home - committee - volume - faq's - help -search - meeting - previous - next

V26-1427 : W3898/18 - LAND AT STIRRUPS LANE, CORTON

Application for construction of waste water treatment centre, access road and new roundabout on the A12.

The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming members, officers, members of the public and representatives of Parish Councils. He reminded those present that the purpose of this meeting was to make a recommendation to Suffolk County Council (SCC) on the above application, for which they were the planning authority who would make the final decision.

The Chief Executive then gave a brief outline of the format the meeting was to follow, and asked members to invite the Parish Council and SINBY (Sewage in Nobody's Back Yard) representatives, representatives of Anglian Water, Posford Duvivier Environment, C.E.S. Environmental Management Consultancy and the South East Institute of Public Health (SEIPH) and the local Ward Member for Corton to address the Committee. Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED

1. That the Committee invites the various outside bodies and individuals already identified, who are not members of the Committee, to make presentations on planning application W3898/18.

The Chairman then invited the Head of Planning, Mr Bob Chalk, to make a presentation on the major points of emphasis of the application.

Mr Chalk advised that the application was technically complex and controversial, so he did not intend to go through the report page by page in the traditional manner, if only because of the time this would take. Members had had the opportunity to investigate the report in depth, and Mr Chalk would therefore like to present on two main themes, which members were advised to keep in mind throughout the presentations and debate. These themes were:

(i) Why had this particular site been selected by Anglian Water?

(ii) What impact would the application have, in particular if any odour problems did arise?

Starting with the first theme, Mr Chalk advised that going back to 1993 13 sites had been looked at for a proposed waste water treatment plant at Lowestoft, initially to primary treatment levels, but since 1998 to secondary treatment. We were currently at a stage in a long process of selecting sites from an area bounded by the Norfolk Broads, the Norfolk boundary, the coastline and Kessingland. During the first stage sites were selected throughout the whole area. Many of these sites were deleted, partly because achieving access for the pipeline would be difficult and cause disruption in the Town Centre. Some sites were also allocated for other purposes and so were discounted.
During the second stage five candidate sites were considered, and following a meeting at the Parkhill Hotel in May 1998 a new approach was devised in the form of a matrix which would look at all five sites simultaneously across a range of environmental factors. This matrix resulted in a score for each site based on how 13 environmental factors impacted on each of them. Two sites came close on scores, Site 1 (Stirrups Lane, the application site) and Site 3a (south of Jay Lane). Site 1 was preferred as it scored low on several environmental factors including noise and the effect on landscaping and the road network, and also on Local Plan policies.

The matrix had now served its purpose, and Mr Chalk advised that members did not spend too long debating the pros and cons of the method used.

Turning to the second theme, the public debate since submission of the application had hinged largely on the environmental factors of odour impact and visual intrusion. Concerning visual impact, the application site was characterised by mature trees, particularly on the eastern and northern fringes. The site was, however, visible from Fowlers Crescent, and the proposed dome would be partly visible through gaps in the trees, particularly during the Winter months. A slide of this view was shown to the Committee, followed by the view from Stirrups Lane. Although much landscaping was intended around the new building, this would take time to mature and so the building would be visible from Stirrups Lane for several years.

The site was reasonably well hidden from the A12 by vegetation and distance. Alternative locations 3a and 2 were in a more open and undulating area of the strategic gap and would have a greater landscape impact on the A12 corridor.

Turning to odour impact, the most decisive environmental impact, Mr Chalk advised that the proposal incorporated a number of odour control methods, with most of the works being under an airtight dome with airlocks. All air emitted from the works would be cleaned by odour scrubbers prior to release through a single flue at the top of the dome. The scrubbers would work at 50% capacity to allow for breakdowns. Dried sludge would be transferred to road tankers inside the dome.

Before covering permissible odour levels, Mr Chalk first explained some of the technical terms he would be using. Firstly, he explained that the lowest possible level of odour detectable by 50% of a panel of 10 people was known as an odour unit (OU). Secondly, the concentration of detectable gases in the air was measured in parts per billion (ppb). Anglian Water's consultant recommended that the complaint threshold was five odour units, or five times the detectable level. A dispersion model predicting the level of output and the odour concentrations at the nearest receptors, the nearest people to the site, predicted an odour nuisance well below that threshold.

The Council commissioned its own odour consultant from SEIPH, who looked at Anglian Water's study and suggested a lower figure of three odour units. This would require an odour concentration of gases at the chimney stack of no more than 500ppb. They also questioned the hourly averages which Anglian Water's consultants had used, and felt these may mask short term peaks. A complaint threshold of 0.3 odour units per square metre should be adopted. This would require that the concentration at the top of the dome should be no more than 250ppb.

Mr Chalk recommended that the concentration be no more than 200ppb, to achieve an odour level at the closest receptor of no more than 0.3 odour units for 99.5% of the time. Anglian Water had been happy to work within that recommendation.

Mr Chalk concluded that the Council had made all efforts reasonably possible to ensure odour emissions from the site would be within the highest standards of the industry, and had been assured that this was possible by their own odour consultants. He accepted that the proposal was needed in Lowestoft, and felt that there was not a sufficiently strong case to sustain a refusal of planning permission for reasons of environmental impact. Any of the sites would have some impact, and the impacts the application site would have were not sufficient grounds to justify refusal.

Mr Chalk advised that the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Building Control was that Suffolk County Council be informed that this Council raises no objection to the proposed construction of a Waste Water Treatment Centre at Stirrups Lane, Corton. He further recommended that should planning permission be granted by Suffolk County Council, conditions be attached to the planning permission that:

(i) emissions of odours from the proposed scheme shall be treated and ducted from a single stack, and that emissions discharged should not exceed 200ppb of hydrogen sulphide during normal operation and, in any event, not exceed 500ppb for periods greater than one hour;

(ii) the level of hydrogen sulphide emitted from the plant's exhaust stack shall be monitored continuously and recorded. Records shall be made available to the local planning authority as requested.

The Chairman then invited Mr Barker, the representative of Corton Parish Council, to address the Committee.

Mr Barker began by saying that recent articles in the press had quoted Anglian Water reports as suggesting that Lowestoft would only keep its Blue Flag clean beach awards if a waste water treatment centre was built at Corton. But why Corton? Anglian Water also referred to the treatment works as the "Corton waste water treatment site". He felt Anglian Water were fixated with the idea of this site, to the exclusion of all others.

Corton residents were not opposed to a treatment works being built in North Lowestoft, but they wanted to know why it needed to be built so close to their homes. Other sites had been rejected because of close proximity to housing. The Corton site was close to the 519 homes in the village of Corton.

Mr Barker also felt that the matrix used to give scores to potential sites was factually inaccurate and biased. He did not think that any recognised statistical procedure had been used.

Concerning odour risk and control, Anglian Water's environmental statement said that the design would go "some way" to controlling odour emission - but there would still be some odour emission. CES's report said that the avoidance of nuisance would only be possible in isolated areas. Anglian Water told us that we had nothing to fear from odour. They said that to Cromer, Felixstowe and Ipswich, too. Residents of Sandy Lane, Cromer, lived with constant odour pervasion. Why should that be different at Corton? The plant proposed for Corton was a new design, Anglian Water had no experience of operating this type of treatment works.

Finally, Mr Barker felt that the District Council's report lacked the conviction of its recommendations, and he urged members of the Committee to recommend rejection of the Stirrups Lane site.

The Chairman thanked Mr Barker for his presentation, and invited Mr Butcher, the representative of SINBY, to speak.

Mr Butcher began by acknowledging that a waste water treatment centre was needed somewhere north of the town, but not at Stirrups Lane. The site was just too close to housing and also two holiday camps and the Corton beach holiday units. Mr Butcher did not accept that operation of the site would clean up Lowestoft's beaches, as it was flows from North Norfolk which affected them. He also felt that Ness Point emissions did not affect Lowestoft's south beach.

Mr Butcher felt that the Stirrups Lane site was chosen simply for ease of engineering and cost, but these were not planning considerations. He also felt the matrix was seriously flawed, and since it was the matrix results on which the site was chosen, this could not be glossed over.

