Decision details

Planning Applications: County Matter Waste Applications

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

WSCC/002/18/CC  Installation of 9.92km wastewater pipeline and associated infrastructure including air vents, air valves, washout chambers, compounds and haul routes.  Pipeline Stretching From South of Salthill Lane, to Tangmere WWTW

 

WSCC/003/18/CC  Installation of pumping station comprising above and below ground plant including kiosks, draw pit and valve chamber, hardstanding, and fencing.  Land to the south of Salthill Lane, north of Clay Lane and to the east of New Bridge Farm, Chichester

 

WSCC/004/18/WHInstallation of pumping station comprising above and below ground plant including kiosks, draw pit and valve chamber, hardstanding, and fencing. Land to the west of, Old Place Lane & Old Place House & east of River Lavant near Madgwick Lane, Chichester

 

WSCC/005/18/TG  Installation of pumping station comprising above and below ground plant including kiosks, draw pit and valve chamber, hardstanding, and fencing.  Land to south of, Gamecock Terrace, Tangmere, Chichester

 

67.1   The Committee considered a report, as amended by the Agenda update sheet, by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  The report was introduced by James Neave, Principal Planner, who provided a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.  The following new information was noted:

·         Representations – Two new representations been received since the report was published.  Goodwood Estate has asked for a slight realignment to the east to avoid sterilisation of land that could potentially support future development.  The landowner of Pumping Station 3 has stated that Southern Water notices were not correctly served and has raised concern about access and the impact on farming operations.  The matters raised have been noted.  They do not change the recommendation.

 

67.2   Hannah Seabrook of the University of Chichester spoke on the application.  The University does not object in principle to the pipeline.  Concerns are that Southern Water has not engaged in sufficient discussion with the University and they have not provided enough details.  Also that student safety will be compromised, particularly due to the trench across the University sport fields, restricting access to halls of residence.  Southern Water has acknowledged plans for works in the Graylingwell Lower area which includes a link road to the University site and states it does not foresee any issues, but the University has concerns that the pipeline could cause potential structural problems due to its depth in that area.

 

67.3   Clare Taylor, Planning Consultant for MWH/Stantec, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Cross-country pipelines are usually permitted development.  Southern Water installs pipelines on a regular basis.  Many options are considered and the most sustainable routes are always looked for.  Environmental surveys are undertaken and local development plans and application histories considered.  Landowners are engaged with on a regular basis and Southern Water will work with developers and landowners to provide the right infrastructure.  Southern Water implements mitigation measures during construction, and learns from previous works to improve future construction, such as improved drilling techniques.  Odour control has improved with newer pumping stations.  The pipeline is of sufficient diameter to accommodate forecasted flows and to accommodate planned future development in the area.  The route of the pipeline is based on the best information available at the time, but can evolve as more details become available.

 

67.3   In response to matters raised by speakers, Planning Officers provided clarification of the following points:

·         Although unsure of the exact extent of University land, a large section of the pipeline in this locality will be directionally drilled below ground, resulting in limited above-ground impacts.

·         Student safety around construction sites is a health and safety matter that will need to be addressed by the applicant.

 

67.5   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

 

Number of planning applications

Point raised – What is the reason for four applications being submitted, rather than one covering the whole development?

Response – The application fee for four applications was significantly smaller than for a single application due to the way the fees are calculated. This is not material to the consideration of the planning applications.

 

Reason for determination by Committee

Point raised – If most cross country pipelines are allowed under permitted development rights, why does this one require planning applications?

Response – The applications constitute Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development, and as such require planning permission.

Sterilisation of land

Points raised – How much of the land will be affected by sterilisation?  Will this impact on the landscaping belt required south and west of the Tangmere housing allocation?

Response – An easement of 6 metres is thought to be required – 3 metres either side of the pipeline route.  It is understood that this would restrict buildings from being built over the top; however, planting can be carried out as long as it is not deep rooting, and other works such as cycle paths and roads are often created above sewers without issue.  The pipeline skirts the south and west of Tangmere Strategic Development Land (SDL), where potential pedestrian/cycle links are sought and thus could potentially coexist.  It is considered that the perimeter route proposed minimises the potential for sterilisation of future development of the Tangmere SDL.

 

Five year Replanting and Maintenance Plan

Points raised – Standard wording should be included in condition 6 for all applications requiring a five year replanting and maintenance plan.

Response – Details of replanting and maintenance are contained within the Ecological Management Plan submitted by the applicant, which is required to be implemented in full.

 

Mix of Planting

Point raised – It is requested that coniferous plants be avoided in the planting mix because they are unsightly.

Response – Details of proposed planting is shown in the submitted Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, but there is scope to agree the detail.  The WSCC Landscape Officer is content with the proposed mix of native planting.

