County Council, as Waste Planning Authority, is required to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan insofar as they are material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan policies are summarised in Appendix III to this Report, and the most relevant are referred to in more detail in Section 6 (Comment).

6. Comment/Issues

6.1 In October 2009 a new Order was brought into force allowing for applications to be made to extend the time limit for implementing existing planning permissions. The prime purpose of this new legislation was to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn. This application is made under the provisions of the new Order.

6.2 Government advice in dealing with this type of application is that local planning authorities take a positive and constructive approach which improves the prospect of sustainable development being taken forward quickly. The provision of a new waste water treatment works is vital for the planned developments in the East of Exeter area and Members will note the Development Control Committee in March 2007 judged the development to be acceptable. Whilst the Government advice makes it clear that the renewal of planning permission is not automatic, planning authorities in making decisions should focus on development plan policies and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of planning permission.

6.3 At the time of the original application, the developments which were to be served by the new sewage works were the Cranbrook New Community, Skypark, the Intermodal Freight Terminal, and Science Park. The requirement for a new treatment works is due to the fact that sewage from the geographical area of the planned new developments is dealt with at Countess Wear [it being piped from the pumping station at Blue Ball] and this facility would not have sufficient long term capacity to cater for developments planned to 2026.

6.4 Since the grant of planning permission, the main changes in the Development Plan are that the RSS is being abolished, and the East Devon Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Approach Report has been published for consultation. During the Plan period 2006 to 2026, it is estimated that there would be an increase of 8,000 dwellings from the identified residential developments at Cranbrook (5,000 dwellings) Blackhorse (2,200 dwellings) and Pinhoe (800 dwellings), which would equate to about 16,000 population increase.

6.5 The membrane bioreactor system allows the works to be developed on a modular basis with each phase been capable of dealing with a population of around 15,000. At full capacity the works would be capable of dealing with a population of 45,000. Whilst there have been some changes in the anticipated numbers of population and location of housing during the Plan period to 2026, the nature of the sewage treatment works in the planning application is the same as previously approved. During the previous consideration of the original planning application, South West Water commented on the phased nature of the works stating that, "South West Water has taken a strategic view and in order for them to provide sewage treatment facilities for other developments in the area, or additional growth in the areas outlined by around 2026, it may also be necessary for them to make an application for a further phase of treatment, which would take the total capacity to around 300l/s. This may include the transfer of flows from the Blue Ball pumping station, but any decisions regarding this would be made by SWW in the light of an overall asset management strategy, which will be dependent upon the rate of development in the area and changes in either legislation or regulatory framework". Taking the above into account it is considered that whilst there has been a change to the Development Plan policies, there is no material change in the nature of the application since the previous approval.

6.6 As part of the consideration of the increase in new homes in the area, the Exeter and East Devon New Growth Point (NGP) has produced an outline Water Cycle Study [April 2010] to support the preparation of Local Development Frameworks. The purpose of this is to demonstrate that the growth targets can be met without adversely impacting on the water environment, and that required water services infrastructure can be planned for and brought online alongside new development, in a timely and phased manner. Whilst the Study was based on housing figures proposed in the draft RSS, it is still of relevance as the growth targets in the East of Exeter area are similar. This Study identifies that there are no critical constraints to growth at the scale planned with respect to waste water collection and treatment. It notes that, “development within and to the immediate southwest and east of Exeter city will be served by the existing Countess Wear waste water treatment works”. And, “…a new waste water treatment works is already planned by SWW to serve the proposed new community of Cranbrook . South West Water have not identified any critical wastewater infrastructure capacity constraints at this stage and are confident that they will be able to provide or requisition adequate wastewater capacity within the normal planning timetable, provided that they are consulted during the site allocations DPD stage or at the outline planning application stage. The assessment of the consented capacity at each of the WwTWs shows that there is consented capacity for all growth up to 2026 at Exeter Countess Wear, Axminster (Kilmington), Honiton, Ottery Town, Otterton and Sidmouth WwTWs without the need for a change to the existing flow consent. Cranbrook , Colyton and Seaton South WwTWs will require a change to the flow consent to allow growth up to the maximum scenario tested to 2026.” This Study confirms the need for the additional treatment facilities as set out in the original application and it is considered that this has not materially changed since the granting of the original consent. As the landowner has commented, an increase in the existing consented flow rates into the River Clyst of 100l/s would require further consideration by the Environment Agency (EA) at the appropriate time. He also feels that this would require a new discharge pipe and this brings into question the choice of the site. However, this was also the case at the time of the determination of the original application, and is therefore not considered to be a new material consideration. It is noted that the Environment Agency has not raised any concerns on this aspect of the application.

6.7 The landowner comments that the reed beds are designed to deal with the total future capacity of the site. In responding to this issue South West Water comments that the full reed bed area is required at an early stage to allow it to mature and thereby avoid the need for temporary traditional treatment. Again it should be noted that the full reed bed forms part of the original permission.

6.8 The landowner considers that the reed beds are sludge deposition sites and therefore the development should be subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. The original proposal was subject of a Screening Opinion Issued by Devon County Council and the view was that whilst the development is listed in Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations, it was below the indicative thresholds and not within a designated sensitive area and therefore EIA was not required. The view of the County Council is that the development is considered to be a treatment facility, rather than a sludge deposition facility, and accordingly the view remains that this is not EIA development.

6.9 The landowner also questions the source of flows and the possible diversion of existing flows, particularly those that might contain significant amounts of storm water. South West Water has commented that the new works offer a flexible strategy, and this does not seek to exclude any factors that may be relevant to particular circumstances. Also, that catering for existing flows has always been part of the proposal for the new facility, and the operational management of the works will be a matter for South West Water.

6.10 The issues of the impact of the development in terms of flooding of the River Clyst are given as a reason for recommending refusal by Clyst Honiton Parish Council. In considering the original application, the former Development Control Committee was advised of the consultation response from the EA in which it raised no objection following the consideration of a Flood Risk Assessment submitted by the Applicant in support of the application. In its consultation response the EA refers to the previously approved Flood Risk Assessment, and raises no objection to the renewal application.

6.11 The landowner raises concerns that at times of flood, the access road to the site would be unavailable for use, and the existing lanes would have to be used for operational traffic. Whilst this comment is noted, significant traffic generation would take place during the removal of material from the reed beds, which, after an initial ten year period, would be removed from the reed beds every year over a four week period. Given the limited time period for removal of material it is expected that removal could easily be delayed in the event that the road is flooded.

6.12 The landowner also raises the issue of the reed beds acting as a flood water attenuation feature, and contends that at times of heavy rainfall, the liquor from the sludge has to be returned to the bioreactor thus increasing the levels of discharge to the River Clyst from the works. In its response to the original application, the EA confirmed that the reed beds may act as an attenuation feature for any water running from the new hard surfaced areas, storing and slowly releasing rainfall and diverting excess water back into the treatment process. During intense rainfall the EA considered that the reed beds would be unlikely to yield as much water as the existing sloping fields and therefore it considered that there was no objection. This situation remains unchanged since the approval of the original application.

6.13 The landowner questions the examination of alternative sites. This issue was addressed on in the original application, where the view was that this site is well located in terms of the area it will service, the position of the main sewer and likely disposal areas for the reed bed content. As this is a renewal application the principle of the location of the site has been accepted.

6.14 In terms of planning policy, the previous application was considered against Devon County Waste Local Plan Policy WPP34 which specifically relates to provision of waste water facilities. It was considered that the proposal remains in accord with this policy, particularly as the proposal would contribute to meet existing and future demands in the area.

7. Reasons for Recommendation

7.1 The consideration of applications such as these is limited to changes in Development Plan Policies and other material changes since the grant of the original planning permission. The main issues in relation to the renewal application are discussed in section 6 above. It is concluded that there are no new significant material changes that have occurred since the granting of the original planning permission, and it is therefore considered that planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation to this Report.

Stewart Redding County Development Officer

Electoral Division: Broadclyst & Whimple

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Mike Deaton

Room No. ABG Lucombe House

Tel No: (01392) 382130

Background Paper Date File Ref

1. Casework File Current 10/1004/CM 2. Previous Application 25 April 2007 EEC/07/121/HQ committee report

md101110dma sc/mill lane waste water plant 5 hq 171110

Appendix I To EEC/10/225/HQ

Development Plan Policies

Devon County Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted October 2004) : Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development); ST3 (Self Sufficiency of Devon's Communities); ST4 (Infrastructure Provision); ST12 (East Devon New Community Proposal); CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness); CO6 (Quality of New Development); CO8 (Archaeology); CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity); CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species); CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence); CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land); CO15 (Air Quality); CO16 (Noise Pollution); WM1 (Waste Management); and TR10 (Strategic Road Network).

Devon County Waste Local Plan (Adopted June 2006) : Policies WPC1 (Sustainable Waste Management); WPC2 (Development Control Considerations); WPP3 (Sites for Minor Waste Management Facilities); WPP4 (Consideration of Proposals at Sites Not Allocated in the Plan); WPP6 (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves); WPP7 (Archaeological Sites); WPP14 (Maintenance of the County's Nature Conservation Resource); WPP15 (Areas not Covered by Specific Policy Designations); WPP16 (Agricultural Land); WPP17 (Water Resources Protection); WPP18 (Protection of Floodplains); WPP20 (Transportation of Waste); WPP21 (Road Transport); WPP22 (Health and Air Quality); WPP23 (Rights of Way); WPP24 (Site Design and Appearance); WPP27 (Aerodrome Safeguarding); WPP28 (Recycling Centres); and WPP43 (Waste Water Treatment).

East Devon Local Plan 1995-2011 (adopted July 2006): Policies S1B (Strategic Development in the East Devon Part of the AEA); S4 (Countryside Protection); S5 (Infrastructure Related to New Development); D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness); D1B (Sustainable Construction); D4 (Landscape Requirements); D5 (Trees on Development Sites); EN4 (Development in Green Wedges); EN9 (Wildlife Habitats and Features); EN10 (Protected Species); EN12 (Proposals Affecting Sites which may Potentially be of Archaeological Importance); EN21 (Control of Pollution); EN23 (Maintenance of Water Quality and Quantity); EN24 (Adequacy of Foul Sewers and Sewage Treatment Works); EN26 (River and Coastal Flooding); EN27 (Surface Run Off Implications of New Development); E4 ("Bad Neighbour" Uses); C6 (Renewable Energy); TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways); TA10B (Aerodrome Safeguarded Areas and Public Safety Zones); Proposal AEA1 (New Community); Proposal AEA2 (Intermodal Freight Facility); Proposal AEA3 (Strategic Employment Land at Skypark); Proposal AEA4 (Development at Exeter Airport).

Emerging planning policy and other policy documents, which may be regarded as a material consideration include:

LDF Core Strategy Preferred Approach Report Full Preferred Approach Report September 2010 : Preferred Policy Approach Draft CS 5 (Major Development at East Devon’s West End), Draft CS 8 (Development at Cranbrook), Draft CS 9 (Major Development of Land North of Blackhorse), Draft CS 10 (Development of an Urban Extension at Pinhoe), Draft CS 11 (Future Development of Exeter International Airport), Draft CS 12 (Future Development of Exeter Airport Business Park), and, Draft CS 13 (Future Development of Skypark). Appendix II To EEC/10/225/HQ

EEC/07/69/HQ

Development Control Committee 14 March 2007

Report of Committee Site Visit County Matter - Waste Disposal East Devon District: Waste Water Treatment Works and New Access Road at Agricultural Land Adjacent to Mill Lane, West Clyst, Exeter Application No: 06/3164/CM Date application received by Devon County Council - 3 November 2006

Report of the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture

Please note that the following recommendations are subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that: (a) Members note the content of this report; (b) subject to Members being satisfied about the matters arising from the site meeting, planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out in Appendix I of report EEC/07/5/HQ.

1. Summary

This report relates to the proceedings of the Member Site Visit and Site Meeting held on the morning of the 19 February 2007.

2. The Proposal/Background

At the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 24 January 2007, Members considered Report EEC/07/5/HQ [attached as Appendix I to this report] and resolved to defer consideration of the application pending a Members' Site Visit.

The Site Visit was conducted by Councillors Nicholson, Radford and Mrs. Wragg accompanied by officers representing the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture.

The Site Meeting was held following the Site Visit with invited attendees including the applicant, landowner, Parish Council representatives, and East Devon District Council representative. Apologies were received from Councillor Cox [Chairman] and the Environment Agency representative.

3. The Site Visit

Members, accompanied by Officers, walked around the application site and its immediate vicinity. A distant view into the site was gained from the public footbridge near to the former A30 [Honiton Road]. The public footpath runs along the western bank of the River Clyst and Members walked along it towards the planning application site. At the planning application site boundary, Members viewed the position of the proposed new buildings, looked at views into and out of the site, and noted the setting of the development in the landscape. The proposed dimensions and external materials of the buildings were discussed together with the proposed landscape mitigation measures.

Members then continued along the footpath and the proposed landscaping at the eastern site boundary was noted.

Members walked along the footpath/farm track which bisects the application site. The proposed locations of the reed beds on either side of the track were noted by Members and the landscape impact of the reed beds were considered.

From the western boundary the site [under the electricity pylons] Members took the opportunity to look back into the site and again noted the setting of the buildings and reed beds, and possible impact on the wider landscape setting.

Members walked to Mosshayne Farm, and along the length of Mosshayne Lane heading south. From Mosshayne Lane Members were able to view the position of the proposed private access road into the site and noted its possible impact.

Members walked along Blackhorse Lane viewing the access point for the private access road and noting the potential impact on residential properties located on Blackhorse Lane.

The junction between Blackhorse Lane and the old A30 [Honiton Road] was inspected by Members who noted potential difficulties for heavy goods vehicles turning left from the old A30 onto Blackhorse Lane.

Finally, Members viewed the site from the Clyst Honiton Bridge which provides an open view into the site, and Members were able to assess the impact of the proposed development.

4. The Site Meeting

The Site Meeting was convened in a lay-by just of the old A30 close to Clyst Honiton Village.

Mr. Redding tendered the Chairman's apologies for not being able to attend the meeting and then set out the purpose of the meeting informing all attendees that there would be no decision made today and that a report of the Site Visit would be made to the next Development Control Committee meeting on 14 March 2007. He described the site visit which had taken place for the benefit of the other attendees of the site meeting.

Mr. Deaton updated Members on new information received since the last Committee meeting. This included one further letter of objection and submission of a new plan by the applicant detailing possible provision of new farm tracks and permissive footpaths.

Mr. Brooks [representing South West Water the applicant] informed the meeting that the site had been chosen as one of 14 sites investigated and this was on the basis that this site was downstream for the catchment and would allow for the works to be gravity fed. He also noted that all of the new developments which would be served by the works namely Cranbrook, Skypark and the Intermodal Freight Terminal would be upstream of the application site. He expressed the view that the current application site was deemed to be the best on the basis of pre-application discussions with the County Council, District Council and Environment Agency and have been examined in terms of archaeology, hydraulics, landscape impact, access and flooding. He advised that a Flood Risk Assessment had been carried out and the site was outside of the 1 in 100 year flood event and that the Environment Agency had no objections from a flood defence aspect.

In relation to the public footpath Mr. Brooks produced a plan showing a new proposal to provide for a path around the sewage treatment works which would divert cattle away from the footpath which bisects the application site. He also addressed concerns previously raised by the landowner with regard to the organic status of the farm and informed the meeting that a new hedge was also proposed on the western boundary of the site which he viewed would address these concerns. As to the plant, Mr. Brooks commented that this was an advanced technology, being a membrane bio-reactor. It would have a small footprint, would be under cover, and would be similar in appearance to existing cattle sheds on the farm. As to the reed bed system, whilst he accepted that this was relatively new in Great Britain, he considered it to be a very green method of dealing with bio-solids and a proven technology from elsewhere.

Members were then invited to ask questions of the applicants (South West Water).

Councillor Mrs. Wragg raised the issue of the impact on footpaths and questioned whether there would be a need for a path diversion at this stage. In response South West Water confirmed that the latest plan produced by them was not part of the application but provided a potential solution for the issues relating to use of the footpath.

Councillor Mrs. Wragg also asked why the development was not to be located at Skypark. In response, Mr. Brooks considered the application site to be a better location as it would be gravity fed thereby reducing energy usage. Councillor Mrs. Wragg then requested information on the future stages of Cranbrook development and Janthea Algate representing the District Council confirmed that the next phase would provide for 3,500 houses and the Regional Spatial Strategy was suggesting that Cranbrook could develop to 6,500 houses [although East Devon District Council's view were that a limit should be placed at 5,000]. Ms. Algate also confirmed that the current Regional plan only goes to 2026 and could not comment on potential development after that date.

Councillor Mrs. Wragg then asked whether the plant would serve all of this development. Ralph Clayton on behalf of the applicant commented that the works were a modular design which would provide for flexibility and allow for increase as and when required.

Councillor Radford questioned the amount of built development required, asking confirmation that only one of the buildings would be required in the first phase of the Cranbrook development. Mr. Brooks commented that it was not a simple calculation as the first building would deal with existing development as well as new development at Cranbrook and Skypark Intermodal Freight Terminal. However, the footprint of the works was sized to accommodate developments that might be required. Councillor Nicholson asked whether there was any intention to deal with any sewage coming from the Exeter City direction. In response Mr. Brooks said it would not, but the new works would free up capacity at Countess Wear which could then be taken up by developments within Exeter City.

Mr. Nigel Williams [representing Bishops Clyst Parish Council and as owner of nearby Venn Farm] questioned discharge flow rates from the works drawing Members' attention to existing flows leaving Exeter Airport. Mr. Brooks commented that the airport was a combined system which has an impact on flow rates to any sewage treatment works and commented that the discharge rate given in the application is one which the Environment Agency were content with.

Mr. Williams also questioned how the River Clyst would be maintained and what plan would be put in place for its maintenance. This was in relation that if additional nutrients were to be discharged into the Clyst the river would be choked with plant growth and this could lead to increase in flooding problems further upstream. In reply Mr. Brooks commented that the process would produce low nitrate levels and the Environment Agency would have to issue a Discharge Consent and this was particularly important in this case as the final discharge is into the River Exe which is a Special Protection Area.

Ms. Janthea Algate [representing East Devon District Council] confirmed that there was nothing further to add to its consultation response but pointed out that the District had requested that a number of conditions be imposed should planning consent be granted.

Mr. Peter Howard [representing Broadclyst Parish Council] commented that Broadclyst was upstream of the application site and therefore its views might differ from the Parishes located further downstream. He commented that the Parish's main concerns were traffic issues at Blackhorse junction but otherwise the Parish were positive in its response and considered that the proposed reed bed might create a nature conservation habitat that people might want to visit. As to screening of the buildings with new landscaping, he suggested that it would be more logical to plant trees on the road rather than near any new buildings.

There then followed a discussion about the impact on the footpath with Mr. Clayton [South West Water] commenting that the application does not physically impact on the footpaths as allowance would be made for the footpath to continue along its same line.

Mr. Keith Walton [representing Clyst Honiton Parish Council] began by commenting that this application was for a latest type of plant and asked if there was anywhere in the UK where the plant was currently in operation. Mr. Brooks in response commented that there was one similar plant in the north of England and one in Cornwall and it had been in operation for over a year and that there were other examples abroad. Mr. Walton then asked how odour could be controlled. Mr. Brooks in response commented that the odours were from a relatively small catchment so would not be septic en route and that the other main source of odour would be the inlet works and this would be fully enclosed. Councillor Nicholson then asked whether this site would be similar to the new sewage treatment works at Sidford. Mr. Brooks advised that the Sidford plant was activated sludge and the West Clyst proposal is something quite different and the application plant was even more advanced than that at Sidford.

Mr. Walton then asked whether the proposal would result in a plague of flies. Mr. Brooks said that he was not aware that flies would be a problem as there would be nothing for them to eat. Mr. Walton then questioned the amount of lorries which would take bio-solids from the site in ten years' time. Mr. Brooks commented that after ten years there would be a programme of reed beds removable but this is not a major task and would be carried out in sealed containers and would amount to, on average, 40 vehicle movements a day. Mr. Redding confirmed there was no highway objections to the proposal but if the traffic during the construction period was seen to be an issue, then it would be possible to specify the direction of traffic.

Mr. Walton then raised the issue of flooding commenting that if flood storage is affected the village would suffer. Mr. Brooks commented that the Flood Risk Assessments provided with the application had led to the Environment Agency confirming its acceptability. Mr. Gent [landowner] then commented that with the impermeable membrane proposed under the reed bed, there would be an impact on flooding but Mr. Brooks commented that in effect the reed beds would act as a kind of a lagoon which would allow for floodwater attenuation.

Mr. Nigel Williams [representing Bishops Clyst Parish Council] was invited to address the meeting but had nothing other to add to previous comments relating to discharge flows.

Mr. Gent [landowner] reiterated his fundamental objection to the application. He commented that the applicant was part of the Pennon Group and questioned whether the figures given today would be valid in ten years' time, particularly if there were a breakdown to take place traffic would be accessing the site day and night. He commented that should planning permission be granted, South West Water would get certain permitted development rights which would allow them to develop the site without requirement for further planning applications. He considered that rather than a reed bed, the system proposed was a sludge trench and he noted that other than in Denmark they were not in use elsewhere in Europe. He commented therefore that the evidence was not available as to how well this system would work.

Mr. Gent's then expressed concern over the impact on his agricultural operations and he questioned the amount of land take required by South West Water, including land under the electricity pylons. Mr. Brooks commented that land under the pylons would be less valuable as it would be unlikely it could be developed. Mr. Gent commented that this would be cheaper land in compensation that might be payable to him as landowner. He was of the opinion that the flow likely to be produced at the sewage treatment works did not justify the amount of land which was being sought by South West Water.

Mr. Gent , a qualified archaeologist, was concerned that he had not been able to see the report which was carried out into the archaeology of the site particularly as other sites seemed to be rejected on the basis that they were more archaeologically sensitive. Mr. Gent commented on the latest footpath plan by South West Water's is not what he had agreed with them. His interpretation had been that a footpath be provided right around the site as an alternative location. In the discussion that followed Mr. Clayton [South West Water] confirmed that South West Water would have no problem with providing a perimeter footpath, particularly as there would be a requirement that the reed bed would be a minimum distance of 8 metres from the River Clyst.

A further discussion took place around the discharge rates into the River Clyst and Stewart Redding suggested that in order to address this issue more fully an officer of the Environment Agency be invited to the next meeting of the Development Control Committee to answer technical questions such as this. The meeting was then brought to a close and it was confirmed that a report would be considered at the next Committee meeting on 14 March 2007, and should people wish to make further representations to Committee, they were welcome to do so under the Public Participation Scheme.

5. Comment/Conclusions

At the conclusion of the site meeting Members discussed whether or not they wished to make a recommendation to the full Committee meeting on 14 March 2006. The site visiting Members came to the view that they did not wish to make a recommendation back to the Committee and felt that the meeting had raised technical issues which ought to be further explored by the full Committee. The site visiting Members considered it would be useful to invite an officer of the Environment Agency to attend the meeting in order to clarify issues of a technical nature. Edward Chorlton

Electoral Division: Broadclyst & Whimple

Local Government Act 1972

List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Stewart Redding

Room No: ABG

Tel No: (01392) 383233

Background Paper Date File Ref.

Casework file Current 06/3164/CM

Appendix I To EEC/07/69/HQ

EEC/07/5/HQ

Development Control Committee 24 January 2007

County Matter - Waste Disposal East Devon District: Waste Water Treatment Works and New Access Road at Agricultural Land Adjacent to Mill Lane, West Clyst, Exeter Application No. 06/3164/CM Date application received by Devon County Council - 3 November 2006

Report of the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture

Please note that the following recommendation is subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the imposition of the planning conditions set out in Appendix I to this Report.

1. Summary

This report relates to a planning application for a new sewage treatment works to serve the existing area and the major proposed developments in the east of Exeter area, including the Cranbrook New Community, Sky Park and Intermodal Freight Terminal.

2. The Proposal/Background

The application site is located approximately 500 metres to the north west of Clyst Honiton Village and approximately 750 metres to the north east of Blackhorse Village, on the western bank of the River Clyst.

Currently sewage from this geographical area of East Devon is connected into a sewer main which runs across the New Community site, past Clyst Honiton and to a pumping station at Blue Ball for transferring for final treatment at the Countess Wear Sewage Treatment Works.

It is understood that the Countess Wear Sewage Treatment Works is close to capacity and could not cater for the entirety of the new developments planned in the East of Exeter area.

The application site area is about 5 hectares, relatively low lying, albeit sloping slightly from the River Clyst Valley and is currently in agricultural production. The landscape character there is essentially one of relatively large fields, hedgerows, hedgerow trees and a scattering of individual buildings and farmsteads.

The proposed treatment process which would take place at the new works consists of an initial screening at an inlet works to remove solids such as paper, rags and plastics, the screened liquid then passes into membrane bioreactor tanks where a biological process commences with waste water digested by micro organisms. The effluent then passes through an extremely fine membrane scheme which removes bacteria and viruses. From this process the final treated water is discharged into the River Clyst.

The remaining bio-solids consist of liquid peaty like substance and this would be treated within the application site in a reed bed system. The reed bed takes the form of a wetland onto which waste bio-solids are periodical applied. The treatment process comes from the growth of the reeds which uptake water with the nutrients from the bio-solids used in the reed growth. The reed bed is essentially a closed system with any water which has filtered through the reeds being returned to the inlet works for further treatment with incoming waste water.

The bio-solids build up within the reed beds needing to be removed initially after ten years, and then as a rolling one year removal. The resultant material is suitable for application to land as a soil conditioner.

The application site would have four separate reed bed areas which have a total area of about 3 hectares.

Built development of the site consists of the inlet works' building, membrane bioreactor (MBR) building, bio-solids distribution building, chemical storage tanks and electrical transformer and compound.

The largest building would be the MBR building which has dimensions of 73 metres x 16 metres with a height to eaves of 9.2 metres with a shallow pitched roof. Initially one building would be constructed, but the site is designed to provide for an additional two MBR buildings of the same size when this additional capacity is required.

Other significantly sized buildings at the site include the inlet works' building (20 metres x 15 metres with a height of 8.5 metres to eaves) and control building (20 metres x 15 metres with a height of 5 metres to eaves). All of the buildings would be of a similar design, consisting of faced blockwork plinths, profile metal steel walls and profile metal roofs. Blocks of solar panels are also proposed on the southerly facing roof surfaces.

Three smaller kiosk type buildings (10 metres x 5 metres with a height of 3 metres) constructed of coloured GRP would also be positioned on the site providing housing for control equipment.

The application proposes additional landscaping and screen planting using mixtures of native species. The majority of the new planting would take place on the southern boundary of the site, in order to provide new screening for the MBR building. A new area of planting would also be provided at the eastern boundary to provide additional screening from the public footpath.

Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a new 3.5 metre wide access road. This would run from a new junction onto Blackhorse Lane following the existing contours and field boundaries to the application site.

The application is supported by additional information including planning support statement, odour management plan, flood risk assessment, environmental report, archaeological survey report and desk study report.

3. Consultations

East Devon District Council - raises no objections in principle. It recommends that there should be some further clarification of issues and minor changes secured by planning conditions. These include external materials and for buildings, fencing materials, changes to landscape planting, reduction/further details of external site lighting, tree protection, submission of Construction Environmental Plan, details of signage, archaeological recording, access route details, odour management, noise limits and drainage details.

Broadclyst Parish Council - views awaited [consulted 09/11/2006].

Clyst Honiton Parish Council - raises a number of concerns:

(1) The greatest concern is the additional volume of treated sewage water that will be discharged into the river Clyst. • the volume increase could cause flooding downstream of Clyst Honiton during 1 in 1,000 year rainfall events; • this discharge will contain nutrients that will encourage further water weed/reed growth in the Clyst which will reduce the capacity of the river and add to flooding risks downstream; • annual water weed/reed removal in the Clyst downstream of the plant is made a planning condition.

(2) Odour arising from plant - ensure no risk of escape even with electricity failure.

(3) Buildings need to be well screened.

(4) Goods vehicle access from old A30 into Blackhorse lane appears very tight particularly with a vehicle coming from Exeter direction and turning left.

(5) We also have concerns about Light and Noise pollution.

(6) It is essential to have an absolutely secure back up system to keep the plant working when power to the plant fails - ensuring no loss of raw sewage, odours, treated sewage etc.

(7) We would wish to see measures in place to minimise disruption, noise etc during construction; with no access allowed into Airport Road.

Bishops Clyst Parish Council - objects to the application on the grounds of:

• the outfall is not into a drain as marked on the plan but the River Clyst; • the River Clyst has major flow problems and the increase in flow will exacerbate the problem; • the outfall must be monitored; • for pollution and the present level a nitrate which if increased will increase the weed growth so adding to the choking and slowing of the flow of the water; • the screening which is on the southern side should be followed upon the eastern side as well.

The Environment Agency - following the submission of a modified Flood Risk Assessment, it has no objections from a flood risk management perspective. The Environment Agency in its consultation response suggests that the applicant should investigate the possibility of using turf roofs on the buildings in order to reduce surface water runoff and reduce the visual impact of the development.

Exeter International Airport - no objection, but comments that during the construction period, in the event of cranes or scaffolding being required higher than the planned development, its use should be subjected to a separate consultation with the airport.

Natural England - comments on the potential impact on the Exe Estuary SPA/SSSI/RAMSAR through discharge of effluence and potential pollution in the construction period. Natural England comments that on the assumption that the standards for discharges as set by the Environment Agency are sufficiently high, adequate emergency measures be incorporated to prevent spillages. It considers the development is not likely to have a significant effect on the Exe Estuary. With regard to the construction phase, Natural England suggests additional assurances are sought to ensure no pollution of the River Clyst takes place.

Western Power Distribution - no views received.

DEFRA - consulted on 10 January 2007 following objections from landowner on loss of agricultural land and any views received will be reported verbally to the Committee.

4. Advertisement/Representations

The application has been advertised by means of notices on site, a notice in a locally circulating newspaper and extensive notification of neighbours.

As a result of these procedures six individual objections (2 letters, 4 emails) have been received. In addition to the individual objections, a 77 signature petition has been received. The concerns raised in the petition and letters of objection are summarised as:

• pollution of the River Clyst and groundwater; • odour problems; • light pollution; • additional flooding caused by volume of effluent discharged into the River Clyst; • impact on environmental plans for the lower Clyst at Clyst St. Mary, Topsham; • detrimental visual effect on the rural landscape; • detrimental impact on local footpaths; • Blackhorse Lane is inadequate to cope with additional traffic; • increase in industrial traffic on country lanes. • development would deter potential investors for new business at Skypark and the Science Park; • loss of prime agricultural land; • development is in a floodplain; • sewage treatment works should be located within the Cranbrook development area; • increase in risk of flies and vermin; • suggestion that the Clyst is enlarged to cope with greater water flows.

As part of the application process the landowner has been notified and his agent has raised objection to the application on the grounds summarised below:

• inadequate justification has been given to potential other sites and this is contrary to the advice of PPS10; • inadequate consideration for onsite waste management solutions contrary to advice given in PPS10; • inadequacy of Blackhorse Lane; • development may compromise organic status of client's farm; • impact on public use and enjoyment of public right of way contrary to Policy WPC2 of the Devon County Waste Local Plan; • inadequate consideration of matters set out in WPC2 of the Waste Local Plan - specifically loss of agricultural land, recreational use, health and amenity of residents, and noise, vibration, odour and fumes; • the development conflicts with the client's potential development at the farm, including proposed restoration of former mill and development next to Blackhorse Lane; • application validity on the grounds of Agricultural Holdings' Certificate not signed.

Copies of all letters of representation received will be displayed at the Committee meeting.

5. Planning Policy Considerations

In considering this application the Waste Planning Authority is required to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan insofar as they are material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case the most relevant Development Plan policies are as follows:

Devon County Structure Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted October 2004) : Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development); ST3 (Self Sufficiency of Devon’s Communities); ST4 (Infrastructure Provision); ST12 (East Devon New Community Proposal); CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness); CO6 (Quality of New Development); CO8 (Archaeology); CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity); CO10 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species); CO13 (Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence); CO14 (Conserving Agricultural Land); CO15 (Air Quality); CO16 (Noise Pollution); WM1 (Waste Management); and TR10 (Strategic Road Network).

Devon County Waste Local Plan (Adopted June 2006) : Policies WPC1 (Sustainable Waste Management); WPC2 (Development Control Considerations); WPP3 (Sites for Minor Waste Management Facilities); WPP4 (Consideration of Proposals at Sites Not Allocated in the Plan); WPP6 (Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves); WPP7 (Archaeological Sites); WPP14 (Maintenance of the County’s Nature Conservation Resource); WPP15 (Areas not Covered by Specific Policy Designations); WPP16 (Agricultural Land); WPP17 (Water Resources Protection); WPP18 (Protection of Floodplains); WPP20 (Transportation of Waste); WPP21 (Road Transport); WPP22 (Health and Air Quality); WPP23 (Rights of Way); WPP24 (Site Design and Appearance); WPP27 (Aerodrome Safeguarding); WPP28 (Recycling Centres); and WPP43 (Waste Water Treatment).

Emerging planning policy and other policy documents, which may be regarded as a material consideration include:

The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West: (June 2006) : Policies SD1 (The Ecological Footprint); SD3 (The Environment and Natural Resources); SD4 (Sustainable Communities); Development Policy E (High Quality Design;Development Policy G (Sustainable Construction); ENV1 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Historic Environment); ENV4 (Nature Conservation); ENV5 (Historic Environment); and RE6 (Water Resources).

In preparing this report regard has been had of relevant National Planning Policy Guidance and Statements, in particular: PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas); PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation); PPS10 (Planning and Sustainable Waste Management); PPG13 (Transport); PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning); PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control); PPG24 (Planning and Noise); and PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk ).

6. Highway Considerations

The development proposes a new access track to the sewage treatment works from Blackhorse Lane. Blackhorse Lane itself is a part of the rural road network serving local communities.

The new junction for the sewage treatment works access road onto Blackhorse Lane meets the required standard in terms of its visibility and geometrical layout.

Whilst Blackhorse Lane itself is narrow, the distance from the new junction to the former A30 is only 200 metres. Following the construction of the works the normal operational traffic would be in the region of ten movements a day, which is considered to be an acceptable increase in traffic on this road. However, a precondition survey of Blackhorse Lane and its junction with the old A30 should be carried out in order that any damage occurring during the construction period is recorded, with any necessary repairs to be carried out by the applicant. Blackhorse Lane to the west of the new site access is narrow and poorly aligned and because of this it is considered that there should be a requirement that all traffic leaving and entering the site does so via the old A30.

Peaks of lorry movements would occur during the bio-solids removal from the reed beds. After the initial ten year period bio-solids would be excavated from the reed beds on a yearly rolling programme. The excavation works would take place over a four week period, generating an average of six lorry movements per day. Given this low level of traffic it is considered that provided vehicles use the private access road, there is no objection to the proposal from a highway point of view.

7. Sustainability Considerations

Additional sewage treatment capacity is required to serve the proposed major developments to the east of Exeter. The provision of a membrane bioreactor process together with the reed bed system is considered to be a sustainable process as it will result in fewer traffic movements, will be a net sink for CO2, and the resulting material is suitable for application to the land as a soil conditioner.

8. Comment/Issues

It is considered there are a number of material planning considerations in the determination of this application. These are:

• need/alternative sites; • visual impact; • nature conservation; • increase in flooding/development in floodplain; • traffic implications; • archaeological implications; • pollution issues including odour, noise, flies, vermin and light; • loss of agricultural land/impact on existing farm practices; • impact on recreation/public rights of way; • validity of application.

As part of the planning application, brief information has been submitted regarding alternative sites which were considered by South West Water. These sites have been subject of informal discussions between the applicant and Devon County Council and it is understood separately between the applicant and East Devon District Council and Environment Agency.

The agent acting on behalf of the landowner makes reference to PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management), considering that the application does not accord with the provisions of PPS10 suggesting that as insufficient consideration has been given to alternative sites and that inadequate consideration has been given to provision of a treatment plant closer to where the waste arises. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the application site is well located in terms of the area it will service, particularly when taking into account the position of the existing sewer main, effluent discharge points, and likely disposal areas for treatment of bio- solids. The Waste Planning Authority is required to determine the application on its own merits and in doing so, regard has to be given to the Devon County Waste Local Plan. Policy WPP43 of the Waste Local Plan states:

"Planning permission will be granted for development related to the transfer, processing or disposal of waste water or sewage, together with sludge treatment or disposal works, provided that a regard to all other Waste Local Plan policies and fulfil the following requirements:

(i) the facility will contribute to the establishment of an integrated and adequate network of sewage treatment installations, sufficient to meet the demands of existing and proposed developments;

(ii) the proposals affecting important conservation sites and features are subject to the most rigorous assessment;

(iii) mitigation measures are taken to minimise the adverse impacts on all occupiers and users of nearby land and buildings, including, noise, dust, air and water pollution, smell, litter, scavengers and vermin, visual intrusion, traffic and other disturbance;

(iv) traffic generated by the proposed facility will not cause congestion on the roads leading to the site, and major proposals are situated adjacent to the major road network, or to a railhead or navigable waterway; and

(v) the site design and appearance of buildings are in accordance with requirements of Policy WPP24; and,

(vi) the facility incorporates appropriate measures to reduce all forms of pollution to an acceptable level, for the protection of groundwater and surface water, to prevent additional flood risk due to increased surface water run-off, to avoid ground contamination, and to protect human health.”

It is considered that the proposed development complies with the requirements of Part (i) of this Policy as the works are planned to meet existing and future demands in the area.

In providing for new development of this nature there will be some degree of visual intrusion into the landscape. In this case the largest visual impact will be due to the built area which includes the new buildings and new access road. The landscape character of the application area is one of relatively large fields, hedges and hedgerow trees with a scattering of individual buildings and farmsteads in the landscape. Currently there is an impact on the landscape appearance and character from the proximity of Exeter Airport to the south east of the site and it is likely that the establishment of the Intermodal Freight Terminal to the north east of the site will have a further impact.

Whilst the site is in an attractive area of open countryside, it is not within a landscape policy area. However, it is considered desirable in landscape terms to maintain an undeveloped wedge between Exeter and the proposed new settlement and given this, the design and layout of the works is considered to be an important consideration.

The design principle in this case is to produce something which would look like a group of farm buildings with additional planting to partly screen and break up the outlines of the buildings. In this case the design principle is considered to be acceptable, but the proposed use of metal profiled sheeting should be changed to make use of timber boarding walls and artificial slate roofing which, it is considered, would produce a lesser impact on the landscape. The use of the particular external materials can be subject of a planning condition.

The Environment Agency in its consultation response has suggested that grass roofs be used on the building as this would help in reducing any visual impact. Whilst this suggestion is noted, changes to this extent would have to be the subject of a new planning application as in this case it is considered that the visual impact can be sufficiently reduced by use of more traditional building materials.

New bank and planting schemes are considered to be appropriate for the development and can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

The visual impact of the new access track can be reduced by it hugging existing contours and utilising existing field boundaries. This is considered to be appropriate but it is considered a planning condition should be imposed requiring the protection of existing hedges and hedgerow trees along the line of the road as well as requirements for additional planting at the junction between the new access road and Blackhorse Lane.

In terms of potential nature conservation impact, it is noted that the application site comprises intensively managed agricultural land with the only features of obvious ecological value being the adjacent watercourses and lengths of hedgerow and associated trees. There are no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations in the immediate vicinity of the application site. However, it should be noted that the watercourses drain into the Exe Estuary a few kilometres to the south. Whilst the land lies immediately outside of the active floodplain of the River Clyst, it has been mapped as falling within a 'Strategic Nature Area' (SNA) within the Regional Nature Map (which is linked to the Regional Spatial Strategy), with this based around coastal and floodplain grazing marsh habitat; this zonation is intended to highlight the inherent suitability of the area for habitat restoration and recreation in order to meet the regional targets for biodiversity enhancement.

Given the general character and lack of ecological sensitivity of the application site, no significant nature conservation impacts are anticipated. The only feature of ecological value which is likely to be directly affected is a short length of hedgerow at the entrance to the site. No impact upon protected species is anticipated. Despite this, it is considered appropriate to impose planning conditions to reduce impacts.

There should be no removal of trees or shrubs other than that required to create the new access at the point where it joins the existing highway. In addition, the applicant should confirm what measures will be adopted to ensure that there is no inadvertent harm to any of the hedges and shrubs which are directly adjacent to the proposed works and associated access track. The application confirms that existing trees would be protected and it would be appropriate to ensure this with a suitably worded planning condition which would also require protection of existing hedges and shrubs

A planning condition should also be imposed to ensure the provision of a buffer zone of no less than 8 metres be maintained between the proposed development and any watercourses, with no works (including any construction activities or access) within this zone.

Although Natural England has advised that it does not consider that the development is likely to have a significant effect upon the special interest of the SPA/SSSI, this is conditional upon the following requirements being met (which will avoid the need for a formal Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken):

• The standard of effluent will be set and compliance with that standard monitored by the Environment Agency, such that there will not be any detrimental effect on water quality within the SSSI. However, this is not a planning matter and will be addressed directly by the Environment Agency through a Discharge Licence.

• A planning condition be imposed providing for appropriate measures to be incorporated into the design of the development and the construction process to minimise any potential for accidental pollution events.

The intended design of the Waste Water Treatment Works could result in some minor nature conservation gain, particularly through the use of a relatively extensive reed-bed system, which should provide a wildlife habitat (albeit temporary in nature given its cyclical excavation) of some ecological value and of a character which is consistent with the objectives for the Strategic Nature Area identified around the Clyst floodplain.

The landscape screening can also provide for a nature conservation gain. In this case it is based on the use of native broadleaved trees and shrubs. However, as a matter of detail, the inclusion of 20% beech in the intended tree mix is not particularly characteristic of this area. Also, another non-native species, sycamore, is also proposed for use but this has deliberately included because of its quick growth habitat and hardy character. It is considered that the tree mix be reviewed to ensure that the most appropriate species are used which reflect the existing tree composition in the general area and which maximise ecological benefits in the manner intended and this can be secured by planning condition. Also, East Devon District Council's Landscape Officer has suggested an increase in planting centres to ensure more rapid growth.

Comments have been received concerning the impact of the development on the functioning of the floodplain. In its consultation response the Environment Agency has no objection to the application following the submission of a revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Essentially this confirms that no buildings or raising of ground levels would occur below the 9.5 metre contours which would ensure that there would be no loss of floodwater storage capacity. In this case it would be appropriate to secure this position by the imposition of a planning condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the FRA.

The other issue raised relates to the increase of effluent discharge and surface water run-off going into the River Clyst and how this may impact on flooding downstream of the works. The FRA addresses this issue and calculates that the additional flow would be insignificant relative to the overall river flow. It is also noted that with the provision of reed beds the change from grazing land will increase the permeability of the ground, thereby offsetting any increased run-off rate from the hard surface areas.

The FRA also confirms that should a flood greater than the one in 100 year event take place, the infrastructure will continue to function normally.

It is therefore considered that there is no objection to the application of a flood risk perspective.

Clyst Honiton Parish Council's concerns about nutrient level increase leading to weed growth, with a request for a planning condition requiring annual weed removal are noted. However, nutrient limits in the outfall discharge are set by the Environment Agency and these are set to ensure the discharge will not have a deleterious impact on the River Clyst.

An archaeological geophysical report has been submitted as part of the application. The report concludes that there are features which may be of archaeological origin. Given this it is considered that archaeological recording should take place in accordance with a written scheme of investigation and this can be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition.

Objections to the scheme have been made on grounds of pollution issues including odour, noise, flies, vermin and light.

Perhaps the most significant of these issues is that of odour control, and given this the application is supported by a separate Odour Management Plan. The plan sets out the odour prevention measures, operational management procedures and a complaints protocol which would be adopted. The odour prevention measures are largely dependent upon the proposed treatment process and the fact that the potential odorous elements of the process are contained within buildings. In particular the inlet works and the MBR process would be contained within buildings which allows for odour management measures to be provided. The reed bed itself is not considered to be a source of odour.

The operational management procedures explain the monitoring and response regime, and the complaints protocol sets out the procedure for complaints logging and remedial action to be taken. It is considered that this would provide for an appropriate level of control and a planning condition should be imposed to ensure compliance with the Odour Management Plan.

Noise issues may arise at the sewage treatment works with the use of plant and equipment. South West Water operates to a stringent technical standard which limits noise levels for any particular item of machinery. As the application site is within a rural area, it is considered it would be appropriate to impose a planning condition setting maximum permitted noise levels at the site boundary.

External site lighting is required for health and safety and operational needs. However, given the rural nature of the site, this would be kept to a minimum and shielding would be employed in order to minimise any impact. Details of a lighting scheme would be required by planning condition.

The main processing areas would be within buildings which would give adequate control for flies and/or vermin. The reed bed process itself deals with what is in effect inert material and this should not give rise to problems with flies or vermin.

In order to minimise impact during the construction period, East Devon District Council has suggested that a Construction Environmental Management Plan should be required by planning condition. This would require the developer to set out protection measures, phasing of work and management of onsite operations. In cases of major applications such as these, this is considered to be an appropriate approach.

In cases where there is a loss of more than 20 hectares of agricultural land, it is a statutory requirement that DEFRA is consulted. In this case the total site area is about 5 hectares meaning that DEFRA are not a statutory consultee. However, in this case the landowner has objected on the grounds of loss of agricultural land and given this DEFRA has been afforded the opportunity of comment. Any views received will be verbally reported to the Committee.

The landowner also objects on the basis of the impact that the development would have upon his agricultural practices, particularly possible impacts on the organic status of the farm. Whilst these comments are noted, it is not considered they are material land use planning considerations.

The validity of the planning application has also been challenged on the basis that the Agricultural Holding Certificate had not been signed as part of the planning application forms. This part of the form relates to the serving of a notice on any agricultural tenants and in this case the owner farms the land himself rather than any tenant farmer. The requisite notice was served on the landowner and the application is legally valid.

9. Reasons for Recommendation/Alternative Options Considered

The Committee has the option of approving, refusing or deferring a decision on this application.

In this case it is considered that there is a demonstrable need for the new sewage treatment works to serve the Cranbrook development. The application site is considered to be in an appropriate location and any potential adverse impacts can be mitigated by the imposition of planning conditions set out in Appendix I to this report. It is therefore recommended that subject to no new material planning objections being received from the outstanding consultees, conditional planning permission be granted.

Edward Chorlton

Electoral Division: Broadclyst & Whimple

Local Government Act 1972

List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Stewart Redding

Room No: ABG

Tel No: (01392) 383233

Background Paper Date File Ref.

Casework file Current 06/3164/CH

Appendix I To EEC/07/5/HQ

Schedule of Planning Conditions

1. Standard Commencement.

2. Development in accordance with approved plans, except as varied by planning condition.

3. Submission and approval of Construction Environmental Management Plan.

4. Contaminated land survey (to confirm initial findings).

5. Full landscaping details for site and new access road.

6. Maintenance and management of landscaping.

7. Implementation and management of wildlife mitigation measures.

8. Protection of existing trees and hedgerows.

9. Submission and approval of details of materials for the external surfaces of buildings, plant and machinery.

10. Provision of buffer zone between works and River Clyst.

11. Development in accordance with details given in the Flood Risk Assessment.

12. Recording of archaeological features.

13. Ongoing compliance with Odour Management Plan.

14. Details of external lighting.

15. Noise limits for plant and machinery.

16. Details of surface water drainage.

17. Details of signage.

Appendix III To EEC/10/225/HQ

PLANNING CONDITIONS

1. The development shall commence within three years of the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with Section 91 fof the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the development shall be carried out in accordance with plans D00588C040 rev C, D00588C040 rev, D00588C041 rev B, D00588C042 rev A, D00588C043 rev B, D00588C044 rev B, D00588C045 rev B, D00588C046 rev B, D00588C047 rev A, 558/DR/02 rev P5, 558/DR/03/A4 rev P1, SWW/SD/376 issue 02, SWWSD/360 issue 02, 361 issue 02, 362 issue 02, and 363 issue 02, 558/DR/06 rev P3, 558/DR/07 rev P3, 558/DR/08 rev P2, 558/DOC/02 rev B, R00750V001/A, R00588Y007-B, R00588Y008-A, E00588/CAA/010, E00588/CBA/010, J2155, and ENG-TS-ENS-075 (01)

REASON: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details in the interests of the amenity of the area.

3. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for its approval in writing. The CEMP shall provide details of the following matters:-

• phasing and timing of construction works; • construction traffic routing; • details of temporary construction compounds and areas for storage of construction materials; • methods to minimise any potential for accidental pollution during the construction period; • methods of control of dust, noise, odour, vibration and fumes during the construction period; • hours of construction activities.

Following approval, the CEMP shall be complied with at all times unless a written variation is agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

REASON: To minimise impacts during the contruction of the works.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development approved by this planning permission (or such or date or stage in the development as may be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority: A. A site investigation scheme, based on the preliminary risk assessessmnet to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. B. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (A) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures and how they are to be undertaken. C. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (B) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

REASON: For the protection of controlled waters.

5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority, the hard and soft landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the approved details given on drawing 558/DR/02 rev P5, 558/DR06 rev P3, 588/DR/07 rev P3 and 558/DR/08 rev P2. The landscaping shall be provided during the first planting season following the substantial completion of the building works.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

6. Pursuant to condition 5 above, any planting which dies, becomes diseased, is removed or seriously damaged within a period of five years of planting shall be replaced with species of similar sizes in accordance with the details of the approved landscaping scheme.

REASON: To ensure that the appropriate level of landscaping is maintained.

7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority, the nature conservation mitigation measures identified and set out in the Environmental Baseline Report R00750V001/A shall be carried out in full during the construction of the new sewage treatment works and access track.

REASON: In the interests of nature conservation.

8. All trees, hedgerows and natural features not scheduled for removal shall be fully safeguarded during the period of construction operations in accordance with the details set out on plan 558/DR/02 rev P5, 558/DR06 rev P3, 588/DR/07 rev P3 and 558/DR/08 rev P2.

REASON: In the interests of nature conservation and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the materials and finishes to be used in the external surfaces of all buildings, walls and all other structures within the site shall be in accordance with plans, D00588C043 rev B, D00588C044 rev B, D00588C045 rev B, D00588C046 rev B

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

10. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, a buffer zone of no less than 8 metres shall be maintained between the proposed development and any watercourse and in this buffer zone no construction or any other temporary activity associated with the development shall be permitted to take place.

REASON: In order to protect watercourses.

11. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the development shall proceed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment, R00588Y007-B, dated December 2006.

REASON: In the interests of flood defence.

12. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the archaeologically recording of the site.

13. Upon the completion of the development of the sewage treatment works the odour management of the site shall be operated in accordance with the details provided in the Odour Management Plan document R00588Y008-A, or such variations that may be subsequently approved by the Waste Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

14. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority the external site lighting shall provided in accordance with the details shown on plan 558/DR/A4 rev P1 in the positions shown on plans 558/DR/02 rev P5, 558/DR06 rev P3, 588/DR/07 rev P3 and 558/DR/08 rev P2. Prior to the illumination of the site, a scheme detailing the hours of lighting and method of lighting control shall be submitted to the Waste Plannning Authority for it’s approval in writing. Lighting shall be provided in accordance with the agreed scheme or such other alternative scheme that may subsequently be agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

15. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, the noise level limits at the site shall be in accordance with the South West Water Services Limited Technical Standard ENG-TS-ENS-075(01) submitted with the planning application.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

16. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of surface water drainage shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for its approval in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drainage scheme or such alternative scheme that may subsequently be agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure adequate surface water drainage provision.

17. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority, and except in the cases of emergency, there shall be no vehicle deliveries of waste water for treatment at this site.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

18. The access track leading from the public highway serving the sewage treatment works shall be gated and the gate closed and locked when the access track is not in use.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in order to prevent unauthorised access to the site. Appendix IV To EEC/10/225/HQ

Mosshayne Farm Westclyst Exeter EX1 3TR The County Environment Director Devon County Council County Hall Topsham Road Exeter EX2 4QW

Dear Sirs,

SOUTH WEST WATER LIMITED PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE DCC/3054/2010 AGRICULTURAL LAND ADJACENT TO MILL LANE, WESTCLYST, EXETER STATEMENT OF OBJECTION BY HENRY GENT AND KIRSTEN GENT

We write, as the affected landowner, and farming partnership, and to raise a range of wider issues, in respect of the above application being made on behalf of SWW in seeking a renewal of the conditional planning permission for a sewage treatment works (STW), ref 06/3164/CM dated 8 th June 2007. We have had a recent meeting – 7 th May 2010 – with representatives from SWW, to consider and review this proposed renewal application, together with a representative from Eagle One Ltd (the developer promoting a significant mixed use development to the west of this proposal). This meeting was followed up with an email to SWW, dated 10th May 2010, raising various matters for further clarification. A copy is attached for your reference and appropriate consideration in determining the renewal application.

3 ½ years have elapsed since the original planning application was submitted in 2006. In the interim period, the draft RSS, emerging LDF for the district, and the EA’s redefinition of the floodplain, all pose new and material considerations for the area around the proposed site. In addition, fresh information that has been released by SWW, since conditional planning consent was granted in 2007, raises additional material considerations for the planning authority. The need to provide for wastewater processing to serve proposed new developments within the New Growth Point catchment area is not in dispute. At the time of writing, we are awaiting clarification from SWW as to the full design capacity for this proposal and the catchment area to be served. In this regard, we are keen for all concerned with this proposal to fully understand, and duly consider, information not previously available, which might bear on the determination. The main operational capacity queries are raised below (with additional matters associated with Eagle One’s proposals, to the west of the site, being raised in the enclosed copy letter to SWW).

1. PPS 10 Annexe E requires waste planning authorities to have regard to potential land use conflict. New and excessive wastewater processing capacity should not compromise other planning considerations, including those raised previously (I refer to our letter of 20/11/2006), such as those specified in WPC2, and, a new and material consideration, the opportunity to reach targets for new housing and employment in the area. 2. SWW have now clarified that this planning application, which includes 3 hectares of sludge composting reedbeds, will give sufficient capacity for 3 membrane bioreactors 1. Each membrane bioreactor will have the capacity to

1 E.g.SWW E00588/8 Minutes of meeting 17/5/06 “Reed beds for all 3 phases need to be constructed in Phase 1”; Minutes of meeting 18/8/2006:“The area for the STW is to be extended process 100 litres/second (l/s). The 3 hectares of sludge reedbeds in the planning application is designed to have enough capacity for 300 l/s. This is sufficient for 45,000 p.e. (in other words, sufficient capacity for the wastewater from housing for 45,000 people, and employment for 45,000 people). This is more than twice the total of all the proposed new developments in the catchment. The balance of the capacity would be used to process wastewater from existing developments in the catchment, including storm water and ground water which find their way into older sewerage. This is known as the “Blue Ball” catchment, and correlates with the Clyst valley, including Poltimore, Broadclyst, Pinhoe, Clyst Honiton, Sowton Industrial Estate, Clyst St Mary, Clyst St George, and Woodbury Salterton 2. It is also intended to add the flow from Exeter Airport, which currently goes into a treatment plant at the airport. 3. This is new information. At the time of the original planning application, the planning authority was given flow figures described as “Phase One Flows”. These flows amount to the capacity of one membrane bioreactor, and also relate to the discharge consent that has been granted by the Environment Agency. But that is a matter for the Environment Agency not the planning authority. DCC needs to know the design capacity of the installations that are the subject of the planning application, which includes 3 ha of civil engineering to make sludge composting reedbeds. These are designed to have a capacity for an Inlet Flow to the site of 300 l/s, which is 3 times greater than the “Phase One Flows” and 9 times greater than the current discharge consent, just 32l/s averaged over a 24 hour period. 4. SWW may divert some flows into the works, from the very outset, that come from Pinhoe and Broadclyst 3. These are not listed in the Planning Application

to take this into account and also to extend it westwards beneath the 132 kV power cables so that there is sufficient area for reed beds to cater for Phases 1,2,&3 of the STW” . In other words, although the planning application is for only one membrane bioreactor building, the sludge reedbed structures will be sufficient for three bioreactors, all three proposed Phase Flows. The reedbed structures are hard structures made by bulldozing, hardcoring, impermeable liners, and the installation of filters, pipework, drains, pumps. Thus this planning application is an application for all three phases, for land use of the majority of the area of the application. The applicant’s information is misleading in this respect. 2 Numerous reports detail the capacity of the site to process all the wastewater in the Blue Ball catchment, which is currently processed at Countess Wear: R00588P001/C prepared for SWW March 2004: page 9 “to accommodate the flows from the Blue Ball catchment. This could be undertaken at any stage…the timing being dependent upon the strategic decision to remove the Blue Ball load from Countess Wear rather than a development driver from the new community. For the purposes of this evaluation, this has been assumed to occur between 2011 and 2014”; SWW E0588/8 Minutes of Meeting on 10/10/2005 “The new STW will be designed to treat all sewage flows from Cranbrook, Sky Park, the new Airport terminal, Science Park, plus the flows currently draining to Blue Ball SPS”. This information was not previously available to the waste planning authority. On the contrary, according to EEC/07/121/HQ p.23: “Councillor Nicholson asked whether there was any intention to deal with any sewage coming from the Exeter city direction. In response Mr. Brooks (SWW) said it would not.” 3 SWW meeting 11/1/2006 item 2.7 the Minutes state: “it was noted that a recent development proposal to construct 2000 houses in Old Rydon Lane, Exeter could be accommodated at Countess Wear STW by intercepting flows from the Broadclyst, Pinhoe, and Clyst Honiton catchments at Clyst Honiton SPS and transferring these to the new STW”. At that stage SWW were thinking of pumping to their preferred site, “Option One”, at Hayes Farm. After the landowners brushed them off, they eventually settled on Option 7, the subject of the planning permission. This made it even easier to plan to divert the sewage from Pinhoe and Broadclyst Supportive Statement 558/DOC/02 rev B, even though these flows may be a significant percentage of the flow from the earliest use of the site. 5. Under PPS 10, the planning authority must question whether it is advisable to locate new capacity to process sewage from existing developments, in an area where the draft RSS and emerging LDF is looking for new housing. This wastewater contains a significant percentage of stormwater and groundwater. Emphasis on the waste hierarchy in PPS 10 and WPC 2 (i.e the first priority is to reduce waste,) means that the waste planning authority needs to know what resources have been allocated to reduce the diversion of stormwater into the sewerage, and what resources have been allocated to reduce the infiltration of groundwater. This wastewater is currently processed by the estuary, at Countess Wear, and discharged into the estuary. According to PPS 10, paragraph 20, it is a material problem for the planning authority that wastewater in the Blue Ball catchment should be diverted to the middle Clyst, from the Blue Ball pumping station, to be processed. These are three new and material considerations, as a result of information released since the application was determined. 6. SWW have now clarified that when the reedbeds in the planning application are at full capacity, they will probably need a fresh discharge pipe, and new discharge consent from the EA, for which they have not yet applied, for discharge to tidal water. This information modifies and clarifies the information available to the planning authority in 2007, which indicated that the discharge consent on the middle Clyst, adjacent to the site, which had been granted by the EA, would be sufficient for the facilities within the planning application. That was true only as long as the reedbeds are run at a fraction of their intended capacity. SWW have admitted that the sludge reedbeds in the planning application will have processing capacity which may be in excess of what would be allowed to be discharged to the adjacent Clyst, and have discussed with the Environment Agency the option of a discharge pipe down to tidal water (with not yet granted discharge consent) 4. This raises once again the suggestion that was posed to SWW by their own engineers, that it could be better to build a STW nearer to the estuary for the Blue Ball catchment 5. 7. Since the planning permission was granted, information released by SWW seems to cast doubt on statements made to the authority in 2006/7 that the

(which are in the same pipe): the Minutes of SWW meeting EO588/8, 16/6/06 ITEM 4.2 “the existing sewer draining to Blue Ball SPS has existing operational problems ….there is the potential to mitigate these by diverting flows (equivalent to approx 5000 pop) from the Broadclyst sewer into the STW as it passes along the eastern boundary of site 7 but this may require the outfall to be relocated earlier.” In other words, as soon as the STW is built, divert into the Inlet the flows from the pipe alongside, which come from Pinhoe and Broadclyst, and proceed to discharge to tidal water (see my item 6 above). None of that would require SWW to come back to DCC. Please note that this is contrary to information given previously- see note 2 above. 4E.g. Email from SWW to EA 23/11/2005: “Stage 2- for Cranbrook, other new developments and Blue Ball transfer (by 2015) provide treatment …suitable for discharge to the River Exe……….. Stage 2 – flows from the Blue Ball SPS would be transferred to the new STW at 3 DWF….” 5 For example on 21/10/2005 SWW meeting item 2.2 contains the suggestion: “Look at 2 STWs – 1 for Cranbrook now and 1 for Blue Ball in 2015”. 8 possible sites, nearer to the Blue Ball than our site were suggested to SWW by their consultants during the course of 2006. 6 of these were never mentioned to DCC. proposed sludge composting would be an accepted technology. In 2006 it was not explained that processing sludge with this method on this scale, was confined to coastal sites in northern Denmark 6. That still appears to be the case. SWW have released fresh information that indicates that their own engineer would have preferred a small pilot plant, somewhere else, as a first attempt at a radically new way of treating biosolids 7. 8. Since planning permission was granted, the floodplain has been re-defined by the EA. Most of the proposed access road is now within Flood Zone 2 8. The planning authority needs an estimate of the figure for the number of vehicle movements which will take place when the facilities in the planning application are at capacity. Figures given at the time of the planning application related to Phase One flows only. It is now established that the reedbeds are designed for all three Flow Phases. These will generate vehicle movements three times greater than the figures submitted, but probably more, because the Blue Ball catchment is a combined flow, with stormwater, and will have much more grit. The FRA suggested that access during flooding could be via Mill Lane but in the light of the redefinition of the floodplain by the EA, and the likely scale of the vehicle movements, the planning authority must need to review the section of the FRA which states that when the access road is flooded, the site traffic can use Mill Lane (and the public section of Mosshayne Lane). The relevant section of Mosshayne Lane is extremely narrow, and Mill Lane is a private stoned track used by dairy cows. The applicant needs to inform the authority how many vehicles will be diverted onto this track during flooding of the access track, when the reedbeds in the application are used at full capacity, ie. All three Flow Phases, not just the first Phase Flow. 9. Since planning permission was granted, it has been agreed by SWW that an email from SWW’s agent to DCC dated 12/1/07, contained an error of two decimal places in stating that a discharge of 100l/s would be 0.0063 % of a river flow of 16 cubic metres per second 9. The correct figure is 0.63%. This is still a small percentage of a river flow figure that in any case is an estimate. However when the reedbeds reach full capacity they will have a capacity of 300l/s. A discharge of 300l/s might be considered more significant by the Agency, if there continued to discharge to the middle Clyst. This reinforces the point that the authority did not understand at the time of the determination of the application, that the reedbeds in the application will probably require a discharge to tidal water when they come to capacity.

6 The Planning Support Information submitted by SWW stated (and still states) that the technology is “in common use within other European countries” (p.7). Likewise, according to EEC/07/121/HQ “Mr Brooks (SWW) in response commented that there was one similar plant in the north of England and one in Cornwall….a proven technology from elsewhere…” However, after the planning permission was granted, SWW revealed that “As far as it is known there are two small treatment systems in the UK, one on the island of Islay and the other at Oaklands Park. Neither are designed to the standard proposed at Cranbrook and their small scale renders them an inappropriate comparison.” (Letter from SWW to H.Gent dated 11/10/2007). 7 SWW E00588/8, minutes of meeting 7/2/2006 ITEM2.4, SWW E00588/8, Minutes of meeting 16/6/2006 ITEM 3.3. 8 Actual flooding of the proposed access road route is actually shown in a 1992 photograph of flooding included by the applicant in the Flood Risk Assessment: R00588Y007 – B fig.4. More importantly, the Environment Agency Flood Zones take into account the risk of greater flooding in the future. 9 Letter from SWW to H.Gent dated 11/10/07. 10. Since the planning permission was granted, the performance of the sludge composting area during rainfall has been clarified. The applicant had stated at the site meeting, according to The Minutes: “in effect the reed beds would act as a kind of a lagoon which would allow for flood water attenuation” 10 . On the contrary, SWW have now released meetings Minutes that show that during heavy and prolonged the rainfall, the pumps draining the effluent from the sludge must not be turned off. The return liquors have to keep going back into the membrane bioreactors, and therefore contributing to the scale of the discharge of water 11 . During heavy or prolonged rain there is a danger that the sludge will become waterlogged, anaerobic, stinking, if the drainage is not sufficient. Since the permission was determined, figures have been produced by the SWW 12 estimating the increased flow to the Inlet pump, but these do not correctly calculate the size of the reedbeds including the batter. The authority needs to be informed correctly of the percentage of the discharge consent that could be “used up” by draining rainfall from 3 hectares. No figures have yet been provided to DCC. This is a matter for the waste planning authority, not the Environment Agency , as it you, the authority who have to determine whether this system, on this scale, is appropriate in the heart of the New Growth Point area. 11. Since the planning permission was granted, SWW have released information about the quantity of sludge that will be pumped onto the reedbeds 13 . It is clear that when the reedbeds are at full capacity, and long before that, the quantity of sludge on site will exceed the threshold for Environmental Impact Assessment of sludge deposition sites 14 . DCC must decide whether this sludge composting area, which is the very first of its kind in the United Kingdom, is a “sludge deposition site”. If it is, an EIA should be required before the permission can be determined. It is clear from SWW’s own Minutes that they expected to be asked to do an EIA 15 . We believe that most if not all of the uncertainty and confusion that besets this application would be resolved by a proper Environmental Statement, which is in any case perhaps a legal requirement. 12. Since the planning permission was granted, SWW and others have released information about the process whereby the site was selected. In the autumn of 2005, SWW met with EDDC and both parties agreed that “Option One”, which is the block of land allocated for the rail freight terminal, was the best option 16 . By November the owners of Site 1 had rejected SWW. SWW resolved

10 DCC/EEC/07/121/HQ Appendix V. 11 SWW EO588/8 Minutes of Meeting 29/3/07 item 4.2. 12 SWW letter to H.Gent 14/12/2007. 13 SWW letter to H.Gent 11/10/2007. Item 15. 14 Schedule 2 Paragraph 11 (d) (i) the area of deposit or storage exceeds 0.5 ha; or (ii) a deposit is to be made ...within 100 metres of any controlled waters". Glasson, J., Therivel, R., and Chadwick, A., Introduction to environmental impact assessment 3rd edition , 2005, p.65 ff., says that the DETR issued a guidebook, including criteria and thresholds, including a section for sewage sludge lagoons stating that "EIA is more likely to be required where the site is intended to hold more than 5,000 cubic metres of sewage sludge" (p.69). 15 E.g. SWW E0588/8, 21/10/2005, ITEM 2.4. 16 SWW EO588/8, 21/10/2005 ITEM 2.1. SWW’s own Minute of the meeting with EDDC on 10/10/2005 reads : “Site 1 at northern end of Phase 2 of Intermodal Freight depot-location visually and access- wise preferred by EDDC. Limited discussion to date has taken place with the land-owners, The to go back to them again 17 . There is little further record of “Option One” in any further meetings, but it is indisputable that the attitude of the landowner, rather than any other factor, was the main reason this site was no longer favoured. Subsequently SWW reported this process to DCC in a way that was misleading to a point where councillors may feel that their authorities were misreported (EDDC) and misled (DCC). The discussion with EDDC was reported, and still is reported to you, in the papers submitted by the applicant now, exactly opposite to the truth 18 : you have been informed “East Devon advice Incompatible with an Intermodal Freight Depot.” It would scarcely be possible to report the minutes of the meeting less accurately. The same document from the applicant continues to state that Site 1 is dismissed because it is “in an area of known archaeological interest”. DCC’s own archaeological report had stated that the archaeology was not going to be any more of a show stopper for a sewage works than a freight depot, as was, I think, verbally agreed at the meetings of this committee in 2007. The third and final factor cited by SWW to you for dismissing Site 1 is that it is “too small”. It is a huge site, and the size of the sewage works depends on both the size of the catchment and the type of technology. Is it necessary to build a site with enough capacity to process all the Blue Ball flows, or just the flows from the new developments? Is it best to build sludge composting reedbeds, or some more normal technology? These are the meat and bone material considerations for a waste planning authority that cannot be pre-judged by the applicant.

Finally we would like to reiterate that we accept that additional sewage treatment will be required for new developments in the New Growth Point Area. We do not want to stand in the way of sustainable developments that have been determined by local authorities. That principle is not at issue. We believe that an Environmental Impact Assessment, which is in any case perhaps a legal requirement, would clarify, and perhaps resolve, many of the issues where the planning authority has not been able to confirm information from the applicant. We believe that if the planning application is for engineered structures that will have the capacity to process all the waste in the catchment, then the applicant should demonstrate a holistic and sustainable strategy for wastewater in the catchment. We would much prefer that this facility was not proposed on our land, but we accept that a new sewage works will have to go somewhere if the new developments are to be built.

We look forward to hearing from you and would seek your formal assurance that we will be kept both duly informed during the consultation period and have the opportunity to further address and resolve the various points raised in advance of DCC determining this renewal application.

Yours etc

Church Commissioners. EDDC considered the provision of a STW on this site would be likely to receive planning approval. “ EDDC’s own note of the meeting reads “Options 1 and 2 – agreed by SWW and EDDC to be favourite.” ( Option 2 is merely a variant of Option 1) 17 SWW EO588/8, 9/11/2005 ITEM 2.1. 18 Planning Support Information 588/DOC/02/B.