The Jay Lane site did not score much lower than Corton, but that site was not so near to housing, only projected development. That site also scored the same as Corton on Local Economy and Tourism - but this was wrong, Corton had much more tourism, and the Jay Lane site was much better for the treatment works.

Finally, Mr Butcher reminded the Committee that some time ago a proposal for a waste incinerator at Worlingham was turned down by the planning committee due to local opposition to the application. He hoped the Committee would take a similar stand this evening and recommend that Suffolk County Council refuse the application.

The Chairman next invited Mr Blowers, the representative of Blundeston Parish Council, to make his presentation.

Mr Blowers advised the Committee that Blundeston and Flixton Parish Council wished to object to the plans for the waste water treatment centre as far as they affected Blundeston. Two of the possible sites were in Blundeston and Lound, and this was prime agricultural land. The treatment centre would be highly visible and close to both Lothingland Middle School and Lound Nursing Home, and also the residential areas of Lound.

Any odour problems would be unacceptable so close to a school, and he did not like to think what would happen if the pipe burst. The treatment plant needed to be running by the year 2000, but to be at Blundeston and Lound the pipeline would have to run quite some extra distance. He felt that Ness Point would be a much better location for the site.

After thanking Mr Blowers, the Chairman invited Mr Jarvis, the representative of Lound Parish Council, to speak.

Mr Jarvis began by stating that a new waste water treatment plant had to be built in the Lowestoft area by the year 2000 to meet European standards, and so any new application site would have to be rushed through the planning and consultation stages.

He understood why the people of Corton were objecting to the proposal, and felt that people in any application area would do the same. It was essential that the best possible treatment of emissions took place, wherever the site was built.

Lound supported Corton's concern over odour. However as no viable alternative site existed Anglian Water must process all emissions to the highest possible standards.

The Chairman next invited Mrs Jones, the representative of Hopton Parish Council, to address the Committee.

Mrs Jones advised the Committee that Hopton Parish Council agreed that a treatment plant needed to be built somewhere in the area, but their concern was that it should be a very modern plant.

There were arguments for and against any potential site, but Corton had been picked. Anglian Water promised a high tech site, and the District and County Councils should ensure it was indeed the best possible.

The Chairman thanked the representatives of the Parish Councils and SINBY for their clear presentations, and invited Anglian Water and their consultants to make their presentation.

Mr Thomas, for Anglian Water, began the presentation by advising that they were legally obliged to provide a facility in the area. £260 million had been spent to date cleaning up the local bathing water, and much more was expected to be spent in the future.

There were three parts to the Lowestoft scheme. The Ness Point primary treatment, a pipeline to the secondary treatment site at Corton, and finally a pipe back to Ness Point for outfall into the North Sea. The scheme would provide the cornerstone for Lowestoft's beaches to have continuous Blue Flag quality. This would be aided by demolishing the existing Corton sewage works and North Sea outfall.

The Ness Point part of the application had already been approved by the Council.

The new treatment centre had originally been expected to be primary treatment only. However, after consultation Anglian Water had committed to secondary treatment, which had since become a legal requirement. Primary treatment would have cost £27 million, secondary treatment would cost £47 million, and due to local concerns Anglian Water would provide a dome over the works, taking the cost to £63 million.

In 1997 the scheme was first proposed for Corton, and all concerned bodies were consulted. Representatives of SINBY and the parishes were invited to a meeting at Anglian Water's innovation centre, where the full secondary, covered, disguised, state-of-the-art facility was negotiated. In May 1998 they discussed the selection of the site, and agreed to reassess it. In August 1998 roadshows were held in the parishes showing the options, and giving them input into the design. In the main there was positive attendance and response.

Odours, visibility, the environment, tourism and residents were all taken into account in the design, and Anglian Water believed that being covered, the site would have little impact on the local community.

Charles Haine, Senior Environmental Scientist for Posford Duvivier Environment, spoke concerning alternative sites. He advised that in 1993 Anglian Water had asked his company to look at a number of sites in the area between the Norfolk Broads, the Norfolk border, the east coast and Kessingland. Mr Haine felt that Anglian Water had gone much further than they were required to go by way of producing reports, and 13 sites had been considered. All Anglian Water's reports and the matrix results had been made publicly available, and they had spent the largest amount of money on consultation on a development that he had known. The matrix had been used as the third wave of detailed appraisal of the study area, and had been used to provide quantitative data. It was a strategic tool used to view sites in context with one another and was based on a lot of factors. Using it had been a positive step.