 

Noise and Odours

Points raised – Reassurance is sought regarding noise and odour controls, particularly in relation to Pumping Station 3.

Response – Pumping station distances from nearest properties were highlighted in the Committee report.  Chemical dosing is proposed at pumping stations to prevent waste from going septic, thereby reducing odours.  Vent stacks equalise pressure and their height and inclusion of carbon filters, aids dispersal of odours.  Equipment inside pumping stations is not typically noise generating and the pumps are 7-8 meters underground.  An emergency generator would be located at Pumping Station 3, but any noise would likely be infrequent and submitted assessments show noise to be within acceptable levels.

 

West Chichester SDL

Points raised – Clarity was sought on the progress/status of development within the West of Chichester SDL area, and routing of the proposals relative to spine roads shown in the masterplan for the area.

Response – The pipeline would largely follow the approved route of the spine road shown on the masterplan, albeit a section to the north of the SDL would be routed in an easterly direction through areas of future development.  An outline planning permission has been granted for Phase 1 of the SDL which includes provision for either a pumping station or treatment facility.  Reserved matters applications require further approval, some of which are currently being considered by Chichester District Council.  This includes a reserved matters application regarding details of key road layouts. 

 

Tangmere to Shopwyke Lakes link

Point raised – Is the pipeline designed to accommodate development at Shopwyke Lakes in future?

Response – Plans show a spur at Tangmere to connect the pipeline to the existing foul sewer network, but full details are not known at this stage.

 

Goodwood Estate

Point raised – There are no allocations in the Chichester Local Plan for housing development on the Goodwood Estate and, therefore, the concerns raised are not material to the applications being considered.

Response – None required.

 

Surface Water Culverts in Tangmere

Point raised – There are a number of known surface water culverts in Tangmere that cut across the pipeline site; will they be maintained?

Response – The applicant has advised that a preliminary survey has been carried out which confirms the presence of surface water culverts at the site.  The applicant believes the culverts will not be significantly impacted upon, and as with the wider route, proposes to carry out further detailed scanning and surveys prior to construction.  The Construction Environmental Management Plan includes provision for the reinstatement of existing drainage post construction.

 

Informative F for application WSCC/002/18/CC (Pipeline)

Point raised – Informative F on the pipeline decision would include a reference to Pumping Station 2 despite this application not relating to the Pumping Stations.

Response – It was clarified that the reference to Pumping Station 2 is included as an Informative for this application because the pipeline would cross through a potential flood risk area near Pumping Station 2, so is subject to Flood Defence Warnings.

 

Public Rights of Way (PROW)

Point raised – Will there be any temporary or permanent impacts on PROWs?

Response – There are seven PROWs affected by the development.  The applicant does not envisage the closure of any PROWs.  Access during construction will be managed by double gates and banksmen.

 

Agricultural Access by Pumping Station 3

Point raised – Is the access by Pumping Station 3 wide enough to allow agricultural vehicles and machinery through.

Response – Yes.

 

67.6  Mr S Oakley proposed that standard wording be added to condition 6 (Landscape and Ecological Management Plan) for all four applications: WSCC 002/18/CC, WSCC 003/18/CC, WSCC 004/18/WH and WSCC 005/18/TG to require a five year replanting and maintenance plan.  This was seconded by Mr Barrett-Miles, and put to the Committee and approved by a majority.  The final form of wording of the condition was delegated to the County Planning Manager.

 

67.7   The substantive recommendation for application WSCC 002/18/CC, as amended by the Agenda update sheet and changes to condition 6, as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Mrs Duncton and seconded by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

67.8   Resolved – That planning permission for application WSCC 002/18/CC be granted subject to amended conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

 

67.9   The substantive recommendation for application WSCC 003/18/CC, as amended by the Agenda update sheet and changes to condition 6, as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and seconded by Mrs Duncton and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

67.10 Resolved – That planning permission for application WSCC 003/18/CC be granted subject to amended conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 2 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

 

67.11 The substantive recommendation for application WSCC 004/18/WH, as amended by the Agenda update sheet and changes to condition 6, as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Mrs Duncton and seconded by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

67.12 Resolved – That planning permission for application WSCC 004/18/WH be granted subject to amended conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 3 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

 

67.13 The substantive recommendation for application WSCC 005/18/TG, as amended by the Agenda update sheet and changes to condition 6, as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and seconded by Mrs Kitchen and was put to the Committee and approved by a majority.

 

67.14 Resolved – That planning permission for applications WSCC/005/TG be granted subject to amended conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 4 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

 

67.15The Committee recessed at 11.41 a.m. and reconvened at 12.20 p.m.

 

Publication date: 26/09/2018

Date of decision: 11/09/2018

Decided at meeting: 11/09/2018 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: