Contact: Neil Chester, ext 6496

1. Summary

1.1 In December 2001 Test Valley Borough Council erroneously determined an application (Application No. TVN 08337) for improvements to the Middle Wallop Waste Water Treatment Works. However, the improvements were not implemented according to the approved plans and, therefore, planning permission is now sought from the Waste Planning Authority for the works as constructed. Test Valley Borough Council's Environmental Health Officer has received numerous complaints from neighbouring properties regarding noise and odour since the works were originally carried out. If this application is refused, the applicant can implement the original Test Valley Borough Council permission and the issues of noise and odour will not be addressed.

1.2 It is recommended that the application be approved to ensure that concerns over unacceptable noise and odour at the site are properly addressed.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The application site, illustrated on the attached plan, is approximately 0.08 hectare in area. It is situated adjacent to residential properties and the Wallop County Primary School lies approximately 20 metres to the north-east. Access to the site is from School Lane and is secured through an easement with Hampshire County Council. The waste water treatment works have been operating since the 1950s.

2.2 The proposal is to retain the existing waste water treatment works which have recently been upgraded to produce a better quality effluent. The proposal will not produce any additional traffic movements and the existing access will continue to be utilised.

2.3 The applicant applied to Test Valley Borough Council to improve the waste water treatment works at School Lane in November 2001. The Borough Council determined this application in error, granting permission in December 2001. This application should have been dealt with as a County matter because the operation consisted of waste water treatment. The improvements were not built in compliance with the approved plans and the Borough Council advised the applicant that a new application to retain the works was required.

2.4 The works carried out on site differed from those permitted by Test Valley Borough Council in three main points:

(i) the fencing erected on site was 1.8 metre palisade fencing as an alternative to the chain-link fence with three stranded barbed wire originally approved;

(ii) the access road surfacing has changed from type 1 granular material to a Geoscape Eco Block reinforced grass system; and

(iii) the control cabinet is now 600 millimetres longer than shown on the approved drawing and is further from the boundary with the adjoining school.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (Review) (adopted March 2000) Policy MW2 concerns environmental impacts of waste development (see attached appendix).

3.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted December 1998) Policy 7 concerns the impact of the development on sensitive land uses; Policy 51 refers to waste water treatment; Policy 53 refers to ancillary waste development (see attached appendix).

4. Consultations

4.1 Nether Wallop Parish Council has not yet responded.

4.2 Over Wallop Parish Council and Middle Wallop Parish Council have made no comments on the proposal.

4.3 The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal.

4.4 Test Valley Borough Council and the Environmental Health Officer raise no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions.

4.5 English Nature raises no objections to the proposal.

5. Representations

5.1 Two letters of objection have been received. The reoccurring reasons for objecting are unacceptable noise and odour impact, unsightly appearance and safety risks.

5.2 The local Member, Councillor Woodhall, has been informed of the proposal.

6. Officer's Comments

6.1 The proposal is to retain the waste water treatment works after the scheme implemented on site differed from that approved by Test Valley Borough Council. The significant differences between the two schemes are in fence type, the surfacing of the access way and the relocation of the control cabinet within the existing site. These revised works have been carried out as a result of easement negotiations with Hampshire County Council. The control cabinet was relocated due to unforeseen site constraints.

6.2 The residents' concerns over safety refer specifically to the settlement tank which is covered by metal mesh. The site is surrounded by palisade fencing (1.8 metres high) which has been installed for security purposes. The applicant considers that this type of fencing is adequate to deter entry to the site and that the fencing helps to promote safety. The applicant was asked to ensure that appropriate covers are placed on all tanks. This has now been done.

6.3 Local residents have raised concerns over the appearance of the site. The palisade fencing is considered to have an adverse impact on the landscape value of the area. However, the palisade fencing is necessary for security purposes and is required as part of the easement agreement with the County Council, and the appearance of the site is not considered an adequate reason for withholding planning permission.

6.4 Since the `improvements' to the site were completed, Test Valley Borough Council's Environmental Health Officer has received several complaints relating to unacceptable noise and odour emanating from the site. The applicant has undertaken extensive investigations to identify the source of the noise and odour and appointed a noise consultant to address the complaints. The noise emanating from the site has now been significantly reduced and it is considered that future problems could be satisfactorily addressed by a noise condition.

6.5 The odour problem is more difficult to address. It would be unreasonable to expect that odour will be totally eliminated from a waste water treatment works. However, any odours should not be at unacceptable levels to local residents. The manufacturer of the plant has visited the site and confirmed that all is functioning correctly. The applicant has recently cleared the inlet to the works, which was partly blocked by household sponges and rags, and clearance has now been added to the weekly maintenance schedule. The applicant has also emptied the septic tanks of local residents to eliminate this potential source of odour.

6.6 It is not practical to attach a condition requiring that odour be kept below a pre-determined level. Such a condition would not be enforceable. However, the problem can be partially addressed by ensuring that the applicant regularly monitors odour at the site and takes appropriate action should the problem persist.