Mr Haine said that his company felt the Corton site to be the most suitable, and that no-one had suggested a realistic alternative. Many public meetings and roadshows had culminated in the application being made.

All of Anglian Water's reports had been comprehensive, with reports on landscape and traffic impact and extra reports on odour. The most appropriate technology would be used to ensure protection for the community and a successful scheme.

Paul Colclough, Technical Consultant for CES, advised that his company had carried out a review and audit of the proposed odour control system for the site, concerning the action of microbes on organic matter.

All sewage would be collected at Ness Point, which would have its own odour control system, and after screening and de-gritting would be pumped along a pipeline the four kilometres to the treatment works. Chemical dosing of the system would take place at the point of entry of the waste water into the pipe.

It was unusual for primary, secondary and settlement tank treatment centres to be odour treated at each stage. However, all stages would be covered by the odour controlled dome at the Lowestoft centre. The dome would also be a working area, so would need to be odour controlled for Health and Safety reasons.

Having covered all odorous processes, all gases would be passed into a scrubber. The site would have the wet chemical scrubber, which was the best system available in the UK and would have 99.9% efficiency. Emissions from the dome would then all be via a single, continuously monitored stack.

Mr Thomas concluded the presentation by saying that throughout the construction, commissioning of the treatment centre and beyond, Anglian Water would work closely with the community. It expected the facility to be a flagship site, and one of the best in the world.

After Anglian Water's presentation the Chairman invited The Director of Planning and Building Control himself to sum up the proceedings so far.

The Director reminded members that they were not here to make a decision on the application, but to make a recommendation to Suffolk County Council. Members had heard a description of the applicant's proposals and had clear cases from the Parishes put to them. They were recommended to make no objection. However, if they were minded, having now had the presentations, to raise objection, the County Council would wish them to explain their reasons clearly.

In making a recommendation, members were asked to keep in mind the planning considerations of the impact of the treatment centre and local plan policy. The local plan stated there should be no development north of Lowestoft, so the main consideration should be impact.

When the application first came in, the Director said that he was, indeed, concerned about smell nuisance. However, after months of negotiation the specification of the proposed plant had been dramatically advanced, and the Council's own consultants had confirmed the applicant's consultant's advice that it was almost certain there would be no smell. Members, however, may feel that even the smallest possibility may be too much in a location so close to the village.

Finally, whether members were minded to recommend approval or refusal, they should advise that appropriate conditions be placed on any treatment works, wherever they were sited.

The Chairman next invited Councillor Brian Hunter, the local ward Councillor for Corton, to address the Committee.

Councillor Hunter began by reiterating the point that the application before the Committee was one on which Waveney's views were being sought by Suffolk County Council, who would make the final decision. The message to the County from this Committee should therefore reflect any local views and concerns.

Many years ago the Corton pumping works were built in close proximity to the Church, with local residents having little say in the matter. People had put up with regular smell nuisance from the works, and it was with relief that they heard it was to close. When news of the current application broke, Corton residents said please make sure we do not have to suffer any more. It was not enough just to hope everything would be fine. They needed to know for sure, and they would not know for sure until the site was up and running.

Over the months Councillor Hunter had looked at the application, visited other works and read numerous documents. He had come to the conclusion that an odour free site could not be guaranteed, and it was reasonable for Corton not to want it in their ward, although they were not against the principle of the site.

To conclude, Councillor Hunter said he had never seen such strong concern over an issue before. Corton people had an expectancy of protection, but he was not convinced Anglian Water could promise an environmentally friendly and acceptable method of treating sewage.

The Chairman then asked members of the Committee whether they had any questions to ask on matters of clarification.

Councillor Whitlow asked what the likely buildup of hydrogen sulphide in the pipeline would be, and how long the sewage was likely to be in the pipe for, the purpose of his questions being to ascertain whether the length of the pipe was of importance.

