Agenda item

Replacement of existing septic tank with a domestic sewage treatment plant.

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the replacement of existing septic tank with a domestic sewage treatment plant (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Robinson, Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location, aerial photographs, photographs of the site and the proposed tank specification. The Planning Officer explained that the applicant had provided an up to date management plan and therefore condition 5 was no longer required.

 

Councillor Robinson, Local Member for the Benfieldside division addressed the Committee. He stressed that the report lacked information regarding the maintenance of the tank and pointed out that there had been 16 spillages over the last 6 years. He explained that when the sewage wagon arrives to empty the tank, residents are unable to access the road for a period of one hour. Councillor Robson noted that 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road were now commercial premises and were used continuously seven days a week and that by law that the tank should have been replaced in 2022 and therefore the proposal for replacement was 18 months out of date. Councillor Robinson stressed that the applicant did not own the land and highlighted that the covenant was for domestic use and not for commercial use. 

 

Mr M Farrell addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He explained that he had made the applicant aware when the tank had overspilled and had stressed to the applicant that they were unable to build on his land without planning permission. Mr Farrell informed Members that he had significant evidence of the tank overspilling which had caused contamination to the River Derwent and emphasised the foul smell when this occurred. Mr Farrell believed, given the number of people at 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road and Mill House, that the proposal was not fit for purpose and pointed out that the footprint of the proposal was ten times larger than the footprint of the 1968 tank. Mr Farrell explained that he had offered to sell the land at the bottom of his garden where the existing septic tank was currently situated and stated that he was unable to put up a fence in this area due to the ongoing maintenance that was required. Mr Farrell explained that an alternative option for the proposal would be for the applicant to utilise the land at 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road where an unused garage was located.

 

S Deegan, Associate Director, Cambrian Group addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. The proposal for a domestic sewage treatment plant would be installed in the same location as the current tank and would service 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road only, with a new separate tank to service Mill House. He confirmed that two tanks would address the issues with capacity. Mr Deegan advised that a legal easement had been in place since 1968 which permitted legal right of access onto the site where the tank was currently located for the purpose of maintenance. He confirmed that the deed served no other purpose. He stated that the existing system was failing and a new improved facility was required. Whilst he understood the concerns of those that had objected, he advised that the underground infrastructure was already in place and the proposal had been accepted by the environment agency and was the most appropriate method to address the current issues. He noted the domestic sewage treatment plant could serve up to 12 people and as the number of people who reside/work at 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road was 11, the proposal was deemed sufficient. S Deegan confirmed that no objections had been received following submission of the management plan which included a six week cycle of cleaning and flushing, annual tank maintenance and the installation of an alarm to prevent overflowing. S Deegan confirmed that all measures would be secured by conditions and advised that the domestic sewage treatment plant had received sign off from all statutory consultees.

 

L Dalby, Principal Planning Officer responded to Councillor Robinson’s comment regarding land ownership and confirmed that this was outside the scope of the Area Planning Committee and could not be considered. With regards to maintenance, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that as he was in receipt of a satisfactory management plan from Cambrian Group, condition 5 was no longer necessary. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor Jopling, the Principal Planning Officer explained that three properties were currently connected to the existing tank and none of the properties could be disconnected until Mill House had its own tank, and for this to happen a separate application would need to be submitted demonstrating that Mill House had adequate capacity to deal with their waste.

 

Councillor Jopling went on to ask how efficient the domestic sewage treatment plant was in treating waste. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the traditional septic tank stored waste but the new domestic sewage treatment plant processed waste and its discharge was 97% clean. He further explained that the maintenance of the new plant was required once per year.

 

Councillor Earley commented on the complexities of the application and praised Councillor Robinson in supporting residents. He emphasised the contamination that had occurred in the River Derwent and stated that it would be beneficial to have someone present at the meeting who had commitment to the local area. He believed that the business at 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road needed to behave in a responsible manner and felt that they could afford a proper solution to the issues suffered by residents. Councillor Earley asked for further clarification on how the domestic sewage treatment plant worked particularly the separation of fresh and foul water and if it was possible for the tank to overflow in the event of a flash flood. He asked for further clarification regarding the maintenance of the tank, whether this would be every 6 weeks or once per year and asked who would be alerted by the alarm that was to be installed. He stressed that Members needed to do their best for the residents and for the River Derwent to prevent any further pollution.