6.7 When considering the merits of the application it is necessary to be mindful of the situation should planning permission be refused. In these circumstances the applicant could fall back on the Test Valley Borough Council consent which does not address either noise or odour issues. In practical terms, the applicant would be required to restore the access to type 1 granular material, replace the palisade fencing with chain-link and barbed wire, and replace the control cabinet with a smaller unit. The noise and odour objections will not be addressed by refusing this application. The benefits of refusing the application are therefore marginal.

6.8 On balance, it is considered that the benefits of addressing the noise and odour concerns through this planning application outweigh the benefits that may be derived from refusing the application. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application by Testway Housing Limited be granted, subject to conditions.

Recommendation

That planning permission for the retention of the Waste Water Treatment Works at School Lane, Middle Wallop (Application No. TVN 08337/1) be granted, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date on which this planning permission was granted.

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

(2) Noise from the treatment works shall not result in an increase in background levels of more than 5 dB(A) Leq daytime or night-time when measured at the boundary with the nearest residential property. All measurement periods and protocols should be as specified in BS4142:1997.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

(3) An odour monitoring scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority within one month from the date of this permission. The scheme shall be implemented on approval in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. If odour is detected at the site boundary, giving rise to an unacceptable impact on local residents, remedial action shall be taken immediately to address the problem.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

7527/NC

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN 1996-2001 (REVIEW) (ADOPTED MARCH 2000)

Policy MW2

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the mineral/waste planning authority is satisfied that:

(i) any adverse environmental or other impacts that the development would be likely to cause are outweighed by a clearly established need for the development; and

(ii) the proposals, where applicable, include a satisfactory scheme of working and landscaping including details of lorry routeing and, in all cases, include satisfactory measures to ensure that the development would not have any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(iii) the proposals, where applicable, provide for the satisfactory and prompt restoration and after-care of the site to a high standard and to a landform compatible with the local landscape and suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

HAMPSHIRE, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED 17 DECEMBER 1998)

Policy 7

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals and waste development provided they are satisfied that, where appropriate, the proposed development pays due regard to:

(i) the relationship of the proposal site to other properties and land uses (particularly residential and other environmentally sensitive properties) and the likely effects of the proposed development on the locality by reason of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, illumination or any other factor and the need for buffer zones between the development and residential and other properties;

(ii) the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected, in terms of highway capacity and safety and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements required could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact;

(iii) the likely visual impact of the proposed development and the need for additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development;

(iv) the need to safeguard the character and amenities of individual settlements and to safeguard open gaps between settlements from permanent development which would cause long-term harm to the function of the land;

(v) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to protect and safeguard sites of nature conservation, geological, archaeological, historic, architectural and landscape importance and their settings;

(vi) the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken by the proposed development and the proposals for its subsequent restoration and the likely effects of the proposals on farm structure and management;

(vii) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to maintain the distinctive character of the landscape; the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard and protect individual species, habitats and landscape features, including woodland, trees and hedgerows; and the likely effects of the proposed development on forestry and woodland management;

(viii) the likely effects of the proposed development on sites used for recreation and public rights of way and the need to protect or secure the satisfactory diversion of public rights of way;

(ix) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard the flow and quality of watercourses, water supplies, floodplains, groundwater, the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the level of the water table in the locality and the likely effects of the proposed development on the immediate setting of any river;

(x) any potential danger to aircraft from birds being attracted to the site;

(xi) the possible amenity implications of any landfill gas that might be generated at the site and of any provisions that might need to be made to deal with it; and

(xii) the likely cumulative impact of the proposed development in combination with any other significant development taking place or permitted to take place in the locality and the need to minimise the impact of mineral extraction and waste disposal operations by securing, where appropriate, the phased release of sites and progression of working and restoration.

Policy 51

Development for the treatment or disposal of waste waster (sewage) and for the handling, treatment, processing and disposal of sewage sludge will be permitted provided the Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i) the need for the proposed development cannot practicably and reasonably be met at a more environmentally acceptable site; and

(ii) the proposed development is located and designed in such a way as to minimise any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to give rise to, including visual intrusion, odour, noise, traffic and any secondary effects of sludge disposal, having particular regard to the need to safeguard the amenities of the occupants or users of houses and other buildings in the locality.

Policy 53

The Waste Planning Authorities will permit plant, machinery, buildings and other development ancillary to waste disposal, processing and transfer facilities within the boundary of or adjacent to the facility, provided that:

(i) the development is required solely in connection with the operation, administration or servicing of the waste facility; and

(ii) any plant, machinery, building or other structure is to be designed, constructed and landscaped so as to minimise any adverse impact on the amenities of the area and, in any case, it would not be likely to give rise to any unacceptable environmental or traffic impact or other detrimental effect; and

(iii) the size, type and nature of the development are appropriate to the scale of the waste facility for which it is required; and

(iv) any plant, machinery, building or other structure would be removed as soon as the use of the waste facility has ceased and the site would be restored to a satisfactory condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.