Anglian Water replied that they did not know how long the sewage would be in the pipeline, but that hydrogen sulphide buildup usually increased with distance. However, chemical dosing before the sewage actually entered the pipeline should prevent any buildup of hydrogen sulphide.

Councillor Young asked that, as objection levels were high for any of the possible sites, bearing in mind that in parts of Europe treatment plants were sited offshore or on sand banks, had this option been considered? Anglian Water replied that the costs of building offshore were astronomical, and such centres were very difficult to maintain. This option had therefore been disregarded.

Councillor Leverett picked up on the comment from Anglian Water that the site would be "the best system available in the UK". He wanted to know if it was the best available in the world, and also whether the fact that the Corton site was the nearest to Ness Point had anything to do with it being chosen as the best site. Anglian Water replied that OdourGuard was the best system available on the market, and that distance was disregarded in making the choice of site.

Councillor Devereux asked why UV treatment was not being considered, when it was in use in other parts of the country. Anglian Water replied that the model to determine dispersion rates had identified that tertiary, or UV treatment was not needed. However, if it should become a requirement in the future, UV treatment could be added on to the site. Nevertheless, tertiary treatment would have no effect on odour emissions.

Councillor Thorne asked why the matrix had been used, when it had caused so much confusion, and was told that rather than keep bouncing from one site to another Anglian Water wanted a more quantifiable method of comparing them. The weightings were the result of four months of work.

Councillor Gower asked whether, though he realised UV treatment would not affect odour, it would affect the quality of discharge into the sea with the removal of more bacteria. Anglian Water replied that it would, but this treatment was not needed in order to achieve guideline standards of water quality. However, constant monitoring would ensure that if this treatment was required in the future it would be put in, and would probably actually be a legal requirement in that case.

Councillor Whatrup asked whether the noise and disruption of actually building the site and pipeline had been taken into consideration in the choice of site. She was advised that it had.

Councillor Cracknell asked why, as Site 2 had been chosen first, it had suddenly been turned down when it would actually have less residential impact. Anglian Water replied that Site 2 had not been the original choice, but only one of the four northern sites considered. Site 1 had been chosen first, and following concern sites 2, 3a and 3b had been considered, but had been taken out of the equation following investigation.

Councillor Rose wanted confirmation that Posford Duvivier had been given a free hand by Anglian Water, and they advised him that they had been given a study area but were under no pressure from Anglian Water and were completely independent from them.

Following questions, the Chairman invited members to speak on the application.

Councillor Lewars began the debate by saying that, like Councillor Hunter, he had never seen so much emotion aroused on an application. There was no dispute about the need for the plant, the issue was the siting of it. He proposed to argue that Site 1 was the wrong site and unacceptable. Following intense local opposition Anglian Water had a meeting at Parkhill in 1998 to look at alternatives. Based on an Environmental Impact Assessment one of the sites was chosen. In April 1998 Anglian Water said in a newsletter that few people would wish to live near the new site so it should be kept as remote and invisible as possible. But Site 1 was right next to a village, hardly remote.

In August 1998 Anglian Water announced it had chosen Site 1. Members were tonight being asked to look at an application on a site which would have the most adverse impact. Site 1 was the most populous, the nearest to a village, and would result in loss of livelihood and loss of tourist trade. Anglian Water could not guarantee the site would be odour free, and even if they could there would always be the possibility of breakdown. Councillor Lewars had visited Ipswich and Cromer, and had not been convinced that odour would not have an adverse effect.
Finally, Anglian Water had stated in the past that Site 2 was a viable alternative. He moved that Suffolk County Council be informed that the Council objected to the application.

Councillor Young said that the size of Site 1 was almost half the size of Corton Village itself, so it was clear that the impact on the village would be substantial, and it was questionable whether this impact would be sustainable. The site was also on a hill so would be difficult to hide and therefore clearly visible for a number of years.

Councillor Thorne agreed that Site 1 was unacceptable, and seconded Councillor Lewars's motion.

Councillor Keable said that whichever site was chosen it would be a poor deal for someone. He did not feel the matrix results were accurate, particularly with regard to effect on tourism. Corton was the worst of the four sites to pick.