 

Councillor Watson commented that sewage was an issue throughout the country. He questioned why the domestic sewage treatment plant had to be next to the riverbank noting that several portable units were located across the countryside and were not in close proximity to a river and asked if a portable tank that did not require discharge into the river was an option where the unused garage was. He stated that the contamination caused to the river poisoned fish and prevented children from using the river. Councillor Watson went on to state that the land in question was private and should not be used to serve a commercial enterprise. He also felt that a video presentation would have been beneficial for this application to demonstrate to Members how the treatment plant worked. Councillor Watson confirmed that the application should be refused.

 

Councillor Wilson noted the covenant that was introduced in 1968 and highlighted that 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road were now being used as commercial premises and given that appliances had developed over the years, the usage now would be considerably more than 1968. He asked what calculations had been used to deem the domestic sewage treatment plant fit for purpose.

 

In response to concerns expressed by Councillor Blakey in relation to sewage discharged into the river being an offence, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that it was not a like for like septic tank explaining that a package treatment plant carries sewage as opposed to storing it and discharges 97% pure water. Councillor Blakey seconded that the application be refused.

 

Councillor Roberts commented that during the site visit she observed the unused garage on the land of 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road and believed this was a better location for the domestic sewage treatment plant.

 

As the current septic tank was continuing to overspill, Councillor Sterling was concerned of the consequences if the application was to be refused.

 

Responding to comments from Members, the Principal Planning Officer re-iterated that the proposed replacement was not a like for like septic tank and confirmed that the existing tank would be replaced with a package treatment plant. He gave assurance that the new tank was designed to accommodate waste for up to 12 people and would therefore meet the capacity need. With regards to the River Derwent and discharge, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the environment agency had deemed the proposal to be acceptable and had confirmed that this system for dealing with waste was one they advocated. He clarified that 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road were a residential dwelling, not commercial premises, explaining that a children’s home did not require planning permission.

 

Councillor Robinson stated that looked after childrens homes were considered commercial premises. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that in terms of planning, 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road were classed as residential dwellings and no change of use had been required.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Peeke regarding the number of people residing at 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road. S Deegan confirmed that a total of 11 people resided across the two properties and this was a combination of children and staff. He clarified that the properties catered for a maximum of three children.

 

Councill Wilson noted that the existing tank should accommodate the waste for up to 12 people and argued that as the new domestic sewage treatment plant could also only accommodate the waste for up to 12 people, whether the size of the new tank was sufficient given the reports of over spillage from the existing tank.

 

L Ackermann, Legal Officer clarified that the existing septic tank was to be replaced with a package treatment plant and would serve one dwelling less.

 

Councillor Haney stated that the questions asked earlier by Councillor Earley in relation to the regularity of the maintenance of the new tank and whether it could overflow had not been answered by officers and felt that additional conditions may be necessary to ensure adequate maintenance. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the initial period for maintenance following installation of the new tank would occur on a 6 week cycle until the tank was established. With regards to whether the tank was capable of overflowing, he advised that he was unsure whether the tank was a sealed unit but that a condition had been agreed for an alarm to be installed to monitor the capacity and would alert the appropriate person should capacity levels be reached.

 

Councillor Stead commented that larger septic tanks did not cost a great deal and questioned whether a package treatment plant was the correct solution or whether a larger septic tank would be a better solution.

 

The Legal Officer clarified that Members must consider the application in front of them. The Principal Planning Officer further added that the environment agency was satisfied and had raised no objections to the scheme.

 

Councillor Earley asked again if rainwater could go into the new tank and whether the tank had the potential to overflow. Her further stressed that the condition regarding Mill House having their own separate tank installed first before any works commence must be adhered to. He went on to ask what reasons officers could suggest for Members to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Shaw left the meeting at 11.40am.

 

Councillor Jopling felt that Members would be doing a disservice to residents if they did not agree a solution. 

 

In response to Councillor Earley’s question regarding rainwater, S Deegan confirmed that the plant would only pick up foul water from 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road and the current drainage systems would deal with rainwater separately. Councillor Earley disagreed with this comment stating that in most cases, fresh water joins foul water and has the potential to create problems with flooding. The Principal Planning Officer stated that there was no further information available regarding this issue.

 

Councillor Purvis felt more information was needed before an informed decision could be made and asked if it was possible to defer the application until this was received. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that technical officers were present at the meeting and asked what additional expertise was required to alleviate Members concerns.

 

Councillor Stead was mindful to approve the application if there was proof of separation of fresh and foul water. The Legal Officer asked Councillor Stead if he would be satisfied with an additional condition that secured separation of rainwater. Councillor Stead agreed that he was happy to move the application on this basis. 

 

Councillor Sterling believed that there was no legal material reason to refuse the application and agreed with Councillor Jopling that a solution was needed for residents. Councillor Sterling noted the comments by Mr Farrell regarding selling his land and made a personal plea to the applicant to re-consider this.

 

Councillor Stelling expressed concern regarding contamination of the River Derwent and gave an example of a group of young people who had been admitted to hospital after swimming in the river. He explained that the quality of the water had been affected by sewage.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Watson, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant could submit a further application free of charge providing it was within the 12 month period.

 

Councillor Wilson asked if it was possible for someone to attend a meeting of the Area Planning Committee to fully explain the workings of the domestic sewage treatment plant stating this would give him confidence to make a decision on the application.

 

Councillor Wilson left the meeting at 11.55am.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Jopling regarding rainwater, S Deegan explained that the domestic sewage treatment plant was a sealed system and did not accept rainwater, he confirmed that it only accepted foul waste from the properties it served. He went on to explain that Cambrian Group were not proposing a septic tank that stored waste, it was a new system that treats water and would include the installation of an alarm which would sound if capacity levels were reached. S Deegan explained that installation of the same tank would not be accepted by policy and confirmed that the domestic sewage treatment plan met policy 36 of the County Durham Plan.

 

Councillor Earley stressed that the report did not clearly state that rainwater would be separated and believed 11 people on site at 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road had the potential to push the tank to its limits. He was also concerned that the number of children residing at the properties could increase from 3 to 5.

 

The Chair confirmed that a motion had been put forward by Councillor Watson to refuse the application, this had been seconded by Councillor Blakey.

 

A further motion had been put forward by Councillor Griffiths to defer the application, this was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

 

N Carter, Lawyer advised that the applicant had confirmed that rainwater could not go into the domestic sewage treatment plant and stated that this could be secured with an additional condition. With regards to whether the plant could overflow, the Lawyer advised that whilst this had not been confirmed, officers and agencies had not expressed any concern and re-iterated the alarm system. He believed that adequate information had been presented for Members to determine the application.

 

Councillor Sterling moved the application to be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation with an additional condition to secure rainwater is separated. This was seconded by Councillor Jopling.

 

Upon a vote being taken, the motion to approve the application was lost.

 

The Council’s Lawyer explained that proper refusal reasons would need to be put forward before the motion to refuse could be voted upon.  He asked Cllr Watson to explain these.  In response, Cllr Watson referred to part 15 of the NPPF and expressed concern about the environment as well as stating that the applicant should accommodate the PTP within his own land.

 

The Council’s Lawyer advised that if the proposed refusal reasons were the risk of a pollution incident into the River Derwent and a better alternative location on the applicant’s own land, these would not be sustainable on appeal.  He asked Cllr Watson if he wished to reconsider or continue with these reasons in light of this advice.

 

Whilst Cllr Watson was of the view that the applicant would not appeal and would instead re-submit under the free go provisions, further discussion ensued regarding the best way to proceed and Members concluded that insufficient information was available to determine the application. 

 

Councillor Watson and Councillor Blakey withdrew the motion for the application to be refused.

 

A motion to defer the application was previously put forward by Councillor Griffiths and had been seconded by Councillor Roberts.

 

Upon being asked by the Council’s Lawyer, Councillor Earley explained the reasons for deferral on behalf of Members. He stressed that it had not been confirmed whether rainwater could be separated. He asked for further information regarding the washing arrangements for the three properties. Finally, he stressed that it needed to be clarified if the children that reside in 4 and 5 Shotley Grove Road could increase to 5 in the future as reflected in the Care Quality Commission report and if this were to occur, the impact this would have on the domestic sewage treatment plant.  

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

Resolved

 

That the application be DEFERRED.