Councillor Leverett welcomed Anglian Water's commitment to a much needed treatment works, but doubted that Stirrups Lane was the best site. It was arguably better than some alternatives, but he did not think it should be chosen simply as the best of a bad lot. He asked Anglian Water to look at the possibilities again and come back with the best site for Waveney.

Councillor Gower said that, having looked at the alternative sites on a site visit that afternoon, it appeared to him that Site 2 was to be preferred, as it was partly in a hollow and further from densely residential areas. Concerning being asked to recommend that conditions be attached to any approval, he felt this was worth doing so long as those conditions could be enforced. He believed the experts that the construction would be almost odour free. However, it was a new type of plant so this could not be known for sure. If a complaint was made, how long would it take for evidence to be collected, court action to be taken, a successful prosecution to be made and action to be taken to prevent further nuisance? And how large would any fine need to be to ensure no future occurrences?

Councillor Whitlow agreed that there was no such thing as a completely safe system. However, the application had come a long way since the original proposal, and was a considerable improvement on it. He moved the recommendations of the officers' report, with the stressing of conditions on odour and monitoring.

Councillor Devereux felt that the only sensible site would be the one which affected the minimum number of people. The people of Corton should not be exposed to any risks when there was an alternative site. Site 2 was half way between Corton and Hopton, and a lower number of properties would be affected.

Councillor Carter said that he, too, had visited Cromer expecting low odour detection, and had been disappointed. He wanted total clarification that the Director of Planning and Building Control's advised levels of odour could be reached, with serious penalties imposed if they were not.

Councillor Cracknell said that the Council had a strategy to encourage tourism, and a sewage works at Corton was hardly going to attract holidaymakers.

Officers then took the opportunity to address members before the vote was taken. The Director of Planning and Building control wondered if members would like to formally suggest an alternative site, and also advised that a suggestion be added to the recommendation that quality standards be put in place that emissions should be no worse than those suggested in his report, and that this could be covered by a Section 106 Agreement to enable action to be taken should problems arise.

The Principal Solicitor advised that the availability of alternative sites was capable of being a material consideration. However, the application needed to be considered on planning merits, whether or not alternative sites were available. If members decided an alternative site was something to give prominence to, they would have to be sure that an alternative site would not give rise to the same level of problems as the application site.

The Chief Executive re-emphasised the fact that the Committee were only required to make a recommendation to Suffolk County Council. The work of the Committee usually involved making the decision themselves, in which case they had to indicate the grounds for any refusal. In this case they could simply recommend that the County Council refuse the application, without giving reasons. However, he would advise against this as the County would not be able to judge the merits of that argument without reasons.

Councillor Lewars added to his motion that the Committee suggest Site 2 as a more viable site. Their argument against Site 1 was that it would have the greatest adverse impact on the village of Corton, and also the greatest adverse impact on tourism. The Committee should ask the County to add conditions to any approval, as referred to in the Director's report, namely on levels of emissions, and also that consideration be given to tertiary treatment.

The vote being taken, it was won by a majority of 14-1.

RESOLVED

2. That Suffolk County Council be informed that this Council objects to the grant of planning permission to application W3898/18 on the grounds of the site having the greatest impact on the village of Corton, and on tourism.

3. That Suffolk County Council be requested to consider the use of Site 2 as a more appropriate site for the waste water treatment centre, and that further negotiation be held with Anglian Water concerning the possibility of the tertiary treatment of waste.

4. That, should Suffolk County Council be minded to grant approval to this application, or any subsequent application that might be submitted in respect of Site 2, the following conditions be attached to the planning permission, controlled by a Section 106 Agreement:

(i) that emissions of odours from the proposed scheme shall be treated and ducted from a single stack. The emissions discharged shall not exceed 200ppb of hydrogen sulphide during normal operation and, in any event, not exceed 500ppb for periods greater than one hour;

(ii) that the level of hydrogen sulphide emitted from the plant's exhaust stack be monitored continuously and recorded, records to be made available to the local planning authority as requested.

The meeting was concluded at 10.05 pm.

Chairman

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 23/03/99

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 23/03/99

508

501

Volume 26 Minute 1426

powered by Oultwood Web Technology

© Waveney District Council